Talk:Goryeo

message: Should the fact that Goryeo "functioned" as an empire (which, in my opinion, is misleading and wrongly emphasised) really take up that much of the introduction? I might be in the minority among Koreans in feeling that being associated with empire is nothing to brag about, but there is a host of problems that come from claiming that Goryeo functioned as an empire. The gross simplification of equivalating hwangje to emperor aside, the significance of taking on imperial trappings would be lost to most general readers not versed in ancient East Asian order. Besides, Goryeo did not conquer many different peoples and made them imperial subjects, as many general readers might understand "functioning as an empire" to mean. --Iceager 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire... 

message: It is clearly seen in pictures that Wang-geon was considered an emperor. He wore yellow/gold. When the Mongols vassalized Goryeo, the ruler was prohibitted from wearing gold as a symbol of Mongol sovereignty. The same happened during Joseon when it submitted itself to both Ming and Qing. Gold is a color reserved for emperors, kings must wear red or blue. Notice that in every picture you see a Joseon-ese ruler in, he wears either red or blue (up until the late 19th century where King Gojong proclaimed himself Emperor).  This has to be taken into account as well. 
Not even on days of coronation, or any other special ceremonies, were Joseon kings permitted to wear gold garments. This defines a significant difference between that of an Emperor and of a King. The fact that Wang-geon wore gold shows his status as the Emperor of Goryeo.
When Yi Seong-ye established Joseon, he wore blue. 
This can also be seen on women's clothing. The Empress wore a garment with dragons embroidered on the sleeves. A queen would wear one with pheonixes as opposed to dragons to symbolize her status as a queen, and not as an empress.
During the Goryeo Dynasty, the female counterpart of the male ruler wore dragons embroidered on her clothing, symbolizing her to be an Empress, and him to be an Emperor.
Traditional attire, especially of the court, is extremely important in reflecting the status of the people. Attire does not lie.
:It all sounds very plausible.  However, since Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, please provide a citation from a reputable historian.  -- Visviva 15:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goryeo's Original Status 

message: I Added  the 1st source of history.
*The History of the Koryo Dynasty(高麗史, the 1st source written in Chinese, the file type is  PDF.) Seoul National Univ.
: The official history of Koryo is  printed by woodblock in 1580.　
:--Lulusuke 10:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I could not find any primary source that the ruler of Goryeo was called as emperor or 皇. Originally, 皇 is not Korean king's name. It is chinese stuff. I wonder Korean just mimic the chinese system. As far as I know, only Balhae adopted the system of chinese rulers name. The main article may be wrong... What the Goryeo had powerful military power does not means that the ruler was called as an emperor. It is just the designation title. Can anybody show the source ??--Drpepper000 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Emepror of Goryeo

message: I agree with your point except something.
* Fully indepedent kingdoms is not called empire. Independent state uses the term of State. In addition, the empire must have several independent states, and conquer several states to make their own control. So, the concept of king and empire should be differentiated because empire has controlled at the top of the states, and the ruler of each state is called king. In this context, Goryeo is not empire.  
* And we must know why chinese uses the term of emperor. Chinese used two different terms for rulers 皇帝 and 王. So, they translate 皇帝 into an emperor, and 王 into a king. But, 皇帝 was not actually the topest rulers among the rulers of each states. It is very different concept of the current empire. They just translate into emperor and king. So, Chinese emperor has no relation with the current concept of empire. Instead, Korean kingdoms used 大王 and 太王 for the king who has much achievement. 大王 and 太王 can also be translated into emperor, but these two terms are not generally translated into an emperor. These can be supreme king or great king whatever. Moreover, it is much possibility that 太王 was not pronounced as Taewang in ancient time. the pronounication of Taewang had been widely used after Goryeo dyansty. So, it is possible to be pronouced as Eora(太)-ha(王), which is read using meaning of the character訓. So, 王 has nothing do to with the calling system of China. 
*About North East Proejct. Yes, China insisted Goguryeo was their history because of the territory. But, this is not the all logic of the project. They also used to concept of 皇帝 and 王. As you know, 皇帝 controls 王 in Chinese history. So, they also apply the same theory to Korean history such thath Korean kingdoms were subjuated to Chinese kingdom because they used only the title of 王'. They also says about the tributal relationship. China usually says that Goguryeo and Balhae were the local government of China. You only know one theory of north east project. So, I was trying to explain that Korean kingdoms dont have to use the 皇帝 because 王 of Korean has the same power and level with 皇帝 of Chinese history. Again, Balhae and Goguryeo are neither Chinese history nor Chinese state because the history of Balhae and Goguryeo cannot be the Chinese history even though the territory of Gogurye and Balhae are currently the territory of China. China and US consider their history if the ancient states was located at the current their own territory. However, Korea consider their history if the people of ancient states are composed by Korean. This is cause of the conflict between China and Korea. You may not know this. I guess you have learned history in US not in Korea.--Hairwizard91 09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way,  King Taejo the Great. What is it? Taejo Daewang are all posthumous name. It is not true that only Dae is posthumous name. You missed this fact. So, Taejo Great King is correct translation. --Hairwizard91 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I'm requesting a move back to Goryeo. Nobody calls this "kingdom of goryeo". Quite ridiculous. Good friend100 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it. I did it because I thought Joseon and Goryeo should have a similar name.Kfc1864 talk my edits 12:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK for Goryeo Dynasty.Kfc1864 talk my edits 13:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goryeo was Dynasty, I don't think it was just Kingdom, it started as Empire then became Kingdom once it was forced to join the Yuan Empire. KoreanSentry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.9.34 (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request a move 

message: Goryeo, though under strong Mongol influences, was not occupied by Mongols. Goryeo had a treaty with Mongols to become its tributary state, though under its tight (indirect) control until the end of Yuan.--207.112.42.174 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mongol had no interested in Korea, only wanted to keep Korea into own sphere. Just like the current US-Korea relation. During Yuan Dynasty, Koreans were second from their hierarchy class after Mongols. --Korsentry 02:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongol wanted to rule the whole universe. So do you mean that Goryeo was not on the earth in the middle ages. I know there are many Korean nationalist history books. Can we just keep this article close to the truth. Maybe in Korea, modern Korean historians conclude the Mongolian Empire had no interest in Korea (because it was poor you mean? don't think so). For the Mongols, the main reason was the country was less significant than China and Middle East. Most western historians (maybe rest of the world) consider Korea as part of the Mongol Dynasty.--Lauren68 (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Goryeo was a vassal state who paid tributes and resources to their overlord. Tributary relation was well established between any Gret powers in China and Goryeo. Before Mongols, Goryeo paid tributes to the Jurchen Jin Dynasty in North China. Goryeo imitated Chinese government system. The Mongols influenced them in some ways. I am not dividing views. There was no Korea in the Middle Ages. Dont take it seriously. Most scholars know Goryeo was a client state of the Yuan. Why do you guys always want to argue?.  --Lauren68 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, what do you mean by "there was no Korea in the Middle Ages"? Goryeo and earlier ruling entities can certainly seen as Korean states or entities. Yes, Goryeo and other Korean dynasties paid tributes almost all the time in pre-modern period. But the Mongol case is the most special one. Besides demanding tributes etc, they actually tried to control the Goryeo ruling house, using a method no previous "Great powers" or ruling dynasties in China had done before. However, you were indeed trying to divide sharply between views, e.g. between the so-called "Korean modern histography" and "Orientalists" as had explicitly done in another page. I'm not arguing Goryeo was not a vassal or client state of the Yuan, but please don't sound as if you are a "messenger" of "most scholars", whereas other people here are insisting minority or non-scholarly views. Also, please don't add large chunk of quotes to the article, especially when trying to repeat them in multiple (or more than one) pages. When editing, try to focus on the contents of each page one by one (usually based on discussions on its associated talk page), instead of regarding a large amount of (or more than one) pages at once, or on its editors. Thanks. --173.206.170.138 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol influence 

message: There are two paragraphs concern to Wang Gon: 1st one in introduction says that he was son of a local lord, 2nd one "foundation" says he was from a merchant family. Was a merchant considered a lord at that time? Which one is correct? Vietbook (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wang Geon's father was a big merchant and also a lord. Asadal (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is correct? 

message: The articles talk about using moveable type "printing press", which is incorrect.  The article should be changed to say just "printing".   The printing press refers to a particular style of printing not practiced by the Koreans.  Just as "woodblock printing" refers to a specific style of printing with specific features, so does the word "printing press".   It would be incorrect to use the term "block printing" for printing done with moveable type, and it is just as equally incorrect to use the word 
Among the feature the printing press has not used in the Korean printing were a mechanical screw press, metal moveable type made from a special "type metal" alloy that was developed specially for printing (Koreans used bronze for their metal type, which has very different composition and properties from type metal), a special "printers ink" that was different from the ink used in Korean printing, use of parchment and European paper which allowed printing on both sides of the page, to name some of the distinct features of the printing press from Korean printing.136.2.1.153 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koreans did not use the printing press while printing.  

message: Not being an expert on this topic, I'm not going to do this myself, but perhaps a native English speaker could give this a once over.  There are several odd phrasings in this piece such as "Many burglars and outlaws bubbled ", I can guess at what this means, but a) it seems very specific to use "burglars" versus something like "The region had grown lawless" and b) the use of "bubbled" is very strange.  "bubbled" in the context doesn't strike me as any kind of English idiom I can think of.  Find an editor who speaks English as a first language and this article will improve considerably.  It contains very interesting material and I appreciate your efforts (despite all the bickering in this discussion), but it reads like something I ran through Google Translate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.13.149 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: It seems that this page could do with a little clean up. First off I would suggest removing the hangeul and hanja for the names of, say rulers, if they have their own page where that information could and should be read. It might also be mroe useful to include the years of their reign instead, for example King Soandso (r.XXX-XXX).Waygugin (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some copy editing

message: The status of the Goryeo should be changed to Client State because the Goryeo court provided not only financial and material resources (stationary, tribute etc) but also armed-men (lets say invasions of Japan, conquest of Song China, civil war of the Mongolian Empire and early phase of the red turban rebellion).--Lauren68 (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are blowing things out of proportion. I think people are blowing things out of proportion. I don’t think you’re 100 percent right. Chinese (sometimes the Mongolians) threats their foreign partners as the subordinate state, and there is no reason that Korea is only tribute vassal of China in Wikipedia.--219.248.253.226 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added ref. to the infobox. Please do not remove the information. Oda Mari (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of the Goryeo within the Mongolian Empire

message: Except Goryeo, no other country's front page includes this fact. Since Goryeo achieved independence and started with indepence, the front page's 'tributary of mongol empire and yuan dynasty have to be changed or it have to be written in all other countries on that period too.≠  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichrio Nazuki (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ichrio Nazuki was blocked indef. as a sock. Those who agree with the user, instead of removing the sourced material, please add the information to the other country articles. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even other 31 countries have been tributary stae of Mongol empire, it is quite wrong to only show it on Goryeo. 

message: I found wrong and biasd information on Goryeo, a Korean dynasty, and corrected it. 
# The years that Goryeo was under the influences of Mongol are not correct. I corrected the years : (1270 ~ 1356).
# Goryeo lasted about 500 years, and most of the time it remained as an independent dynasty. Although the Mongol tributary period should be treated as one of the most important historical events, it should not be treated as representing the whole period.
Please see here for more information. -- Asadal (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The years 1270-1356 is fine, which is what sources say such as "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112. Goryeo was a vassal of the Yuan dynasty during this time. For more details please see Korea under Yuan rule. --Cartakes (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goryeo and Mongol 

message: Goryeo dynasty was an independent country for almost 500 years. Goryeo was not a "tributary state of Song, Liao, Jin, the Mongol Empire, Yuan, and Ming." For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times and has never been conquered by Liao. Asadal (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "In 1018, the Khitan(=Liao) army invaded for the third time with 100,000 troops. In Heunghaejin stream, General Gang Gam-chan ordered the stream to be blocked until the Khitans began to cross it, and when the Khitans were mid-way across, he ordered that the dam be destroyed so that the water would drown much of the Khitan army. The damage was great, and General Gang led a massive attack that annihilated many of the Khitan army. Barely a few thousand of the Liao troops survived after the bitter defeat at Kwiju one year later." Asadal (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goryeo was an independent country 

message: Dear Asadal,
Please note that your comments do not justify whitewashing of the information supported by reliable sources. But setting it aside, I'll give my responses to your comments on this talk page.
: "1. The years that Goryeo was under the influences of Mongol are not correct. I corrected the years : (1270 ~ 1356)."
At present, this violates WP:CITE, WP:VER, and WP:RS.
: "2. Goryeo lasted about 500 years, and most of the time it remained as an independent dynasty. Although the Mongol tributary period should be treated as one of the most important historical events, it should not be treated as representing the whole period."
This also violates WP:CITE, WP:VER, and WP:RS. Please follow WP:No original research. Also, you seem to confuse two words, an "independent" dynasty and a non-"tributary". The information which is relevant here is whether WP:SOURCES describe Goryeo as a "tributary" or not.
: "Please see here for more information."
This violates WP:CITE and WP:RS. In particular, please note that it violates WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."
: "Goryeo dynasty was an independent country for almost 500 years. Goryeo was not a "tributary state of Song, Liao, Jin, the Mongol Empire, Yuan, and Ming.""
Similarly, this is a personal opinion as long as WP:SOURCES are not provided. Please follow WP:No original research.
: "For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times and has never been conquered by Liao.
:
:: "In 1018, the Khitan(=Liao) army invaded for the third time with 100,000 troops. In Heunghaejin stream, General Gang Gam-chan ordered the stream to be blocked until the Khitans began to cross it, and when the Khitans were mid-way across, he ordered that the dam be destroyed so that the water would drown much of the Khitan army. The damage was great, and General Gang led a massive attack that annihilated many of the Khitan army. Barely a few thousand of the Liao troops survived after the bitter defeat at Kwiju one year later.""
Let us divide your claim into two parts for ease of discussion: (i) "For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times" and (ii) "and [Goryeo] has never been conquered by Liao."
(i) Please remember that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose" (WP:WPNOTRS). So, this is an opinion not supported by WP:SOURCES again.
(ii) It is an opinion not supported by WP:SOURCES again (WP:WPNOTRS). Please follow WP:No original research.
By the way, Goryeo’s defeat(s) of Liao do(es) not indicate that Goryeo "has never been conquered by Liao". Is this logic OK? Also, is it okay that absence of conquest doesn't mean absence of tributary relationships (as exemplified by Koryeo's tributary relationship with Song)? Furthermore, how about Song and Jin?
Finally, it is important, so let me repeat the baseline: Your comments do not justify whitewashing of information supported by WP:RS. Please do not remove information supported by WP:RS easily.
I hope that my comments above don't sound too harsh to you. If they sound so, it is my fault.
Best regards, De 4 de 171 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (Source: Rossabi, Morris. (1994) "The reign of Khubilai khan." In Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907−1368, 414-489. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-24331-9. p. 483.)
So, as the year of the start of Goryeo's tributary status with respect to the Mongol Empire, 1270 is not appropriate. De 4 de 171 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the edit of the article at 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

message: I removed the one remaining ref for the status of "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the infobox, because the proposal in the RfC only said "[1]", it did not specify what "[1]" was to represent. It needs to be agreed (a) whether a ref is required at all, and (b) if so, which. Note that there was never a proposal to have a ref for "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire".  Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any response after four days, I take it that the answer to (a) is no, a ref is not required.  Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, "Go for it!" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for status field 

message: User:BUjjsp, is Liao dynasty Han Chinese? Or Jin dynasty (1115–1234)? Yuan dynasty? Neither are Later Tang, Later Jin (Five Dynasties) and Later Han (Five Dynasties). In other words, six out of the nine polities supposed covered by the 4-word label "Imperial Chinese tributary system", are in-fact non-Han-Chinese. This label is particularly problematic for the 2 centuries after 994, when Goryeo after the First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War started using Khitan Liao (and later, the Jurchen Jin) era names rather than the "Han Chinese" Song dynasty era names (though Goryeo used Song era names again between 1016 to 1022). In other words, for 220 years between 994 and 1224 Goryeo was making tributes to either the Khitans or the Jurchens rather than "Han Chinese". The current field is VERY MISLEADING. Either set it up like Ryukyu Kingdom, or delete the section altogether. Timmyshin (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The current label is not misleading at all. The dynasties you mentioned were not Han Chinese of course. However, these entities, like the Han Chinese dynasties, followed the model of the Imperial Chinese tributary system as a method of asserting their suzerainty over smaller states. If you were familiar with the definition of the Imperial Chinese tributary system, you'd know that being a 'Han Chinese' dynasty was not a prerequisite for assuming the role of power within the Imperial Chinese Tributary system. For example, the Manchurian Qing Dynasty was not a Han Chinese dynasty, yet indisputably, it continued the central role of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System until its demise in 1911. I hope that cleared up any misconceptions you may have previously held. BUjjsp (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, when the Mongols first conquered China, they didn't continue the tribute system. It wasn't until Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty that the tribute system resumed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty)."

message: I have noted that consensus on the format for the status text in the infobox in the section #RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?. However, that discussion did not actually discuss the years as vassal state at all. Rather, on a different section, i.e. #Goryeo and Mongol, it mentioned that the correct year is 1270-1350s. This is in fact true, and for more details on this period, please look at the Korea under Yuan rule article. The Zhengdong Branch Secretariat (征東等處行中書省) was established in Korea in the 1280s, and King Gongmin of Goryeo began to push the Mongol garrisons of the Yuan back in the 1350s. Both of these clearly suggest the years "1259-1271" as vassal state is wrong. Instead, "1270-1350s" is the correct span for the vassalage, as vassal state of the Yuan dynasty. --Cartakes (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cartakes: If so, I recommend changing the years to (1259-1356), and changing the label to say Vassal of the Mongol Empire to collectively describe Goryeo's semi-autonomous vassal status to the Mongol Empire (which includes the Yuan dynasty). Additionally, the vassal label should be made distinct from the "independent kingdom" label since Goryeo was not independent during the Mongol domination period. BUjjsp (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the said section (#Goryeo and Mongol), I think the actual Mongol domination in Goryeo only started after the enthronement of Kublai Khan in 1270 instead of early in 1259. For example, according to the book "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112, "From 1270 to 1356 Korea was under Mongol domination". Beginning with 1260 the Mongol Empire became divided or fractured into the Yuan dynasty and the western Mongol khanates, so it is difficult to talk about a single Mongol Empire after that. It was Yuan under the Kublaids who dealt with the Goryeo (Korea), that is why I prefer to say "Yuan dynasty". However, I think it is a good idea to change the label "independent kingdom" as you said, at least add the years when it was in fact an independent kingdom (i.e. 918-1270 and 1356-1392). Thanks for your suggestion. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Independent kingdom 
BUjjsp (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your suggestion. I have changed it to "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" and add a new line between "Independent kingdom" and its years as you said. I did not force a second new line though because it would take a lot of lines and would thus look a little bad. Anyway, thanks for your input too. --Cartakes (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years as vassal state 

message: To the editor(s) who is/are repeatedly changing the article's content without explanation, please explain the reasoning behind your edits. Considering that the article is about Goryeo, there no reason to change the pre-existing map to one that focuses on the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which is being persistently added without explanation. Moreover, I see no reason to repeatedly remove information that was decided by consensus on this talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent IP Edits 

message: Chinese users such as Qiushufang and Esiymbro who are active on other Korea-related contents (Balhae, Buyeo, etc) are twisting Wiki regulations as an excuse for their own benefits. Wouldn't have said much if they were consistent with their demeanor but the audacity to request a strict 'No Primary Source Policy' and 'No Korean, Only English source' only on Korean kingdoms such as Goryeo, Goguryeo, Balhae and Buyeo is ridiculous. Hence they delete lengthy edits or undo them without a detailed explanation. Especially ones that sound 'sensitive' to Chinese state-led Historiographical perspectives. Fact is, if it wasn't for my edit using Korean sources, the detailed contents and accounts revolving the Goryeo-Jurchen Wars (1104-1109) which Anglophonie scholars don't even cover would have been left with a few sentences. Plus the pages for Chungryeol of Goryeo would have been left distorted as it previously said King Chungryeol of Goryeo 'favored' and 'requested' a Mongol Invasion over Japan when in reality he was against it. 
Adding this discussion for others to take into account. Zessede (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese editors sabotaging page