File talk:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg

message: This image is based on original research and should be deleted per WP:OR. Cydevil38 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

message: In the first paragraph of the entire book "Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1",
Jurchen Jin's official historians admitted that Jurchen was from Mohe.  According to the same authoritative book, there were 7 Wuji tribes at the time of Northern Wei Dynasty.  At the beginning time of the Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived.  So there were not many choices for a person to be classified as a Mohe (mostly either Heishui or Sumo).  At the time of Khitan Liao Dynasty, Mohe turned into Jurchen.  Those, including descedents of Sumo Mohe and a part of Heishui Mohe, conquered by Khitan Liao Empire were called "Well-done Jurchen" (Shu Jurchen).  Otherwise, they were called "Raw Jurchen" (Sheng Jurchen).  Raw Jurchens were mostly descedents of Heishui Mohe.  It included Wanyan Tribe, the founding tribe of Jurchen Jin Dynasty.  Those Well-done Jurchens were mostly taken from the conquer of Balhae, which was in turn a Sumo Mohe state according to "Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1". 
Note that this was the official view of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, it is crazy to assume that they wanted to make fun of their own ancestral line in the authoritative book.--Jiejunkong 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More arguments about the Wuji->Heishui Mohe/Sumo Mohe->Balhae->Jurchen Jin connections

message: Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians.  It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.
*Explanation of the two connections: one between "Wuji 7 tribes" and two "Mohe"s; another between "Mohe" and "Jurchen Jin".
::Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1:"金之先，出靺鞨氏。靺鞨本號勿吉。勿吉，古肅慎地也。元魏時，勿吉有七部：曰粟末部、曰伯咄部、曰安車骨部、曰拂涅部、曰號室部、曰黑水部、曰白山部。隋稱靺鞨，而七部並同。唐初，有黑水靺鞨、粟末靺鞨，其五部無聞。"(Jurchen Jin's ancestor is Mohe, which is originally Wuji.  Wuji located in ancient Sushen lands.  At the time of Northern Wei, Wuji had seven tribes: Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie, Haoshi, Heishui, Baishan.  At the time of Sui Dynasty, Wuji was renamed as Mohe, but the seven tribes stayed as usual. At the early time of Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived, the other five tribes were gone.)
*Explanation of the two connections: one between "Goguryeo" and "Sumo Mohe"; another between "Sumo Mohe" and "Balhae".
::Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1:"粟末靺鞨始附高麗，姓大氏。李績破高麗，粟末靺鞨保東牟山。後為渤海，稱王，傳十餘世。"(Sumo Mohe joined Goguryeo, its leader's surname is Dae.  When General Ji Li of the Tang Dynasty destroyed Goguryeo, Sumo Mohe guarded Dong Mou Mountain, later became Balhae, and there was a king, lasted for more than ten generations).
*The red "Conquered" lines can be easily seen from the related Wikipedia main articles of those dynasties.
*The age of every dynasty can also be found in the related Wikipedia main article of the dynasty.
Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation.  There is no interpretation in the depiction.  The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid. 
This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other).  User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources.  This is his incorrect random guess.  There is no assembling here.  The proofs are merely supportive.  The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.
#First Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 199-2:"渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。"(Dae Jo-yeong of Balhae Mohe, was a descedent of Goguryeo).  Here Dae Jo-yeong is the indisputable founder of Balhae.
#Second Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 219:"渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率衆保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河爲境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之。"(Balhae's founder, whose surname is Dae, was originally Sumo Mohe joining Goguryeo. When Goguryeo was destroyed, he led his people to guard Dong Mou Mountain, located to the very east of YinZhou, with southern border touching Silla separated by River Ni, eastern border at sea, western border touching Khitan.  They built cities to reside in, and Goguryeo remnants joined them.)
#Canonical History Records of Song Dynasty, Volume 491:"高麗別種大祚榮走保遼東，睿宗以爲忽汗州都督，封渤海郡王，因自稱渤海國"(Dae Jo-yeong of Goguryeo escaped and guarded the land to the east Khitan. Emperor Ruizong of Tang assigned him to be the commanding officer of HuHanZhou and King of Balhae, thus his land was called Balhae.)--Jiejunkong 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detailed explanations

message: The wikirule Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says:"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."   Every book in Twenty-Four Histories was produced in the next dynasty by officially organized editing, revising, and collating after the authority collects all credible sources of the dynasty being described.  These canonical history records were authoritative sources used by professional researchers in the study of history of China polities.  From the definition of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, these canonical records are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.  Therefore, they are unarguably reliable sources.  The other examples of authoritative reliable sources include the Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi and the Chinese canonical record Zizhi Tongjian.  After the explanation, those users who cannot refute the explanation, but still persist to block these reliable sources are blatant denial-of-service attackers who try to promote their own POV to degrade the wikipedia contents.--Jiejunkong 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason why canonical history records are reliable sources