Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 11

Goguryeo is an Empire

<nationalist rant removed again>

You have no right to delete a section with no reason. I recovered this thread to be visible to the public once again. You always accuse and demoralize the Koreans as being 'nationalist', yet a statement going the other way around is wrong and unacceptable? Wandrative (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The above attack on me (You always accuse and demoralize the Koreans) was never stricken despite my requests, so I might as well note here that the editor who wrote it was indeffed for a bunch of reasons including making personal attacks like the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Wandrative: please assume good faith. Hijiri88 deleted the message because Richeaglenoble was a blocked user known for disruptive editing. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe Goguryeo as a kingdom, not an empire, see Google Ngram. You need to stop promoting this minority/fringe view and stop accusing people who disagree with you as vandals. -Zanhe (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Zanhe: Can I please enlighten you with pure information for once, Wikipedia aside? Of course Goguryeo is described as a Kingdom because It was a Kingdom, and it was a Kingdom for a long time, then It became an Empire. Rome was a Kingdom, then a Republic, then an Empire. This is basic stuff. It does not work like Chinese dynasties where one dynasty has to always be a dukesdom/kingdom/empire. Please stop being so biased and Sinocentric for once. If the ideology is not Sinocentric then it is suddenly a "minority/fringe theory". I might as well as help the Vietnamese from the Sinocentrics if this continues. And please acknowledge what you did. You did not simply disagree with me, as mentioned before, you erased entire sources and misrepresented them. That is vandal activity.Wandrative (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you have this battleground mentality treating this as a battle of ethnic groups? Go ahead and help the Vietnamese from the "Sinocentrics" by all means, as long as you use quality sources. I only care about what neutral reliable sources say, and I've reverted multiple "Sinocentrics" myself (see [1] [2] [3]). Rome is universally recognized as an empire, and as the Google Ngram shows, Goguryeo is not. -Zanhe (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Alex Shih: I think this is long enough ago that your "involvedness" is not an issue. Would you mind re-blanking this section, whichThis section originally consisted of nothing but off-topic personal attacks and advocacy of OR and plagiarism?. I don't think User:Wandrative would consider re-restoring the section or calling me and [[User:Zanhe}} "vandals" if an admin was the one who did the blanking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I might as well just ask User:Drmies or User:Bishonen to do it, given how clear cut it is now that the OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry and threats of violence for four months. (And for what it's worth, I had no idea this section had been restored until Zanhe pinged me just now.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I think some of the people are misunderstanding the case here. None of the actions (within this talk section) that User:Zanhe did was claimed to be 'vandalism' by myself. These statements were referencing several editorials in other pages. This page was restored almost half a year ago - and back then I think the user who opened the section was not blocked at the time. I restored the section with no edits for the reasons that I've written in the first paragraph. I was not involved in this talk section ever since up until User:Zanhe ping'd me today.Wandrative (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wandrative: Are you serious? Richeaglenoble was blocked on 15 September 2017, and you restored his attack post on 2 October, while adding the message "You have no right to delete a section with no reason ... You always accuse and demoralize the Koreans as being 'nationalist'" That's what you call "not involved"? -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Yes that is exactly what I have written. Obviously, I don't memorize when exactly the other guy was banned (If not I ever knew if he was even banned or not) so I wrote that "I THINK the user who opened the section..." I guess I must be sorry for not guessing the exact date or not realising he was banned half a year ago. Others can always read the initial reason for recovery in its original form. Of course, it would have been good if someone ever did poast the reason for its deletion when I actually recovered it. I wrote that I was not involved since posting the reason for recovery: which has been half a year since. It is interesting that you make my words sound like a lie when everything was stated crystal clear. And then today you started to shine this section to the light once again. Do you wish me to do the same for you? Wandrative (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wandrative: "The other guy" was blocked for a multitude of reasons, including posting racist attacks on the Chinese like the one I blanked and you restored. Following his block, he spent about a week rampantly socking and saying things like "it doesn't matter where you hide your family; I will find them". Why you would ever want to restore a post by someone like that several weeks after someone else had blanked it (and the blanking had been tacitly sanctioned by a multitude of editors on ANI) is beyond me. I implore you to strike your initial comment about me and how I have no right to blank other editors' comments and drop this whole thing, as it is extremely unlikely to end in your favour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have again removed the nationalist/racist rant from the blocked user Richeaglenoble. They weren't blocked at the time of the removal, but Hijiri gave detailed and very good reasons for his removal in the edit summary: "WP:NOTFORUM... you are not allowed come on here and post racist rants about how evil the Chinese are and how impure their blood is." It's a little shocking to me that User:Wandrative restored the section with a comment that "You have no right to delete a section with no reason".[4] Wandrative, you restored a racist rant, which had been removed for being a racist rant, and you called that reason "no reason". I hope you will reconsider making those types of edits. (Incidentally, October 2, 2017, was less than four months ago, not six.) Bishonen | talk 10:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

Hijiri 88 Bishonen I am now finally informed that Richeaglenoble did use certain racist phrases in other talk pages, but the talk page that we are in seems devoid of such context. Please define why the phrase that was erased on this talk page is indeed a "racist rant".

Secondly, I have raised the question half a year ago - and no one came to answer the question. It seems apparent that this discussion is continuing for abhorrent reasons unrelated to the reasons that are being discussed. Wandrative (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what Richeaglenoble says. But I assume his "I think Chinese need some proud histories for racial integration" was a comment about race. If it wasn't, their comment was in any case a nationalist rant, which you had no business putting back. Could you please use colons to indent replies, for more clarity? See WP:INDENT and please check preview to see how it comes out. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

@Wandrative: To be clear, the comment I blanked and Bish reblanked was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, regardless of whether it was racist in nature. Theoretically, if another editor in good standing had written the exact same thing Richeaglenoble had written, it would have been possible to read it as a NOTFORUM violation that only looked racist. But interpreting an editor's remarks in light of other things they have written on the same talk page, in edit summaries on the attached article, and even on other completely separate pages, is quite standard procedure, and when the comment in question is read in that light it is impossible to interpret as not being racially motivated. But, as my second edit summary made clear, it doesn't even matter if it was racist; I was right to blank it, and you were wrong to write in a comment clearly directed at me You have no right to delete a section with no reason. [...] You always accuse and demoralize the Koreans as being 'nationalist', yet a statement going the other way around is wrong and unacceptable? Please strike that comment (you can use <s></s>) at your next opportunity, as it is difficult to work to resolve whatever legitimate content problems this article might have when one party to the dispute is hurling attacks against an otherwise neutral third party who is trying to solve the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another war about weasel words

How to discuss if Goguryeo was a kingdom or an empire... when no definitions are given here of what could be a kingdom-but-not-an-empire (KBNAE) or an empire-but-not-a-kingdom (EBNAK) ?

When using sources from the past, we have to consider that we can only rely on Sui/Tang or Silla sources, since the Goguryeo sources were destroyed (e.g. the Sinjip (신집, 新集), compiled during Yeongyang reign). As ever, history is written by the winners. When using modern sources, we have to weight if the words Kingdom or Empire are simply used to describe an entity with a dynastic ruler or are intended to explicitly state KBNAE or EBNAK. And then, we have to weight if these assertions are really about what happened in the past... or about "how to extend our influence area right now" or about "how to adopt an inventive narration when sources from the past are so sparse" ? When using these criteria, what remains of all the alleged sources ?

On the other hand, this looks rather as only another desinfobox edit war. Another example: was the Goguryeo flag with exactly this Pantone number... or was it only red as in Krasnaya Plaza ?

Pldx1 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

about == Controversies ==

During the heyday of Maoism, the Chinese government line was that the history of Gaogouli was Korean history. However, there was almost no research published in Goguryeo from China at the time, and China had a motivation to say so, because of its good relations with North Korea. Since the 1980s, government control over scholarship liberalized, ……During this time, some scholars such as Tan Qixiang questioned the state's old interpretation of history, arguing for the study of all polities within China's territory as part of Chinese history. ……

see also : zh:高句丽争议, please. 林卯talk? 21:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Northeast Project. Koraskadi (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• • 那我就简单问一句吧：你看得懂汉字吗？zh:东北边疆历史与现状系列研究工程。我怎么感觉你在为政府宣传？ 林卯talk? 07:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• 林卯, this is the English Wikipedia, please make an effort to communicate in comprehensible English. The Northeast Project has always been controversial (although Chinese Wikipedia can never be a proper point of reference, this was mentioned there as well), and it was organised by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences along with provincial governments from the Northeast. Of course there were historians involved, but it wouldn't be incorrect to characterise it as Chinese government initiative. Finally, a list of Chinese-language books is meaningless and not appropriate as a form of verification, please take a look at our guidelines about citing sources. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Goguryeo in Russia?

The article provides a link to the source - Kotkin, Stephen; Wolff, David. Rediscovering Russia in Asia: Siberia and the Russian Far East: Siberia and the Russian Far East. Routledge. ISBN 9781317461296. The source claims that Goguryeo was on the territory of Russia. However, the reference to

Andrew C. Nahm.  Korea : tradition & transformation : a history of the Korean people Elizabeth, N.J., U.S.A. : Hollym International Corp., (c)1988. pp.29-31

However, in this source there is no basis for such a statement. Moreover, in the Primorsky Territory, not a single object was found that could be identified as Goguryou, although dozens of objects of the Bohai State were found. https://www.hollym.com/ belongs to the korean far right. What else adds doubtfulness to the statement.

https://opendata.mkrf.ru/opendata/7705851331-egrkn

Here is a complete list of cultural heritage sites including archaeological.

There are many objects of Bohai, Dun Gur (Dandun), Anchun Gurun (Jin), Don Nüzhen (Eastern Xia), but there is not a single Goguryeo object. During this period, all archaeological objects belong to the Yilou tribal alliance.

Can the one who insists that there are Goguryeo objects in Russia indicate the object number for a more substantive discussion?

For example 251440099920006 Krasnoyarovkoe Gorodische - object of Anchun Gurun (Jin), Don Nüzhen (Eastern Xia) period destroyed in 1246.

Please do not roll back this edit as the question is justified and the doubtfulness of the source is subject to a more significant source.Hatchiko (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Many maps of Goguryeo, such as the one from Korean history: Old and New, clearly reach out into the Russian Far East. A joint Korean-Russian archaeological team also found Goguryeo artifacts dating to 530 AD from the Kraskino site. Article on the Kraskino fortress from the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture cites this finding, stating that the Kraskino fortress can be dated to the Goguryeo era.[5] I cannot verify the source in question, so can you maybe provide what is stated in that source(Nahm, 1988: 29-31)? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that Hollym is a far-right publication? Koraskadi (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Kraskino or port or jurchen An or chinese Yan -It was founded in 727 after the war between Bohai and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilou. Yes, as elsewhere in early Bohai, there are some traces of the Koguryos culture. However, the dominant culture there is not a Koguryos, but a Yamatoka one. In particular, the patterns of end discs on the tile, the device of the city wall in the form of a semicircle. Pictures of decor. The city is also mentioned as the port of Peach Trees in Japanese poetry. And this area was called Russian in 19 century Apricot Sopka. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/krounovskiy-kurgannyy-anklav-v-sisteme-bohayskih-pogrebalnyh-pamyatnikov-dalnego-vostoka This site is identified uniquely as the Bohai. Since even approximately the exact date of foundation is known. Known by the written sources date of the war with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilou. And its consequence - the subordination of lands to the Black River - now it is a river. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razdolnaya_River . And it is known that immediately after this port was built. In Russia, this object is studied for 34 years.

http://www.fegi.ru/primorye/history/krask.htm

http://www.rauk.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1533:2014-10-19-15-51-44&catid=126:2011-04-02%2019:33:16&lang=en&Itemid=143

https://cyberleninka.ru/search?q=%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5+%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5

https://cyberleninka.ru/search?q=%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE+%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%B5

Дьякова О. В. (2014). Государство Бохай: археология, история, политика. Монография. Moscow: Наука — Восточная литература. ISBN 978-5-02-036574-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)

Hundreds of works. And it is scientifically proven that this is the city of An (Yan), founded in 727 (maybe a few years later but approximately).

Only in 1998, the first Koreans arrived, did not take part in the excavations but just looked and said - "this is a Korean city." Although obviously this is based only on Korean nationalist theories. The city is undoubtedly Bohai with a large Japanese population and strong cultural influence of Japan. Archaeologically confirmed.

By the way, since I have provided my sources, could you provide the maps of which you are talking about so that we could discuss them. In particular, the year of their creation.Hatchiko (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The said map is from Korea, old and new. It's written by Carl J. Eckbert, a respected historian specializing in Korean history. There are other maps from reliable sources where Goguryeo's territory extend into parts of the Russian Far East. During the Goguryeo controversies, Russian scholars were often invited into the dispute and were involved due to the fact that Goguryeo's territories extended into the Russian Far East. Koraskadi (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The map should be based on archaeological sources. Provide a link to the origin of which confirmed the archaeological discovery of the object Goguryo in Russia. Or stop vandalism.Hatchiko (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hwando

Why is Hwando mentioned repeatedly in this article as the Goguryeo capital when it wasn't the capital, it was a mountain fortress defending the capital of Gungnae? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

Please append the following to the end of last para in the "Religion" section. Feel free to rephrase as you deem fit.

Buddhism,  a religion originating in what is now India, was transmitted to Korea via China in the late 4th century.  The Samguk yusa records the following 3 monks among first to bring the Buddhist teaching, or Dharma, to Korea: Malananta (late 4th century) - an Indian Buddhist monk who brought Buddhism to Baekje in the southern Korean peninsula, Sundo - a Chinese monk who brought Buddhism to Goguryeo in northern Korea, and Ado monk who brought Buddhism to Silla in central Korea.

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done KRtau16 (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

the reason Korean views Goguryeo as Korean history

I will put it in the talk section. First, Goguryeo started within Gojoseon territory & Gojoseon people in Manchuria. Second, Goguryeo's government & its ruling people moved into North Korea a couple hundreds years before Goguryeo was destroyed. Third, regardless of Columbus being Italian, the history of USA & Columbus (Italian) belongs to USA, not Italy. In general perception & by how we humans define history, history is about the story of people. Goguryeo's direct lineage (in government, ruling class & general ethnicity) is Korean in North Korea. Therefore, Goguryeo's history doesn't belong to China but to Korea. The transition from Goguryeo to Korea is a direct & main transition. China's claim on Goguryeo's history is nothing more than a political attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearberserk (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

But you do understand that Samguk Yusa is a pseudobook and Gojoseon is merely a legendary place right? The first recorded dynasty on the Korean Peninsula was Gija Joseon, founded by a Chinese prince Gija. The area was also Han dynasty’s administration before “stolen” by the Buyeo prince. “Goguryeo” was the name of the Chinese county under Xuantu jun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.3.207 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that you are replying to Bearberserk who has since been blocked from Wikipedia, so don't expect a reply. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A problem: for most of the time the capital of Goguryeo is in China. Why is it not Chinese history?--John Smith Ri (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Goguryeo originated from the northern land of China.

Other records by Samguksagi do not seem to suggest that Goguryeo originated in China. When Kim Bu-sik wrote Samguksagi (History of the Three Kingdoms), the Manchu region north of the Yalu River was occupied by the Chinese dynasty (Liao dynasty, Jin dynasty (1115–1234)) founded by Khitan and Jurchen. At that time, the Chinese dynasty occupied the Manchurian region, so it seems to have been described as'Goguryeo originated in northern China'.

According to the Samguk Sagi, the Goguryeo royal family claimed descent from the mythical emperor Gao Yang, who was the grandson of the Yellow Emperor of Chinese mythology, and thus took the surname of "Go" (高). However, this legend was discredited in the commentaries (nonchan; 論贊) of Kim Busik, the compiler of the Samguk Sagi, who concluded that both Baekje and Goguryeo originated from Buyeo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

cause misunderstandings

That record of the Samguk-sagi is likely to cause misunderstandings. It is necessary to describe the original meaning of that record by quoting other records from the Samguk-sagi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

“Han Chinese inhabited Xuantu Commandery”

@IgnisFFFF: Han Shu does not mention the ethnic makeup of commanderies. One thing we know is that the Goguryeo was counted into the population of Gaogouli County during Western Han (Sanguozhi——高句丽令主其名籍). And that is one of the main reasons why they can be considered under Han dynasty rule at that time. I myself do not find it likely that there was any significant Chinese-speaking civilian population in 1st century BC Xuantu. Esiymbro (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Traineek, You added the content, the burden is on you to find the consensus, not on me. Also, why are you adding content knowing that it is not mentioned in source? Esiymbro (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002676730 --Traineek (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Goguryeo in Russia.

There are no archaeological sites of this state on the territory of Russia. The object that in this article is disputed as referring to this state on the basis of an unreliable source without evidence. Russian archaeological science is uniquely identified as belonging to the state of Bohai. [6],[7], [8],[9], [10],[11],[12] and hundreds of other articles.Therefore, I am making an edit to correct this statement. Kaustritten (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Article: Goguryeo

Please delete ", also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]),"

Goguryeo is a country that existed from 37 BD to 668 AD, while Goryeo is a country that existed from 918 AD to 1392 AD. Some may say that Goryeo is an alternative name for Goguryeo because Goryeo is a country that inherited from Goguryeo. However, please amend the article for the reason those two countries are quite different.

In this Britannica article, it shows that Goguryeo is a country in the three kingdom period.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Koguryo

In this Korean news article, it proves Goryeo inherited Goguryeo.

https://m.korea.kr/special/policyFocusView.do?newsId=65055545&pkgId=22#policyFocus

Thank you.

Revised RomanizationGoryeoMcCune–ReischauerKoryŏIPA[ko.ɾjʌ] 220.75.228.155 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Remove the sentence "Most linguistic experts on Goguryeo agree that Goguryeo was a member of the Koreanic language family." The four footnotes there do not say that most linguistic experts agree on this. The Goguryeo language being Koreanic is heavily disputed by historians and linguists.

Authors like Lee and Ramsey suggest that it is a mixture of Japonic, Koreanic, and Tungusic. Other authors like Whitman suggest it is Japonic. Whatever it actually is, the experts do not mostly agree that it is just Koreanic.

Lee, Ki-Moon; Ramsey, S. Robert (2011), A History of the Korean Language, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-139-49448-9. pp 43-44

Whitman, John (2011), "Northeast Asian Linguistic Ecology and the Advent of Rice Agriculture in Korea and Japan", Rice, 4 (3–4): 149–158, doi:10.1007/s12284-011-9080-0 MGetudiant (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Esiymbro (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Add change to the Controversy section from "North Project,Southwest Project" to "North Project, Southwest Project" Sentence spacing error - A space is missing after the comma. --BNParibasguy (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

Add change to the Goguryeo Language section from "The linguistic classification of the Goguryeo language is disputed, and candidate theories include Koreanic, Japonic, Tungusic, and a mixture of the three." to "The linguistic classification of the language is difficult due to lack of historical source. The most cited source, a body of placename glosses in the Samguk sagi, has been interpreted by different authors as Koreanic, Japonic, or intermediate between the two. Lee and Ramsey look broadly to include Altaic and/or Tungusic."

Goguryeon being Tungusic language theory is rejected by mainstream academia, it does not carry the same weight as Koreanic and Japonic. It can be put separately as a claim by certain authors, but shouldn't put together in direct comparison with Japonic and Koreanic as mixture of three. Lee & Ramsey state Goguryeo is intermediate between the Koreanic and Japonic. Tungusic is just broadly looked at in considering of Altaic theory. Altaic language family is a hypothetical language family theory has long been rejected by most comparative linguists. Chinese records also state that the languages of Goguryeo, Buyeo, Okjeo and Ye were similar, while they differed significantly from that of the Malgal (Mohe) Yilou which are Tungusic.

If the various strains of vocabulary represented the lexicon of a single language, a more logical conclusion is that Koguryoan was related not just to Korean or Japanese, but to both. - from Lee, Ki-Moon; Ramsey, S. Robert (2011), A History of the Korean Language, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-139-49448-9. pp 43-44,

--BNParibasguy (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Esiymbro (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Goguryeo language is not Koreanic+Japonic.

Alexander Vovinの学説によると、比較言語学の観点から、高句麗語を朝鮮語族と日本語族の中間で見るのは、地名の語彙に基づく誤った主張です。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega23days (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Translation:

According to Alexander Vovin's theory, from a perspective of comparative linguistics, the view of the Goguryeo language as between Koreanic and Japonic is a mistaken proposition based on toponyms.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• This man changed his views so often that he cannot serve as an authoritative source.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  One may change one's views upon learning more. Vovin is a prominent researcher in this field. As with any field of study, it is important to keep abreast of the latest publications. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• a constant change in a person's views, depending on where he gets funding, deprives man of the right to be called an unbiased scientist. In the case of Vovin, this is exactly what we are talking about. Scientific discoveries are possible. But the constant change of views is not possible.Ulianurlanova (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please fix the error

Goryeo is not the alternative name of Goguryeo. Goguryeo existed in BC37~AD668, and Goryeo existed in AD918~1392. They are different. S.J.Kim, M. (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations. You have encountered the Korean followers of the Nazi ideology "Hwandan Kogi". Unfortunately, the Wikipedia project is too tolerant of the Nazis.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Could you explain in better detail, for those of us unfamiliar with any such Nazi ideology "Hwandan Kogi"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hwandan Gogi this ideology is clearly neo-Nazi in color. And it similar to a number of similar pseudoscientific works that appeared in different countries in the 20th century, which portray some countries with a "great past" and talk about the racial superiority of any nation. In this case, the Korean nation. Ulianurlanova (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Ulianurlanova: I take issue with your use of the word "Nazi", as that is a very specific term relating to German culture and history, which cannot fit this context of Korean history. Perhaps your intention is to express your view that the Hwandan Gogi is "nationalistic"? (I know nothing about the Hwandan Gogi, so I take no position on that text itself.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Any radical nationalism is Nazism. The British refuse to admit this because they committed Nazi crimes against the Indian people, the people of Australian aborigines, African slavery and other racial crimes. They did not condemn these crimes and therefore they only attribute the Nazi crimes to the Germans. However, racially motivated crimes can be committed by completely different nations. Including the British - who have committed many of these crimes. As well as the Americans who dropped nuclear bombs on civilians in Japanese cities. Although there was no military necessity for this. Similarly, the image of the Japanese in the United States was dehumanized and the Japanese were exiled to concentration camps. All this is Nazism. And in the English-speaking world, they simply do not want to admit their crimes. However, scientifically, any theory of racial superiority is a Nazi theory - it doesn't matter British, French, American, Russian, Chinese, Korean, German or Japanese. Hwandan Kogi is one of those.Ulianurlanova (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Ulianurlanova:

      "Any radical nationalism is Nazism." -- If that's how you choose to use the term. However, I don't think most English-language readers are familiar with this definition, so to avoid confusion, you should introduce your definition before using the term this way.

      "However, scientifically, any theory of racial superiority is a Nazi theory..." -- Again, this is not how most English-language writers use the term "Nazi", and it is not how most English-language readers understand the term "Nazi". You are perfectly welcome to use the term with this meaning -- but you will confuse people if you don't clarify your intention when using this word in this way. Case in point: my own confusion further above in this thread, regarding your use of the term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

오혜성0526 (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The history of Korea, Goguryeo, has to be corrected to show the fact that it is exactly the ancient country of Korea. Please allow it for the history of my country.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Full Protection

A temporary lock is needed to prevent constant WP:VAND WP:EW --BNParibasguy (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BNParibasguy, you never answered why you reverted the restoration of the Protectorate General to Pacify the East as a successor to Goguryeo, as I requested above, nor have you given your justification despite being pinged like GoldenTaurus. Do you have any contributions on that matter or did you merely revert to GoldenTaurus' version for no reason? Can you clarify what you mean by WP:VAND when both you and GT have refused to engage in any talk discussion or explanation of your deletions? Who exactly is committing vandalism here? Qiushufang (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any source for the purported flags of Goguryeo?

I don't see any sources mentioned, and I couldn't find any credible sources after five minutes of Googling. The one place that showed the same flag was Namu wiki: https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%98%20%EA%B9%83%EB%B0%9C but the cited "source" was that Samguk Sagi mentioned once that Goguryeo's soldiers used a "red flag." That's it, and there's no further mention of shape or pattern.

For what it's worth, searching for "고구려 깃발" in Google doesn't show anything coherent, and just imagination by modern internet users. I'd like to see a credible source for these images, or see them taken down, before some gullible folks buy it wholesale. 67.164.28.51 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

GoldenTaurus and BNParibasguy

Can @GoldenTaurus: and @BNParibasguy: please explain the logic behind deleting the Protectorate General to Pacify the East as a successor, which was placed upon Goguryeo territory in the immediate aftermath of its demise (supported both in this article and its own article), and calling it WP:POVPUSH and vandalism? In addition Classical Chinese was deleted as a language of Goguryeo, which it used for its script, based on the reason that Classical Chinese is not language, even though its article clearly says it is. This seems like pretty clear cut WP:POVPUSH on your guys' part. Qiushufang (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

After the war, China established an elaborate administrative structure in Koguryŏ, consisting of nine governments-general, forty-two prefectures, and one hundred counties. Namsaeng and other Koguryŏ collaborators were chosen to head the new administrative system. The Tang court also created the Andong (Pacify the East) protectorate-general in P’yŏngyang and stationed 200,000 Chinese soldiers there to ensure effective control of Koguryŏ. Both Koguryŏ and Paekche were now subject to Chinese rule.

— Tang China in Multi-Polar Asia: A History of Diplomacy and War (2013), p. 81

Qiushufang (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, @GoldenTaurus: has also restarted an edit war over at Four Commanderies of Han reverting to his preferred version and inclusion of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH material as outlined at Talk:Lelang_Commandery#Debate_over_the_location_of_Lelang_started_as_early_as_500AD_by_Chinese_historians without any explanation. Qiushufang (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

User:GoldenTaurus has once again reverted me for the third time after being asked to explain his reasoning. His edit summary:

Inaccurate map, Silla drove Tang out of peninsula, PGPE was forced to relocate to Manchuria in 676. Balhae drove Tang out of the remaining Goguryro territory. Tang is not successor of Goguryeo.

Why Silla drove the Tang out of the peninsula is not relevant here because the vast majority of Goguryeo territory did not lie in the peninsula and the article is not about Silla. Stating that the Andong Protectorate was "forced to relocate to Manchuria" in 676 doesn't make sense because Goguryeo was situated in Manchuria. It's obvious GoldenTaurus did not choose the much later relocation in 714 to Hebei because it would support the case of Andong as a successor to Goguryeo. To say that Balhae drove the Tang out of Goguryeo territory despite it happening a hundred years later is also a case for Andong as a successor. If Andong was not the successor, then what did Balhae "drove out" in Liaodong in the late 700s? Qiushufang (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tang did not succeed Goguryeo. GoldenTaurus (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which explicitly state that the Tang did not occupy former Goguryeo lands? Qiushufang has already provided his sources, which explicitly state that the Tang took over Goguryeo and established an administration over its land. A conquest is still a conquest, even if it is brief. Please stop your edit warring. Ratata6789 (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Tang did not succeed Goguryeo. Learn the difference between occupation and succession. Russians wouldnt say Russia succeeded Prussia just because the territory of Prussia, a German Kingdom, Königsberg, now known as Kaliningrad is occupied by Soviet Union and now is under Russian territory. GoldenTaurus (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Prussia actually does list Russia as country of which Prussia's territory is part of. It does not have a successor section. Would you rather we change it to that format? Qiushufang (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

After checking Prussia, it also doesn't seem like it was directly conquered by the Soviet Union but had been a part of Nazi Germany's territory and organization since at least the 1930s. There was no direct succession unlike the Andong Protectorate which was directly instated after Goguryeo's defeat. The comparison is faulty as the two situations are different. Qiushufang (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly relevant to a sock investigation, User:GoldenTaurus made the exact same argument on succession and occupation here as User:Traineek: [13]. Qiushufang (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As of this date, neither User:GoldenTaurus or User:BNParibasguy have engaged in the talk discussion beyond similar one line statements here as well as in edit summaries, similar deletion of warnings in their talk regarding warnings, and similar overloading of WP tags in edit summaries. A sock report has been filed regarding their similarities to User:Traineek at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traineek. Qiushufang (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The more appropriate comparison would be the Ungjin Commandery that was established by the Tang Empire in former Baekje. A conquest is a conquest indeed. But the question should be whether if that conquest was a complete one. Tang's conquest of Silla was an utter failure for sure but the same can almost be said for Goguryeo and Baekje as well. Neither of these conquests were complete and these administrations called 'Protectorates' had little influence over conquered realms. Silla made the initiative to launch war against Tang and the vast majority of the Goguryeo/Baekje populace rebelled against Tang dominion. Consequently, Tang didn't leave much of a presence in any significant sense because it eventually lost control over these territories soon after it was defeated by the Sillan armies and Goguryeo Revivalists. Though it might not be an exactly appropriate comparison since both North and South Korea are both 'Korea', the Andong Protectorate is the equivalent of today's Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces under the South Korean Ministry of the Interior and Safety in a technical, methodological sense. Though South Korea was almost on the verge of recapturing North Korean territories completely, it eventually had to retreat back after the CCP intervened during the Korean War. Though South Korea claims the Korean Peninsula and its surrounding isles as the entirety of its kingdom through this committee, it exercises no substantial power. This was the same for Tang for Goguryeo and Baekje during the 7th Century. I see as it that it is not convincing to claim the Andong Protectorate as a successor of Goguryeo in any sense. It's as if Russians claim the Russian Kharkiv Administrative Quarter is the 'true Ukraine' when in fact that Administrative organization retreated back to Russia during Ukraine's September Offensive. Zessede (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

title

Qiushufang Is there a reason why the title of Hanja should be written at the top of the native name before the Korean title in Wikipedia's article on Korean dynasties?

You say Hanja should be written first because Hangeul wasn't used first at that time, but Vietnamese characters are written first in the Wikipedia article about the Vietnamese dynasty. Shouldn't that change too? Vietnamese Chữ Quốc Ngữ only came into use in the 19th century. Tprtm (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Esiymbro's explanation for this is here. It's because the transcription for Vietnamese is the same in English as it is in Vietnamese. They both use the same characters. Hanja and Hangul are not used in English transcription and Hangul was not used in these periods. Other articles like Ryukyu Kingdom follow the template used here. There's also the difference that names like Goguryeo are already in the native language and both Hangul and Hanja would be pronounced the same in Korean, so they are alternate ways of writing the same thing. You seem to not understand the difference between language and scripts/transcription. Korean is not the same as Hangul and Hanja, those are ways of writing things, not the same as language, otherwise Hanja would just be described as Chinese. Hanja and Hangul have both been used to write Korean, so listing only Hangul as Korean is wrong. Otherwise the fact that they only used Hanja would make them Chinese language, obviously not, but that is the implication following that line of thinking. For example if Hangul is Korean then is Hanja not Korean and Kanji not Japanese? Doesn't make sense. Qiushufang (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The example of Vietnamese dynasties is also not consistent in article. For example, Nguyễn dynasty lists Chữ Nôm first in the lead while Nguyễn lords has 主阮 before Chúa Nguyễn in the native name for status box. Frankly most of the Vietnamese dynasty articles are badly written with many templated so it's understandable that they don't have much consistency between them. Qiushufang (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say the Old Korean name?

User:Tprtm, could you give a quotation of the passage in the source which states its Old Korean name? So far I have not found anything, only that Guryeo and Maekguryeo are other names for Goguryeo, which is not the same as Old Korean. Qiushufang (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

ok Tprtm (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Single user dominating page

Tprtm is clearly policing this and other pages according to Korean nationalist ideas. I am not going to waste my time in a Wikipedia edit war, but it is not healthy when one user dominates pages to prevent edits

You made with a pretty far-reaching, controversial statement with citations to back your point. Also both in traditional historiography and also in modern academic literature such as in the West, Goguryeo generally is considered to be Koreanic. For example, scholars such as Mark Byington, Alexander Vovin, John Duncan, etc. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Exaggerated size of the state

On the territory of Russia and Mongolia there is not a single archaeological object of this state. TTACH (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I remind you. Links to other analogues of Wikipedia are not reliable sources like a link to Wikipedia itself.

The article written by a journalist, not a specialist, is an original study and also violates the rule of reliability of the source.

The source in another language is perfectly checked by Google Translate.

In particular, I made in the article the notes not reablity of the link to the analogue of Wikipedia, as well as to the Boulevard Korean newspapers. The same source that allegedly testified to the presence of Korean fortresses in Mongolia was a journalist article about the great campaigns of the Korean primary principals who do not exist in a scientific literature and only the Korean foreigners of Hwandan Gogi. I deleted this source. Since he did not confirm the presence of Korean fortresses in Mongolia. Although it was offered as confirming. Although Hwandan Gogi is an aggressive, anti-scientist, ultra-nationalist korean sect, and it also cannot take a reliable source.TTACH (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

On the territory of Russia and Mongolia there is not a single archaeological object of this state. TTACH (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I've marked the "answered"-parameter on the edit request as "no", this way the requests that are being completed don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. NotAGenious (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the rules of Wikipedia and normal logic, it is supposed to prove the presence of a fact and not its absence.

There is no hard evidence to prove that Goguryeo did not exist in Australia. But that doesn't mean that Goguryeo was there.

The assertions that the state of Goguryeo was on the territory of Russia and Mongolia must be confirmed by authoritative scientific works. And this is not in the article.TTACH (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Null, you get ? not one reliable source not mentioned not any Archeological Site Goguryeo in Russia or Australia Barasilia or France . TTACH (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please support your assertions with reliable sources. This has nothing to do with archeological sites. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 16:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you think may look like such sources? Explain how you can write about what is not the existence? Scientific work that in Primorye there are no archaeological objects of Germany, the Roman Empire, France or the Inca Empire, oh and Goguryeo? And who would write this and why? Not a single object was found and therefore was not written about them anywhere. Also, in Primorye, not one object of civilization of the Mayan or the Roman Empire was not found.

You bring to absurdity. There are no sources in the article on the fact that in the territory of Russia and Mongolia there are such objects, someone has made editing without sources and you demand to prove that it is not possible to prove because no one will list all countries in the history of archelogic objects of which are not on which territory! The proof requires the presence of archaeological objects, and not their absence. TTACH (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is verified presence Goguryeo in Russia, verified articles here:

https://www.koreasociety.org/images/pdf/KoreanStudies/Monographs_GeneralReading/BRIEF%20HISTORY%20OF%20KOREA.pdf

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20090722000068

I can't attest to the Mongolian element as I'm not as familiar with that, but for now I will undo your edits as there is clear evidence of the presence of Goguryeo in Russia even if it was only a small portion of territory Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement made in the Korea Herald in 2010 was false, a false rumor. Kraskino settlement (object of cultural heritage 2500418000 [14]) is not listed as a Goguryeo site.

This is an object of the state of Bohai and was founded no earlier than 727. Completely different state. During the time of the Goguryeo state, there is no cultural layer. The closest object to it in which there :::is a cultural layer during the period of the Goguryeo state is a dump of shells in the Whale Harbor near Zarubino, which belongs to the Ainu culture. To the seasonal settlement of Ainu, which have nothing to do with Goguryeo.

Here are the data from the FEGI of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. [15], Here is the catalog of scientific works "Cyberleninka" of the Lenin Library (if you are not aware, this is the Russian analogue of the Library of Congress in the USA). You can read all these scientific works using Google Translate. [16], Scientific journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences [17]. Absolutely all scientific data point this site exclusively to the state of Bohai, and the strong influence of two Japanese states - Yamato and the chieftain confederation of the Emichi peoples. Even the rampart was built not according to the Goguryeo technology that was widely used in Bohai, but according to the Yamato technology. The end discs on roof tile from the buildings are from Yamato and Zhejiang Province of China.

Yes, in Bohai, the technologies for building fortress walls based on Goguryeo technology were widely used, but Kraskino is just an exception. For example, the South Usuri settlement. [18] It uses Goguryeo technology to build walls, but the cultural layer only begins in the second half of the 8th century and within the Jurchen layout, Heishui Mohe people. For Bohai, this is a fairly frequent occurrence in the south of this state, BUT Kraskino is just completely different.TTACH (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

[https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/epigraficheskie-materialy-bohaya-i-bohayskogo-vremeni-iz-primorya/viewer] For examle Hiromoto and Mititaka who lived in Kraskino. TTACH (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have combed through significant Western literature when I had some time, and found these reliable sources published by academics from the West that all state that Goguryeo had territory in Russia contrary to your claims.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

No verification of original source nor consensus met on figures

I came across the part where it says <<Over 200,000 prisoners from Goguryeo were taken by the Tang forces and sent to Chang'an.>> This part needs to be fixed as they were dispersed thoroughly around China and not just cramped into Chang'an. Original sources from both Korea and China makes it clear that approximately 28,200 - 38,200 households out of 690,000 were forcefully moved into Tang Proper such as Jiangnan (江南), Huinan (淮南), Sannan (山南), and Jingsi (京西) after the fall of Goguryeo.

● Samguk Sagi (삼국사기 / 三國史記): 38,300戶 "夏四月, 髙宗移三萬八千三百戸於江·淮之南及山南·京西諸州空曠之地." ● Zizi Tongjian (資治通鑑): 38,200戶 "(總章二年(669) 四月) 高麗之民多離叛者, 敕徙高麗戶三萬八千二百於江·淮之南, 及山南·京西諸州空曠之地. 留其貧弱者, 使守安東." ● Old Book of Tang (舊唐書): 28,200戶 "(總章二年(669)) 五月庚子, 移高麗戶二萬八千二百, 車一千八十乘, 牛三千三百頭, 馬二千九百匹, 駝六十頭, 將入內地, 萊·營二州般次發遣, 量配於江·淮以南及山南·幷·涼以西諸州空閑處安置." ● Tongjian (通傳): 28,200戶 "二年(669), 移高麗戶二萬八千二百配江·淮以南·山南·京西." ● New Book of Tang (新唐書): 30,000戶 (or 30,000人 -> unlikely) "總章二年(669), 徙高麗民三萬於江淮·山南." Maplebaron (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe it will be better to find another reference that clearly mentions these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplebaron (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Dear all.

Before trying to fix this or that, we should better try to fix the collection of sources we are using. Therefore, I have extracted and sorted ALL the sources that are used in this article. In order to have an useful discussion, I have kept all the reference numbers and changed NOTHING in the text itself.

In what follows, "an English source" should be understand as an academic text, written in English by some academic people, from Korea or from China or from Japan or from somewhere else...

1. There are "usuals" and "other sources", that are... usual references, and other sources.
2. There are "promising sources" that, in my opinion, should be used more often
3. There are "large hammers", i.e. huge books only used to backup a single factoid, as part of some reference bombing. For example, using "International Commission for a History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind (1994). Laet, Sigfried J. de; et al. (eds.). History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. seven tomes, circa 4000 p. UNESCO. ISBN 978-9231028137" (ref019) ... only to prove that "Goguryeo was a great power" seems over the top.
4. There are the magenta links = "not so sources". The point is not if the corresponding assertion has to be kept or not. The point is: the source used seems too weak. A better source from the 1. and 2. lists should be used as a replacement.
5. There are the "cyan links" = citations without a full reference, e.g. hanja citations given without translation and only referenced to a large collection of scrolls. In my opinion, these texts should be integrated in the article, and linked to an English academic source, with a precise reference.
6. And finally, there are the documents utilized in the section "Gogyryeo controversy". In my opinion, these sources should be kept "as is" because they are either academic ... or descriptive of how huge the controversy was ... or remains!

Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

All of this may be true but your implementation is absolutely and completely broken. It leaves the article in an unacceptable sorry state. You need to learn how Wikipedia articles are formatted are start again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Note per WP:ONUS you will need to gain consensus before re-implementing your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear User:ActivelyDisinterested. To quote your own words, the historical state of this article on Goguryeo is "an unacceptable desolate state". Especially the references. In your preferred version, they form a broken mix of "whatever comes up from a Google search." But if you think such a mess is better than pointing out the problems and sorting what should be kept from what should be left out, you are entitled to your opinion. My intent was only to obtain an academic level bibliography. This bibliography has been constructed and published. Someone was talking about "upgrading Wikipedia's perceived trustworthiness to be meme-worthy...". Hurray up !!! Pldx1 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not my preferred version, just the version before your broken attempt. Also when did I say "an unacceptable desolate state"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Pldx1, please go back and check the state of the article when you made edits.

I am seconding @ActivelyDisinterested here, the edits introduced were not done properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&oldid=1183514593

This is how the first paragraph, that viewers would see, reads after your edit:

"A full reorganization of the references is undertaken.

• cyan links = quotations without a full reference. To be replaced or ousted. Due date for completion= 2023-11-11.
• magenta links = "not so sources" : the assertion is not questionned, but the source used seems too weak. A better source from the list given will be used as a replacement. Due date for completion= 2023-11-11.
• sourcing from not centered works will be reduced.
• and the anchors refxxx will be removed

Goguryeo (37 BC – 668 AD) (Korean: 고구려; Hanja: 高句麗; RR: Goguryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko̞ɡuɾjʌ̹]; lit.: high castle; Old Korean: Guryeo) ref007  also later known as Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ), ref008  was a Korean kingdom ref003  ref009  ref010  ref011  ref012  located in the northern and central parts of the Korean Peninsula and the southern and central parts of modern day Northeast China. At its peak of power, Goguryeo controlled most of the Korean Peninsula, large parts of Manchuria and parts of eastern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia as well as Russia. ref013  ref014  ref015  ref016 "

Those refs are word for word in the article, and completely disrupts the flow of the article and makes it impossible to read."

The fact that the first paragraph starts with "A full reorganization of the references is undertaken, cyan links...magenta links...sourcing.." is not ok. Yes the page needs updated edits, but the edits that were made to fix it were not done correctly. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

How to organize a cooperative revision of this bibliography ?

The first paragraph of the proposed working document was not as quoted above. What the reading revizor should have read was rather:

Goguryeo (37 BC – 668 AD) (Korean: 고구려; Hanja: 高句麗; RR: Goguryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko̞ɡuɾjʌ̹]; lit.: high castle; Old Korean: Guryeo)

ref007 also later known as Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ), ref008 was a Korean kingdom ref003 ref009 ref010 ref011 ref012 located in the northern and central parts of the Korean Peninsula and the southern and central parts of modern day Northeast China. At its peak of power, Goguryeo controlled most of the Korean Peninsula, large parts of Manchuria and parts of eastern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia as well as Russia. ref013 ref014 ref015 ref016

Do you really think that the author of this working document could have missed the fact that these hardcoded anchors were introduced on purpose ? Or could have missed the fact that *some* of these hardcoded anchors were colored (cyan, magenta, etc) ? Therefore, let us suppose that these anchors and colors weren't attributed at random, but on purpose, and, additionally, let us suppose that some editor would pass by, with the intent of curing this set of references.

We have a magenta one, namely ref013. The corresponding source was questioned (not by me). In my opinion, this source is rather a "not-so-source", while, in any case, the factoid to address has already the backup of THREE RS, and has never been challenged. Thus: curation = remove.

Moreover, we have a cyan one, namely ref008, supposed to address the factoid << Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ)>>. But this reference leads to a "wiki-article which is not even written in full". Moreover, Korean blogs aren't providing such "}}lit}}"!!! Thus curation = remove.

And now, we can see the usefulness of the hardrefs: when suppressing some refs, the softrefs are rolling since they are not supposed to be significant. At the end of the process, a simple script can remove all the hardrefs. Obviously, this suppose that some editors will come and evaluate the NONO set, the not-so-source set and the large-hammers set. As of now, only the color of the hardrefs has been discussed.

Good work to everyone ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah please don't do any of this to a live article. If you believe a source is unreliable simply remove it and replace it with {{citation needed}}, or it you believe something is wrong correct it and supply a new reference. There are other templates you can use to highlight other type of issues in the article. All of this should be done without introducing your own custom ref# + colour coding system.
You are also introducing errors into the article, including no-target errors which is what brought me to the article. You may not be able to see these as they are off by default, not my decision, but you can turn them on by following the directions in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. The Sources / Further reading / External Links sections all have specific purposes you shouldn't just add a boat load of additional cites to the end of the article. Nor should you add your own commentry to articles.
If you want to improve the article that's great, but the way you're currently going about it is all wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the reply above, in general, do not use colors to communicate information like this on Wikipedia, as per MOS:COLOR. It's not good for accessibility and it can create articles that are very out of place compared to the rest of the wiki. Remsense聊 22:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"If you believe that a source is unreliable"... This is not the problem that need to be fixed here. In fact, I don't believe that ONE source is unreliable. I believe that the whole reference set is unreliable, being an indistinct mix of academic sources with low grade things. A great example is the "External Links" section, where Pr. Beckwith is crucified with three larrons. A full, systematic, revision is needed. And therefore editors should be gathered, not only people wanting to discuss about colors. But doing nothing is also an option. Have a good day ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm speaking here because I'd like to generally contribute, I just brought up the colors as a salient point that hadn't been specifically articulated yet. Remsense聊 20:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to talk with editors about the state of the article you can do so on this talk page, or the talk page of the appropriate project. You shouldn't do this by putting commentry into the article.
Also the external links are not sources used in the article, they are links that the reader may also be interested in. You can remove them if they fail any of the points laid out in WP:ELNO. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

also, to be clear, it sounds a bit like you want to establish basic consent for the changes you already wanted to make/possibly farm the work of it out—rather than broaching a potential issue, and then collaborating on working out what needs to done, and then doing it. this is wikipedia, there are plenty of options available between what you have deemed a 'full systematic revision' and 'doing nothing', as you have seemingly presented. Hopefully you are open to that if consensus looks different than what you initially envisioned. Remsense聊 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)