Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 1

Goguryeo: China and Korea

Quite frankly, the politicalizing of Koguryo's status is PATHETIC! Refer to http://www.time.com/time/potw/20040827/ go to the 7th picture in the series to view as an example. China should not make such an ambitious claim; however, S Korea should at least recognize that it shares the legacy of Koguryo with China. Since the boundary of the ancient kingdom lies mainly in present day Northeast China, and since Koguryo had a strong cultural and political relationship with Imperial China, China can correctly claim that the history and culture of Koguryo is inherited by the Chinese state along with the 2 Koreas. S Korea should not remain so adamant in insisting that all mentions of the status of ancient Koguryo be cleared of a Chinese connection.

---

It was named after Gaogouli (高勾驪; gao1 gou1 li2) an ancient Chinese prefecture in Xuantu Commandery (玄菟; now Liaoning province).

This article give me the impression that goguryeo was just one of many ethnic groups in china. But considering the importance of this kingdom in korean history, more about the interaction with baekje and silla should be added. And I've also read that the name goguryeo is analysed go- + guryeo in which guryeo means something in goguryeo language, which is one of the forefathers of modern korean language. Anyway i'm not an expert in history. soax 12:59 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

And I suggest to add more information about relationship between Goguryeo and Goryeo. The name of Goryeo is identical in fact; you can find a sample of small 勾 with capital other characters beside. It shows that the 勾 was not an important character for that word. kz

"The importance for Korea" shouldn't affect the acurate account of history. It is as much important for China. Besides, Koguryo was establiesed by the Puyo.

There are many examples in Chinese history that a new kingdom name itself after other powerful preceded kingdoms to gain its self-confidence and influence.

States developed in China are Chinese? Chinese historians did not say so

Chinese historian's theory is very funny. If Goguryeu is one of the local goverment of China because whose terriotory was in there, GoJoseon-the ancient of Goguryu- is also one of the local government of China. Americans have lived in America. But that land once belong to Indians. So, USA was one of the local government of Indians? Is this Korean extreme Nationalism or Chinese extreme world center view?

--That is so funny. USA is a contemporary government and Goguryeo is a ancient one. Your analogy just does not hold. Because Indians has been living in the current terriotory of the USA, Indian history are considered to be part of the USA's history. The same reason, because most of Goguryeo's descendants and terriotory fall into current China's terriotory, Goguryeo's history is part of China's history.

This is obviously not Chinese historian's theory. After spend one and half month going through some 80 papers about ethnic groups (published after 1989) in China by Chinese historians, I found no serious claim of the theory that any local goverment located in the territory of P.R.China should be considered as part of Chinese history. The statement in the article: all states that developed principally in the current territory of China came to be regarded as part of Chinese history is therefore simply WRONG. Tianran Chen 04:17, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Both Korea and China are too "political" for history. Why can't they treat history without associating it with modern-day nation states. --Nanshu 23:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please look "Goguryeo" at Chinese Wikipedia. They show the evidences.

(1) Location

(2) History

--Lulusuke 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The following misleading passage was replaced by a NPOV sentence.

A Goguryeo official Dae Jo-Yeong established Barhae in 698 and claimed it as successor of Goguryeo. Kingdom of Goryeo, established in 918 claimed itself as successor of Goguryeo.

Koreans always treat Parhae as a successor of Goguryeo and hide Bohai's unique aspects, but this is a problematic apporach. Bohai's claim as a successor of Goguryeo can only be seen in her negotiations with Japan. Bohai's first diplomatic document to Japan states that Bohai inherited the territory of Goguryeo. But it is clearly diplomatic language, so should not be interpreted literally. As implied by the titles the Bohai king showed, Bohai's true claim was that Bohai and Japan were equal under Tang's suzerainty (it turned out wrong). However, Japan welcomed the revival of the tributary Goguryeo despite Bohai's intentions. After all, Japan imposed the status of the successor of Goguryeo on Bohai and practical Bohai followed it. --Nanshu 23:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Think about it this way. In the time of Goguryeo, China was divided. Goguryeo was able to fight back Chinese. But Goguryeo suffered much fighting back Sui invasions and eventually fell under Tang and Shilla. I think of it this way - Koreans, by that time, weren't able to fight a total war with the unified Chinese. (just think about territory size and population) Whoever Barhae people were, they knew this. Goguryeo was like archenemy of Sui/Tang/Shilla and fought to her end. How could Barhae claim itself successor of Goguryeo to the Chinese? or to Shilla? If they did, they would have been isolated in international society. But they might have felt free to claim so to the Japanese because Japanese weren't involved in the fall of Goguryeo. (And for one thing. What's wrong with diplomatic language in diplomatic writing?) Well. This is only one scenario, and I'm sure that other people make different scenarios.

We don't have records of Barhae by a Barhae historian, and I think that's the reason people interpret this part of history so differently. I hope you'd understand that I'm not trying to convert you or anything like that, but only trying to show different interpretations.

Btw, shouldn't we move these to Talk:Bohai? -- Caffelice

---

"The importance for Korea" shouldn't affect the acurate account of history. It is as much important for China. Besides, Koguryo was establiesed by the Puyo.

Unfortunately, whatever Chinese historians say, Goguryeo is Korean. Well, Koreans and Chinese have interacted together for their entire history, but it doesn't mean China is part of Korea or vice versa. Right? If the quoted statement is true, then who were the Buyeo? Koreans. Here are some evidences:

1. Location.

Buyeo was located from Manchuria to Korean peninsula. King Haeburu(해부루왕, 解夫婁王) of Buyeo moved the capital to Gaseopwon(가섭원, 迦葉原) which is modern-day city of Kangnung, South Korea. The people called the Buyeo were later conquered by Goguryeo, and eventually to Unified Silla.

2. Royal Lineage and claims of Goguryeo and Baekje.

It is true the first King of Goguryeo, Dongmyeongseongwang, was a prince of Buyeo, which is also a part of Korean history. (Surprise?) Goguryeo was originally made of many chiefdoms, including Jolbon Buyeo (졸본부여, 卒本扶餘), the tribe of Dongmyeongseongwang.

Even [Baekje] called itself Nambuyeo (남부여, 南夫餘 "South Buyeo"). Baekje officially changed its name to Nambuyeo in [538]. It is well known the founder of Baekje, King Onjo was a son of Dongmyeongseongwang. Those titles suggest both Goguryeo and Baekje considered themselves as a branch or successor of Buyeo. If Buyeo was "foreign", why would they justify their legitimacy by claiming name Buyeo? (And because of the Baekje's change of its name, the last capital of Baekje, Sabi, is still called Buyeo.)

The lineage of Buyeo(Fuyu in Chinese), Goguryeo and Baekje is obvious. Goguryeo later absorbs Buyeo and the other minor chiefdoms Dongye and Okjeo, and the Three Kingdoms era begins. (with Gaya, which was not included because it wasn't a mature Kingdom.)

3. Linguistic evidence.

According to Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou, the language of Goguryeo was same with Buyeo and similar with Dongye and Okjeo. Other researches show the language of Goguryeo was also very similar with Baekje and old Japanese. (One may note Korean and Japanese have very similar syntax structure even now.) Their language was of Tungus (Altaic) origin, not Sino-Tibetan.

I'll move those materials to appropriate pages soon. I'll wait a couple of weeks. -- Caffelice

---

Koreans have traditionally viewed Goguryeo as a Korean state. Most of Chinese scholars had believed it also, :it is TRUE Nanshu, go check out papers written before 90's. A crazy national project changed their minds.

Calm down and read again what Nanshu wrote up there, 211.215.59.50. He's talking about Barhae/Bohai. As the one who wrote the statement about later claims of successors, I admit Barhae claim is questionable. (Sorry, that's what I learned from the class.) Still, Goryeo part is true.

For about being "political", Nanshu, how would you "feel" if Koreans claim Yamato was a Baekje colony? (some extreme nationalists do think so.) I think even the Japanese would fire back. Well, I know one studying history shouldn't be emotional like that, but it's inevitable.

I don't know exactly what Chinese historians have in mind. I only guess it's a part of their assimilation of minorities... (in this case, ethnic Koreans in Manchuria) -- Caffelice

---

Why do Korean people seem to think that Goguryeo and Baekje must have been Korean (i.e., Sillan) just because their territories included regions that are now occupied by Korea? That is the most unreasonable reasoning I can imagine. It is like saying that the Iroquois must have been "proto-French" or "proto-English" and the Aztecs must have been "proto-Spanish" because the areas that were formerly inhabited by the Iroquois and the Aztecs are now inhabited (mostly) by speakers of French, English or Spanish respectively. I am an American of European ancestry, but I can read Chinese, Korean and Japanese quite well and I have enjoyed a firsthand look at the evidence of the nature of the language of Goguryeo. I can assure you that it was nothing like Old Korean (i.e., the language of Silla) and many of the clearly identifiable Goguryeoan words are practically identical to Japanese words (Modern Japanese words, at that, because the Japanese language is extraordinarily conservative: most of the so-called "Native Japanese" vocabulary has been maintained with very minor changes in pronunciation since at least the early 8th century AD). I think people should also consider the historical evidence that suggests that Baekje and Yamato were very closely allied with one another, and Yamato was also on quite good terms with Goguryeo most of the time, while all three (Goguryeo, Baekje and Yamato) either hated Silla or were actively fighting wars with Silla (although, of course, Baekje and Goguryeo also fought with each other at times). I have also looked at the even sparser evidence of the Baekje language, and I believe the evidence supports the historical claim that Baekje consisted of a class of commoners who were basically identical with the population of Silla (i.e., proto-Koreans) and an ethnically distinct class of royalty and nobility who were derived from Goguryeo (and perhaps earlier from Buyeo, but there is hardly any evidence for the nature of the Buyeo language or ethnos). Most of the royalty and nobility of Baekje is known to have fled to Japan (Yamato) after the Baekje Revival Movement, led by the overthrown Baekje ruling class and the Yamato imperial army, was defeated decisively in the famous Battle of Baekchon-gang ("Baekchon-gang Jeontu" in Korean, "Haku-Suki-no-E-no Tatakai" in Japanese) in 663 AD. The Baekje ruling class had first been ousted from power by Silla and Tang three years earlier, in 660 AD. The descendants of the ancient kings of Baekje do not reside in Korea...they reside in Japan. So even if we did grant the modern Koreans the favor of allowing them to claim Baekje and Goguryeo as "Korean" nations (although "Korea" didn't even exist contemporaneously with those nations), they would still have to admit that the modern Japanese have a more concrete, physical connection with the upper class of long-gone Baekje. (-JC-)

Take Gauls and Gallic Wars out of French history books. British history doesn't begin with invasion of Julius Caesar but with arrival of Anglo-Saxons. Romans and modern Italians have very different culture so Roman Empire isn't part of Italian history. That's just naive. Book smarts often lose common sense.

Nations break down into smaller groups or merge into one big group. It's not uncommon in history. And if you have studied Chinese history, you'll understand how different nations merge into one big chunk.

Remember the Silla slogan "三韓一統" (Three Han under One). This 三韓 (Three Hans) doesn't mean Mahan(馬韓), Jinhan (辰韓), Byeonhan (弁韓) but Goguryeo, Silla and Baekje. Maybe they were different ethnic groups as you say, but they merged into one as the time went.

(Caffelice 19:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC))

Also don't forget part of the territory and people also merge into Tang and later dynasties. Tianran Chen 06:45, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

What seems particularly absurd about the politicization of this debate is that what the cause of the conflict is itself rather fuzzy. Given that, by definition, when the Goguryeo kingdom existed, "Korea" did not, what exactly would it mean for Goguryeo to be "our" history, given that it exists no longer, and was seperate from both other kingdoms located in what is today`s "China" and today`s "Korea"? --218.44.198.208 04:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take note "Korea" Isn't what Koreans call themselves in their language. That name was given by foreigners way after Goguryeo was destroyed. The word "Korea" comes from Goryeo. Therefore your question on the existence of "Koreans" in the grammatical sense is negated. There was already ethnic groups of Koreans.

Are you saying because The Korean 3 kingdoms werent united, there was no "KOREA" before Silla unified the peninsula? Neither does Chinese history starts out with one nation. --CrabTasterMan 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems that there is going to be an edit war

Seems that there is going to be an edit war as I begin to witness the reflexes of the Goguryeo issue here in Wikipedia.

This comment refers to the latest edit made to the article. Latest edit being made by User:Nanshu in 7 Aug 2004, and previous version the one made by KJRocker, dated 30 Jul 2004.

Situation of the Goguryeo issue

As reported by the [[1][Korea Herald])

The murals and tombs of Goguryeo were included in U.N.'s World Heritage List July 1. Historically, ancient Korea is made up of three kingdoms - the Silla, Backje and Goguryeo.

But China in April took what is viewed as an apparent attempt to claim the kingdom wholly as its own, abruptly declaring it as part of its history and deleting references to Goguryeo as part of Korea from its Web site.

The move followed a series of similar actions by Chinese academic and media organizations to claim sovereignty of the kingdom, which ruled the upper part of the Korean Peninsula and what today is Manchuria in China from 37 B.C. to A.D. 668.

Then, on Thursday it was discovered that China has now deleted from its Foreign Ministry Web site its entire section on Korea's history up until 1948, when South Korea was formally established.

This is so #$%@*& silly

Tianran Chen 06:45, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

I seriously hope that people on Wikipedia will not (or had not) get involved in this silly argument. Such argument should really belong to those who do not really understand history. At least in three ways this argument does not make any sense:

Extra caution when using Modern concepts to interpret history

Tianran Chen 06:45, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Both P.R.China and (N & S) Korea are modern concept, P.R.China did not exist until 1949, so saying any acient state that belong to P.R.China is simply nonsense. Same apply for (N & S) Korea, as modern Korea only took shape after the unified Silla. Also, both Chinese and Korean are concept that changes during the history. Using modern concepts to interpret accient history is simply (forgive my impolite language) very stupid. For example, the concept of Chinese varies significantly during the history as different ethnic groups merged into Chinese. Like Manchurians and , are they Chinese? The answer will be no if you are talking about a five hundreds years ago, but now, they are. Similar examples can be drawn from Mongolians, XianBei, Tibets and many other ethnic groups, even the very concept of Han Chinese that we are referring now perhaps only existed a few century (don't forget XianBei and NanMan merged into Han slowly). Same for the Concept of Korean. Before the unified Silla, the word Korean has almost no meaning, as it is referring to a very different concept that it is referring to now.

Before you married with your wife, your father-in-law and mother-in-law didn't exist. You couldn't say they were part of your family. But after your marriage, they are your family. You would say they are your family despite of the fact that they had not been your family until yesterday. The modern English name "Korea" derives from the Goryeo Dynasty, which in turn took its name from "Goguryeo". It is not silly that Geguryeo is part of Korean history. --Crmtm 19:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what about British colonial period of North America? Are New England colonies part of Connecticut hisotary of New York history? Or is the Republic of Texas part of U.S. history of Mexican history? What about the Holy Roman Empire? Is it part of German history? French history? or Italian history? I am sure that people will think I'm crazy if I ask question like these, but ironicly, we are now dealing with the same class of problem.

A few things needed to be emphersized:

1. Althougn under great influence in many aspects, Goguryeo has never been officially a part of Han ~ Tang dynasties.
2. Goguryeo (while existed) has never been a part of Silla.
3. When Tang and Silla (or Silla and Tang) overthrown Goguryeo, the land and people of Goguryeo had divided. The land are take by Tang and Silla/Unified-Silla (maybe also Bohai), and the people are merged into both Tang and later dynasties and unified silla and its successors.
4. Both China/Chinese and Korea/Korean (as most of us used) are concepts that take shape or evolved into todays meaning much later. It is very silly to ask the question that if some much older concepts are parts of these newer concepts. Just like asking wether or not those city states in the Holy Roman Empire belong to Germany or France. Such question cannot be answered, it is simply wrong ones.
5. The "ownership" of history (let's pretend history can be owned) is not mutually exclusive. Most western civilizations now consider acient Greeks to be one of their root of culture, however, it does not mean only one contury can claim that. In this case, I personally think it is totally Okay to say that Goguryeo is part of both Chinese and Korean history, since its land, people and culture are merged into both modern China and Korea.
6. Most Koreans consider Baekje, Silla and Goguryeo as part of Korea, and think it is self-evident. So if one can equate Goguryeo with Baekje, then Goguryeo will become a part of Korean history automatically. But again, Silla barely took shape after unified all three. In another word, strictly speaking the Korea we are talking about only exist long after that (but her ansestors did). Plus that the culture of ruling class of both Baekje and Goguryeo are very weakly tied with the later culture of Silla. So equate Goguryeo with Baekje does not really help neither side.

As the person who made the edit that provoked the above response (at least I think that was in response to my edits), I should put in my two cents' worth. You made very salient points in the above, and even gave examples that I often use to illustrate the stupidity of projecting modern historical concepts backwards in time. I usually refrain from using the words "China" or "Korea" for the period concerned.

Indeed, I was more toward possible future edit war than toward existing changes, so I hope my language wasn't very impolite. - Tianran Chen 00:13, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Then why have I involved myself in this mess, and moreover have made edits that seem to indicate that I fall into those same pitfalls? First, I'll give a few excuses. I just noticed that the article said that the PRC started a project to treat Goguryeo as part of Chinese history and this led to North and South Korean counterprojects. This was incorrect information, as no such counterprojects were started. I was just going to correct this information, and then thought I would clarify what I meant. Certainly, strong nationalistically tinged protests were coming from South Koreans on this issue. What I meant was that there was no government-level project planned. So, to give the background, I hastily typed up an admittedly dumbed-down sort of background on the Chinese project. I admit bias against this project, and my wordings probably contained factual errors. I will try to correct mistakes if I spot some, but I hope those who are more knowledgeable can help.

The claim that PRC is spenting 20B RMB on changing the history is very unlikely to be correct. First, I found no official information on that from neither the PRC government nor any accountable medias. The only project that might be related to it is a history research project whose name is unclear. The project is about he entire Chinese history as a multination state from as early as the Shang Dynasty. Some major history books published after 2000 for young populations benifit from this project. However, although the exact number is unclear the total investment specificly on it is very unlike to be more than tens of millions RMB. Also notice that 20B RMB project is almost unheard of in any specific non-natural science. One could be also talking about the super long series of projects started early 90s and still lasting now. The total investment could be that number, however, I don't think it can be called a project.

I am deeply suspicious of any government-funded, politically tinged projects that lead to a revision of history to favour a certain agenda. The academic discipline of history suffers from enough national and political bias already without government encouragement. Many historians and archaeologists seem at least subconsciously motivated by the desire to seek their roots, so to speak. It is surely no coincidence that so many prehistoric cultures in and around Western Asia are proclaimed to be possibly Proto-Indo-European and that the scholars that make the claims are Indo-European speakers (Where are the Proto-Altaic, Proto-Dravidian, or Proto-Uralic speakers?). What is most disturbing and academically dishonest is when scholars prostitute themselves into government-sponsored agendas, as several top Indian scholars did in serving the former Hindu nationalist government in making outrageous claims about the continuity of the Indus Valley Civilisation down to modern Hindus.

It is definitely true, as we had witnessed many such cases in the history. However, when dealing with socialist (or communist as some westerns would say) states like China, the word government-funded should be used with great care. In China almost all the research institution and universities are state-funded, and even more so for subjects that do not generally generate profit (like history). So saying that a history research project is funded by the PRC gov. is just like saying a U.S. company is owned by private. It seems give you some information, and let you think that the government is behind it, but indeed, it tell you nothing. It is possible that the state turns out to be the bad guy behind, however, to used the state-funded fact to make people think so is just a old trick of media to guide people's mind.

So I hope you understand my disgust at the politically-motivated Chinese project. It surely is not unrelated to the fact that ethnic Koreans are a significant minority group in Northeast China, in former Goguryeo territories.

Of course, one of the main reason for all this is the necessity of building national histories to serve as foundation myths for modern political nations. Unfortunately, this dimension cannot be ignored in the treatment of history. Korean students are taught Korean history in school, Greek students learn Greek history, Ukrainian students learn Ukrainian history, etc. And these histories do not start at 1948, 1829, or 1991, when the modern political nations were born. They cover cultures and peoples in history that do not conform to modern concepts of those nations, and even those whose connections with the modern nation are suspect at best. But these are taught under the headings "Korean history", "Greek history", etc., and in that sense these pre-modern cultures and peoples are claimed. And concepts of what is or is not included under the headings can be changed by changes in how a nation understands itself.

The important point here is that these histories can overlap, and it is definitely Okay. However, now, (according to english media in korea) some koreans seems to have problem with PRC's plan to put Goguryeo into the Chinese history chapter, even if it is not deleted from the Korean history chapter. (indeed, there are no much about korea in middle school high school textbook anyway)

That is what I meant by the shoddily-worded sentence: "all states that developed principally in the current territory of China came to be regarded as part of Chinese history". I wanted to explain the shift from the traditional, ethnic-based, Han-centric view of Chinese history to the one that rests on the newer notion of the Chinese "super-nation" that unites the diverse ethnicities of modern China. I was lazy and admit that didn't come off well. I'll try to correct it, but feel free to re-word my re-wordings.

As for my personal opinion, as far as the necessary evil of national histories is concerned, I believe the history of Goguryeo should be recognised as an important part of Korean national history (for whatever it's worth), but not exclusively so. Some of the most important sites are in current Chinese territory, and it is important that the Chinese regard them as an important legacy as well. Ideally, we should all accept that the legacy of Goguryeo belongs to all humanity. In reality, we should consider ourselves lucky if there is no silly edit war over this page.

In the college textbook, Goguryeo is always an important part of the Korean history, and it is very unlikely to be changed. In high school textbook, there wasn't much about Korea.

To Iceager, I do understand most of your points, and again, my critism are more toward the problem itself than to your edit. And thanks for your contribution to this great book.

--Iceager 04:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reflexes of the Goguryeo issue in Wikipedia

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)

Rulers Table

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)

If someone would bother to merge the many tables? The article isn't too bad on mentioning the mutual claim without asserting either side.Kokiri 15:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

I've merged the tables. I think the only controversial part is the first table. I can't see disagreement about the rest. Korean has yet to be added for the shi hao. Babelfisch 01:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Restoring some text

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)

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)

well, I don't know whether ancient korean historians consider Goguryeo as part of korea or not ,but I do know all ancient chinese official historic books listed Goguryeo in "the series of foreign countries' biography". So I think it is a little bit unusual that China want to overthrow what their historic books said.

Added some commentary on modern situation

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)

I think the irony here is that all of this conflict comes from efforts by the PRC go move away from a Han-centered view of Chinese history toward one which is much more inclusive and multicultural. I think that the closest analogy would be the statement that "the history of Texas under Mexico should be part of American history."

I think the reason all of this is coming up is that China is rapidly gaining in power and this is making everyone around it very nervous (understandably). There seems to be a sense in East Asia that China is going to rapidly become a superpower, and everyone is a bit worried about how China is going to use its power, and things like this just scare people.

well, I don't think so. I think we are just talking about the historical facts, not anything else. I think some people simply don't like the history twisted out of political motivation.By the way, to be honest I even don't think that China(PRC) is qualified to be a superpower without further expansion.

Roadrunner 03:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Emperor?

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)

Nanshu, i understand you are very learned in Chinese characters. But you can be so patronizing and obstinate it's difficult to have a proper discussion with you sometimes.

Being learned doesn't mean being insensible. Learn this: there are different views in the world, and the least you should learn is to appreciate them before insisting all subsequent interpretations are invalid. —This unsigned comment was added by Mikhailkoh (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Goguryeo is a defacto Empire, since it was independent of China. I still think you are a Japanese fanatic impersonating a Chinese. --Zippie

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)

Goguryo had many vassal "states" or nomadic ethnic groups around its borders.

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)

Empires tend to have more than one official ruler but with a central ruler with the absolute power.--CrabTasterMan 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the only one "vandalizing" these sites is you, Nanshu. I wonder if your Japanese source wasn't biased anti-Korean? —This unsigned comment was added by Mikhailkoh (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Wang and Huangdi are quite different, and it is really of importance and it is really serious when deciding which to use.

Rulers - Problems with consolidation

Hi - I've been trying to consolidate the two tables of rulers which are currently in Korean and Mandarin, but am having difficulties. I have translated them into an Excel sheet, and ouputted the HTML, but it doesn't seem quite right. I have put the output on-line at User:HappyDog/Goguryeo if someone wants to take a look. I can also pass on my Excel sheet if requested. I'm too tired to figure it out right now! --HappyDog 02:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with consolidation because the two tables have different natures. The Korean version was taken from Samguk Sagi and the Mandarin version is a product of modern study.

Gim Busik, the author of Samguk Sagi, used several conflicting sources to construct the genealogy of the Goguryeo royal family. It is certain that he had a source extinct today that had been handed down from Goguryeo. He also looked at Chinese history books. He combined inconsistent information and made a mess! It may not be clear in thoese simple sovereign tables but a family structure would convince you. --Nanshu 14:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I was trying to consolidate them was because a request was put on cleanup to do so. I agree, having tried, that it is very difficult to do so in a meaningful fashion. If the two tables are inherently different then they should be kept separate.

However, they are still very confusing (well, the second one is anyway). Is there a way of (a) tidying them up to make them neater and easier to follow, (b) make them consistent with each other (one is a list, one is a set of tables) and (c) add some text to clarify why they are different (as you have above). --HappyDog 19:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I admit my table isn't so good. But this is a confusing subject in itself.

Currently I cannot access to historical materials. I'll fix it later. --Nanshu 14:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gāogōulì or Gāogōulí?

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)

It's Gāogōulí, according to my dictionary. -59.143.134.204 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Which dictionary? —Babelfisch 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of Goguryeo Kings

The most recent edit lost quite a bit of information: The names of the four lines, the personal names, for instance (it's worse for the majority of kings who don't have their own article yet). And the name of the first kind changed. Why is that? Rl 12:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes by Sydneyphoenix (see also his talk page) - that's just vandalism, I think. Babelfisch 01:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It didn't look like vandalism to me. It looked more like an attempt at a cleanup. The table was replaced by a new list that someone had to write. I was just concerned that the most of the information hadn't been moved out to the respective articles on the individual rulers, and no plan had been announced here to do so. But I hadn't noticed the same user had done this once in April already, and never bothered to explain their action. Thanks for catching this. Rl 08:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think the list was written, it was copied from the article "Rulers of Korea", and a lot of information was lost. I've checked with that article and I'm going to add links to the table in this article accordingly.

If more articles on Koguryŏ rulers are written, they should be linked correctly both with this article and the article "Rulers of Korea" - which is a bit problematic. Babelfisch 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. How about keeping only one table (maybe in a template included in both articles)? Rl 11:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone has just deleted the Pinyin for the personal names and replaced it by a Korean transcription, without even bothering to add Hangŭl. And judging from the separation of syllables and transcriptions like "Woo" for the character 優, that person did not really know what he or she was doing. I'm actually tempted to revert the whole thing to Pinyin and wait for someone more competent to add Hangŭl and an acceptable transcription, i.e. McCune-Reischauer or Revised Romanization. Anyone against that? (And maybe this section of the discussion should be moved to the heading "Rulers Table" above.) Babelfisch 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free. I'll add the hangul and RR unless someone gets to them before I do. Argh... sometimes I think that section isn't worth the trouble of defending it against vandalism. -- Visviva 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Babelfisch, do you speak Korean or have access to a Hanja-to-Korean dictionary? Zanderredux

I don't have access to my dictionaries at the moment, otherwise I'd add Hangŭl and a proper transcription. And you don't need to know a lot of Korean to see that the romanisation can't be correct: Neither McCune-Reischauer nor the Revised Romanisation ever yield something like "woo" or "beak". Babelfisch 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you made a big mess of the table of rulers' names. Have you tried to spread out all of the childhood(?) and nick(?) names of Goguryeo kings on it? You must be insane! You claim there were full of mistakes in the rulers' names. But as a Korean native, I found just one obvious mistake. So I doubt that you are capable of verifying a simplest error in romanized Korean. But you claim 'full of mistakes' were done by an anonymous user.

Let's cut to the chase.

Unlike Chinese, separation of syllables is quite usual in Korean. Especially spelling Korean personal names in Roman alphabet.

Almost all Korean spell 'Woo' instead of 'U' for the syllable ‘우’. This is accepted as common usage. According to your claim, it should be incorrect to spell Lee(李) instead of I(李).The rule allows a lot of exceptions in romanized Korean personal names , which is quite difficult for non-Korean speakers to master all of it at a glance.

‘劉’ is a miswritting of '釗'. 'Soe' is a typical Korean reading for '釗'. A mistake by a non-native Korean. So, there is no alternative Chinese pronunciation for it.

To be honest, I recognized that you are a person of Sino-centric view, by using such a term as 'Korean transcription'. Miraculum 12:22, 18 August 2005

Woo is not correct under any standard Romanization system. As you may be aware, Wikipedia uses the Revised Romanization for historical items. Under the Revised Romanization, the only correct romanization of 우 is U. This need not apply to the names of contemporary people, who are free to decide how they want their name to be romanized, but there is no reason to tolerate this inconsistency. I am taking the liberty of restoring Babelfisch's hard work. As far as Soe, I don't have original source materials at hand right now so you may well be correct.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks, especially on a longstanding and hardworking editor such as Babelfisch. Thank you.

--Visviva 03:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not just the names of contemporary people! Exceptions are allowed in historical characters as well. Miraculum 02:10 19, August

Miraculum, I appreciate that you added Hangŭl, but I neither appreciate your insults nor your deleting Pinyin and some of the names without any previous discussion. And of course there is a Chinese pronunciation for 釗: It's zhāo. The character is quite common in Chinese personal names today. Babelfisch 10:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that a pure misunderstanding or a kind of distortion? I never said that there is no Chinese pronunciation for 釗. There are three Korean pronunciations for the character 釗. ‘Zhāo’, the pronunciation, you mentoned applies directly to the Korean pronunciation ‘gyo’. I regret that you felt insulted by me , but this doesn’t mean that I will allow your preconceptions, that may mislead or misinform the readers. Miraculum 02:07 19, August 2005