Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think you have said the right things. Good friend100 00:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is so pathetic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the issue this time? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern politics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Russian Wikipedia uses Когурё, which romanizes to Koguryo. --Reuben 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian name 

message: 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)
replies: text: Dunno that, Cydevil38 supports Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom. Good friend100 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 can contribute to a "consensus". This is one major pitfall of Wikipedia. Cydevil38 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite unfortunate. I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding. (Wikimachine 01:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Do visit the Korean history forum once in a while, will ya? Cydevil38 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cydevil38 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why "Shilla-Tang" Invasion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd be more than happy to have help.  --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another source 

message: Looking through the page, I have a proposal. Would it be better to use  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Styling 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Korean kingdom/state 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Delay in unprotection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: ===== Support =====
===== Oppose =====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 1: Korean only 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ===== Support =====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 2: Korean and Chinese 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ===== Support =====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 3: Korean, Chinese, and Russian 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose Assault11 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ===== Support =====
===== Oppose =====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 4: Korean, Chinese, and Japanese 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ===== Support =====
===== Oppose =====
# Oppose.  For the same reason stated above with regard to Option 4.  --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 5: Korean, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese 

message: # Oppose.  For the same reason stated above with regard to Option 4.  --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: 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 ===
# 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)
thread_title:  Name straw poll, part 2 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Russian should be included 

message: # Oppose Russia has had nearly nothing to do with Goguryeo, right? Looks like sweating.  (Wikimachine 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian should not be included 

message: 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:
# Whether  (to be referred to below as HoK, for shorthand) should stay.
# Whether  ("HoC") should be added.
# Whether a new  (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:
# No national history navigational templates.
# HoK stays.  No other national navigational template is added.
# HoK stays, and HoC is added.
# HoK stays, and HoM is added.
# HoK stays, and HoC and HoM are added.
# HoK is removed, and HoM is added.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *It is part of Chinese history. Korean and Chinese history share much of their history because of the connections with each other. Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh geez, then Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty must be part of our history too, as well as the Japanese Empire. Cydevil38 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *If it disappoints you, thats too bad. But its the truth. Sharing history has no problems and you shouldn't overreact to this. Good friend100 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next straw poll: navigational templates 

message: ==== Support ====
#Support  maybe a good way to avoid dispute--Yeahsoo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1: No national history navigational templates 

message: #Support  maybe a good way to avoid dispute--Yeahsoo 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ==== Support ====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 2: HoK only 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose Assault11 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ==== Support ====
# 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)
replies: text: *It is part of Chinese history. Korean and Chinese history share much of their history because of the connections with each other. Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh geez, then Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty must be part of our history too, as well as the Japanese Empire. Cydevil38 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *If it disappoints you, thats too bad. But its the truth. Sharing history has no problems and you shouldn't overreact to this. Good friend100 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3: HoK and HoC only

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # 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)
replies: text: *It is part of Chinese history. Korean and Chinese history share much of their history because of the connections with each other. Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh geez, then Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty must be part of our history too, as well as the Japanese Empire. Cydevil38 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *If it disappoints you, thats too bad. But its the truth. Sharing history has no problems and you shouldn't overreact to this. Good friend100 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ==== Support ====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 4: HoK and HoM only 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ==== Support ====
# SupportIt is part of Chinese history.  Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 5: HoK, HoC, and HoM 

message: # SupportIt is part of Chinese history.  Good friend100 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose, for the same reasons I gave for opposing Option 3.  --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: ==== Support ====
# 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)
thread_title:  Option 6: HoM only 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose  WangKon936 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: #: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)
thread_title:  Option 7: HoC only 

message: # Strongly Oppose i'm completely AGAINST Chinese North East Project (東北工程) Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: #: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)
thread_title:  Option 8: HoC and HoM only 

message: # Oppose it also belong to HoK Whlee 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose