Talk:Military history of Goguryeo/Archive 1

message: Silla and Tang Dynasty were on the same side.  Silla is arguably more connected to modern Korea than Goguryeo.   Jurchens were from Goguryeo, but had weaker connection with Silla.--Jiejunkong 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply Just figured out some guy created "Goguryeo-China wars" item, but didn't change the corresponding talk page.  A quite bad decision.--Jiejunkong 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments I think the action to create a Goguryeo-China Wars from Goguryeo-Sui Wars, while not moving the talk page and obfuscating this talk page we are writing on here, is not only malicious, but also lazy.  Something is very wrong here.--Jiejunkong 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Jiejunkong, this move is malicious and biased.  A term such as "Goguryeo-China Wars" imply immediately that Goguryeo is not of China, which is far from the consensus. --Naus 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goguryeo-China war" is imprecise, where is Silla? 

message: The name of article Goguryeo-China wars implyed that Goguryeo is not of China,which was controversial.The Goguryeo is seen by many as chinese kindom,how can a chinese kindom to be equal with China?The title may further give others impression Goguryeo isn't of China.--Ksyrie 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Goguryeo is to be historically viewed as "Chinese" or not -- and I'd doubt that it should -- it clearly would not have been viewed as Chinese at that time.  The situation would be analogous to, I think, Tuyuhun; its descendants are now clearly part of the Chinese population, and it's clearly part of Chinese history, but it was not viewed as Chinese at that time.  --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be renamed

message: According to some neutral users who participated in the first deletion of "Goguryeo-China Wars" discussion,  is more proper.--03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to ask why this not taking place at Goguryeo-China Wars. Good friend100 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of the controversial article "Goguryeo-China Wars" 

message: For those people who support the name "Goguryeo-China wars", by your exact logic the article "Goguryeo-Korea wars" should be created.  Goguryeo-Silla war obviously belongs to the proposed article.  Goguryeo-Baekje war, for example, the war fought by King Geunchogo against Goguryeo, obviously also belongs to the proposed article.  Note that this is based exactly on the same logic of yours.--Jiejunkong 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't what your talking about. Goguryeo fought Baekje in a major war? Good friend100 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't you spend some time to read some wiki articles in my message, for example, King Geunchogo? "In 369, Baekje was invaded by Goguryeo, but counterattacked in force (Battle of Chiyang). In the year 371, the Baekje army of 30,000, led by Crown Prince Geungusu, took the fortress of Pyongyang and killed Gogugwon of Goguryeo." If the king of Goguryeo is killed, then why you say this is not a major war, or you didn't know this before you spoke?--Jiejunkong 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. There is a general consensus among neutral scholars(NPOV) that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Korea", while Goguryeo's wars with "China" is often covered as a subject important to Goguryeo's history as well as that of Korea in general. Cydevil38 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The general consensus you mentioned is also applied to Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group.  There is a general consensus among neutral scholars(NPOV) that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group".  Whether Goguryeo is exclusively of Korean history is being disputed in the meditation on the article Goguryeo.  And the general consensus is that the exclusiveness isn't true.  Due to the disputation and meditation, you should not make the assumption that Goguryeo is purely Korean here.  If Goguryeo-China wars is a valid title, then Goguryeo-Korea wars is also valid.--Jiejunkong 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please prove that consensus. That Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group", or any "Chinese ethnic minority group" for that matter. Cydevil38 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the talk page of Goguryeo.  Also because you mentioned the word "consensus" at first, I think you should at first prove the non-existing consensus that Goguryeo is exclusively Korean. --Jiejunkong 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is fine with me to say that Korea is of Goguryeo inheritance, or anything equivalent.  These sources never said Goguryeo is exclusively Korean, and some sources you listed here are non-professional ones that better be replaced by authoritative and professional ones.  If you cannot deny (1) the significant Mohe presence in Northern Goguryeo and Balhae, (2) the fact Balhae is a descendant of Goguryeo, and (3) the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line, then you have no right to deny the consensus.--Jiejunkong 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiejunkong, first, Mohe presense in Goguryeo was not that significant. They were an ethnic minority in Goguryeo, like the ethnic-Koreans in China today or Chinese Americans in the United States. True, they were an ethnic minority in the kingdom nonetheless, and the Mohe and their descendents, the Jurchens and Manchus, continued to migrate to Korea and play some role in the flow of Korean history as ethnic minorities. For this reason, many Koreans feel a special kinship to the Manchus, though such a feeling many not necessarily be reciprocated. Anyways, it's rather unfeasible to describe Mohe of the times as "Chinese" or "Chinese ethnic minority group", and use the fact that there was an ethnic minority of Mohe in Goguryeo as a basis to claim that Goguryeo was "Chinese" or even "Manchurian"(though, in a geographic sense, Goguryeo can partially be considered Manchurian). Even today, the Manchus are culturally distinct from the Han Chinese, though many of them are getting assimilated, losing their cultural identity as a Manchu. No doubt, the majority of Manchus today are Chinese, but to characterize their past as "Chinese" would be to undermine their unique historical and cultural heritage. If China really wants to become a "multi-ethnic state" that can be appreciated by others, it really needs to appreciate the unique history and culture of those ethnicities, rather than outright saying they're "Chinese" in all aspects, including their history. Cydevil38 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you are talking about the prototypes like Mohe, Jurchen were not Chinese at that time.  And I have to tell you that prototypes like Silla, Baekje were also not Korean at that time.  Please put the correct word "inheritance" in the sentences, as I did.  Without the word, your sentences and rebuttals do not make much sense.  Again, don't proclaim dubious messages such as 'this one is Korean', 'that one is Chinese', because the term "Korea" and "China" didn't exist at the time discussed (before year 1000).  All you can talk about is the inheritance line.--Jiejunkong 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also you should stop commenting on Manchu's status amongst Chinese.  User:Naus said he is partially Manchu and fully Chinese, and I know lots of Manchu friends who take the same stand.  There is no ethnic issue between Manchu and other Chinese ethnic groups.  You need to back off on this point.--Jiejunkong 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modern concepts of nation, such as "Korea" or "China", is often used in historical interpretations of cultural continuities to help understanding of readers. While Goguryeo was strongly embedded into the "Korean" cultural continuity of the time, as well as historiography of today, the Mohe and Jurchen were not. These people, at the time, were very different from the Chinese, so defining them as "Chinese" would be undermining their unique past and culture. I don't see anything wrong with claiming that Manchus in China today are "Chinese" or that entities strongly embedded into the Chinese cultural continuity, such as Han Dynasty, are "Chinese", but to project "Chinese-ness" to the ancient past on very different and unique ethnicities(or nationalities), such as Manchus, Koreans and Mongolians, finds little acceptance outside of China, and at least for Koreans and Mongolians, Chinese claims on their unique past and culture is very infuriating and offensive.  Cydevil38 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who defines Mohe-Jurchen as "Chinese"? Not me.  Where is the correct word "inheritance" in your message? I see none.  Who messed up with the timeline?  Not me.  As to Mongolian issues, I am on the side of excluding Mongolian history from Chinese history before year 1644 (My personal opinion is that the Mongolian's convergence into Chinese history started from Manchu's Qing Dynasty due to Manchu-Mongolian alliance after Ligdan Khan's death, not from Han Chinese), so stop drawing this controversial issue into this discussion because it is irrelevant.--Jiejunkong 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't jump to conclusions please.  The Northern Goguryeo was of significant Mohe presence, which is also consistent with Balhae's location and population constituent.  If you want to define Silla and Baekje as Korean, fine with me but there are some still factual errors because you omitted the correct word "inheritance" (The word Korea didn't exist at Silla time, it's delayed to Goryeo time); If you want to define Mohe people as Korean, fine with me but you also need to say the word "inheritance", and more importantly, proclaim that in your definition Chinese and Korean are not mutually exclusive.--Jiejunkong 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiejunkong, Mohe's contemporary presense, along with other Tungusic tribes, from Goguryeo's geographic standpoint was rather to the east, not the north. As far as I know, they were primarily distributed along the east of Northeast Asia, in eastern Manchuria, Russian Far East, and northeastern Korea. Proto-Koreans were primarily distributed along the northwestern coasts of the Korean peninsula and southwestern Manchuria, with continuous migrations towards the south eventually dominating the entire Korean peninsula. And I definitely don't think the Mohes were "Korean" - proto-Koreans and proto-Manchus were culturally distinct far before the founding of Goguryeo. Cydevil38 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mohe scattered mostly around the area of Changbai Mountains and northward, which is geographically Northern Goguryeo (you call it Northeastern is also correct, but what you said "not the north" is wrong.  Northeast is also north, isn't it? Or do we have some language problem here?).  What you said here may help you to classify Goguryeo as "Korean", but also force you to classify Balhae as non-Korean because Mohe is not a minority in Balhae.  I am not sure where this discussion goes if this kind of "classification" goes on.  My remark is that we have to be careful about the dubious statements "Historical entity A is Korean" "Historical entity B is Chinese", because what you can figure out is the inheritance line, not this kind of dubious conclusions thrown upon other users' face.--Jiejunkong 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference in Balhae however, is that Koreans, even though an ethnic minority in the kingdom, took a much more prominent role in the kingdom than did Manchus in Goguryeo. Nonetheless, I believe Balhae was dominantly Manchurian, and is a turning point in the history of geographic Manchuria, where its main ethnic group shifted from Koreans to various Mongolic and Tungusic semi-sedentary peoples such as Khitans and Jurchens. Cydevil38 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said "Koreans, even though an ethnic minority in the (Balhae) kingdom, took a much more prominent role in the kingdom than did Manchus in Goguryeo."  It is dubious to call Sumo Mohe as Manchus or Manchurian, which is historically wrong.  Instead, a better expression is Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line.  Similarly, the concept of Korea didn't exist until Goryeo time.  When there are better options available, it is a poor choice to state historical facts in this dubious way.--Jiejunkong 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison: Goguryeo-Korea war 

message: The fact that Goguryeo fought Tang and Sui is not "dubious". It does not need a reference. Obvious facts do not need any sources. Don't you agree that it is a fact that Goguryeo fought Chinese dynasties?
As long as the title stays at "Goguryeo-China wars", leave the templates and intro paragraphs alone in terms of naming.
Stop adding "dubious" tags on sentences you don't like. There are not neccessary. One tag at the top of the article is sufficient. More tags simply disrupt the article and make it look messy. Good friend100 01:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. But getting rid of this article might be another good idea. (Wikimachine 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasons to go back to the very original state of article before disputing  

message: We talked too much on whether Goguryeo is or not Chinese.It doesnn't help solve the problem.Wikipedia is a place to sum up all the references from all over the world,following the contradictory sources, we have to continue wrangling without any foreseable fruits until the breaking ground new academic findings.So I propose we move on.Goguryeo controversies is already setup,it is the best place to present different views.And For each Goguryeo-relating article,we place  Goguryeo controversies at the bottom to make a mark and remind it is a controvercial issue.With this end in view,we can almost reach somehow agreement(dubious) to all the articles except the one of Goguryeo controversies.I regard it as a suboptimum solution.--Ksyrie 03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's move on

message: All I can say is "WOW". Some just have this Korea phobia or something. I'll get an admin & set this up straight. (Wikimachine 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article back. For now. Be advised however that this sounds like "wrong version!" syndrome to me. To me I see a consensus here. But you'll have 5 days to persuade the next admin that handles this otherwise. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Move

message: I'll make it clear as to why the article should not be moved.
Firstly, the editors who wish to move this article have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia policies. See WP:COI. I recently requested a report on the editors and the article on violation of COI, however the article got moved back. The COI is clear, as is the POV-based interest in which several users have. Having your own biased viewpoint that Goguryeo could be Chinese therefore this title is your own POV because there is already enough controversy on the issue and Goguryeo controversies and Template:History of Manchuria were made to keep a NPOV here. I'm sure most readers know of the dispute between Korea and China. 
:: Please read WP:COI carefully before you quote it. WP:COI enumerates 1.Financial, 2.Legal antagonists, 3.Self-promotion, 4.Autobiography, 5.Close relationships, 6.Campaigning, 7.Citing oneself, 8.Promotional article production on behalf of clients.  None of these cases applies to an ordinary wikiuser.  For example, you cannot challenge other wikiusers by saying they have financial (or other) motives to write wiki articles unless you have solid physical proofs.  Otherwise nobody is qualified to write wiki articles.  In addition, I remember you always quote WP:3RR, but failed to understand the meaning of WP:3RR and got blocked. This reduces your credibility of quoting wikipolicies.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "chapters" are further elaborations for specific cases. This in the intro summarizes it: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups". (Wikimachine 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your point here? You want to block American origin users to edit America-related articles, to block Asia origin wikiusers to edit Asia-related articles? Show your point here and we can further discuss.--Jiejunkong 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is significant difference b/w Americans editing America-related articles, and American internet business boomers expanding articles related to their websites & businesses. (Wikimachine 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still making no sense here.  Show your point about WP:COI and we can further discuss.  For the COI sentence you quoted, are you saying that someone's editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups?  That is quite a charge.  If you blame yourself with this, I would say nothing.  But if you blame other users with this charge, I would say you must acquire solid proofs to make your point. Otherwise, if the rule WP:COI is abused---note that this rule applies to everybody including you---it is likely nobody can edit this wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The title is logically inconsistent. I asked the question why Silla is excluded in the wars.  As the alliance led by Silla destroyed Goguryeo and ended all Goguryeo related wars, Silla can't be excluded. Then I was told that Silla is included in the Goguryeo-Silla-Tang war section.  Then I asked the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because of this funny title?" Then the funny thing is that you disappeared, and now you appear again, without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not knowledgeable about Goguryeo and Silla, but I thought that Silla was an infrequent player in the war (participated in only 1 war?), and this article describes many wars b/w Goguryeo and China. (Wikimachine 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't play word games.  The majority of the world doesn't say "Goguryeo is Korean".  Instead, look at the expressions, what they say is that "Goguryeo is an ancestral kingdom of Unified Silla, Goryeo, Joseon and Korea".  This doesn't mean they deny the fact that "Goguryeo is also an ancestral kingdom of Mohe's Balhae, Jurchen's Jin and Manchu's Qing".  The inheritance is not meant to be exclusive.  If you think historical facts are offensive to you, it is your problem, not the wikipedia's problem.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You began the play, Jiejunkong. That Goguryeo fought China and Goguryeo is not Chinese aren't mutually exclusive either. The title only implies "Goguryeo fight China". It doesn't say "Korean Kingdom Goguryeo-China Wars". This is exactly why WP:COI applies because you have already taken a wrong framework to base your viewpoint. You created your own enemy & you're fighting your own war. I almost never edited on this article, nor am I strongly interested or feel passionate about this. However, I'm angry about these nationalist POV's, NPOV sweating, and POV bullies. (Wikimachine 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, your history knowledge about China is very limited (I don't know your history knowledge about Korea, so no comment).  You played the game on the word "China". Fine. Without proper historical concept, you make mistakes.  For example, Murong Xianbei's Former Yan in this article is considered as part of "5 Hu" (i.e., 5 foreign tribes) in Twenty-four Histories. You call Former Yan as China, well, a casual & anachronistic usage of the term China and incorrect usage of the term Chinese.  Second, I am not going to create an equally controversial article "Goguryeo-Korea wars", which unfortunately demonstrates the anachronistic nature of putting one's ancestor and one's grand grand sons together.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that China had many different tribes and countries & I'm not blind in Chinese history. Just read what I wrote above on WP:NPOV#Article naming. (Wikimachine 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not blind in Chinese history, but this has no conflict with the statement that your history knowledge about China is very limited.  Based on your logic, you forgot to put Later Yan into the so-called Goguryeo-China wars; you forgot to mention that Northern Yan was arguably founded by a Goguryeo royal family member; you forgot to put Northern Wei into the so-called G-C war, etc.  I don't want to write these events because I don't agree to the current title and I don't think you can call Later Yan, Northern Yan, Northern Wei as "China".  But you are different---you advocate for the title, and you are responsible to make it consistent.  Also I didn't mention WP:NPOV for the title moving, you mentioned it again and again.  I called the title "inconsistent", "funny", "should go to Uncyclopedia", because it was named in an amateurish way to confuse first-time readers.  Wikipedia should avoid such Uncyclopedia names.--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, this is not the right place for you to prove "Goguryeo is only Korean".  I think you can never prove that, here or somewhere else in the wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what's your reason for making the move? Where in the title does "Goguryeo is only Korean" come up? (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, look at User:Good friend100's words.  It is right on top of your question.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me repeat again.  The title is logically inconsistent. I asked the question why Silla is excluded in the wars.  As the alliance led by Silla destroyed Goguryeo and ended all Goguryeo related wars, Silla can't be excluded.  Then I was told that Silla is included in the Goguryeo-Silla-Tang war section.  Then I asked the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because of this funny title?" Then the funny thing is that you disappeared, and now you appear again, without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We will include Silla if that is the logical solution. Remember, 2 wrongs don't make a right. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  That's the reason why Goguryeo-Korea wars is not created, and the title of this article should be changed.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Without Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and WP:NPOV statements, anything can be challenged in the wikipedia. Please follow the rules.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. You must present your own set of verifiable materials before putting fact tags everywhere. According to your interpretation, about 80~90% of all English Wikipedia articles should be deleted b/c they don't present references. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, maybe you can answer the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?"--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: emmm,I want to propose one different policy,the WP:NPOV,which required not only the content of articles should be neutral but also the title of the article.For the moment,the current title is not neutral.WP:COI is a behavioral guidelines but not a formal policy. --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is current title not neutral? This only strenghtens Good friend100's WP:COI accusation. The title doesn't imply anything about Goguryeo being Korean only. Also, you NPOV lovers, see "Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors." in WP:NPOV#Article_naming. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm really surprised that a person who has no reliable source can write such a long lecture.  Prove your unreliable conclusions, or your personal opinions are useless here.  For example, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that Manchuria is considered as an offensive term by modern Chinese. And wikipolicies Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided.--Jiejunkong 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aliens can only surprise humans. Your responses surprise me too b/c now you're going off the subject, and this proves that you're interested not in the title but in your Chinese nationalist Goguryeo-Manchuria-Korea-ethnicity "dispute". WP:COI. (Wikimachine 03:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answer the question: "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" Why do you avoid this question about the title being discussed? It is you who are going off the subject, as my question is right on the target---the inconsistent title. --Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why Silla is excluded in the wars? Read Goguryeo-Tang Wars for that. Silla is included in the article, only that it fought Goguryeo as an ally of the Tang dynasty. Good friend100 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, could you please answer the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" The funny thing is that you appear and re-appear constantly without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  What you said is invalid.  If your invalid conclusion is otherwise valid, you are disqualified to edit articles like Seoul because, according to your own logic, you are selling something or emphasizing modern Korean.  To User:Good friend100, filing baseless charges hurts yourself.  If a wikiuser write articles with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV expression, then the user is a qualified editor and his/her ethnic origin doesn't matter.  You repetitively twist wikipolicies by quoting ethnic origins.  I have to point out that this tendency of interpreting wikipolicies in an ethnic framework matches a ultranationalistic Nazi mindset.--Jiejunkong 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Koreans were the Jews, never the Japanese Nazis. In its proclaimed 5,000 years of history (3,000 years of recorded history & 30,000 years of human habitation), Koreans have never participated in Nazi ultranationalistic crimes (except something like that in Korean War but that was US policy too). On the other hand, communist China has played as an authoritarian state.  Again, NPOV lovers, In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe. in Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. When Encarta says yes, yes. No, no. (Wikimachine 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that you respect Goguryeo very much.  But why are you against a neutral title like "Military history of Goguryeo"?  Goguryeo fought a number of China polities, Baekji, Silla and Yamato Japan. It would be an original research to rank the significance of these battles, and no original research is allowed in wikipedia. If you persist, equally controversial articles like Goguryeo-Korea wars and Goguryeo-Japan wars have to be created.  From the titles you can tell something is wrong.  I don't comment on the Jews part and communist part because they are irrelevant to the argument here.--Jiejunkong 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't respect anything except common sense pedestrianism. I'm against it b/c this article is not about military history of Goguryeo. The fact is, there are infinite number of "neutral" titles for this article (or any other article). The fact that it's neutral is not the singular reason to go for it. Ok. You can create Goguryeo-Japan wars if you want. But you cannot use article name move to test neutrality per WP:NPOV#Article_naming. Also, something is definitely wrong w/ Goguryeo-Korea Wars because the general definition of Korea includes Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo. Also, Korea is not a country. It's a concept. There was never a country called Korea on the peninsula. There was Goryeo, but Goguryeo-Goryeo War never happened. You can try writing it though. (see above) It would be more WP:OR or whatever to do your exclusively Korean or Chinese analysis... Wikipedia article names are based on commonality & the naming policy is derived from the NPOV policy. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. What you are doing is prescribing - and therefore you begin your reasoning within the wrong framework - that is you make a POV by giving extra weight/favor to an argument more than it deserves/the accepted amount. (Wikimachine 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe?  What exactly does this sentence mean?  Why is other users' action a prescribing, but yours is describing? Where does it appear in wikipolicies? Why are you throwing these philosophical challenges against other users? Please present original texts of wikipolicies to support your move.  This kind of arguments on personal philosophy will lead this discussion to nowhere.  Stick to wikipolicies (and original texts of wikipolicies) please.--Jiejunkong 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. In case you're disputing that Goguryeo is Korean (and exclusively Korean, too), only what the rest of the world thinks Goguryeo is what Wikipedia should include. And that is describing. This is the root of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If Encarta says Goguryeo is Korean, it's Korean, and you can't use naming to contest that (which is also against NPOV policy). (Wikimachine 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The logical connection between original wikipolicy texts and your conclusions is missing.  This happens many times in your writings (e.g., the failed WP:COI move mentioned at the beginning of this section).  Therefore, if there is no original wikipolicy text in your writings, then you are wasting wikiuser's time to babble the WPs like NPOV.  You need to build your arguments on some sound basis most wikipedians accept (e.g., wikipolicies, in particular original wikipolicy texts rather than the enchanting names of those wikipolicies), not personal conclusions which are nothing but failed superstructures.--Jiejunkong 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with WP:COI, and I didn't read everything there, but I could be a professor at NPOV & article naming b/c I had to deal with them a lot. "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Read that. (Wikimachine 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons as to why this article should not be moved 

message: #Support，good title，in uniformity with most of ancient countries.--Ksyrie 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military history of Goguryeo

message: #Support— I support "Military history of Goguryeo" as 1st choice, "War history of Goguryeo" as 2nd choice.  Goguryeo-China Wars is obviously a misnomer and needs to be changed.--Endroit 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War history of Goguryeo

message: #Support: Again another classic example of sweating, where CPOV nationalists are making a strategic move to make the article larger & minimize some national loss. The article was originally about the Goguryeo-Sui Wars, and we're going to keep it there. If you want another article about the Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, create a new article. If you want to write about the military history of Goguryeo, write about that. But, don't make an article about a single war into a military history of an entire and separate country? Do you seriously think that Goguryeo's military history is defined solely by its wars with China? I suspect "ultranationalists" from CPOV to be the same guys using sock puppets. Lol, Endroit. What's up again? Are you a Chinese American? (Wikimachine 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, NPOV policy states that you cannot test neutrality through article naming. (Wikimachine 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who is quoting NPOV for article title naming? (The above NPOV is only for answering User:Cydevil38's false interpretation of NPOV) Put aside your NPOV sweating and answer the question: "does this title classify Silla as part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" Note that this valid question is right on the target---the inconsistent title (which should go to Uncyclopedia).--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV sweating is a phrase that I made up to describe a situation where people concede everything on basis of NPOV. And no, the title doesn't classify Silla as part of China simply b/c it's put under the title. And I see no point to that question. But if you're going to use that same rhetorical reasoning to push that Goguryeo is not exclusively Korean & also part of China, that's classified as neutrality naming test which goes under WP:NPOV#Article naming. If you don't know, Wikipedia's naming convention is derived from the NPOV policy. (Wikimachine 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the current one

message: #Support This article offers no information that is not already covered in the "main" articles it links to.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Get rid of this article and put all the articles about Goguryeo-China wars into a category

message: Correction:  The WP:RM was formally initiated with the following comments by myself:
* "The current name "Goguryeo-China wars" does not accurately describe the participants of the war who were neither Chinese nor Goguryeo.  See Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars for discussions that lead to this vote."
Most significantly, Silla is neither Chinese nor Goguryeo.  Furthermore, the current contents now include Yamato (Japan), which is neither Chinese nor Goguryeo.--Endroit 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you start the discussion or did somebody else? (Wikimachine 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on this subject by any means, and barely have even a basic undertsanding of it. But, I do know that I've read numerous news articles on this being a contentious issue between Koreans (both North and South), and Chinese, with both sides laying claim to the heritage of Goguryeo. As I remember though, the Koreans had a much more beleivable claim to the Goguryeo heritage than the Chinese do, and one of the articles stated that this all flared up again when China made a concerted effort to start re-writing history books claiming Chinese "ownership" (whatever would the most appropriate word) of the Goguryeo heritage. Good luck trying to sort it all out, as I see no possiblity unless one side or the other goes on extended vacation. wbfergus 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point is that you can't use article naming to test ethnic neutrality. That's why the article title move is illegitimate. (Wikimachine 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments