Jump to content

Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Use Manchuria to replace China is totally not acceptable

Bold text

What happen to Korguryo Map? Who deleted it?? ( Who erased Korean historical map???) People, first and formost. 1) British, don't interfer with American History. 2) Arab, don't interfer with Jewish History. 3) Koreans and Chinese, don't interfer with Japanese History. ( Except, Wiki Talk) 4) Koreans and Japanese, don't interfer with Chinese History. (Except, Wiki Talk) 5) Why? are Chinese or Semi-Sinosized people, interfering with Korean history??? For example, Wikipedia Korguryo article had wonderful map of Korguryo. Do people have a right to touch someone else country history??? This is so Obnoxious. It's Unbelieveable.

All of you are not Ph. Doctorate degree holder specializing Korean/Korguryo History. As someone who is working for East-West center at University of Hawaii. I am appalled in disgust. I am disgusted in fact that someone or someone from different ethnic cultural group can manipulate and insult someone elses history. You cannot distort information and facts. History is to learn not manipulate with Political and Economical reasons. Korguryo is part of Korean history. History of Korea lies on Korean destiny. Other different ethnic cultural groups have no right what so ever to manipulate or distort information using political and economical reasons. Helpful articles.

1) Asia Time Online: China: China ups ante in ancient-kingdom feud with Korea. By David Scofied. 2) Time ( Online): Title Rewriting history by Austin ramzy.

As someone who is Jewish,Irish,Italian,Korean background who has studied and have done research on Korean history for 69 years. Korean Peninsual and Manchuria are connected Historically and Tribal Blood Kinship. Manchurian History is Independent but connected or related too Korean history not Chinese history.


I agree that we can put Manchurian info here, but to use Manchuria to replace the whole Chinese idea is sneaking the idea. I already see some comments up there, admit Goguryeo link to Korea and Manchuria, but I see the deny of Chinese links to Goguryeo between the lines. If you want to use a Manchurian templates, it must rename into "Chinese east-north area", that is the bottom line, and it is reasonable. Try step over it.

  • And To Nlu "that modern Korea retains more of Goguryeo culture than modern China does" I do not see avidence, the Korean culture is got from Silla. While all Goguryeo culture info we can got from book was write in Chinese. Even if you said are right, which means the Balhae name template should be Korean under Chinese? That is why it is disputed. and the {{History of Korea}} should be removed from Balhae, for the same reason.Goguryeo and Balhae should be discuss at same time, everyone would know that those problems would be either settled for all or for nothing.
  • For the history of Russia part, "the contribution of Russia on the Balhae or Goguryeo" theory is weak, American historian also did good job, should we add history of American category? The only reason is Balhae area is now part of Russian land.
  • and do not forget this Category:Former_countries_in_Chinese_history, it should be included as well as Category:Former_countries_in_Korean_history --Yeahsoo 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeahsoo, I think you need to chill out here and be open minded. Like you, I'm of Korean descent and very proud of my heritage. Being bull headed about this helps no one and it just makes Koreans look lame to the rest of the world. We currently have the support of most of academia (outside of the borders of the PRC) regarding Koguryo, however, we are squandering away that goodwill and support by being overly nationalistic ourselves. You see, I care not only about the heritage of Koguryo, but I also care about the archeological remains of Koguryo and the future study of it. Access to Koguryo archeological remains within Manchuria is essential to having a fuller understanding of its history. If Koreans keep beating on the drum of this overly nationalistic chant, then we lose access to these ruins at the best and the Chinese may just cover up with dirt everything at the worst. The bottom line is that the study and preservation of Koguryo relics suffer.

I think at the end of the day, the Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Koguryo or who it belongs to. What they have the most concern about is the integrity of their territory. If we Koreans can show some flexibility here and show them that we respect the integrity of their current borders, I think much can be accomplished. We East Asians tend to have rather convoluted negotiation strategies. We tend to start on extremes and then scream and shout until someone blinks. This is a rather adolesent negotiation strategy and I think we all need to grow up here. I think there is much potential in the compromise outlined by Nlu. Now I don't agree w/everything he says, but I do agree with the basic outline, and the spirit of his proposal. We should all give it some rational thought. WangKon936 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeahsoo is Chinese, I think, based on his/her contributions on Chinese Wikipedia.
In any case, as I mentioned, a compromise isn't going to please everybody; that's not what a compromise is supposed to do. It is, however, supposed to be a way NPOV-ize the article and maintain basic integrity of the article.
Yeahsoo, I think a compromise needs to be first reached on Goguryeo. The Balhae issue is a separate one and needs to be dealt with separately. (But yes, I do think that the Chinese name should be above the Korean in that article -- but again, that's something to be discussed later -- but I'd also be advocating adding the Russian name.) If there is no way to reach a compromise here as to Goguryeo, it bodes poorly for the hopes of doing so eventually universality.
I oppose "Northeast Area of China" (or any variation thereof) as cumbersome and historically problematic -- because what constitutes the "Northeast Area" of China was constantly shifting throughout history. It is for the same reason why I felt it was boneheaded for the Republic of China authorities to refer to the Indochina Peninsula -- as problematic as that name itself was -- as the "Central-Southern Peninsula" (中南半島) -- not only did it show disrespect to the people of the region but, even when that problem was ignored, it was not historically accurate. I can be convinced, otherwise, though, if there are good reasons, and I don't see any right now. Again, "Manchuria" was coined by Hong Taiji, not the Japanese. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As stated previously, the term used by Huang Taiji referred to the ethnicity "Manzhou Zu" (which later shortened to "Man Zu" during the Republic) whereas the "Man Zhou" used by the Japanese referred to the region of Northeast China (see Man Zhou Yuan Liu Kao). There is a big difference there. "History of Northeast China" may sound awkward, but it is a far more accurate since it is derived from the name "Dong San Sheng" used during the Qing Dynasty. Assault11 07:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as you wish. If you're that entrenched in the position of "don't use 'Manchuria,'" let's leave that template off. No one appears to be disputing that the categories of Category:Former countries in Chinese history would be appropriate (as would Category:Former countries in Korean history), so that's sufficient. (It should be noted that this actually, in my opinion, decreases the connection to China, but you asked for it.) Please continue to comment as to the other aspects of my proposals. --Nlu (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Russian invasion" and "Japanese invasion" are not NPOV. Manchukuo already has its own article, so just link to it. As far as the Russian part is concerned, the link should be to both USSR and the current Russian Federation, because Russia currently holds part of historical Manchuria. --Nlu (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On another thought, "Manchurian history of China" is problematic, because China did not rule over Manchuria over all of those periods, nor does it currently rule over all of historic Manchuria. (Take a look at Manchuria; large portions of historic Manchuria is currently ruled by Russia.) I believe that the template name would not be NPOV nor accurate. (The name also feels even more awkward than, say, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.) --Nlu (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So you agree to use a template for Manchuria (Dongbei), but don't know what to call it. I suppose the main article for it is Manchuria. And people have tried to rename that article repeatedly, but failed because the name "Manchuria" is so entrenched in the English language. Anyways, can we try to enter discussion at Talk:Manchuria, before adding the template (whichever one) to Manchuria? That way we can get better consensus on what to call it.--Endroit 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is so pathetic

This "Talk" Page is absolutely pathetic, Most People on here more then likely beaten/teased/humiliated at school/life on a regular basis and spill their Emo Shit on the internet with their discrimination against [fill in the blank ethnicity/race/religion/sexual oriention] in this case Koreans and to a lesser-degree the Chinese.

Ignorance and stupidity is only cute on kids. For the fact that this issue has appeared on artices and blogs started by people who are not even members of Wikipedia making fun of how retarded most of you guys look flinging Asian Racial slurs at other Asians or the great "Asian Wiki War" make Wikipedia look like its run by 5 year olds and weakens public viewing which means your contributions [if you have even made any other then "fuck you barbarian gooks"]. has been for nothing

My Faith in Wikipedia has been all-but destroyed as this site is too worried about offending someone or now allowing someone elses view [an extreme example is Nazi Holoclaust deniers] that it refuses to deal against anything else. Also for the fact that Wikipedia moves like big fatass beaurocratic slug when it comes to actually banning people when it comes to offenders,sock-puppets/Meat-puppets/Trolls or stepping in when there is a huge influx of losers off of some retarded racist wesite/blog or doing anything about a problem. Wikipedia looks unprofessinal being editted by societys mentally-scarred rejects who have the maturity of a 7 year old.

Really easy to spew off racist crap ON THE DAMN INTERNET while hiding behind your username. The so-called "progress" of having a Chinese name included and being placed in Chinese History this will only increase the number of Trolls and creation yet another Army of Socks. For the fact that users leave inflammatory racist "Comments" and don't even sign their names somehow thinking that it won't affect them. Im well-aware how late I have come into this so called "discussion" which is more like my view is 100% right your view is just false propaganda. I am Korean and I hold no ill-feelings against the Chinese and see them as cousins if not brothers, But I spit on Chinese AND KOREAN editors who have made this one of the most retared internet wars I have ever seen.

Please have a nice day. Jegal 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These wannabe suckers in life you're talking about brings down everyone else with them. However, that doesn't mean that everyone here are "beaten/teased/humiliated at school/life on a regular basis". (Wikimachine 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

I didn't mean everyone here Im talking about the large number immature internet flamers with their inferioity-complexes runing articles like this one. Jegal 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have said the right things. Good friend100 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Use Manchuria to replace China is acceptable

I believe that Nlu's basic premise of having a separate Manchuria template for the Koguryo article, instead of a China History template, is acceptable. Based on what has been discussed so far, I think that the proposal would have the Korean History tab first, then followed by a Manchurian history sub. Given that a compromise MUST be presented and advanced, I believe this is the best one. Many people on both sides with not like this compromise, but this provides the best alternative that will meet the basic objectives of all parties. A compromise is not suppose to make everyone happy. But it makes most people happy and some unhappy, but it preserves the peace. Lately. the Koguryo article has not experienced much peace and has been a major embarrassment to Wikipedia. A resolution will be found, whether we like it or not. Wikipedia may ask us to accept having both the Korean and Chinese history templates in the article. I don't really think that's acceptable, especially to Koreans because it amounts to a defeat. However, this may be a choice we (Koreans) are presented with at the end of the day. This is all we may get because we are refusing to compromise.

The default belief among the Chinese and even the Japanese since the fall of Koguryo to the Chinese cultural revolution has been that Koguryo shared the most similarities with Baekje and Silla. The Chinese dynastic histories believed this as well as the Japanese histories (Nihon Shoki in particular). Since Westerners began studying Korean history, their scholars believe this, and continue to believe this as well. Since China has risen in economic and national power and has become more aware of itself and is trying to piece together a national identity that is inclusive of China's 55 other ethnic groups. In cases such as outer Mongolia and Tibet, their efforts are controversial. Every major large country has done this in order to secure their territory. It is the psychology of big nations to do this. Russia/Soviet Union did something very similar to what the PRC is doing today and the United States assimilated, relocated and gave small pox infected blankets to native Americans. This is just something that big nations do. You can't fault them for acting according to their nature.

Anyways, the simple fact of the matter is that ~70% of Koguryo's territory is located in Southern Manchuria and Liaodong, all north of North Korean's border. Many of the most important ruins are in current day Manchuria. The Chinese control this area today and they are caretakers of the Koguryo ruins located here. This is fact. Nothing other then war with the Chinese colossus can change this. We need to deal with this fact in a mature and intelligent manner.

I think we can all agree that Koguryo is in fact a part of Chinese history. It defeated many attacks from various Chinese kingdoms and contributed to the fall of the short lived Sui Dynasty. I think the argument here is that should this non-Han Chinese kingdom be a part of the national history of China? Like the Liao Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty, etc? I don't think it should be. However, could Koguryo be considered as part of the regional history of current day Manchuria? I think it can be. It is in fact so. No one can effectively argue that Koguryo was not important to the regional history of current day Manchuria. Koguryo's demise meant the creation of Parhae and Parhae helped the Malgal, who are the precursors to the Jurchens and Manchu, attain systems of Chinese civilization. The absence of Korean-like Yemek people meant that Manchuria would be dominated by Malgal people, who became Jurchens, then who later became Manchu, who were founders of China's last dynasty the Qing. The geographic area of Manchuria (a term that the Chinese themselves don't really use) is the home to many different ethnic kingdoms over time, all pretty much non-Han Chinese. This is a simplistic overview I know, so I apologize. But I hope you guys understand my point. Maybe you don't agree with it, but I hope you understand the content of the point.

My sense of it is that Wikipedia will not allow the status quo, to just have the Korean History tab and that's it. I think they are going to find a way to reflect several viewpoints. If you really think about it, the Manchurian compromise the most palatable out of the choices we'll be presented.

Nationalists can compromise. For those of you that are familiar with Michael Collins, he accepted the compromise of a Northern Ireland only because it was the best deal he could get without instigating full-scale war with England. Believe me, the Manchuria history template is the best option available. Many Koreans won't like it. Many Chinese won't like it either. But I think most can live with it.

In short, this is what I propose (essentially modifications and/or clarifications to Nlu's suggestions):

1. (History of Korea) stays and should be the first template in the article.
2. (History of China)) should not be included.
3. Add a new (History of Manchuria). (Again, see User:Nlu/History of Manchuria for an idea; not etched in stone in any means, and even if adopted should be artistically revised). The word China will not be included in {{History of Manchuria}}. Emphasis that the use of Manchuria is strictly geographic, not political or cultural. In other words, Koguryo is not related to Liao Dynasty, Manchu, etc.
4. Add Chinese (See User:Nlu/Goguryeoname for the idea.) pronounciation. I don't think Koreans will want a Russian name because they will see it as sharing the history of Koguryo with Russia. Koreans will also seeing this as dilluting the Koreaness of Koguryo if Russian name is added. I can't see how Koreans would be objected to the Chinese pronounciation of Koguryo, given that Korean kingdoms commuicated with Chinese Kingdoms/Empires all the time and they were addressed by their Chinese pronounciations all the time.
5. Use standard NPOV that tones down the rhetoric that says that Koguryo's connection to Chinese history is illegitimate. (Emphasizing connection to Korea is fine, and perhaps actually should be toned up.)
6. Tone down the rhetoric (but leave in the evidence) about the Northeast Project being politically motivated.
7. Give evidence for and against the connection between the Koguryo language and modern Korean.
8. Give evidence that there is a clear difference between the Puyo, Yemek and other proto-Korean peoples and with the Mohe and Khitan peoples that would dominate the history of Manchuria after the fall of Koguryo.
9. Note clearly how Goguryeo's territory was divided after its fall. (As how its people were divided is not shown by verifiable sources, either there should be no discussion, or the discussion should acknowledge the uncertainty.) WangKon936 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this package, but I think 8, while I have no objections to it per se, may be difficult to implement. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And I guess, for this Manchurian Candidate to be accepted, all we need to do is to brainwash everybody else... ;-) --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Koreans, at least on this talk page, seem to believe that they are giving up too much when the consider Koguryo to be part of the regional history of the Manchuria geographic location. They think that it will be a springboard to further errode the Koreaness of Koguryo. However, to think in this manner is narrow minded and I'd ask the same people to think for a second and consider what the Chinese may have to give up.
Although we many see the Manchurian compromise as giving in a little bit on a kingdom that vanished 1,400 years ago, the Chinese may potentially have more to lose. The more recent kingdoms of Manchuria and have a greater connection to China, but looks like they will be given a Manchurian template as well (probably after the History of China template). Look at it from the Chinese prespective. The Liao (Khitan), Mongol and Manchu kingdoms here lose a little of their Chinese connection. States as recent as Manchukuo (puppet state set-up by Imperial Japan) are also included in the Manchurian template. WangKon936 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wangkon, are you truly a Korean? I don't think you're. Wang is Chinese (as well as Korean), and I've never seen "Kon" used as a name in Korean. (Wikimachine 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Hahaha... the ignorance of Korean American's knowledge of their own history never ceases to amaze me... Wang Kon is Taejo of Goryeo (McCune-Reischauer pronounciation), or the first king of the Koryo Dynasty. 936 A.D. is the date where he reunited the Later Three Kingdoms of Korea. Merely putting "Wang + Kon + 936" in google would have told you as much. You should do alittle research before you make assumptions like that. WangKon936 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that Wang-gaun? Sorry, I really didn't mean it anyways. Clearing up some vague spots. (Wikimachine 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
Again... McCune-Reischauer pronounciation. WangKon936 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I know what that means... Maybe I do. (Wikimachine 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

So high and mighty huh? Anyways, I agree with the proposal and Goguryeo was part of the regional history of Manchuria. Good friend100 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian invasion" and "Japanese invasion" are not NPOV then Mongol and Japan invasion in History of Korea template should also remove?

  • Nlu, as an admin, you have to be fair. what do say we use your comment to deal with History of Korea template
  • Manchuria is Manchuria, Manchuria history of China is another issue, so there is no conflict, so it will be practical to use the later to avoid further fight. Yes there is Russian part of Manchuria, but it has nothing to do with Goguryeo or Korea.

To forbidden "China" to be shown in Machurian template? WangKon936, you think all others are nuts? Joseon can be shown in Machuria but not China, so not only Goguryeo, Korean want the whole Manchuria. There is no way you can do that.

  • Use Manchuria to replace China is NOT acceptable, there is no need to debate, will you accept to use Pengyong to replace all Korea?
    • No one mentioned any reason why {{History of China}} should be excluded, except it is too long.
  1. (History of Korea) stays if {{History of China}} or {{ Machurian History of China}} stays.
  2. If Korean name of Goguryeo stay at top, Chinese name of Balhae stay top
  3. Any new Korean category or template add to it, you should allow correspondent Chinese category or template add to it.
  4. NPOV that tones down or up on all aspects on those disputed topic, which means no absolute words from either side and no exclusion of the chance of either side to express their NPOV.
  5. You have the right to give evidence or emphasize anything in NPOV, you should allowed others to be against it in NPOV.
  6. The only censorship we should do here is remove the absolute words and error spelling.
  7. Both sid should show some diginity, and education, if you do not want to share, you will lose all.

--Yeahsoo 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We obviously have a difference in opinion here.
2. I would actually agree with you on this one. Given that Parhae had a majority Malgal population and a thin Koguryo ruling elite. Scholarship outside the PRC would support the view that Parhae's population was much more heterogeneous then Koguryo's. They would be less supportive of the Korean viewpoint here. But we'll cross the Parhae bridge when we get there.
3. Completely disagree with this one. Or perhaps you word it incorrectly? So for Silla and Yi Joseon it should have the Chinese History template? Please clarify.
4 and 5 will destroy the integrity of any article and make it an edit war again.
6. No comment.
7. Absolutely agree. WangKon936 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As for 3, if you put Silla, I can put Former_Qin, Han dynasty, etc, there will be lot more candidates in Chinese history than in Korean, believe me.
      • As for 4,5 As NPOV is the spirit of WIKI, I do not know why you are against it.

--Yeahsoo 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeahsoo, no Korean is is going to agree to put a Chinese history template in the Silla article. I wish you'd focus on realistic solutions. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding. WangKon936 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The surface problem like 1 is easy to deal, but the real problem is the edit fight, how can we prevent it, yes, there are both Korean and Chinese user doing the wrestling, but I have to say, in most Chinese-Korean disputed topic, Korean is rulling the editing, since the block of wiki in China, there are lot more Korean users than Chinese. But do not take it for granted that you can be hegemonistic here, what if oneday wiki is not blocked in China, then wiki become Chinese flavered? So the most important thing is be modest yourself, let others speak, then the argu will be calm. If you let other speak, the others will respect you in return, then they will not put extreame words here, and more nationalists will be reasonable, but if you go extreme, you just provoke more force again you.--Yeahsoo 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite honestly, I don't care if all 1.3 billion Chinese users come into wikipedia and say Koguryo is 100% Chinese or that the sky is purple. I don't care if all 70 million Koreans come into wiki and do likewise. My understanding is that wiki is an educational resource that strives to present verifiable facts with a fairly neutral and dispassionate voice. If it was an instrument of popular opinion, then it would be usless as an educational resource. I have fomulated my views with the best available and verifiable resources, as well as taken into account the feelings of all parties involved. WangKon936 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate: {{History of China}} is inappropriate since Goguryeo is not on that template, nor should it be. Given China's long history, there is no way to incorporate all the states in Chinese history onto that template. --Nlu (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And the problem with the proposed name of "Manchurian History of China" is that it's historically inaccurate, no matter what historical view you're holding -- even the view of the Northeast Project's leaders. --Nlu (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Does China has his Manchurian History part? If yes, then there is no "historically inaccurate", we are not talking about Manchuria, we just want put Chinese Manchuria here, ok? Yes , Manchuria has Russian part, but it is not in this dispute, so what we do is remove the disputed ones, keep the one w/o disputes. I don't understand, are we going to solve problem, or create more problems

--Yeahsoo 16:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And Again, NLU, you did not answer my question about the invasion yet? I am here waiting--Yeahsoo 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I smell a troll here. Yeahsoo is advocating potential solutions that would cause more problems then they would solve. Furthermore he's arguing points and sub-points infiniti ad finitum. No amount of dialouge with him is going to convince him of a compromise that builds consensus. Why? Because he's not willing to give up anything. You can't negotiate with someone like that. I say that the mediation committee sould seriously consider the compromise that Nlu and I are advocating and bypass meaningless dribble from trolls like Yeahsoo. WangKon936 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Insulting others will not make you a better person. Brush your teeth before open your mouth, your speech is representing Korean people, do not make them feel ashamed--Yeahsoo 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm not talking as a Korean per say, but as a concerned individual first. I don't know why you are even bringing MY nationality into this conversation. It is not an insult because I am basing my conclusions on a consistant pattern in your behavior. I honestly think that your viewpoints thus far don't lean to solving this impass. With that in mind, you need to think about your line or reasoning and ask yourself if you are contributing to the implimentation of a practical and actionable solution or if you are being a fly in the ointment just for the sake of causing discord. Thus, I redirect the core question back to you. WangKon936 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeahsoo, after reading and re-reading your "question," I still don't understand what you are asking. --Nlu (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

      • You said "Russian invasion" and "Japanese invasion" are not NPOV in the above discussion, right?

"I think "Russian invasion" and "Japanese invasion" are not NPOV. Manchukuo already has its own article, so just link to it. As far as the Russian part is concerned, the link should be to both USSR and the current Russian Federation, because Russia currently holds part of historical Manchuria. --Nlu (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)"

Then Mongol and Japan invasion in History of Korea template should also be removed? If you do not want to answer, that is fine, since it is not on the focus. But, hey, we really should be fair here, if you keep Korean template and a Manchurian template full of Korean thing but no China in it, you are causing more problem, that is why I came up with my suggestion, think about it.--Yeahsoo 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't that Goguryeo isn't part of Chinese history; the issue is, again, that the {{History of China}} template does not have a link to Goguryeo and should not have a link to Goguryeo; therefore, the template shouldn't be on the article. It is for the same reason that, for example, none of the Sixteen Kingdoms' articles contain that template. --Nlu (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the issue of using the word "invasion" -- I still think it's POV. However, one issue at a time. Maybe the word doesn't belong on {{History of Korea}} either, but that's not what the issue is about right now. --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the issue this time?

Are we arguing about templates? If we are, Goguryeo is part of Korean and Chinese history, until PRC is kicked off of Manchuria or something. I see no reason to fight over templates, of all things. -General Tiger

Well, templates are pretty important because one of the big issues is histography. Where should Koguryo fit in? Should it be exclusively the national history of Korea or China or the national history of both? Given that Koguryo did not provide any emperors to China and only occupied land that would be part of China only in the 17th century, I don't think it should be a part of the national history of China. Hence, one of the main compromises is to have Koguryo be a part of the regional history of the Manchurian region, which I believe is acceptable. This thought will be conveyed in a template, and that's why it's important. WangKon936 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Emm,It is the regional history both for Manchuria and Korean Penisula.And the problem is that the rise of Koguro was in the region of prefecture of Han Dynasty,and some of the former occupants of Manchuria people like Khitan and Jurchen,Manchu were sinicized and become Chinese.So the problem is a little complicated.--Ksyrie 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern politics

I think I found an error : 

[...] Korean historians dispute the legitimacy of the Northeast Project, 
generally making these arguments:
* An ancient civilization that was located in China doesn't mean that it isn't ethnically Chinese.

A double 'negation' means that "all people in China were absolutly ethnically Chinese". I don't think korean historians what say this, and I even don't think such statement is fine. Yug (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

      • ethnically Chinese, this is fake proposition, it is like ethnically American. China even have Jews, China is a multi-ethnics country. All people in China maybe are not Han-chinese, but they are abosolutely ethnically Chinese(中华民族)--Yeahsoo 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, this is clearly a grammatical, non-substantive error. I'll correct it as nonsubstantive notwithstanding the protected state of the article. --Nlu (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian name

Regarding the poll above, including a Russian name may not be entirely straightforward. Goguryeo doesn't have a Russian name as such, just a Cyrillic rendering of the Korean or Chinese names. To include a Russian version, therefore, you will have to either include the Cyrillic transliterations of both the Korean and Chinese names, or just pick one. Perhaps that can be ironed out after the end of this straw poll, since there is consensus (so far) for including Chinese, Korean, and Russian. --Reuben 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I presumed that Russian common usage is the one that is used by the Russian Wikipedia, and that's where I took it from. The one that should be used should be the one that is more commonly used in Russian sources. --Nlu (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Russian Wikipedia uses Когурё, which romanizes to Koguryo. --Reuben 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38

Cydevil38, perhaps a sock puppet of Cydevil, may indeed be a straw man sock puppet created by a CPOV user. The creator of Cydevil38 definitely wants to let people know that this account is a sock puppet account, by having edits only on Goguryeo. However, I strongly think that this account is not a KPOV account or an account made by Cydevil -rather an account made by a CPOV user to incriminate Cydevil - pretty cheap, and obviously stupid. (Wikimachine 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Dunno that, Cydevil38 supports Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom. Good friend100 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I scrambled my password so I can't use that account again. I'm not using this socket for abusive ends, am I? Cydevil38 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you consent to Cydevil (talk · contribs) being permanently blocked? (You should, however, be able to recover your password by having it e-mailed to you.) --Nlu (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but please make it clearly known that it wasn't for abusing Wikipedia. And I didn't register an email with that account. Anyways, this doesn't mean I'm "coming back". I'm not as willing to spend much effort on a place where trolls like Assault11[1] can contribute to a "consensus". This is one major pitfall of Wikipedia. Cydevil38 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's quite unfortunate. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. (Wikimachine 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
No problem. Do visit the Korean history forum once in a while, will ya? Cydevil38 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil will be blocked without an autoblock with an explanatory note. Meanwhile, however, if you are claiming that you are not "coming back," please stop edit-warring on Jin Dynasty (1115-1234). Further, it should be noted that Jin territory did not include modern Korea. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you were a sockpuppet, my bad. Anyways How can modern territory mean anything? It does not matter whether China or Russia controls Manchuria now, that doesn't automatically make Goguryeo Chinese. We definitely are not twisitng history like China. Good friend100 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why territory was mentioned in this discussion was that Cydevil38 was drawing a comparison between Goguryeo and Jin, which is an inapt comparison because the situations are different. It would be quite analogous had Jin possessed a significant amount of modern Korean territory, but it did not. No one is claiming that Jin was, per se, "Chinese," until it took over northern China and became sinicized in its culture. It should be further noted that for someone who claims to be not returning and not willing to waste any more time on Wikipedia, Cydevil38 surely made a bunch of provocative edits. --Nlu (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking in the general sense about the attitude of pro Gaogouli people. The territory argument is even in the article itself, and to an outside opinion person, just looks like a lame reason. Good friend100 16:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Economist article

In the latests issue of The Economist there's an article about this that, though it may be biased, comes down pretty heavily on the Korean side. Wilhelm Ritter 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that? I am not really sure that "Korean side" is a sufficient elaboration. No one here is taking the same type of positions that the leaders of the Northeast Project is taking, so I am not sure how this affects the debate. In any case, the inclusion of a Chinese name doesn't mean that Goguryeo was Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Nlu, most CPOV editors here are making the same claims as the Northeast Project. Endroit's Xuantu rationale is a classic one, as is Assault11's claims on Goguryeo refugees(his figures are directly from the project). And go look at Yeahsoo talking about the "Zhonghua ethnicity". What can I say, Wikipedia is a place where bullshit becomes consensus lead by the most bigoted amateurs. Cydevil38 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Who's bulllshitting who? The cultural legacy of Goguryeo (Gaogouli) includes BOTH Korean AND Chinese aspects.
Of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, Goguryeo had the most Chinese influence. Having originated from Buyeo (Fuyu) in the Xuantu commandery (Han Dynasty China), they were actually within the borders of China at first. Then they became independent of China AND Buyeo, while gradually moving from Manchuria into Korea. So what does that make them? Tungusic origin, with a strong Chinese influence, and a strong presence in Korea.
And I already gave you a western source for this information, so what's your problem, Cydevil38 (Cydevil)?--Endroit 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Endroit. I've had a chance to read Dr. Mark Byington's (Harvard) phd thesis on Puyo and in the 300 some odd pages, Tungusic is never used to describe the Puyo. Based on surviving archeological remains, Puyo ruins don't look like Suksin/Malgal/Jurchen ruins. I challenge you to quote any reputable scholar who thinks that the Puyo were Tungusic. WangKon936 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Will you two stop it? As far as I'm concerned both of your views have serious flaws in it. Cydevil should not incite and people like Endroit should not take the bait (and vice versa). It's like recess in elementary school in here! WangKon936 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Another one of those lame claims that Goguryeo is chinese because it started in what is Chinese land today. Good friend100 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For those people who understand English well enough to read a whole sentence straight, I repeat: "The cultural legacy of Goguryeo (Gaogouli) includes BOTH Korean AND Chinese aspects." For those people claiming that they were 100% Korean to begin with, you are contradicted by a number of sources. In the begining, they were proto-Korean or Chaoxian/Joseon perhaps, but not Korean in the English sense.--Endroit 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, several things about your statements, past and present, trouble me. They lack logical consistancy. When your premisis are examined, they fail the test of logic.
1) "Koguryo is Chinese because it came out from Xuantu commandery." Well, we all agree that Baekje is Korean right? Baekje came from out of Taifang commandery and was influenced by it far longer then Koguryo was influenced by Xuantu. Even Baekje crowns are based on the crowns given to it by Taifang. Does that make Baekje Chinese?
2) "Of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, Goguryeo had the most Chinese influence." Errrr, no. Baekje is generally agreed upon by most knowledgable scholars as being the most "sinofied." Baekje had most of it's Chinese influence from the southern kingdoms. Baekje thought this was superior because the southern kingdoms were more "pure" then the northern ones, the biggest of which was ruled by the sinofied, but ethnically non-Chinese, Tuoba Xianbe. It was the most buddist and it's surviving art shows the most refinement and Chinese influence. Must of the Chinese culture that was spread to Japan during that time was from Baekje. Following your logic, does that make Baekje Chinese?
3) "they were actually within the borders of China at first." Most of Lelang commandary is in current day North Korea. Does that mean North Korea belongs to China?
You do honestly put forward what is roughly the main PRC arguements regarding Koguryo, but they do not stand up to scrutiny and in the words of Dr. Mark Byington of Harvard, are "weak and defensive." WangKon936 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said that Goguryeo was Chinese; I won't repeat my statement for a 3rd time, but you know which one I'm talking about. Also, since my arguments are independent of the PRC, you'd have to apply Byington's arguments against mine one-by-one; otherwise, they're irrelevant.
I believe we agree though, that we're talking about proto-Korean people here, before they entered the Korean peninsula.
Now, given genetic evidence that the Korean people are genetically most similar to the Manchurian people, where do we draw the distinction between Korea and Manchuria? In the English language, I believe Yalu River (and Tumen River) is typically considered to be the extent of Korea. If you use the term "Korea" in areas outside of the Yalu River, you are likely to draw the "POV" flag in Wikipedia.
Case in point: Is Liaoning Korean? In English, scholars use either "Chaoxian" or "Ancient Choson" or "Old Choson" to describe the ancient culture in Liaoning. That's 朝鮮 (cháo xiǎn) in Chinese. If you use the term "Korea", you are likely to draw the "POV" flag here in Wikipedia, although "proto-Korean" should be acceptable.
With respect to Goguryeo, the question arises: What do you call Goguryeo's early stage if it's not yet "Korean"? Either "proto-Korean", "Tungusic", or "Manchurian"... take a pick. Technically speaking, Goguryeo was in Manchuria, and Okcho was in northern Korea; and they were distinct entities until Goguryeo gradually absorbed Okcho. The transition of Goguryeo from "proto-Korean" into "Korean" was gradual.
Now to respond to your questions one by one....
  1. I agree that Goguryeo became Korean since the 3rd century, but they were not Korean before that in the earlier centuries.... Again, I never said they were Chinese. Yalu River is where I draw the line. In contrast, Baekje was Korean to begin with.
  2. Wilfred J. Bisson agrees with me:
    • Koguryo had conquered the Chinese colonies established by the Han Dynasty and was the most Sinicized of the three kingdoms. Buddhism became Koguryo's state religion in 342, and the Chinese-style tax and governmental practices became the rule.
  3. "they were actually within the borders of China at first"... Clarification: The Xuantu Commandery was in China back then, and it still is today. The same cannot be said of the Lelang Commandery.
--Endroit 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit. I owe you an apology. I was wrong about what Byington said about Puyo. Although he didn't say it was Tungustic per say, he did say its ruins were consistant with Xituanshan Culture, which is sort of Tungustic in a way. I'm sure we can say more about this when we all start arguing about Puyo after we are done with Koguryo. WangKon936 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What are those sources then, that say Goguryeo was not 100% Korean. And also "100% Korean" can be very subjective. Goguryeo certainly wasn't 100% Korean in the sense that Goguryeo was influenced by Chinese culture (im sure they were influenced by Chinese culture while they were fighting the Chinese all the time). And, Gojoseon is considered one of the first Korean kingdoms. If it was proto Korean, then you wouldn't call it "Chaoxian". Good friend100 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Good Friend, I think the word "Proto Korean" is appropriate to talk about the ancient kingdom of Korea. It took many years for the idea of "Korea" to develop, just like it took many years for the notion of "China" to form. You also have to understand what the ancient Chinese thought of regarding Chaoxian. Right or wrong, they thought Chaoxian/Go Joseon was begun by a prince or duke from the Shang Dynasty. So when they called Joseon Chaoxian, it wasn't necessarily a statement affirming the "Koreaness" of the kingdom. WangKon936 05:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Jimbo said that wikipedia is not a democracy and a consensus of idiots dont matter. Good friend100 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But the sad reality is that it takes much willingness and determination(i.e. time and effort) to counter sophist and amateurish claims from biased editors that takes prevalence and sway at Wikipedia. This is especially relevant for controversial subjects. Cydevil38 03:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL,I agree.But those idiots like us tried hard to find what they want to know.It's irony.--Ksyrie 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why "Shilla-Tang" Invasion?

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

Let's all choose to ignore this little statement. It's clearly flame baiting by someone who doesn't have enough guts to show who he is. WangKon936 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it showed someone from some country would prefer to use hostile and not-NPOV words on others and even on his own ancestors, even though they do know it is not fact. vassal? yes, Shilla is a vassal and it united Korea, and Goguryeo is also vassal by the time, you should use "put down the rebellion". Plus it is Goguryeo invade Shilla first. In the latest news, it said, the king of Shilla almost get killed by Goguryeo soldiers on the way back from Tang, it is a guy last name "Wen" saved him by pretent he is the king. This is reported by Chosun.com last week. --Yeahsoo 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Next issue: History of Manchuria template

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

To make up for the limited space of the History of China template that disallowed for the listing of Goguryeo & other countries, this should try to include as much as possible on the former countries that existed on Manchuria & after that maybe the modern countries - China & Russia could be included. If the template was to neglect several minor countries that existed on Manchuria, but managed to insert Russia & China... this would clearly look like a concessive device for CPOV to make up for the exclusion of the History China template & to challenge the disputed nationality of the country. (Wikimachine 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
China and Russia are clearly major parts of Manchurian history and therefore should be included. As I mentioned, I am inviting people to edit this proposed template, so if you have ideas, go ahead and do so. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But History of Manchuria never even existed until now, and is being created within the context of this debate. Therefore it should focus on the prehistoric~premodern time period to suit the article Goguryeo and other related articles. Modern China & Russia are ... out of context. Just because China & Russia controlled the territory or is controlling the territory right now is not a reason to include them - the modern elements, to the template concerning Manchuria in its historic sense. Korea controlled Manchuria once (if you agree that Goguryeo was Korea). Then Korea should be included? Ah! so did Japan control Manchuria once! Then we better put Japan too. And then we better put Mongol... (Wikimachine 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

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

I think the following dynasties should be included

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

Good Friend, I think you may be misunderstanding the point. Nlu is not advocating the inclusion of ALL Chinese and/or Russian history, just the parts of their histories as they are important to Manchuria. The way Nlu has his template as it is seems very complete and comprehensive to me. Samhan and Okjeo should not be included as they were on the peninsula proper and never located in Manchuria. WangKon936 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I am utterly shocked at your proposal.
The difference is that those Russian states, at the time of their existence, did not control any part of modern Manchuria. Former Yan, Former Qin, &c., did. (Since Former Qin only did so very briefly, its removal wouldn't hurt a whole lot, but Former Yan and Later Yan were major players in what is now Manchuria.) Former Yan, in particular, was a major rival of Goguryeo, and had destroyed Buyeo and Yuwen, both of which were entirely encased in what is now Manchuria. Similarly, Tang ruled a major part of Manchuria.
But what is particularly egregious about your list is that the the Samhan had nothing to do with modern Manchuria. No reputable historian would suggest that they controlled any part of modern Manchuria or had a Manchurian origins. It's more likely that Okjeo did, but even that is unlikely.
Meanwhile, you are suggesting leaving off states that had their heartland in Manchuria -- Liao Dynasty and Qing Dynasty. It's preposterous. The list that I had was intended to be NPOV in that it did not matter whether they had "legitimacy" in Manchuria; that they were a substantial part of Manchurian history and had a substantial territory possession in Manchuria was sufficient.
This list you proposed made me feel that you had no understanding for the history of those states that you are proposing be removed. Any template of Manchuria history that does not include Liao Dynasty, in particular, simply doesn't comport with reality. It's surreal. --Nlu (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nlu, I think the Manchurian template you have proposed is fine. We may want to tweak it later, but it has much of what we need at this point. That's my two cents. WangKon936 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It was only a suggestion, don't get the wrong idea. I wasn't mocking anybody or having the intention to make fun of anything. Good friend100 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This is going to be another reiteration of my previous stance. I remain strongly opposed to the very idea of a "History of Manchuria" template since there is absolutely no need for it whatsoever. The main problem I have with this is the use of the term "Manchuria." How can you have a template of something that has never existed before (again, excluding Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo)? Manchuria was never used as a geographic label in Chinese historiography and ever since the Qing Dynasty, this region was always referred to as the "Three Provinces (of the Northeast)." The lost territories (north of Heilongjiang and east of Wusulijiang) that resulted from the Unequal Treaties (namely the Treaty of Aigun/Aihui and the Convention of Beijing) used to be part of this region as well. As far as the modern construct of the term "Chinese" is concerned, historical and modern Northeast China (AKA. Dong Bei) has always been a Chinese entity. This is why any reference to this region has to be within a Chinese context.
As far as my personal opinions/beliefs go, the inclusion of a "HoM" template would be anything but a compromise and would certainly not end the dispute. In fact, I view this as a step back from the status quo. As a native Northeasterner, there is no way that I'll ever accept the use of Man Zhou in place of Dong Bei. Assault11 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think you have to realize that that view is not really shared by anybody else in this discussion. A consensus doesn't require everyone to go along with it. --Nlu (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's because barely half of those involved are even Chinese to begin with. Look at the archives under the talk:Manchuria, a lot of Northeasterners expressed similar views as mine on this matter. If there's to be any serious considerations to be made, this issue should at least be presented, discussed and approved by WikiProject China. Why this is even being brought up here is beyond me. I seriously hope this will be reconsidered and proper procedures will be taken to address this issue. Assault11 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I got a question to Assault11 what do you mean when you talk about Northeasterners? You mean Han Chinese (who represent roughly 90% of the peoples living in Manchuria) or Manchu peoples (who represent at their best around 9-10% of the peoples)? Whlee 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Northeasterners refer to all peoples residing in any of the three provinces of Northeast China, regardless of ethnicity. Assault11 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

That is not my point. The fact that the proposed HoM template covers a wide range of primarily Chinese-themed articles warrants the approval of WikiProject China members. Also, according to the official policies[2] on resolving disputes (under conduct a survey), a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Assault11 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On Endroit's claims

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

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

This region was a part of the same general cultural continuation as that of the Korean peninsula which progresses from Jeulmun pottery period, Mumun pottery period and then to the Megalthic culture of NEA. As far as these people of the Huanren-Jian region is concerned before state-formation of Goguryeo, they should be distinguished from Endroit's definition of "Tungusic"(definition of this term vary, so in this case I'm only using Endroit's personal one, which is a term clearly exclusive to Koreans). However, I can agree with the term "proto-Korean", but this is with regards to the tribal peoples of the region prior to Goguryeo's state formation. Thus, origin of Goguryeo based on archaeology should be defined as "proto-Korean tribes of the Huanren-Jian region". And if Endroit wants to continue to insist that these can't be "Korean" because they extend beyond the Korean peninsula, he should consider the fact that "Korea" is also a term that can be used to define non-geographical/political entities, such as culture or languages. As an example, I will quote Roger Blench, an expert who wrote a comprehensive book on origins of East Asian peoples[3]: China is on the very edge of the Korean-speaking area, in Jilin Province, adjacent to the North Korean border. Korean today is an isolated language, linked to Altaic, but not closely. However, in an earlier period there must have been a linguistic family, Koreanic, with more diversity than is apparent today, and probably spread over a broader area of NE China. Accounts of the ‘Neolithic’ in Jilin (Zhen-hua 1995) and Heilongjiang Provinces (Ying-jie 1995) suggest they a similar culture with strong links to the Korean peninsular, dating to >4000 to >2000 BC. Fish and aquatic resources were apparently of major importance in their diet and are characterised by incised and impressed pottery with geometric markings. It is possible that these regions were originally populated by Koreanic speakers.[4] Cydevil38 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Endroit's claims based on Gardiner, I'll get back to them later. But to put it bluntly, Endroit's anti-Korea crusade in making Goguryeo into a Chinese state is hopeless. This is the title of Gardiner's Ph.D thesis: The Rise and Development of the Korean Kingdom of Koguryo from the Earliest Times to A.D. 313. It should also be noted that, in an interview with the Korean press, Gardiner refuted the Northeast Project's Xuantu rationale.[5] Cydevil38 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So Cydevil38, your sources essentially agree with me that the Goguryeo (Koguryo) came from up north across the Yalu River, because Heilongjiang is from up north. And linguistically speaking, we have the following hypothetical influence: Altaic languages → Buyeo languages → Goguryeo language, and we also have Altaic languages → Tungusic languages, where some scholars believe that the speakers of the Buyeo languages group originally came from the Lake Baikal region in Siberia. And that's even more scholars agreeing that Goguryeo's origin was from up north.
This genetic study by Han-Jun Jin confirms that the Koreans are genetically the most similar to the Manchurians (Fig. 2 in Jin's study) (although he concedes that the Koreans are also very similar to the Yunnan and Vietnamese people based on his PC-analysis in Fig. 3).
Han-Jun Jin says:
  • The genetic relationship with Manchuria is consistent with the historical evidence that the Ancient Chosun, the first state-level society, was established in the region of southern Manchuria and later moved into the Pyongyang region area of the northwestern Korean peninsula. Based on archeological and anthropological data, the early Korean population possibly had a common origin in the northern regions of the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal of southeastern Siberia (Han 1995; Choi and Rhee 2001). Recent studies of mtDNA (Kivisild et al. 2002) and the Y-chromosome (Karafet et al. 2001) have also indicated that Koreans possess lineages from both the southern and the northern haplogroup complex. In conclusion, the peopling of Korea can be seen as a complex process with an initial northern Asian settlement followed by several migrations, mostly from southern to northern China.
Genetically speaking, before the Guguryeo people went into Korea, their ancestors were likely of BOTH Tungusic AND Chinese origin. I deliberately used the word "Tungusic" because on the one hand you don't seem to want to accept that Goguryeo had any Chinese blood, and on the other hand other people didn't want to use the word "Manchurian". (The Manchurians of today are considered to be "Tungusic" origin anyways.)
If you don't like the word "Tungusic", you can call them "Manchurian" or "from Heilongjiang" (or "from northeastern China") instead; it's no big deal, just take a pick.--Endroit 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit. I'm trying to understand your line of reasoning and if that line of reasoning makes much sense. Is it correct to assert that you believe Goguryeo is Chinese in a sense because it was primarily located north of the Yalu river until the 4th century? Are you saying that present day national boundaries determine how we view the histography of past kingdoms? If this is true, then I find it rather hard to defend. It's fraught with problems. Why? National boundaries changes over time. Europe saw history like this for the longest time. For example, the French in the 19th century thought Holland was their land because a lot of French Huguenots migrated there. Austria invaded Italy in the 14th century because it claimed that it had the political right to rule Italy because they were the successors of Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. It took two devastating world wars for Europe to grow up and stop their nonsense of using present day or desired national boundaries to interpret history. The Europeans have matured. We East Asians obviously haven't.
Seriously, let's take your conclusion of "Koguryo is Chinese because it was located north of the Yalu" to its logical conclusion. The region known as Manchuria was nominally under control of what we would call China. However, the main constituent of the Chinese is really originated in the central plains. People who speak a sino-tibetan and multi-tonal language who settled in the central plains of the middle reaches of the Yellow River. During Han Dynasty times, southern Manchuria and northern Korean fell under their control under five commandaries (okay, four plus Taifang). Three of these commandaries lasted barely a century. Xuantu lasted for three centuries and Lelang lasted for almost four. Other then that, the people of the century plains culture never had consistant control of Manchuria. In the 17th century, the Manchu, a non-Chinese Tungstic people conquered the descendents of the central plains culture, i.e. the Ming Chinese. These non-Chinese Tungstic people pretty much completely assimilated into the Chinese majority and thus Manchuria, that was outside the control of China for most of its history, became sort of an inheritance, through their subjugation by the Tungstic Manchu, and their following assimilation of their would be conquerors. The fact of the matter is that Chinese control of Manchuria, when you look at the spectrum of history, has never been all that consistant or long. Chinese control of Manchuria is on and off and up and down. This is fact. It's also fact that Manchuria is currently firmly under Chinese control. Thus, when we look at the history of Manchuria in a holistic and thematic manner, then we see Manchuria as having it's own distinct history often times outside of China. Thus it's hard to say that Koguryo is Chinese just because it started in and occupied much of Manchuria as the Chineseness of Manchuria isn't all that consistant itself, particularly before the 18-19th century. WangKon936 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Another landmark study on Korean genetics and their origins was done by a team from Singapore. An abstract is available here: [6]. Essentially these guys say that Koreans are most related to "central Asian Mongolians." WangKon936 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, since your knowledge in this subject matter is very elementary(for instance, Huanren-Jian is in Jilin, not Heilongjiang), I'll just make a very simple answer suitable to your level - if any proto-Korean ethnicity is to be applied to Goguryeo, that would be Dongyi, not Tungusic. Chinese is not even a term that can be used in this context where proto-ethnicities are involved. So you know what? Why don't we link proto-Korean to Megalithic tombs or Mumun pottery period or Gojoseon(Ancient Chosun), and let the readers decide on who they were on a factual basis. While Dongyi would be more of an appropriate proto-ethnicity, the article on it is, well, very substandard and is not coherent with the archaeological definition of Dongyi that applies to these proto-Korean tribes of the region. And as for the term "proto-Korean" itself, I don't think you'll have a problem with this term if you recognize Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom, regardless of when it became "Korean". And of course, I won't have a problem with including the geographical region of where these people were, say, " proto-Korean tribes of Huanren-Jian region in what is now the Jilin province, PRC".
And Endroit, with regards to genetics, are you suggesting that "southern lineages" are Chinese and "northern lineages" are Tungusic? Please elaborate. Cydevil38 01:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing Endroit. If you didn't know it yet, this "migration of proto-Koreans from southern Siberia to the Korean peninsula" that those scholars are talking about refers to the Mumun pottery period people, on which the current consensus is that these people exterminated the indigenous populations of the Jeulmun pottery period people. And as I've said previously, the Huanren-Jian region also follows this archaelogical pattern, hence why Rhee said In many respects, the neolithic society of Huanren-Jian region, during the first millennium B.C., was very similar to that of the Korean peninsula of the same period. Cydevil38 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction/elaboration - while the theory that Mumun replaced Jeulmun people is the majority consensus, upon reviewing the source by Choi & Rhee, it seems they're supporters of an emerging alternative theory that Jeulmun pottery period people culturally evolved to Mumun pottery period people with no significant demographic changes involved. In other words, the Based on archeological and anthropological data, the early Korean population possibly had a common origin in the northern regions of the Altai Mountains and Lake Baikal of southeastern Siberia claim from Endroit's source refers to Jeulmun, not Mumun. Cydevil38 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The Dong Yi has nothing to do with the so-called "proto-Koreans" (that is assuming, such neologisms even exist). The Dong Yi lied east of the Xia (Huang He) in what is now the Eastern Chinese coast (stretching from roughly Shandong to Zhejiang provinces). This following article (in Chinese) has a pretty good summary of the Dong Yi[7]. Assault11 02:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term Dong Yi does not necessarily mean barbarians in Shandong only, but is a general term for eastern barbarians outside of the central plains core Chinese culture. This would include proto-Koreans in present day Manchuria. WangKon936 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The traditional areas of settlement of the Dong Yi were located in the Chinese coast (roughly Henan/Shandong provinces). Recent archaeological findings in the former Qi state capital in Shandong (Lin Zi) points towards a general southern migration of the Dong Yi[8]. There is no proof whatsoever to suggest that the people of the Eastern Chinese coast (Jiangnan - Shandong peninsula regions) and Northeast China were "proto-Koreans." That is just downright ridiculous. Oddly enough, upon skimming through a couple of Chinese websites, I found the following comments:
很多韩国学者自以为韩国就是东夷。其实是大大的错误。韩国所谓“东夷”论 学术上完全站不住脚 所谓 东夷 就是古朝鲜人的祖先的说法完全没有考古依据。 这是最近几年韩国的所谓“学术界”为了支撑起 所谓“韩民族6000年历史” 而炮制的一种学说。
I suppose this is the main rationale behind Cydevil's thinly-veiled claims over China's Shang Dynasty earlier. Whatever the case is, the Dong Yi and the aforementioned are not Korean. Assault11 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim
Published online: 18 September 2003

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

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

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

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

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

Endroit, opinions of scholars are not "split" on Goguryeo. As far as Goguryeo specialists, such as Rhee and Byington, are concerned, connection bewteen those with "Tungusic" elements, such as Bueyo, and Goguryeo is denied. Archaeological trait of Goguryeo is very similar to that of the Korean peninsula. And as for Gojoseon, it's true it was influenced by the Yan state, iron culture in particular. However, other cultural(archaeological) traits, such as bronze and neolithic elements, is that of a cultural continuum very different from the Chinese one. Even the cultural traits of Yan state can be traced to Manchuria as opposed to China, quite distinct from other Chinese states. According to Barnes, Yan state was the "melting pot" that has significant implications for its influence over other tribes/states in Northeast Asia, such as Gojoseon.
And, as for genetics, let me make some corrections. Rather, many corrections. First, using the mentioned haplogroups and subclades to corroborate the existense of a historic state is moronic - the same goes for those Korean scholars who have attempted thus. It's also moronic to attribute a certain haplogroup to a certain ethnicity. For instance, what you call "Haplogroup O3" is also prevalent among none-Sino-Tibetan(i.e. non-Chinese) peoples, and the interesting fact is that its ancestral lineages, such as O* and O3*, are more prevelant among the non-Chinese populations in Central Asia and Manchuria. As for its dispersal, it's spread throughout Asia, as far as the Australian aborigines. Also, what the study refers to as "southern lineages", is in fact Haplogroup O2b, which is the "Northeast Asian" haplogroup, i.e. this particular haplogroup is exclusively Northeast Asian. Another subclade of O2, which is O2a, is very common among SEA populations, which is why those scholars associate Koreans with SEA populations. As for C3, though scholars in that particular study call it the "northern lineages", is in fact a lineage that likely expanded from the southern coasts of Asia, Korea and Japan in particular, long long time ago. And, even assuming that O3 and O1 spread from China to Korea, the likely candidate is either Austronesian or Hmong-Mien, not Sino-Tibetan, assuming that the area wasn't proto-Dongyi or Altaic. O2 also may have been the result of a prehistoric migration from southern China, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a subclade most characteristic of Northesat Asian populations.
Anyways, in the end, all this talk on genetic anthropology doesn't have much relevance on the discussion at hand, because none of it can really corroborate historic events involving Goguryeo. Also, as far as archeological perspective is concerned, I don't really agree with your reasoning, but I agree with using the term "proto-Korean" for the origins of the Goguryeo state, which was established in 3rd century AD. Cydevil38 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm just telling it like it is, with sources. Take a look at the bunch of arrows in this diagram. It will answer a lot of your questions. Although Han-Jun Jin refrains from mentioning "M122" (Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA)) in his study, it accounts for approximately 50% of the Korean DNA. In addition "P31" (Haplogroup O2 (Y-DNA)) accounts for 19% of the Korea DNA. According to this diagram 74% of the Korean genes ("M122" and "P31") came from China.
I am still waiting for any sources from WangKon936, Cydevil38, or Good friend100. Your arguments are moot without any sources.--Endroit 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
All I can do is find the abstract of the report. But it's a bit dated. However, the Tay study is rather seminal and future genetic reports do point to it as a starting point.
Article
Origin of the Koreans: A population genetic study
N. Saha, J. S. H. Tay
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Human Genetics, National University of Singapore.
Abstract
A population genetic study was undertaken to investigate the origin of Koreans. Thirteen polymorphic and 7 monomorphic blood genetic markers (serum proteins and red cell enzymes) were studied in a group of 437 Koreans. Genetic distance analyses by both cluster and principal components models were performed between Koreans and eight other populations (Koreans in China, Japanese, Han Chinese, Mongolians, Zhuangs, Malays, Javanese, and Soviet Asians) on the basis of 47 alleles controlled by 15 polymorphic loci. A more detailed analysis using 65 alleles at 19 polymorphic loci was performed on six populations. Both analyses demonstrated genetic evidence of the origin of Koreans from the central Asian Mongolians. Further, the Koreans are more closely related to the Japanese and quite distant from the Chinese. The above evidence of the origin of Koreans fits well with the ethnohistoric account of the origin of Koreans and the Korean language. The minority Koreans in China also maintained their genetic identity. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc. WangKon936 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the section below this one and I have two sources refuting the claims on Goguryeo from China, by Mark Byington, a researcher at Harvard so all these "scientific" claims are not to be the most accurate. Good friend100 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to keep talking about Korean genetics here. I don't know what you are trying to prove Endroit. We have really wasted too much time on Korean genetics in the Koguryo talk page. Personally, I don't really care what the genetics are. I bet if you break down English genes it will probably tell you that they are Germans. If you break down Polish genes it will probably tell you that the have a lot of Russian in them. So what? I've been looking up info on Haplogroup O3 and all it really means is that Koreans are East Asian, like the Chinese, Vietnamese, Manchurians, Mongolians and some Japanese (particularly the southern populations). This just means that Koreans are in the "Northeast Asian" grouping and genetic experts will even put them in the "Northeast sub-Siberian" segment. Furthermore, you make the claim that 50-70% of Korean genes are "Chinese." That is YOUR interpretation of the genetics data. However, no reputable Non-Chinese genetics scientist has gone on record to repeat for verbatum your claim. I've actually looked and I couldn't find anything. What does that mean? It means that none of us here, including you, are really all that qualified to interpret the complex sets of genetic data and make broad, generalized conclusions. Lastly, this is a subject we really shouldn't discuss here in Koguryo talk. If we want to go further, why don't we all move this to Korean People talk, okay? WangKon936 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I'm getting tired of Cydevil and Endroit making this talk page too long. It isn't a scientific debate (I certainly don't understand any of it, way ahead of my range) Good friend100 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai
Published online: 18 November 2005
Selected summary from this source, pertaining to the Yayoi migration....
  1. Describes the Yayoi migration into Japan based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
  2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin (Su et al. 1999; Kayser et al. 2000; Capelli et al. 2001; Karafet et al. 2001)." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
  3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
  4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

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

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

Endroit, those people that you interpret as "Chinese", are in fact, as far as the relevant studies suggest, a group of people from "Southeast Asia". Back then, the "Chinese", the more apt term being "Sino-Tibetan", were rather limited to the upper Yellow River regions. If anything, as I've said, those associated with the rice agriculture on the Yangzi river valleys were Hmong-Mien. And of course, all of your studies rely on the premise that the Haplogroup O expanded from southeastern Asia. As nascent as is the field of genetic anthrpology, this is a very shakable premise. For instance, there are studies that suggest otherwise[9]. Since you don't know anything about genetic anthropology, I'll let this map-for-dummies explain things to you[10]. I'm not saying that these results are absolute - genetic anthropology is a dynamic on-going process where new discoveries are made every year. It is possible that the Haplogroup O spread from SEA, but it's also possible that Haplogroup O spread from Central Asia/Manchuria. Nonetheless, the fact remains, none of these studies corrobate your claims on historical events regarding Goguryeo, and they are irrelevant. Even the National Geographic, which is a very outdated and inaccurate source(as I've said, genetic anthropology is very dynamic), refers to O3 as "10,000" years old. Anyways, if you're so concerned, why don't you take this to the relevant articles, such as Haplogroup O (Y-DNA). There, I'm sure you'll take a lot more attention from the experts in this field. Cydevil38 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and another point Endroit, all the sources that you cite are based on modern distribution of genetic haplogroups and subclades. So, although WangKon's source is outdated, not to mention your own, my point is that all of them are based on "modern genes". And if you STILL DON'T KNOW what your sources are saying, they are inherently based on the modern distribution of Haplogroup O2b and its subclades. Cydevil38 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, Michael F. Hammer, in his data, defines "Southeast Asia" to include people from: Taiwan Han and Hakka (TAI), Taiwan Aboriginal (TAB), Southern Han (SHA), Tujia (TUJ), Yizu (YIZ), Miao (MIA), Yao (YAO), Zhuang (ZHA), She (SHE), Vietnam (VIE), Malay (MAL), Philippines (FIL), and Indonesia West (INW). (Except for the last 4, they're all from southern China).
And Hammer hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan." So my statement about the Haplogroup O in Korea is backed by Hammer's opinion. Cydevil38, your sources don't back your accusation that this claim is "shaky".--Endroit 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, the majority of those people aren't even Sinitic. They're very diverse - Austronesian, Hmong-Mien, Tai-Kaidai, etc. And if you can't comprehend what the study says, then that is your problem. Why don't you just take this to Haplogroup O (Y-DNA), and see how well your POV will be accepted there. Cydevil38 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Michael F. Hammer's sample for "Southeast Asia" consisted mostly of Chinese people, including (but not restricted to) the Han Chinese.
A significant amount of Chinese people existed in the Korean peninsula (and Manchuria), during Goguryeo's early years (prior to the 3rd century), and my sources strongly support it. In fact, there are no sources to refute that claim so far.--Endroit 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[11]

[12]

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

Goguryeo was more Korean than Chinese, and that's what Byington believes. And I am in general agreement with what Byington is saying overall.
However, you will notice that Byington uses the Chinese romanization "Fuyu" to describe Buyeo/Puyo/夫餘. That would seem to indicate that Byington believes Buyeo was less Korean than Manchurian (or Chinese). Also Good friend100, whatever you're saying here is not backed up by any source, indicating that perhaps you're just trolling.--Endroit 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Endroit. I have in my posession Byington's PhD thesis, which is entitled "A study in the history of Puyo." For his PhD thesis, he exclusively uses the Korean romanization of Puyo. However, I will not say just because of this he thinks one way or another. It's presumptuous to say that just because of a romanization preferrence that one expert believes one thing more then another. WangKon936 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make an accusation like that simply because the Chinese side gets slammed by a Harvard professor who clearly wrote that there is a major flaw in Chinese claims on Goguryeo. Good friend100 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation task

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

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

I'd be more than happy to have help. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if we had a dispassionate person of Korean background helping you to mediate. Is that at all possible? WangKon936 05:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to have a third party opinion rather than having a pro Korea or pro China editor doing the mediation. Thanks for your effort. Good friend100 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I also want to belong to the third party, i'm currently working on the History of Manchuria, written dozen of stub articles, creating a Manchu Wikipedia, i've just started to learn Manchu language as an autodidact and Chinese Mandarin. Manchu history and culture are complicated but so rich. I would remain neutral in that Sino-Korean dispute on that sensible this topic.Whlee 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

That may be a good idea also. WangKon936 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My bad Good friend100 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source

[13]

[14]

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

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

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

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

Oyo321 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Styling

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

Well, we are discussing about a template of Manchuria to compromise the two names as some editors don't like both the Korea and China template up there. Good friend100 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Former Country}} would be helpful, but I think that we've reached a consensus on having multiple language names in the infobox as well. I'd say do at least that, and then we can consider adding the Former Country infobox on top. --Nlu (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer the Manchuria / Korea, History of info boxes rather then Former Country infobox. Plus, we fought a long time to reach that consensus. Perhaps you can make suggestions that build upon the consensus we have worked so hard to achieve thus far and we can go from there? WangKon936 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I was just experimenting with the template. I have adopted the model of the consensus into the practice page, see if it looks good. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

Name change

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

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

Korean kingdom/state

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

Korea – A religious history, James Huntley Grayson 22

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


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

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


Korea, the Divided Nation By Edward A. Olsen 14

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


First You Shave Your Head By Geraldine A. Larkin

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


The Cambridge history of Japan By John Whitney Hall 298

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


The Archaeology of Korea By Sarah Milledge Nelson

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


Religion and Biography in China and Tibet By Benjamin Penny

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


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

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


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

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


The Cambridge History of China By Denis Twitchett

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


Medieval Chinese warfare, 300-900 By David Andrew Graff

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

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


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

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


Pacific Asia in the Global System: An Introduction

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


Chinese Imperial City Planning By Nancy Riva Shatzman Steinhardt

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


Chinese Grand Strategy and Maritime Power By Thomas M. Kane

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


China By Justin Wintle

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


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

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

Cydevil38 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Delay in unprotection

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

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

Infobox name straw poll

This will not resolve everything, nor is it binding, but I am calling for a straw vote, strictly on the issue of name(s) to be included in the infobox only, to gauge whether we have a consensus. All other issues will be decided later.

The options I propose to be voted on are:

  1. Infobox will list Korean (Hanja, Hangul, Revised Romanization, McCune-Reischauer) only.
  2. Infobox will list Korean (four renditions per option 2 above) and Chinese (Traditional, Simplified, Pinyin, Wade-Giles).
  3. Infobox will list Korean, Chinese (eight renditions per option 3 above), and Russian (Cyrillic and Romanization).
  4. Infobox will list Korean, Chinese, and Japanese (Kanji, Hiragana, and Hepburn).
  5. Infobox will list Korean, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese.

Vote is not yet open; I want to leave a 12-hour period, starting now, for people to discuss whether these are the proper options to be considered in the poll, or whether fewer or more options should be considered. Please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean...
1. Infobox will list Korean (Hanja, Hangul, Revised Romanization, McCune-Reischauer) only.
2. Infobox will list Korean (four renditions per option 2 option 1 above) and Chinese (Traditional, Simplified, Pinyin, Wade-Giles).
3. Infobox will list Korean , and Chinese (eight renditions per option 3 option 2 above), and plus Russian (Cyrillic and Romanization).
4. Infobox will list Korean, Chinese, and Japanese (Kanji, Hiragana, and Hepburn).
5. Infobox will list Korean, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese.
Other than that, I agree that these were the options we've discussed above.--Endroit 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
--Endroit 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Mental counting error. :-) Thanks for the clarification. --Nlu (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

OK, no other options having been proposed and none of the options that I put having been opposed to being put in as options. For each option, please indicate support or oppose. Give reasons if you haven't already done so above. I am contemplating closing the poll 96 hours from now, but it might be closed sooner or later depending on whether people are actually responding/discussing. --Nlu (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: Korean only

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think I've said enough about the subject on why, but basically, I think there is a major POV problem with having just the Korean. --Nlu (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — The bare minimum should contain both Chinese & Korean romanizations, hence I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - This doesn't even have to be anything about POV. Simply, a subject matter that's been dealth internationally needs an infobox for languages used in all the countries concerned. (Wikimachine 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
  4. Oppose Jegal 21:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose WangKon936 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2: Korean and Chinese

Support
  1. Support (but not as much as option 3 below, as I'll explain). As Goguryeo's role in Chinese history is unclear at the moment, excluding Chinese is POV, and so including Chinese helps NPOV at least some. --Nlu (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support As Goguryeo's role in Chinese history is "quite clear", there is no reason to exclude, except someone can not bear anthing UnKorean--Yeahsoo 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support,same reason.--Ksyrie 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support — Until 207AD, the Hun River drainage in Liaoning (Manchuria) was the homeland of the Goguryeo, not Korea. Gardiner (1964:428) wrote that in the late 3rd century, Goguryeo was transformed "from a Chinese border state, existing mainly by the plunder of the Chinese outposts in the north-east, to a kingdom centred in Korea proper, in which the formerly independent tribal communities of the ... Wo-chu [K. Okcho] and others had been merged."--Endroit 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. (Wikimachine 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
  6. Support Chinese should include the name and influence on aspects of culture, written language and the like but beyond that it should be considered Tungus/Proto-Korean etc. Jegal 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I like Jegal's rationale. Although I don't think Koguryo had a meaningful Tungus element to it. I'd say the first intermediate Tungus state in Manchuria is Parhae. Anyways. Another time and another place. WangKon936 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support.--General Tiger
Oppose
  1. Oppose It is clear that some CPOV editors, such as Endroit, justify the inclusion of Chinese romanization on a false premise that Goguryeo was "Chinese", thus their intention is to strengthen Chinese ownership of Goguryeo. Inclusion of the Chinese romanization of Goguryeo should be strictly geographical, not historical nor cultural. Cydevil38 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose

Option 3: Korean, Chinese, and Russian

Support
  1. Support. It is my belief that in order to avoid the potential POV of "Gaoguli is ours!" (or the claim that the article is implicitly doing so), Russian should be included to show that the inclusion of Chinese was not intended to be an ownership claim or the support of one, whether real or perceived. Russian makes sense to have since Goguryeo's territory is now partially on Russian soil, and nothing that Russia has done so far can be construed as a "claim" on Goguryeo heritage. --Nlu (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I am ok with this, although Russian's part is really tiny, and the land sovereignty is in dispute, but this is scholarship, not polictics, so include Russian name is ok.--Yeahsoo 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Agree with Nlu. Good friend100 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Yug (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Jegal 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support While Wangkon936 claims that Koreans won't like "sharing history with Russia", I'd disagree. Koreans would be far more willing to share history with Russia than China, as Russia doesn't twist Korean history like China does. That aside, inclusion of non-Korean names on the name template should be strictly geogrpahical, thus inclusion of the Russian name is as justified as the Chinese name. Also, per this geograhpical inclusion of non-Korean names in this article, Jurchen Jin Dynasty should also include Korean romanization. Cydevil38 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose To answer Cydevil's comment about Russia. They do the same thing as China. Just ask Poland. However, since Koguryo land is not near Russia's European heartland, we don't have to worry about it as much. WangKon936 23:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. OpposeThe Russian came to the once Goguryeo territories 1200 years later after the fall of this country.--Ksyrie 07:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 4: Korean, Chinese, and Japanese

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Including Japanese goes too far, in that no part of Goguryeo territory now lies in Japanese territory, and while there are Japanese historians studying Goguryeo, and part of the sources used to study Goguryeo's history is Japanese, the connection is simply too tenuous. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Nlu. (Wikimachine 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
  3. Oppose Jegal 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose WangKon936 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 5: Korean, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose. For the same reason stated above with regard to Option 4. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Nlu. (Wikimachine 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
  3. Oppose Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose WangKon936 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name straw poll, part 2

Looks like we have a consensus that Korean and Chinese should be included in the infobox, and Japanese should not. So, the question comes down to: should Russian be included? So, for the next 24-36 hours (depending on whether people respond/discuss), I'd like to ask the narrower question of whether Russian should be included. Please indicate your preference and reasons, and we'll see if we have a consensus on this issue -- so that we can hopefully move on to the next one.

Russian should be included

  1. Include. As I said, it helps NPOVness by clarifying that the inclusion of Chinese does not mean an endorsement (or disapproval) of the idea that Goguryeo was a Chinese state. --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Include. Jegal 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Include. Why not? Good friend100 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Include. Cydevil38 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Include. WangKon936 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian should not be included

  1. Oppose Russia has had nearly nothing to do with Goguryeo, right? Looks like sweating. (Wikimachine 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC))
  2. Oppose Japanese seems more relevant than russian to Goguryeo.Russian and Goguryeo has got little relation.If we include the russian name,we had to include the japanese one,cuz once upon time the Manchuria and Vladivostok were under japanese occupation.--Ksyrie 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If Russian is included, I see no reason why Japanese shouldn't be accepted as well. Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the rough closing period; while it will not be simply disregarded on that basis, my statement below that there was a rough consensus did not include this vote since it happened after my comment. --Nlu (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Next straw poll: navigational templates

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

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

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

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

  1. No national history navigational templates.
  2. HoK stays. No other national navigational template is added.
  3. HoK stays, and HoC is added.
  4. HoK stays, and HoM is added.
  5. HoK stays, and HoC and HoM are added.
  6. HoK is removed, and HoM is added.
  7. HoM and HoC
    This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. HoC only
    This option was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Option 1: No national history navigational templates

Support

  1. Support maybe a good way to avoid dispute--Yeahsoo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I don't see any reason to take out HoK, as to be stated below, and therefore oppose this option. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Doing this would do a disservice to this article and make it less informative, etc. WangKon936 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose A dumb idea Jegal 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — My reasoning goes as follows:
    • HoK is the bare minimun we have to have, and I will give it 100% support.
    • HoM deserves a chance, and should be discussed further in Talk:Manchuria. Until such time as HoM is completely rejected by the editors of Manchuria-related articles, I will also give 100% support to HoM.
    It follows that... For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Why is this option even up here? Its definite that we should have a template. Good friend100 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I see no reason to. Templates can only strengthen an articles, not harm them. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 2: HoK only

Support

  1. Support. Goguryeo's connection to the history of Korea is plain, and the template is useful for navigation. For reasons to be stated below, I think that leaving only HoK is not a bad idea. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Ideally, this would be the option I like the most. However, I don't think it will solve the constaint edit wars that have plauged this article. WangKon936 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I could only see this working out if only a limited number of editors were allowed to edit the article and all others blocked out and could only edit if their track record was good which would be reviewed by the admins. Jegal 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's not an option; it's not supported by any Wikipedia policy. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Probably the option pro Goguryeo people would like to see. Good friend100 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support This would definitely work out if only experts(except those from the PRC) are allowed to edit this page. Cydevil38 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Goguryeo is as of Korea as of China--Ksyrie 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying Korea is Chinese? I'm offended. You should realize that almost the entire international community disagrees with the PRC's claim on Goguryeo and how many of your quick excuses are flawed. Good friend100 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Yeahsoo 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm agree with Endroit :
    Goguryeo is not 100% Korean because
    - if it was then modern Korean language would be significantly different see Goguryeo language and would be closer to Japanese language.
    - King Sejong of Joseon has established the borders of "modern Korea" see (four forts and six posts (Hangul : 사군육진 Hanja : 四郡六鎭)).
    - Koguryeo belong to HoK and HoM -- Whlee 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Amongst China, Korea, Japan and Russia historians, it is widely disputed that Goguryeo can be considered as an HoK-only entity. On one hand, Goguryeo is arguably more important to Jurchens(who founded Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 and Qing Dynasty, now indisputably considered as part of Chinese history) than Koreans. On the other hand, Goryeo is typically considered as modern Korea's direct ancestor, but the connection between Goguryeo and Goryeo is controversial. HoK-only is a decision against Jurchens history.--Jiejunkong 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Option 3: HoK and HoC only

Support

  1. Support I see no reason why History of China shouldn't be included. Gaogouli is no different from the Kingdoms of Nan Zhao and Da Li (one of whom, is linked to the HoC). Assault11 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support--Ksyrie 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support --Yeahsoo 22:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Goguryeo is definitely a major ancestor of Jurchens(who founded Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 and Qing Dynasty, now indisputably considered as part of Chinese history). In addition, it is arguably even more important to Jurchens than Koreans. I see reasons to list it as HoK, and I see reasons to list it as HoC. I don't understand why some people (including some sockpuppets) want to remove HoC. --Jiejunkong 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. This has nothing per se to do with the assertion that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history, which is true (notwithstanding the more problematic issue of whether Goguryeo was a Chinese state in any definition). Goguryeo is not linked from HoC, nor should it be since HoC is already way too crowded; therefore, HoC is a navigational template that doesn't belong on the page. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. WangKon936 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Good friend100 22:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I'd have to oppose this option.--Endroit 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Jegal 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Goguryeo is not a part of Chinese history. Cydevil38 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. OpposeIt isn't sufficientWhlee 09:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Absolutely no evidence that can substantially support this. Many chinese arguments are based on claims. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 4: HoK and HoM only

Support

  1. Weak support. I actually agree with some of the comments that the case for creating HoM is not compelling. I proposed it as a compromise measure only, and I am not convinced of its necessity. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Good in the long run, will help stem more disputes. Good friend100 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. I agree w/Good Friend on this one. WangKon936 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Jegal 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support — For the purpose of this vote, HoK & HoM are the bare minimum required for me. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this option.--Endroit 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Conditional support Only if a consensus on the Manchurian history template is reached. However, I find such a consensus doubtful as long as CPOV editors(Ksyrie, Endroit, Assault11, Yeahsoo) are involved. Nonetheless, I'm willing to cooperate, in good faith, with other editors. Cydevil38 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Conditional support Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support In support of Cydevil's arguments. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support for this measure! Go-gur-yeo is a native kingdom of the same ethnic origins as those now called ethnic Koreans originally from northern Manchuria, It was later called Gao-gou-li by ethnic Han people, and much later recognized the suzerainty of Chinese emperors over the region for purposes of trade and peaceful relations. A predecessor kingdom (Buyeo) also has better relations with the Han people owing to their strategic geographical relation, this shows the complicated relation of the kingdom of Goguryeo to the History of China through its location in the region that we now all call Manchuria, or Northeast China as some native officials like to call it —- .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Partially Support: This is okay, only if Manchuria is interpreted as an English name for the land in Northeastern China and Fareast Russia. Goguryeo is part of the history of this land.--Jiejunkong 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly Oppose Absolutely not (for reasons explained above/before). The concept of Man Zhou as a geographic entity did not materialize until the 20th century, even then, it existed only as a puppet regime - hence, it is illegitimate. Assault11 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Oppose--Yeahsoo 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 5: HoK, HoC, and HoM

Support

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

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

  1. This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Support'. Goguryeo had interactions with kingdoms in the southern part of Korean peninsula (Paekche, Silla and Kaya), the China Empire (espcially Sui and Tang Empire) and Chinese kingdom (during the 5 dynasty 16 kingdoms) and peoples living in Manchuria (Puyo for instance...) Whlee 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, for the same reasons I gave for opposing Option 3. --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. WangKon936 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strongly Oppose This is probably the only option thats worse than "HoC Only." It would result in a massive and messy article that would welcome few to read. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 6: HoM only

Support

  1. Very weak support'. I'd support it if there's support for it as a compromise measure. Again, I don't see a reason to remove HoK. --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Very weak support'. The reason to remove HoK is it contains too many disputed info, it should be deleted or rewrite. Of course the HOM should defnitely be wrtie in caution--Yeahsoo 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Very weak support'. Goguryeo had interactions with kingdoms in the southern part of Korean peninsula, the China Empire and tribes living in Manchuria. Being agree with Nlu i dont see a reason to remove HoK : at its height under Kwanggaetto Koguryeo occupied 2/3 of the Korean peninsula and Silla was its vassal.See the story of Misahun, King Naemul etc... Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Conditional Support As long as there is sufficient research invested into Manchurian templates. Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Option 7: HoC only

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

Support

Oppose

  1. Strongly Oppose i'm completely AGAINST Chinese North East Project (東北工程) Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No evidence whatever other than "google search hits." Oyo321 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 8: HoC and HoM only

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

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose it also belong to HoK Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    This vote was added after the closing period. While it will not be ignored, the determination of whether there was a consensus at the time the straw poll was brought will not give substantial weight to this vote. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goguryeo/Archive_6&oldid=857921725"