Talk:Military history of Goguryeo

message: Theres no communication between everybody. It is obvious that Jiejunkong does not understand english, seeing how he responds to people. 
And, consensus doesn't mean everything, as you showed at Liancourt Rocks before. 
The sad thing is that you scream for this title but when you get what you want, I see absolutely no improvement over the article and absolutely nothing about Goguryeo vs Baekje, etc in the article itself. 
Isn't that what you want? To improve the article? Certainly not that but only the wishes of CPOV editors. 
I snorted at least 5 times reading the discussion so far, quite ridiculous, all of you. Good friend100 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its unfortunate that the administrators cannot see the dumb logic Jiejunkong is screaming about. For example, I don't get how Jiejunkong can justify that Manchuria is a "bad word" because the "chinese people don't like it". Even as I'm typing this, I'm expecting another one of those lame comments with quotes from the rules. Good friend100 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I really really agree with you,communication is essentially important.Your accusation I found at least resonble as the renaming request.The things is that though I thought Goguryeo is as chinese as korean,but in fact Goguryeo is not deemed as important by chinese as by korean.Considering there are huge number of   ethics (it means they are partial or entire sinicized) in chinese history,(I cann't count,Xiongnu,Xianbei,Qidan,more recently Manchu etc)I mean Goguryeo is among these ethics though some special(there's no other nation than China to claim the inheritage of Xianbei Qidan etc),so we cann't take too much attention as Korea do in article of Goguryeo do,because there are too many ethics comparing too little english-speaking chinese(3M chinese-american to 1M korean-american,and the 3M chinese-american is not all favoring the concept of China,an important of part coming from Taiwan).I will contribute to this article as many as I can.In fact,there are really a huge number of Gao (surname) in China,while I thought some of them are from the Goguryeo heritage,what a pity most of them don't speak english and cann't access to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, what's the point of putting up a good face now? (Wikimachine 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried a bit of good faith,even the most bad enemy sometimes will become your friend.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans, British  & basically most other people with English as their first language don't use proverbs and adages - just keep that in mind. Also, good faith is pre-action only (before I know you, I must assume that you have good intentions). What I did is post-action (through my observations of your actions, I now determine whether you have good or bad intentions). (Wikimachine 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dead wrong Wikimachine, you should really keep trying to assume good faith barring some evidence of true malice (not just having a different point of view than yours).  Your personal points of view are quite painfully clear, but I am not going to stop trying to assume you are trying to improve the articles.  Really, you've been around awhile; please spend some time reading up on some of the most basic wikipedia ideas.  In the span of a few days you've, among others, illustrated gross misunderstandings of WP:AGF, WP:COI, and WP:CONSENSUS. --Cheers, Komdori 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. Actually, Lactose said 60% to 80% is sufficient for consensus, but that's not what WP:CON says. And, according to AGF, This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I already admitted that I was wrong on COI. So, if you've been reading the discussion all this time, why didn't you answer any of the claims brought against your opinion? And why play these trump cards? (~ Lactose) I have moments of self-doubt, but I just read the guidelines, and I reaffirm that I'm right. (Wikimachine 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to keep reading past the first sentence.  Evidence to the contrary was clearly defined as malicious intent.  Read the article on supermajority to see what consensus is talking about.  --Cheers, Komdori 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 articles on supermajority. Plain supermajority is irrelevant b/c it's not WP rule. WP supermajority is rejected by the community. (Wikimachine 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And its a fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that A consensus of idiots don't mean something is right, as Jimbo Wales said before. A majority is not enough for a change of title. The move was simply a wish that CPOV editors had to erase the word "China" cuase they just can't stand it. Look at the article for Goguryeo. Did anything change besides the section title for "Goguryeo-China Wars"? Nothing, absolutely nothing about this "Goguryeo-Korea Wars" that Jiejunkong keeps talking about. Its obvious that these editors have no wish to improve Wikipedia but simply make changes to it so they are happy. Good friend100 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calm down; the move was supported by a wide range of editors, some with overall Korean viewpoints, some with Chinese, some with neither.  You seem to fail to see your argument can be turned round quite easily--that you wanted the name China to stay because you "can't stand" an insinuation that Goguryeo was anything but Korean.  Try to be objective; the article is clearly more accurate now, avoids some issues that some editors had problems with, and leaves openings for additional content that otherwise might not have a good place.  As for consensus--you're right, a supermajority is often too strict, we often can get away with less and still have a consensus, but since we had well beyond a supermajority of diverse editors with reasons per policy, the situation was clear. --Cheers, Komdori 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, Good friend was always "calm". What angers me is your arrogant bullshit. Read some philosophy. "Construction of the other." You make Good friend look as if he is impatient or irritable, violent, etc. If you're going to talk here again, fix your attitude. Now. (Wikimachine 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: These editors are just plain POV. They ignore (in other words, pure hubris) whatever legitimate things you've got to say & slam the desk whenever they see a bullseye. It's quite ridiculous that 1 claimed to be a professor & another a Korean...... Oh yeah, defending the policy, but they didn't defend it in Liancourt Rocks - I made the same moves & same justification on Sea of Japan to test that they were POVs. All they're good for is causing trouble. Again, how in the world does an article about a series of wars that a country took against another country (except over different dynasties, regimes, etc.) suddenly evolve into a military history? Wow. So sinocentric. China determines what a country's military history's going to be about. These are very simple & plain concepts that these anti-x, x-haters, etc. can't accept. (Wikimachine 01:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of communication 

message: *Move. The word history in the title should be lowercased. It should be renamed as Military history of Goguryeo.--Neo-Jay (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a lower case history is in keeping with Wikipedia naming guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This is just a layman's opinion, but this article seems to smack of Korean nationalism.  "Finally, only Goguryeo was left to be brought to its knees, but Goguryeo did not give into demands for tributes and the following threats"?  And the noble Korean people heroically defied the despotic Chinese oppressors?
Reading the Goguryeo-Wei Wars article, the conflict seems pretty important and particularly catastrophic for the Korean state.  "In 244, Guanqiu Jian, a general of Han's successor state Cao Wei, defeated King Dongcheon and briefly occupied Goguryeo's capital, but did not hold the territory permanently."  Oh, no big deal then.  He didn't even "hold the territory permanently" whatever that means.  
"In the end, the Tang army retreated with heavy losses. Taizong was defeated by not being able to take Ansi."  So the Tang 'lost' the war... because they failed to take one fortress?  Wasn't this the war that directly paved the way for Goguryeo's downfall?  Both the linked articles seem to say so.  The "First Goguryeo-Tang War" article also implies that the siege of Ansi failed because of the incompetence of 傅伏愛 (Fu Fu'ai), not because "commander Yang Manchun mobilized the remaining Goguryeo troops to defeat the Tang army."
From the "Fall of Goguryeo" section: "served as the primary key to the downfall of Gogureyo, as only when he came did the Tang's emperor was willing to send troops to Goguryeo, since the defector knew the most of the weaknesses and shortcuts that Tang forces did not know of, into Goguryeo's fortified territory."  Because the Tang Emperor was so terrified of the fearsome, heroic Koreans, that he feared to enter their territory without... really?
"The Balhae would become a buffer in trade and was a powerful empire that Tang could not bother."  Ok.
Now granted, I'm not an expert on Korean history.  But none of this colorful language is cited, only one of the sources is from a Chinese perspective and none of the Korean sources are remotely contemporary.  And really, if you're going to glorify one side of a conflict, why pick the side that ultimately lost?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.108.118.201 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a better point for discussion than trying to deny that Goguryeo was fighting Chinese dynasties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.168.185 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military history of Goguryeo. 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/20110716080932/http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b11s1728a to http://preview.britannica.co.kr/bol/topic.asp?article_id=b11s1728a
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) 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)