Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 3

message: Nlu, please delete the History of China template both on this article and the Balhae article. The template doesn't even include Goguryeo or Balhae. Good friend100 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Nlu, if you're going to be neutral, please return the article to the version prior to the POV edits, the one that accurately reflects the references linked above (i.e., without Chinese name table, history template, and category). Etimesoy 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Both articles should retain the Chinese history template, and in the case of Bohai, there should DEFINITELY be a History of China template. Bohai being a Northeast Chinese Tungusic (Mohe) kingdom are related to the Northeast Chinese Heishui Mohe tribe, whose descendants (The NuZhen and ManZu) in turn established the Jin and Qing Dynasties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nlu, please delete the History of China template, it is not relevent in the article. Good friend100 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nlu 

message: Please explain your deletions.  Those arguements exist and are worth mentioning unless you're denying the existence of these arguements.melonbarmonster 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like page needs to be locked, because of all the Chinese vandalism under new accounts. CronusXT 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there is no such thing as "ethnic Chinese" as far as the modern construct of the term is concerned. Secondly, there is no proof as far as I know that most Gaogouli migrated into United Silla after its fall, nor are there any definitive data concerning the total population of Gaogouli. Any sources you can back this up with, feel free to re-add those points.Assault11 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assault11's Deletions 

message: This passage, used in Zizhi Tongjian (see :zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201) as well, is as below:
許敬宗等奏請復常，曰：「彗見東北，高麗將滅之兆也。」上曰：「朕之不德，謫見於天，豈可歸咎小夷！且高麗百姓，亦朕之百姓也。」
translated as:
Officer Xu said to the emperor:"The comet appeared in the north-east, it is the sign that Goguryeo will fall." Gaozong said,"It is the god blaming my misbehavior, how can we blame on the minor people. meanwhile, Goguryeo people is also my subject。" 
It proved that Tang refer Goguryeo as a rebelled state.--207.168.191.2 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR. (Wikimachine 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not OR, as it cites a reliable ancient source, but it doesn't prove the point proffered.  That Emperor Taizong considered Goguryeo people his subjects as well doesn't show that he believed that they were Chinese -- or that, even if he did, that that matters to us at all as to the Chinese character or lack thereof.  --Nlu (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR mandates users to use secondary and tertiary sources. Use of primary source lists under OR. (Wikimachine 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tang's Gaozong think Goguryeo people is also his subject

message: ***I do not know much about Goguryeo, that is why I want to read, but I found most of Chinese related updates is wiped off right after it is updated, that is why I feel no good, I have to dig into the history records. And the sideeffect is, it makes people believe all Korean are nationalists. like category:history of China, there is no reasone it is excluded, part of Goguryeo territory is still in China. but it is wiped off by wiki fighter like CronusXT, I understand them, but I have to say it is not Korean wiki. At least we should have a chance to know what Chinese say. like CronusXT, change Goguryeo -sill-Tang war into Silla Tang invasion, change Tang's general Xue rengui into Xue rengui, and all the words with Korean bias, this is so abonormal. --KoreaisGreatestCountry 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: stop the wipe off right away

message: Folks, calm down and take a time out.  This is not productive.  Based on past experience, I don't expect much productive discussion to come out of this, but at least give at least some respect to WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, OK?  Meanwhile, I am going to look at the history and I am ready to impose 3RR blocks this time to anyone who has violated it.  --Nlu (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And comment before I impose the blocks (which will be coming in a few minutes): these blocks in no way means that I disapprove of your edits, necessarily.  It's that this is clearly a edit war, not reversions of vandalism, and everyone who has violated 3RR sufficiently will be blocked this time, regardless of which "side" you are on.  WP:3RR exists for a reason; follow it.  --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon examination of the history,  and  drew 24-hour blocks.  As I protected the page, no one else will be blocked for 3RR, but please be aware that I, and other admins, are going to be quite willing to again impose 3RR blocks if edit warring resumes if/when the page is unprotected.  Right now, I'm not going to unprotect it for a while, until I'm convinced that people have sufficiently settled down.  --Nlu (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection on March 7 

message: I have filed a RfC on 's behavior.  Any interested parties who are interested in certifying/commenting the matter may do so.  --Nlu (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did he do? Good friend100 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think I have a fuller explanation of the reason in the RfC.  --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Korea history 

message: You know the Poland is a country of liguistic and cultural relation with the  Russia (they are all slav),and relation between Germany and Poland are much more distant.See here History of Poland (1795–1918),the german and russian want to share this poor country and they devided the country.Ok,that's all.The Poland were devided,russian are reasonable to ask the other parts of Poland? Non,it is out of reason.--Ksyrie 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Poland is an excellent example of how Goguryeo is as "Korean" as Poland is "Polish". You see, just like Poland, Goguryeo perished, divided between Silla and Balhae. Later, a rebellion took place in northern Silla/southern Barhae, in the former heartland of Goguryeo. These people named their state after Goguryeo, Goryeo, and eventually united the Korean people, establishing the Goryeo state. And to this day, people around the world call us the Goryeo people, the Koreans. In other words, we are called the "Goguryeo people" even to this day, just as Polish today are called Polish. Cydevil 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL,I said of russia,and you are lying,the Balhae didn't exist at the fall the Goguryeo,this coutry is devided by Silla and Tang,non of bussinese of Balhae.The russian and polish are close relatives,just like Silla and Goguryeo.The Poland was devided between germany and russia just like devided between Tang and Silla.How can silla claims the whole country?And I wonder how many descendants of Goguryeo living in the nowadays korea?Dear Sir or Madam,the majority of descendant of Goguryeo live in nowadays China not in Korea.You tried to seize what doesnt' belong to you.If all the descendants of Goguryeo live in nowadays Korea,the Goguryeo is of course Korean.But it is not the truth.--Ksyrie 11:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally absurd,follow your logic,the russia may say,because we(russia and poland) are close relatives,so we are of one country.and the history of Poland is of Russia.LOL.And the Japanese may say,because we(japanese and korean) are close realtives,so we are of one country,and the annex of Korea by Japan is completely accepptable.--Ksyrie 11:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie's arguments are full of obvious fallacies and I feel they are not worth my time. If anyone feels any of his arguments are substansive, please point them out. Cydevil 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And speaking of Japanese affiliations to Goguryeo language, it is contestable and not conclusive at all. Beckwith's work has been put to much criticism. Nonetheless, at least personally, I feel that Japanese have a much greater claim to Goguryeo than Chinese. Then of course, Koreans have a much greater claim to Goguryeo than Japanese, except particular Japanese who consider themselves as Goguryeo descendents. In fact, there is such a community in Japan who believe themselves to be descendents of Goguryeo. On the entrance of their Koma(Goryeo/Goguryeo) Shinto Shrine, the spiritual center of their community as well as the Zainichi Koreans, lies two Korean totem poles given as a gift from Zainichi Koreans, commemorating the 40th anniversary of Korea-Japan relations. And also, with regards to the Chinese claims to Goguryeo, to quote Koma Fumiyasu, the Koma Shrine's head priest, "I have visited Goguryeo remains in Jian, China, but I have never considered my ancestors to be Chinese. I am a descendent of the Korean people." Cydevil 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you had stated the japanese could claim the Goguryeo,and Goguryeo is Korea,so the Japanese could claim Korea?your reasoning?--Ksyrie 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say they may claim Goguryeo as a part of their heritage as well as history, as long as they acknowledge its much greater heritage in Koreans. But I doubt they'd be interested. And even though most of the inhabitants of Manchuria(Chinese Dongbei) are recent Han Chinese immigrants from China mainland, I guess they may claim its heritage as well if they must insist. However, the problem is that the Chinese government is twisting Goguryeo into something that it is not, something not "Korean", for political purposes. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt your says about the chinese government,as far as I had read about the publication from the chinese government,they emphasized Goguryeo is of China,and they didn't make any attempts to not connect Goguryeo with Korean,If they really twisted the history,show me your proof.--Ksyrie 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore,there are also the descendants of Goguryeo in China,can these Goguryeo-chinese claim the Korea?--Ksyrie 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can "claim" Korean cultural heritage if they identify themselves as descendents of Goguryeo people. In fact, I've seen a few such Chinese individuals from Manchuria. Such people, as long as their claim of Goguryeo ancestry hold some credibility(such as not being a recent Han Chinese immigrant), are often welcomed by the Korean people. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a native of Dongbei (Northeast China), I must say, you Koreans are simply hilarious. You Koreans must feel a great degree of affinity towards us Northeast Chinese (or "Manchurians" as you would call it), while at the same time, come into our territory, steal our artifacts and hold up banners saying Chang Bai Shan is yours. Well, my fellow Korean "brother," we appreciate your display of "comaraderie", really, we do.Assault11 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the majority of descendants of goguryeo lived in the province like Hebei,and Shandong,they are not the nowadays chinese in Dongbei.the chinese family name Gao is just one source of goguryeo descendants.They live throughout China.--Ksyrie 14:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways, this is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. We already know what Goguryeo's NPOV article should be from the neutral sources of authority that have already been provided. Fringe theories belong elsewhere, especially if they're politically biased. Wikipedia is not a Chinese propaganda center. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You r right,this page is NPOV,the korean deem it as a chinese propaganda,while the chinese though it as a korean propaganda.--Ksyrie 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems, you don't know the meaning of neutral sources of authority. You see, sources like Encyclopedia Britannica aren't "Korean propaganda". Cydevil 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The mortal exemple to refute the claims from Korea

message: As noted on top of this talk page, a request for mediation as been filed.  All parties are encouraged to agree to the mediation (and if you are not a listed party but wants to be involved, please add yourself), as we have to resolve this dispute somehow.  If you do not agree, the mediation request will not be accepted, and we're back to square one.  Please consider it.  --Nlu (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly is the reason for mediation? Is it for the edit wars between the two parties because it certainly isn't an edit war when all the vandalisms are being done by pro-Chinese editors that write nasty stuff. Good friend100 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To reach a consensus on the neutral point of view. To do this, we must forget where we came from and read the events like an outsider. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: The Bohai state was a state in the rein of the Tang Dynasty. The Gao family in the state was the second largest one after the royal family. Many Gao family members were officials in the Tang government.
this is real direct Goguryeo king family "GAO", the guy name: Gao Zhen" on his tomb, it carved as:
“唐开府仪同三司工部尚书特进右金吾卫大将军安东都护郯国公上柱国高公墓志序”有云：　　大历八年夏五月廿有七日，右金吾卫大将军安东都护公毙于洛阳教业里之私第，春秋七十三。前年四月十二日，郯国夫人真定侯氏先毙于博陵郡，……礼也。公讳震，字某渤海人。祖藏，开府仪同三司工部尚书朝鲜郡王柳城郡开国公；祢讳连，云麾将军、右豹韬大将军安东都护。公迺扶余贵种，......见周绍良编《唐代墓志汇编》大历075条. It said he is from Balhae渤海. He become 安东都护, this is the lead officer in Balhae. this book published in 1930,by A Qing dynasty scholar. --Yeahsoo 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, WP:OR. You cannot use primary sources in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR doesn't say you can't use primary sources -- only that what they state should be restated in a fair manner.  --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only use primary sources when you're making a description, not an affirmative statement in a controversial topic. It is widely accepted that way in the realm of academia because primary sources are POV while 2ndary & tertiary sources have examined multiple primary sources & made more accurate conclusions. (Wikimachine 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Balhae "Gao" family , as well as descendant of Goguryeo King family

message: I'm probably one of the most extreme Korean Nationalists around here, yet the overall immaturity of the arguments here are laughable. Due to the fact that I'm sick, here's a summary of my thoughts:
1. What most non-Northeast Asians do not get is that over here, we equalize history with a right. In other words, if a certain piece of land was historically in a nation's forefather's hands, the nation believes it has a right to it.
2. What most people don't get about China's Northeast Project is that the project tries to view the history of Manchuria in a Sinocentristic way. No, I have no trouble with China viewing Manchuria as a part of its history, but the current problem is that the PC government is trying to assimulate the piece of land as an eternal Chinese history, when in fact the only time the central China Proper (not meant to mean that the Han Chinese are restricted to the south part) government got complete control over Manchuria was after 1945. Before that, Manchuria was ruled by the natives (mainly the Tungusic peoples), with short bursts of instable stabs into it by the Han Chinese. 
Sorry if this sounds crazy at places, I'm not in a good condition. I'll try to add the problems witht the Korean side on this later on. -General Tiger
::There a many Northeast Asians living in Nowadays China,at least the Manchu and some of the Han Chinese who trace their roots in Liaoning.Some ancient ethnics like Khitan,who had been the Northeast Asians Indigenous peoples as legitimate as the Buyeos.If you want to exclude the China's claims over the Northeast Asia,you had to negate all these men.--Ksyrie 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, this is insane.... 

message: First, I would like to admit some true points in Chinese's opinion.
1. The most part of Goguryeo is now included in PRC.
2. Goguryeo was defeated by allied forces of Tang and Shilla.
3. After that, many ancient countries which occupied Goguryeo's land, also occupied most part of modern China.
However, There are several pitfalls.
1. Now, many Koreans are living there, actually they are one of the biggest minorities in PRC. 
- Their language is not Mandarin or anything related to Chinese but Korean itself.
- They lived there before collapsing of the last Manchurian Empire - Qing.
:It's partially ture,you know before 19th,the nowadays Manchuria was almost no men's land,nearly all of Indigenous people(mostly Manchu) there were leaving their homeland to other parts of China.You know the reason,cuz,Manchu were relative smaller than Han Chinese,they need the Human resources.It is well recorded in Chinese history.And nowadays nearly all the Korean in Dongbei immigrated from Korea after the 1900.So how can you take the Korean in China as one pro?
2. What is the difference between people in mordern China(PRC) and the ancient people occupied current territories of PRC?
- There are many minorities in PRC. 
- Of course, they are the part of PRC and the people are also the part of PRC.
- However, they are different people in major chinese - different language, culture and history.
:I had stated before,nowadays Ethnic Koreans in China started to immegrate to China lately,they were somehow regarded as Illegal Immigrant,because the court of Qing forbidding the immigration to Manchuria.--Ksyrie 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone try to Shlim76 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth and Pitfalls in Chinese's Opinion 

message: Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL--Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not understand what you're trying to communicate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claims are really original research. Its not very easy to make an accurate estimate as to how many Goguryeo people assimiliated into where. Also, you must remember that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo and most Goguryeo people followed Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae. Good friend100 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the collapse of Balhae?Did the remnant of Balhae become the modern Korean?--Ksyrie 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, some did.  Also just as clearly, some were incorporated into Liao Dynasty.  --Nlu (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And your point is -- Native Americans are not Americans?  --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's not play with words here. "American" is generic. Simply, Anglo-Saxons can't say that b/c NA were heavily influenced by European agendas & cultures, & they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, they are Anglo-Saxons. You can clearly see how ridiculous such situation would look like. It seems same to me here. (Wikimachine 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point is....this has nothing to do with Goguryeo's past history. Of course, if Goguryeo's territory happens to be much of China's, then China has a right to endorse Goguryeo as a part of its 5,000 years history, but that most Goguryeo people assimilated into China, etc. doesn't justify anything here. (Wikimachine 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, Han or Chinese or what not. That Goguryeo's part of China now doesn't give China the right to attempt to make Goguryeo its past & not Korea's past. At the same time, I'm wondering... where is this leading us to? (Wikimachine 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How much of percentage of Descendants of Guguryeo Living in China,and How much in Korea?