Talk:Goguryeo language

message: Some of entries in the big and large table are referenced, so the reason for the removal should be answered here first? --Caspian blue 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for showing interest on this article. I’m simply puzzled at why such blitz action was taken without any prior discussion. This doesn’t seem a proper avenue for resolving the problem. Jagello (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general idea behind the removal was that the large table was too large to be really helpful to non-linguists. While I'm not sure outright removal is the right step, I think we should strive to integrate the examples or comparisons into a prose text as much as possible. One which serves to illustrate why various differences in comparison to the minority languages is significant. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on. Please, bring it back. That table was very useful. I was always checking it and I'm not a linguist. Are you just saving bytes?--Quinceps (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more about making the article accessible to everyone, in my opinion. By this I mean, the article needs to be helpful to anyone who wants to learn some basic information about this language. An appropriate, encyclopedic treatment of the vocabulary of the Goguryeo language need not be exhaustive to sufficiently address the important points. If, of course, it's deemed that there's so much information available that the vocabulary section dwarfs the rest of the article, it may be appropriate to branch out into another article with this article containing a summary style explanation of the most important points. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it's not really a matter of saving bytes- after all, the version with the table is still available here if you need it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removal of a whole table 

message: Noting that the refs aren't in English, I'm giving translation a shot.
* 後漢書 東夷列傳 第七十五 挹婁 = Book of the Later Han, "Historical biography on Dongyi" (or just "Dongyi Liezhuan"), #75 on the Yilou (predecessors of the Mohe)
* 魏書 捲一百 列傳第八十八 勿吉 = Book of Wei, "roll" (volume?) 100, Historical biography #88, on the Wuji (also predecessors of the Mohe)
* 北史 捲九十四 列傳第八十二 勿吉 = History of Northern Dynasties, "roll" (volume?) 94, Historical biography #82, on the Wuji
Anybody more familiar with the subject matter want to correct these? Should probably also be in ref templates. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating references 

message: Looks like this article was subject to some unfortunate revert warring that resulted in a block for an editor interested in this topic. While it's true, the edits reintroducing the table weren't strictly vandalism, I think that there's a consensus here that the huge damn table should be omitted as potentially being original research or synthesis. Whether that consensus has changed is open for debate. I personally doubt it, and feel the article may merit semi protection to prevent the user who kept reintroducing it from doing so without discussing, as they are using multiple IPs and new accounts to do so. Any other thoughts? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant re-addition of that huge damn table 

message: It appears tobe vandals keep on editing the article with ridiculous information.--Korsentry 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Goguryeo language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226195328/http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal%2802-2%29%282%29.pdf to http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal(02-2)(2).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226195328/http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal%2802-2%29%282%29.pdf to http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/Data/DataGarden/Journal(02-2)(2).pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are records in the Japanese history book that the Goguryeo language and the Baekje language (possibly according to Vovin, Unger's language of Baekje's ruling class) from the late 6th to early 7th centuries differ from the Old Japanese language.
http://nihongo.hum.tmu.ac.jp/~long/longzemi/hosaka.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no statement in the article that Goguryeo language was the same as Old Japanese, but which items in which history are you referring to?  (The link seems to be to a student essay.)  Kanguole 09:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some records that Goguryeo language and Baekje language are different from Old Japanese language. 

message: I have reverted recent changes to the lead, for the following reasons:
* The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, per MOS:INTRO.
* The ancient Chinese histories are mentioned in the article, but they should not be used are citations, per WP:PRIMARY. These texts require expert interpretation by modern experts, of whom several are cited in the body of the article, including Lee Ki-Moon, a recognized authority in this area. Also, the Book of Wei says nothing about the Goguryeo language – it says the Mohe language was unique, but turning that into a statement about the relationship with the Goguryeo language is original research.
* The changes misrepresented the sources cited and the sourced text of the article body. For example, "Lee and Ramsey also look broadly to include Altaic and/or Tungusic." is both vague and not what they actually say. Kanguole 09:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this. MOS:INTRO and WP:PRIMARY are fundamentals (especially when the primary source is not primary research written in the framework of modern scholarship, but ancient historical records). Faithful representation of sources obviously is a must too. –Austronesier (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "Chinese histories" is the correct term for the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Book of the Later Han, etc. And the fact that Buyeo, Okjeo and Ye are all unattested is relevant. Kanguole 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead