Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 7

message: We strongly recommend private mediation.  To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature.  Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation".  If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page.  You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality.  This message is being posted elsewhere.  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant 

message: Last week, I was planning to unprotect the article, and then did not do so due to an unrelated event last week.  I think the feelings with regard to that event has subsided, but at the same time, it now appears that the disputes are flaring up again, even though I do think the disputes are not affecting the consensuses the straw polls showed previously.  I'd like to hear some thoughts, though, on whether we're ready for unprotection.  (Mediators, in particular, if you think unprotection is inappropriate at the moment, I'd like to hear from you.)  --Nlu (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that basic consensus have been formed with the result of these straw polls. Further disputes will probably only be resolved through bold, revert, discuss cycle. I would recommend the administrators to enforce WP:1RR in the discussion. (AQu01rius • Talk) 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About unprotection 

message: Just that I have mid-terms going on. Is there a concensus? - General Tiger
:I felt that there is one -- for  and , some disagreements notwithstanding.  --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, so how's the History Template issue going? 

message: Article is unprotected.  Please try to be on your best behavior.  --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some style adjustments. Feel free to comment on it. (AQu01rius • Talk) 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone is making construtive edits. Nothing controversial is going on. This is very pleasing to see :) ! (AQu01rius • Talk) 05:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Would anyone object if I separate most of the information out from the "Modern politics" section into a separate page named "Goguryeo controversies", or something like that? Then I can merge some of the information from the Northeast Project page. (AQu01rius • Talk) 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  Although you should at least offer a link to the new page in the current article. WangKon936 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine, since we don't need all that clutter in the Goguryeo article. Good friend100 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating out "modern politics" 

message: I wouldn't agree that Goguryeo was *always* the most powerful of the three kingdoms. At times, it faced devastating defeats to other kingdoms, notably Baekje, which went as far as killing Gogugwon of Goguryeo and taking Pyongyang. So I believe the words "at times the most powerful of the three" is more accurate. Cydevil38 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to overall strength and power. Good friend100 14:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I'm talking about. You should know that Baekje had most of the fertile agricultural plains, and by the end of the Three Kingdoms era, Baekje was the most populous of the three despite its limited territory. Cydevil38 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cydevil, that's debatable.  Silla, in the late 6th century, had the Han River valley, another grain basket of the Korean peninsula.  Furthermore, the quote on Koguryo's population came at her fall, when she had gone through years of continuous and exhaustive wars.  In my opinion, the population of Koguryo before the invasions of Tang may have been very well higher then 690,000.  Lastly, Koguryo did something that no other Korean kingdom ever did.  it actively sought to ally with Northern tribes such as the Blackwater Malgal tribe.  Even if Koguryo's population may have been lower then the other Korean kingdoms, they had consistant access to Malgal warriors.  The Samguk Sagi is rife with references to how Koguryo soliders, in concert with Malgal tribesman, laid siege to Baekje and Silla fortifications.  WangKon936 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day, I don't think it's appropriate to say that Koguryo was "the most powerful" of the three kingdoms.  I'd say at times they were, but obviously sometimes they were not.  WangKon936 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "most powerful"? 

message: Current article about GoGuoryeo is missing the most important element, which is GoGooryo main tribe Maek. So whatever discussion is not really going in right direction. 
GoGooryo's ruling tribe is Maek and that's where the GoGooryo's identiy in ancient time exists. I am new in editing, I suggest someone to open discussion on Maek tribe.--Dongsoola 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can discuss the Yemaek tribe in this article, but I think we should only in passing.  Talking about the individual constituents of Koguryo's population is getting a bit too granular for a wikipedia article.  Keep in mind we are not writing an academic paper.  WangKon936 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maek tribe is not just individual constituent, but probably most important characteristic of this ancient Kingdom.
Maek issue will never be settled in Korea and Japan, so I am bringing this up.
Chinese and Manchurian will never claim Koguryo as one of their kingdom if they know the real issue of Koguryo.
Maek issue is very very important to define racial characteristic of Korean, and understanding the how Japan came to its existence.
I strongly believe that Maek is Ainu descendant tribe.
Maek is some kind of bear, and there is a lot of things that can relate Maek tribe with Emishi of Japan.
There are lots of evidences.
First, Emish were horse riders. u can find out about Emish in http://emishi-ezo.net/.   They used horse riding tactics.
Hokkato horse(Washu) is the same horse that is in GoGooryo Sooryupdo painting.
Emishi was called MoIn(毛人) by yamato in Japan, there is a theory in Korea that horse rider with last name Mo is the ancester of Korean last name Kim.
I believe that Emish's armour is the usuall Koguryo soldier armour.
and that armour type is the root of Korean armour till Chosen dynasty.
Also I believe that Korean tradition of not cutting hair is descended from Ainu tradition of not cutting hair.
I belive Puyo is actually Ainu word of the holly window in East direction.
I am posting this, so that more people are aware of what I found out and bring advance in finding the true root of Korean. --Dongsoola 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goguryeo and the Maek tribe 

message: This is a controversial claim made by the People's Republic of China and is covered in Goguryeo controversies. Cydevil38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that. I made some edits on that section and changed the section name too. Good friend100 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki pokemon, you failed to address my question stated at a section above. Is this account one of multiple accounts that you have or do you own only one account? I checked your edit history & I don't think that you are a new user. (Wikimachine 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to let your curiosity keeps bugging you. :)   Wiki pokemon 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, using multiple accounts is legit as long as you don't use it to manipulate opinion in discussions... that also means not using multiple accounts (also = sock puppets) to give the illusion that the majority thinks certain way is NPOV. If you own more than one account that is participating in this discussion, then it is certainly legit for me to report you for WP:SOCK. There is no room for you to play around with curiosity. (Wikimachine 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I am curious about you too. How many sock puppets have you caught so far? I mean the real thing, not somebody you suspected and later turned out to be false accussation.Wiki Pokemon 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A section on Goguryeo's diplomacy and politics sounds like a good idea. And Wei Chuncheng certainly shouldn't be a source. Cydevil38 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to achieve neutrality, please go to Talk:Goguryeo#Candidates_of_biased_non-NPOV_references to filter out all disqualified junk reference links.  Thank you for trying to avoid selective blindness.--Jiejunkong 11:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political connections between Goguryeo and "Central Plains dynasties" 

message: In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the end part reads:
"...although there is archaeological evidence that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon." 
The emphasis above is mine. Please provide a source for this assertion. Mumun 無文 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as an acceptable source, the sentence needs brief text that indicate the evidence that is being invoked. For example, the passage could be handled this way: "...although there is archaeological evidence 'such as X, Y, and Z'  that suggests Goguryeo culture was in existence since the 2nd century BCE around the fall of Gojoseon (SOURCE)." Mumun 無文 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What archaeological evidence is being invoked here? 

message: All are invited to the History of Manchuria template discussion page. There is a discussion on the appropriate use of "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". The outcome of the discussion will probably affect this page as well. Wiki pokemon 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't selectively apply NPOV sources to push for one POV while denying its application for the other. If the name of the template is changed to "Northeast China", either the wording in this article should change to "Korean kingdom", or the template should simply be discarded from this article. Cydevil38 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not selective. I have not make any other edit about anything else except this. And so far I have not deny or even argue against anybody using NPOV sources to support their edits, because frankly I believe this is how Wikipedia should work. In addition this is not about POV. This is really simple, it is just about appropriateness and accuracy of a term. And you do agree that my sources are NPOV. Lastly I believe the consistency of the article will not be compromised, on the contrary it will improve dramatically by using "Northeast China".Wiki Pokemon 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you should stand by your principle of making edit based on NPOV sources. You yourself has been argueing fervently that this should be the way to do edit. And I have done exactly what you so highly advocated as the ultimate ethical standard of editing. Its hypocracy on your part to now suggest that it is wrong to do this just because it will lead to something which you did not want to see. Where have your ethical standard go? And who are you kidding, just because you don't like to use "Northeast China" the template would have to be discarded? Instead of complaining, you can do better by going to  and state your position explicitly and provide materials to support your position.Wiki Pokemon 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to discussion 

message: Before you delete disputation tags, you need to wait for consensus.  And also I added my reasons in this talk page.  My reasons are based on the history records I have read for years.  These history records were recorded by Jurchen people like Wanyan Xu in 12th century.  It has nothing to do with your temper or "the sickness" you mentioned.  You need to calm down and discuss the issue before doing blanking.  Thank you. --Jiejunkong 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you are in a position to forceibly warn anybody here.  I think you need to calm down also.  WangKon936 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't even know how to put a proper warning on somebody's talk page. Good friend100 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply I don't want to touch your talk pages.  I have seen that some users doing writing on this page are using their talk pages to do rendezvous.  I don't think it is wise for me to get involved.--Jiejunkong 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to [[User:Good friend100]] 

message: 1. Based on researched conducted by people w/ conflict of interest
2. Entirely original research based on non-English primary sources (which effectively blocking everyone else from checking the facts)
3. Oh come one. You can't list Baidu Baike as a source like you can't list Wikipedia as a source (source Wikipedia on any research paper, you WILL get a fail-grade, at least in Columbia.) 66.108.252.91 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think the titles of the two sections "Goguryeo-China wars" and "Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" are against NPOV. Keeping such titles will attract more editing wars rather than solving the problem.  Second, I think those websites like Baidu Baike and Korean Encyclopedia written in modern times should be banned as verifiable sources due to obvious Rashomon reasons.  Third, I have the text source of the official "Twenty-Four Histories" and I can provide the wikisource links in a few days.  In Mohe-Jurchen time, Han Chinese treated the nowdays Northeast China as foreign lands, so the official records written by Han Chinese are objective due to indifference.--Jiejunkong 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Political Connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties"???

message: First, without adding canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly (I think this is due to "WP:Unreferenced source"); Second, after I added canonical history records as references, I find you delete my editings instantly.  Can we talk about how can we add verifiable history records into the article?  My standing point is that, in the “Twenty-Four Histories” written at the moment of historical events (these history records were written in the next dynasty based on all collected books from the dynasty being described):
#The Han Chinese people's records about Goguryeo and Balhae are credible and verifiable because of indifference （at that time the modern Northeast China was none of Han Chinese people's business);
#And the Mohe-Jurchen people records about Goguryeo and Balhae are credible and verifiable because they didn't want to lie about their own ancestors and also had no intention "to help" the modern Chinese government.
I hope your deletions of my editings have good reasons, not due to your temper or lack of the ability to find out verifiable history records.--Jiejunkong 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Cydevil38: dilemma in reference adding and blanking 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo for more details.
:For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May we know the reason as to why this so-called mediation has been placed 'on hold'? Are we permitted to know? The link provided to the private Wiki does not open for all editors.Mumun 無文 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation is private, so no, sorry. The reason for it being placed 'on hold' is only relevant to the parties, and that is why the confidentiality of the MedComWiki has been used. If you are involved in this dispute, and feel you should be a 'party' to the Mediation, please [ add yourself to the list of participants], [ agree to mediation], and contact Armed Blowfish to arrange an account on the private Wiki. Armed Blowfish (mail) and Daniel, 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh...  and here I would have thought this was relevant to everyone with an interest in the article.  -- Visviva 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation placed 'on hold' 

message: As there may be some confusion, based on recent posts on various pages:
The Mediation Committee cannot encourage or discourage requests for help in other places.  Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing a Request for Arbitration.  Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of a Request for Checkuser.  Mediators neither encourage or discourage the filing of Three revert rule violation reports, or going to other Administrator's noticeboards.  Mediators are not security guards.  Mediators cannot even express an opinion on whether or not you should protect the pages, as that seems to be a point of disagreement, although if it were not a point of disagreement it might be appropriate for us to do so.  We certainly can't express an opinion about what version an article should be protected in.
There are some things you should know, however.
* It is not permitted to use the mediation as evidence against other participants of the mediation.  The Mediation Committee reserves the right to censor such evidence.  This is done to protect the confidentiality and safety of the mediation.
* Blocking or banning of participants could potentially result in the suspension or cancellation of the mediation.
* Remember that mediation is not a case building exercise for such reports.
What the mediators are here to do is help you all reach a consensus on article content which will make everyone happy.
If anyone involved in the mediation has questions concerning the role of the mediators, please ask them on the mediation page on the MedComWiki.  
* For the Mediation Committee KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on mediation