Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 4

message: *Wikipedia articles on histories of countries must present history as a whole, furnished product. 
:*US history is written plainly from US point of view, along with competing viewpoints within the framework of the discourse among the US historians. No articles regarding US history mix with Soviet viewpoints on how the cold war was, British viewpoints on how the American Revolution was not really a victory for the Americans but a concession, Vietnamese viewpoint on how Americans had really lost & Vietnamese won the Vietnam War, terrorists' viewpoints on how they're winning the War on Terror, etc. 
:*When people search for Korean history, they want Korean history. They want Goguryeo within the context of Korean history, and if they wanted to find out about Goguryeo from Chinese viewpoint, of course, they can click the link at "see also" to Northeast Project article. 
:*Putting assertions from the Northeast Project places challenge on the sovereignty of the Korean governments. All national governments are due proper respect & integrity. It is within people's rights to read Korean history as written within the context of Korea. This precedence has been set already within the Japanese history articles, etc. (where there are Korean claims over roots of Japanese culture, people, etc.)
*Northeast Project is not widely accepted. 2ndary source or what... I don't even care about the S. Korea's project. It's not widely accepted. (Wikimachine 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contention Two: Respect

message: *Let me outline the CPOV arguments under a critical construction.
:*Goguryeo could have Chinese origin.
::*The viewpoint must be included for NPOV.
:::*The "viewpoint" is not a personal theory, or original research. It is a widely accepted & established history.
*However, when Northeast Project began only a few years ago, has no established base, and the 2ndary sources (don't get tricked by the words now) are primarily from CASS (also 3rd party online sites that serve as sock puppets), the discussion must begin not on whether or not China retains most of Goguryeo's population, Goguryeo was heavily influenced by China, etc... but on the validity of the Northeast Project itself. This means that the CPOV editors lose all access to the arguments that branch from the 1st and 2nd levels of logic pyramid. And the evaluation of the validity of the project remains on the article for the project.
*Sub-contention: Impact Analysis: The risk that Wikipedia loses its NPOV & insults the Korean population by entrusting its sources on a theory that is very new & unrecognized to begin with outweighs the need for the assertions from the Northeast Project to be considered. (Wikimachine 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contention Three: Argument Accessibility

message: *Sub-contention: WP:OR: WP:OR entails that when you use primary sources, you can use them only to cite a description: "The Alamo was defended by around 300 men." However, you cannot use a primary source to shape your own thesis: "The Chinese emperor thought that Goguryeo was within his empire." --> "Goguryeo used to be one of China's subjects." Furthermore, in a discourse between two competing interpretations, a mere "description" advocates one side or the other, thus making a original research assertion, when primary source is used to side with one of the two sides.
*Sub-contention: Type of Arguments: The type of arguments that both sides should be making is "should viewpoints stemmed from the Northeast Project be included in the article?" Both CPOV & KPOV editors are making a serious mistake (especially the KPOV, who are giving CPOV's grounds to argue on). First of all, KPOV editors should not contest those CPOV theories. They're simply, CPOV, and CPOV is as good as it can be. On the other hand, CPOV editors should not contest KPOV viewpoints. So, KPOV editors, now you're going to say "but that leads to a completely messed up version of the article! We need to contest the CPOV assertions!" Not quite. If you press ONLY on whether or not the CPOV arguments should belong here or not, then that's all you need to win. I'm really frustrated with how you guys are talking about Goguryeo's language, NPOV citations, Macedonia, % descendants, etc.
(Wikimachine 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contention Four: Invalid Approach

message: Before you made such a speech,you had to convince the chinese,the goguryeo have nothing with the modern chinese.But in fact,at least part of descendant of Goguryeo become nowadays Chinese(while in this case,excluding the Ethnic Koreans in China,they immigrated lately).The last king of Goguryeo died in China,and some chinese historian even can find the records of his offsprings living in China.They become at least partially chinese,and in the case of Manchu,they were somehow related to Goguryeo.Dear wikimachine,though the korean had something more close to Goguryeo,that didn't mean China have nothing to do with this defunct country.--Ksyrie 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's continue here. Do Chinese think that Goguryeo was one of the main sources of China's past, or just a sidestory? Sidestory; however, Korean history depends by a great amount on Goguryeo to trace Korea's past. That makes you link to the "Contention 2: Respect". Secondly, Chinese can write as much as they want about Chinese history on their article Northeast Project. Why not? What makes you want to write here so much? Make separate article on "Gaogouli", then, if the Northeast Project Article develops so much that it can only become a featured article & still have sister articles. (Wikimachine 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Wikimachine

message: As I had stated before,the Ethnic Koreans in China didnt' emigrate to China until 1860,bear it in mind--Ksyrie 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For my korean brother Don't mix up the [[Ethnic Koreans in China]] and descendants of Goguryeo in China

message: 東夷校尉 this is the officer in # kingdoms and Jin dynasty to rule the Four_Commanderies_of_Han —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeahsoo (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 東夷校尉

message: If this page didn't qualify for Wikipedia:LAME before, it certainly does now. The edit wars have become newsworthy now. Here's an article from Salon.com. Two wikipedia editors, Assault11 and Cydevil, were singled out by name in the article. This goes to show, that what you guys say here is public for the world to see. Something to think about before you say something that potentially embarrasses yourself before countless readers. So keep it civil, guys. --Yuje 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm,the wiki is swarmed with edit wars....sigh--Ksyrie 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Ksyrie, leave it to the evil Korean editors to ruin an article... Good friend100 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goguryeo edit wars have become newsworthy 

message: I thought I'd weight in here.  But due to the fact that I'm a busy professional and not a student with tons of time (as I suspect many prolific writers here are) I'm going to have to write in several phases.  People who are interested in reading my thoughts on the matter can check here periodically as I update.  WangKon936 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt, can you cite the resources?Besides,it was an defunct kindom,the claim of inheritage of Goguryeo was among the Manchu.Maybe Khitan.--Ksyrie 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what would you like me to cite sources on?  Please let me know.  Regarding Manchu and Khitan claims to Koguryo.  Now, there was one tribe of Malgal, also known as proto-Jurchens, hence proto-Manchu, although we are talking about somewhat different peoples here, that were a part of the Koguryo kingdom.  That was the Blackwater tribe of Malgal.  There was like what?  8 or 10 tribes of Malgals?  And with the Khitan.  I'm not aware of any Khitan dynastic history that says Koguryo is a part their heritage.  Furthermore, the Khitan (Liao Dynasty) never wrote a court sponsored history of Koguryo.  Korea, however, did in the Samguk Sagi.  Lastly, the Khitan acknowledged Korean claim to Koguryo heritage during discussions with the Koryo general So Hui during the First Goryeo-Khitan War. WangKon936 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Samguk Sagi in 1145 appeared 400 hundred years after the fall the nation,while in the Zizhi Tongjian in 1065 which appeared before the Samguk Sagi also mentioned the subjects of Goguryeo are of Chinese.Your claim is invalid.Both side got the same accounts.--Ksyrie 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ksyrie.  I don't think you understand my claim very well.  You see, the Chinese dynasties sponsored the writing of histories to striengthen their claim as sucessors to the previous dynasty.  The Tang sponsored court histories for the Sui Dynasty, the Song sponsored histories for the Tang dynasty, etc. etc.  Koryo in the 12th century saw themselves as the successors of Koguryo, Baekje and Silla and commissioned Kim Pu Shik to write the Samguk Sagi, the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms [of Korea].  Thus, the Koguryo Pongi has the complete history of Koguryo from the 1st century BC to it's fall in the 7th century AD.  The Chinese, who did not see Koguryo as being a part of a Chinese Dynasty (remember, Koguryo provided no emperors to China) did not write a COMPLETE dynastic sponsored history of Koguryo.  Now the histories of Tang and Sui do have extensive information on those kingdom's wars with Koguryo, but there is not in existance any single Chinese work that is dynastically sponsored that tells the story of Koguryo from its start to its finish.  In the eyes of someone who is a trained confucian scholar, this would seriously hamper any Chinese claim to Koguryo's heritage.  To get to the second part of your entry, it makes sense that some Chinese sources would say that some Koguryo people became Chinese by the 11th century AD, but again that assertion is vastly different then the Samguk Sagi, which attempted to write the total history of Koguryo in one set of books, thus firmly placing the historaphy of Koguryo within Koryo's.  WangKon936 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To advance,I will take an exemple,before 1800,the USA was limited in her original 13 states.At that time the Louisiana wasn't seen as American as Today,and the frech lived in Louisiana were not recognised as Amercan.And Before the Mexican–American War in 1846,the New Mexico wasn't seen as American as Today,and the mexican lived there were not recognised as Amercan as Today.Ok,I had finished my little speech.--Ksyrie 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some very good points Wangkon. However, I recommend that you save your arguments and evidence for the mediation. That's what I'm doing. I doubt any of the current participants(Assault11, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Endroit) here can be convinced otherwise. Cydevil 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When do arguments for the mediation open up?  WangKon936 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think that the Polish and Lithuanian names should be removed from Prussia?  --Nlu (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goguryeo, an issue of Histography