Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 1

message: ===Petty word ordering changes===
The most recent edit made by [[User:Nanshu]Nanshu], according to the diff logs, basically changed places when China and Korea were referred in the same sentence. For one, there was a line that read "It was overthrown by an alliance of Silla and Chinese Tang Empire in 668" that got changed into "It was overthrown by an alliance of Chinese Tang Empire and Silla in 668". Note that this edit removed references to Silla.
===Hypothesis augmentation===
Also, there is another edit made by the user that affirms that the language spoken at Goguryeo differed significantly from Korean, but there is no supporting evidence to attest the degree of differentiation from the early forms of Korean. At the same time, the edit also removed references to the Korean influence on Japan.
Hypothesis, doubtful as they are, need no magnification. Just stating that something is different is enough to maintaing NPOV.
: Tang/Sui Chinese was significantly different from Goguryeo language. and their point is?  If Goguryeo language was most silimar to old Japanese and Baekche....shouldn't modern-day Japan and modern-day Korea have a better claim to Goguryeo if we were to base the argument on language alone?  I don't see the logic of PRC supporters argument about Goguryeo language being different from modern-day "Korean" language.  I can bet that modern-day Korean language is "less" different to Goguryeo than modern-day Chinese or even (Tang/Sui) times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.7.254 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 August 2006.
===Political Agenda===
===="No Korea before 1948"====
It also seems that the user Nanju is following some sort of presumably political guildelines imposed by the government of China. Chinese websites just deleted all references to Korean history pre-Korean War, as trying to imply that Korea has no claim on its own territory due to the events of the Japanese occupation. While the modern states of the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of Korea are two separate diplomatic persons, the Korean people still has its own language and distinctive characteristics that sets it apart from neighbouring China and Japan.
====Strongarm propaganda techniques: "Chinese version is the only one"====
The user also decided that the Korean form of some names were inadequate and summarily substituted them for the Chinese equivalent. Unitl the Goguryeo issue is settled at diplomatic level, a reasonable course of action is to keep both versions, as I do not see them as mutually exclusive right now.
===Conflicting corrections===
It seems I have accidentally overwritten someone else's attempts to correct the article with my own same attempts.  (I do most of my edits in a text editor rather than a browser window, then return to the edit page and paste-replace the entire thing. ^^;)  No one should have a monopoly on edit fixes, so let's see if we can merge our fixes.  The previous editor's contribution should still be intact in the article history. - Gilgamesh 07:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflexes of the Goguryeo issue in Wikipedia

message: It seems I have accidentally overwritten someone else's attempts to correct the article with my own same attempts.  (I do most of my edits in a text editor rather than a browser window, then return to the edit page and paste-replace the entire thing. ^^;)  No one should have a monopoly on edit fixes, so let's see if we can merge our fixes.  The previous editor's contribution should still be intact in the article history. - Gilgamesh 07:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting corrections

message: I have restored a list of the rulers' names in their Korean pronunciation.  I have kept the existing tables of Mandarin Chinese pronunciations.  Given the current diplomatic-level dispute between the PRC and North and South Korea on the history of the kingdom, printing the names in one language only shows an immediate and blatant bias on the part of the editor, a bias which Wikipedia is not supposed to possess.  --Sewing 20:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The cleanup page Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers#Section_Y also suggests that ... "it's just that the tables of royal names (Mandarin Chinese and Korean), which have to be merged, so that one or more columns in the main tables are for the Korean pronunciations of the names". cheers - Drstuey 00:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Much clearer - thanks.  --HappyDog 14:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rulers Table

message: User:61.107.71.215 has deleted some text on Goguryeo language and the modern dispute. Maybe the user found those parts poorly written. But why erase the whole thing? What's wrong with noting the possible relationship between Goguryeo language and Old Japanese? I find it interesting, and I know it's not something someone has just made up. Anyways, I've rewritten the deleted content, and added some bits as well on the modern political dispute. I thought some context about the modern political situation would help. Basically, there is mutual fear that the claim to Goguryeo would lend legitimacy to either a greater Korea that includes southern Manchuria as well as the Korean peninsula, or that China would claim North Korea as part of "historic Chinese territory". It makes little sense linking a state that ceased to exist more than a thousand years ago to modern territorial claims, but I guess that's how the East Asian mindset works.
By the way, as far as I know, nobody has suggested that Goguryeo was "ethnically Chinese". What does "ethnic Chinese" mean, first of all, in the time period? Goguryeo was certainly not ethnic Han. Rather, if Goguryeo people constituted a single ethnic group (which I doubt), then later in history after the fall of the kingdom certain members of the group were absorbed into the Chinese "ethnic group". So I edited the claim accordingly. --Iceager 06:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU for restoring that content.  I honestly don't see why Goguryeo can't be thought of as a culture that was independent in ancient times, and has given influences to all the modern cultures in the general area.  I have very little patience for nationalistic chauvinism in history studies.  (My primary interest in keeping this article detailed is because Goguryeo is a huge part of the Fuyu languages theory, whose article I wrote.)  Is this the first time this user has vandalized this page?  Maybe we can get this user to create an account and join the Wikipedia process and learn its rules, rather than just changing and deleting content that contradicts CCP policy. - Gilgamesh 07:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring some text 

message: I wanted to add some changes to make it clear that even though this is the type
of thing that keeps chat rooms busy that no one involved is interested in going
to war over this.  This issue isn't anything like the PRC-Taiwan issue or even
Diaoyutai/Senaku.
Roadrunner 02:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some commentary on modern situation 

message: Sewing added (but later corrected) the list kings in Korean pronunciation with the title of "emperor." To prevent further vandalism, I explain why it is wrong.
Unlike Japanese Emperors, northern khaghans, Silla kings, monarchs of Goguryeo always claimed the title of wang 王 or a title that include this character. (but not tianwang 天王). As we know, Chinese emperors styled themselves huangdi 皇帝, and it is translated into English as "emeperor." There was another title tianwang. It was used by some nothern conquerors and was positioned somewhere between wang and huangdi. I think it would be acceptable to translate "emperor" for the translation of tianwang. But Goguryeo kings used neither.
It is interesting that King Gwanggaeto used the title of taiwang 太王. Possibly it was also adopted by King Jangsu but not by other kings. This title was analyzed by Takeya Yukio 武田幸男. See: Takeda Yukio: Kōkuri to Higashi ajia 高句麗と東アジア, 1989. According to Takeda, its use can only be confirmed in the relationship between Goguryeo and Silla and not with dynasties in China. While using this title, Goguryeo was still in Chinese world order. --Nanshu 07:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, "empire" does not refer to an independent monarchy, but to a nation which rules many others.  I don't know of any Goguryeo vassal states, thus it was not in any meaningful sense an empire.  -- Visviva 10:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Anonymous user 201.240.47.70 changed the wording to "emperor" in edit 41847250.  Googling around, "king" is the much more common usage on the English web.  Also, the dividing line between "king" and "emperor" appears to me to be much fuzzier than the clear distinction Visviva presents above.  If anything, "empires" tend to be bigger than "kingdoms", but "bigger" is in itself a very comparative word, hence the room for different opinions.  Be that as it may, given the more common use of the title "king" for Gwanggaeto when writing in English, I'm reverting 201.240.47.70's edit.  Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emperor?

message: I might got one thing wrong with my revision: What is the correct Chinese reading for 高句麗, Gāogōulì or Gāogōulí? The character 麗 has two readings. Babelfisch 09:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Gāogōulí, according to my dictionary. -59.143.134.204 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which dictionary? —Babelfisch 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G&#257;og&#333;ulì or G&#257;og&#333;ulí?