Talk:Goryeo–Khitan War

message: Deletion Physchim62 22:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello, Whlee. I was wondering if you wrote, or have permission to use, the content in the First Koryo - Khitan article because it is similar to an article on the Korean History Project website. Thanks -- Kjkolb 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I don't understand this section at all
:"Ten years later, in 936, the year that Koreans was united under Goryeo rule, the Liao took advantage of long civil war in China after the fall of Tang Dynasty in 907; the Khitan took control of 16 Chinese provinces south of the Great Wall for helping the foundation of short-living Later Qin (晋) Dynasty, which ruled only small part of China. In 946, the Khitan invaded China, trying to conquer all of China but failing; and eventually, as the Song Dynasty unified China in 960, and the inner conflict between Liao royal family members stopped the Khitan dream of Chinese conquest, for a brief period."
Should it be
:"The Liao took advantage of long civil war in China after the fall of Tang Dynasty in 907, and in 936, conquered 16 Chinese provinces south of the Great Wall. 936 was also the year Korea was united under Goryeo rule. This laid the foundation for the short-livied Later Qin (晋) Dynasty, which ruled only a small part of China. In 946, the Khitan invaded China, trying and failing to conquer it. The Song Dynasty unified China in 960 and inner conflict between Liao royal family members combined to squelch stopped the Khitan dream of Chinese conquest."
However, this doesn't make any sense, as the Qin dynasties were all at least 600 years before. This all takes place during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period
--Awiseman 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing part 

message: "Threatened by Khitan expansion, Balhae sought assistance from the declining Silla. Records stated that Balhae also requested Goryeo's help during the Later Three Kingdoms period just before its fall, but under the conflicting state between Balhae and Silla, the aggression of the Khitan into Balhae could not be blocked because Silla and Goryeo rather helped Khitan in spite of the treaty with Balhae because of the adherence of confrontation between the south and the north, along the Northern-Southern Kingdom period (Hangul : 남북국/남북시대, Hanja :南北國/南北時代). From that point, Goryeo and Khitan had not showed any hostility each other until the fall of Balhae in 926."
I can't make heads of tails of it. --Awiseman 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? This makes absolutely no sense --AW 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another confusing part 

message: Somebody reverted GoGuryeo's edits saying they were too Korea focused. i think GoGuryeo's edits are fine, what do you think? --AW 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been a pattern of anonymous Japanese POV pushing, revert warring, and even edit stalking at various articles. As for this article, Goguryeo put in some hard work, and as the title says, this article is about Korea and the Khitan, not China. In any case, I don't see any significant information being deleted, just lots of useful additions. Probably need to keep an eye on anon/new reverters. Korealist 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khitan is a history of China. 203.198.23.198 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Either give examples or stop reverting --AW 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, we need to clean this up, and not by reverting. --AW 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China vs Korea 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Sino-Xiongnu War - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: De 4 de 171 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Copying within Wikipedia]] 

message: @User:Rajmaan - I appreciate your contributions, but the result field should reflect the final outcome of the entire war, not the results of every conflict that took place during the war. For example, in the World War II article, the result field only mentions the final Allied Victory, not the Fall of France and other major campaigns that resulted in Allied defeats. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Result Field 

message: Hello @Qiushufang
I know Wikipedia's policy on self publishing, but I kept Walker's source because according to Wikipedia:Selfpub it says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
I dug around, Walker while self published is an expert with a PhD from UCLA. Walker authored The Weight of Tradition: Preliminary Observations on Korea's Intellectual Response (published by The Korea Research and Publications, Inc.).https://books.google.com/books?id=m85lCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA297
and
The Yi-Ming Rapprochement: Sino-Korean Foreign Relations, 1392-1592 (published by University of California, Los Angeles)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QHuOswEACAAJ
He's also variously cited by others:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Hugh+Dyson+Walker
https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Hugh+Dyson+Walker
Since he is a cited expert and because he does appear to have been published at different times by institutions I think he should be added back.  Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is already overcited, so it would bring citations down to 5 like I previously mentioned anyways. As it is a self published source, this is probably the first to remove without making any difference. Although Grant's 1001 Battles That Changed the Course of World History should probably also be removed since it's pop history without any citations, so maybe choose between one or the other. Qiushufang (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll switch them then and see if the Grant source is useable elsewhere  Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugh Walker appears to be a reliable source