Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 3

Logic! Logic please! My Korean fellas

"Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea....."

Gee. where is KOREA at that time? This is a question of who is *supposed* to inherit the GaoGouLi legacy - a matter traditional view, nothing to do with old/new historical evidence.

-2/3 of the GaoGouLi territory (at its peak time) are in China today. -No evidence shown more GaoGouLi people migrate into XinLuo or BaiJi than to Tang. -No evidence shown GaoGouLi language has any relationship with Korean language today (btw. Do -Korean even have a unified written language before 19th century anyway?)

BTW. Korean scholar's wishful thinking and fabrication do not count. Please.

Is GaoGouLi Korean? I don't think so. Is GaoGouLi Chinese, hard to say. Chinese is unlike Korean, we are the result of 5000 year of assimilation of many many races/nationalities. It is more of a cultural identity than a racial one. In that sense, I can's even see lots of indigenous invention by looking at Korean's "traditions". Your names are Chinese, your ettiquette are Chinese, and boy, even your dress is somewhat a variation of Chinese dress.

...Let alone GaoGouLi, which disapeared 1400 years ago, destroyed by a much advanced civilization - Tang.

Darkstyx 20:55, 03 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you've been blinded by your Red Regime and their fabricated history. If your statements prove true, then the Celts are not part of France's history, the Ottomans arent Turks, and the Mali Empire originate from Scandanavia. But let us take India for an example. One of the ancient Indian dynasties, the Maurya, certainly did not speak a language similar to the modern Indian language, nor did they consist of one solid race. However, the Mauryan Empire is considered part of Indian History. One more thing, you say China is the result of five thousand years of assimilation of nationalities. That is only due to Communism. Han supremacy was easily visible during the latest Han-ruled dynasty, the Ming, while diffrent races were looked down upon and kept under control. If you consider Communism a culture, have fun but without it, I'm not too sure taht China would be diffrent from Russia, where racial tensions are clearly visible. Moreover, Korea does have its own written language, completely diffrent from the chinese script unlike the Japanese Harigana, but it was used by the lower class rather while the upper class used Hanja.

By the way, saying Shinlou and BaiJi instead of the proper names Shilla (신라) and Baekje (백제), it is revealed that you are evidently blinded. What also reveals your historical stupidity is the fact you mentioned Baekje, it was ANNEXED BY SHILLA YEARS BEFORE GOGURYEO FELL! You clearly are unaware of the peninsula's history. In truth, Koreans in Goguryeo migrated to the Tang and Shilla while a great many of them stayed in their lands, only to found another Korean nation, Balhae (발해) or as the Commies like to call it, Bohai.

Also, what you are then suggesting is that Koguryeo is part of the PRC history, and by looking at the things you are saying about Korean culutre, names and heritage, you are thereby stating that Korea is merely a nation within China. Indigeonous invention you say, well thank you, because its true. Korea had great influence from China, but only due to the fact that the Huanghe civilization outdates the Korean one. Its called 'cultural diffusion', you no-nothing, red commie.

The fact that the Tang was advanced is true, but Goguryeo resisted its Sui/Tang attacks for an extensive time before finally succumbing. Yeongaesomoon had died, but during his lifetime, even the famous Taijong of Tang failed to invade Goguryeo. Why do you think the Koreans feel so much pride for Goguryeo? It is the symbol of resistance, and considring the fact that Korea was dominated by the Japanese for 35 years, you would think that they love their history and culture. So be a good communist and assimilate races within your own nation, and stop with this nonsense Red Imperialism.

Dulylomo 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The modern English name "Korea" derives from "Goryeo" and "Goryeo" derives from "Goguryeo". Compared to this, China had not considered "Goguryeo" as its own history for a long long time. The main reason of this controversy is for its own political interest not the historical truth. --Crmtm 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The modern Korea name "한국(韓國)" is the same as the name of one ancient kingdom of China. Do they have any relationship? Speaking of political interest, some people of South Korea, including some law makers and officers, think Manchuria or part of Manchuria should belong to South Korea. I guess that's one cause of this disputation.

Does China have any research documents regarding Gogyryeo before all this trouble began? Hardly any 216.165.24.53 05:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The person up there who believes that 한국 and the Chinese for Han is same, you could not be more wrong. The characters are distinctly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.14.31.210 (talk) Don't be so confident. Do you know Warring States Period of China? There are 7 Kingdoms, one of which is '韓國'. I know korea school teach some knowledge of history of China. You should know this.

Indeed, 韩国 was one of the seven kingdoms during the Warring States. It was also the first to be beaten by 秦始皇. This 韩国 has nothing to do with 大韩民国. And, 韩 is different from 汉. The former refers to Koreans, the latter refers to Chinese.Erik-the-red

In my opinion, the fact china claims Koguryo as part of their history right now is due to PRC is based on the PRC's political and cultural policy. Right now, many Koreans see that Koguryo isn't chinese because they aren't "ethnically Han Chinese". Yet, sad to say, but the fact "Han equals Chinese" theory is totally messed up when the Manchurians took over; to make the many different race of people live in the country harmonously, the PRC took the approach of being Chinese as the collective term of the many nations that resided in China geographically. And Yes, this is why many Chinese thinks of "Manchurians", "Tibetians", "Mongolians", "Hmong" and so forth as being "Chinese" also. This topic is really hard to discuss since it really have no definite answer, it's like asking what is American, do you consider the "Sioux" indians as part of American History eventhough their foundations have nothing by most part due with the foundations with the United States of America. My explainations are kinda messy, i hope people get what i mean. At a result, i make sense that Goguryo to be part of China History but i think a note should be made they are not "Han Chinese" in which many see the Chinese culture as.Kai.Standard

How does pointing out that all of this is part of PRC construction make Goguryo part of Chinese history??? You are not making any sense. We all know that Chinese identity is made up of more than just a claim of ethnicity and that non-Han peoples are considered to be Chinese. Goguryo was NEVER seen as being part of Chinese history until this very recent, artificial, nationalistic PRC campaign and isn't reflective of historical reality.Melonbarmonster 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Relax there, what i am trying to say is that the Koreans and Chinese see Goguryo differently. In my opinion, Chinese see Goguryo as part of their country because GEOGRAPHICALLY where Goguryo lies thousand years ago is part of their country now. What is the claim of Korea being descented from Goguryo, because Goguryo is geographically where Korea is located now, culturally it is influenced today's Korea? (elaborate if u wish, cuz i noe i miss alot) Aguring today's Koreans are genetically descented from Goguryo is not well supported since the country is destroyed over 1000 years ago and its descendents can spread everywhere in this many years. I heard from my friends that Jurchens (Manchurians) are descented from Goguryo and aint them "Chinese" now?

You stated, "Goguryo was NEVER seen as being part of Chinese history until this very recent, artificial, nationalistic PRC campaign and isn't reflective of historical reality"

Recent or not I aint so sure and i can care less since it is only RECENTlY that China become multiracial country that is not just for the HANS. NATIONALISTC, yay u r right. ARTIFICIAL, the whole Goguryo thing is artificial...can you give "empirical" evidence that Goguryo is Korean or is Chinese? Goguryo is a country that existed during the Three kingdoms and is destroyed over a thousand years ago, and I am sure they haven't left any things saying "OUR DESCENDENTS ARE KOREANS" OR "CHINESE". We can agrue for eternity and never find an answer and this forum is a diseaster, many are simply posting nationalistic views against each another just find something that can make both parties happy and call "PEACE".

Kai.Standard

Yeah you're right. Han chovenism defined Chinese identity for most of Chinese history. The Wall wasn't built to keep out fellow "Chinese" let me remind you. Manchus were despised for being foreign and the Manchus adopted Han Chinese more than Manchu-fying Han China. THere was no common "Chinese" ethnic identity but a diversity of ethnic identities that had their place in a Han patriarchy.

It's only after the PRC came into existence that ethnic minorities within the current Chinese border started to become sinofied. I mean that's the real motivation behind this Northeast propaganda stuff and not any real academic exploration of Goguryo. Plus, there's the obvious possibility of NK imploding and these theories would provide some sort of basis for intervention.

As for your request for empirical evidence, you can't get more empirical than pointing out the fact that Goguryo was considered Korean by Chinese and Koreans for literally thousands of years. Both Chinese and Korean historical records(culturally always mutually respected) reflect this. That's just historical reality. Unlike old defunct kingdoms in Europe or your comparison of Sioux being AMerican, Goguryo was seen as a predecessor to Korean civilization by both CHina and Korea for a long, long time and worked itself into the Korean cultural, ethnic identity during that whole time.

Practically, Goguryo words persisted into early Chosun and it's widely believed that Japanese is related to Goguryo linguistically. I personally think this bears out in a weird way because when Japanese people try to speak Korean it sounds eerily similar to NK dialects. There's also bunch of folk customs that has roots in Goguryo culture. But I think most of Korean links with Goguryo is historical and the cultural identity that comes from that. Melonbarmonster 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The same research that shows Japanese linguistic relation to Goguryo also shows the lack of a relation with the Korean language. Wouldn't that make them ethnically closer to the Japanese than to modern Koreans? Jared Diamond's hypothesis is that the people of Goguryo and Baekje were ancient Japanese, and that following the destruction of their kingdoms in the wars, waves of refugees fled to Japan, bringing their language and culture. And historically, this was also around the time that Japan really started to take off, have a huge development in its culture, and really grow in population beyond what it was during the Jomon period.

But anyway, it's specious that you claim that Chinese identity never existed but Korean one always did. I could point out that Korea and Koreans regarded the Qing Dynasty as being Chinese for the hundreds of years that it existed. "Both Chinese and Korean historical records reflect this. It's historical reality." Unlike the old defunct kingdoms of Europe, Qing was considered as a successor to Chinese civilization by Chinese and Korea for a long, long time, and worked itself into Chinese cultural and ethnic identity during that whole time.

As for the Chinese identity, national identities are defined differently by different groups of people in different points in time. *Korea and Japan, for example, are primarily ethnic identities: homogeneus countries with a single ethnic group, culture, and language, and the identity primarily being based around the identity of this group rather than territory.

• The UK, on the other hand, has a mixed heritage, as its people come from a mix of Angles and Saxons, who themselves absorbed Celts such as the Irish, Welsh and Cornish, Norse invaders, Roman colonists, and French-speaking Normans. The UK is a mix of all these and more, and each of the primary cultures, the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are each regarded as being British, and the history of each of those countries and people being regarded as part of British history. That the Anglo-Saxons are regarded as part of British history doesn't mean the British have territorial claims on Saxony in Germany. Such a national identity is based upon multiple ethnicities.
• The US, at the other end of the spectrum, doesn't have a strong ethnic identity, its identity primarily being a civic one, where American identity is a matter of holding American citizenship and willingness adopt and defend certain American values such as the constitution, freedom of speech and relgion, and democracy. Such a national identity is not based on ethnicity at all.

China doesn't seem to be unique in its national identity. It seems to be trying to do what the French did after the French Revolution, build a stable country on the ruins of an monarchy, and make the transition from monarchy, and adopting civic nationalism instead of ethnic nationalism. Whereas previously the Chinese empire was held together by various ethnic groups sharing loyalty to a common emperor, they are now cultivating a common identity based on all the people within its current territory, and countries formerly lying within its territory, such as Dali, Nanchao, Nanyue, and yes, Goguryo are regarded as part of that history. As I said, the UK does much the same thing, regarding the histories of England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland as part of its history, and also regarding the period where it was controlled by a French-speaking Norman aristocracy as part of English history and not exclusively French history.

History, unlike archaelogy, isn't a science, so you may or may not agree with this interpretation, and I'm not trying to convince you to, and that's why I'm not editting this into the page. However, from seeing certain hateful and immature comments made to me by certain users (you know who you are) and on this discussion page, it does seem that quite a few teenagers see only a one-sided perspective on things and regard all other views with hostility and suspicion. So whether or not they agree, it does some good for them to at least understand alternate views before they grow up holding a lifetime of hatred in their hearts. --Yuje 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no way in hell Korea or Koreans were ever Chinese, Nor my own Mongolians anyone else outside of China that they wish to claim.

Protection on February 23, 2007

Folks, you are not going to persuade the other side by edit warring. Please refrain from doing so and discuss your points here. --Nlu (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not revert edits made by Assault11 regarding a statement made by a Peking University professor:

The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in China. In 2006, a senior scholar of Peking University, one of the most prestigious universities in the People's Republic of China, affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[1] He has expressed disagreements with the CASS institute, the Chinese government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.

I have provided the source, in English, which can be verified by all readers. His revert was sheerly based on his NPOV. Please revert his edit by adding that passage again, as it's important to make it known to readers that there are scholars in China who reject the CASS's claims.

In fact, the current article is a result of the edit wars. What is the China history table even doing there, when it doesn't even have Goguryeo in it? This is ridiculous. Nnlu, pleae revert this article to the last version before all this started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydevil (talk • contribs)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean that your POV is NPOV. As I said, please continue to discuss. --Nlu (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then what is "NPOV"? According to WP:NPOV, nationalism is a POV bias. Chinese who say Koguryo is "Chinese" are ultranationalists supporting the Chinese government's recent political reinterpretations of Koguryo. Lets check neutral sources of authority that are not tainted by Chinese ultranationalism:

| Encylopedia Britannica

| MS Encarta

| Encyclopedia of World History

| Columbia Encyclopedia

| World Book

With respect to widely accepted view in neutral sources of authority, Koguryo should be regarded as a Korean kingdom within the context of Korean history. Any claims that it's a "Chinese" kingdom should be limited to the modern politics section, as it's a very recent political reinterpretation by the Chinese government. Cydevil 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Nationalism is a POV bias." Look in the mirror, I'd say. Again, please discuss logically. Don't throw nationalist epithets around. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think even Balhae is on the Chinese history table. Good friend100 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that my POV is biased by nationalism? I've provided sources that offer neutral POV of authority. Are they also tainted by my nationalism? I hardly think so. As far as any Chinese rewriting of Koguryo history is concerned, it should be limited to the Modern Politics section. It should be left out of the main body of the article to convey the mainstream POV of Koguryo history to readers. Cydevil 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the naming, Chinese name of "Gaoguoli" shouldn't be included here at all. Use of such a name is virtually non-existant in neutral sources. Including Chinese name of "Gaoguoli" here is as biased as including Korean naming in the Jin Dynasty or Liao Dynasty article. Cydevil 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Balhae, the kingdom did incorporate a significant portion of the Korean peninsula, including Pyongyang, Korea's second largest city after Seoul. It was later incorporated by the kingdom of Koryo. Cydevil 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, as for the rest of Assault11's claims, I won't refute them one by one. However, if you feel there are any substansive claims on his part, pleaes point them out, in which case I'll provide refutations. Also, I hope you'd know that refutations require my personal time, and I ask that you first consider neutral sources of authority before adding any weight to Assault11's claims as to request refutations. Cydevil 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, to sum up my proposal, 1. Any matters involving the recent historical disputes caused by the Chinese government should be strictly limited to Modern Politics, 2. The main body should follow NPOV, and thus be coherent with neutral sources of authority. 3. Any claims reflecting the Chinese government's recent rewriting of history outside of Modern Politics should be regarded as vandalism as it violates WP:NPOV. Cydevil 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to present my view of the issue here. First of all, regarding the issue of Beijing University's stance on the issue of Gaogouli, it is impossible to verify whether or not this is what the "Chosun" article claims. I merely ask that proof be made with the original Chinese source which Chosun derived their conclusion from. It is laughable to see Cydevil touting his theme of "neutral sources of authority" while at the same time, endorses the Korean source Chosun article "claiming" Beijing University does not recognize Gaogouli as part of Chinese history. Whether the Chosun article is in English is not the issue here, as you can see, a Guoxue Chinese article was filed under "Modern Politics" previously to support Chinese claims on Gaogouli.

The article is in English provided by Chosun Ilbo, thus it can be verified by English readers that this is indeed what the Chosun article claims. Also, the interview was made in Korea, thus it is most appropriate that the source is Korean. Cydevil 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Unless there is a Chinese source that reflects this claim by Chosun Ilbo, there is no way we Chinese can confirm the validity of the article. Chosun Ilbo, being a Korean newspaper (with alleged bias towards the anti-China South Korean opposition party) could hardly be part of the "neutral sources of authority" you were boasting about earlier. Simply put, there is no way in hell you would expect us Chinese to believe its word.

This article is for English readers, not the Chinese. If you must insist, aside from the link to the source provided, further explications of its source can be provided within the article. Cydevil 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Way to avoid the issue once again. The problem is the fact that Chosun Ilbo is a KOREAN source. Unless you can give us a third party or the original Chinese excerpts regarding this issue, it is impossible for us Chinese to verify this claim.

Your issue has been noted and refuted. The source is in English, and thus verifiable. We also have a third party source confirming the fact that the Chinese government's claims are disputed even in China[2]. Cydevil 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Refuted by whom? So far, you have no sources that reiterates the Chosun Ilbo's claims regarding BEIJING UNIVERSITY'S position specifically. You are certainly convincing no one here.

Secondly, I fully support having the Chinese history template on both Gaogouli and Bohai. Reason being is that they have much to do with Chinese history. Take for example, most of Gaogouli's descendants today are Han Chinese (690,000 households were incorporated into Imperial Tang) and Bohai was predominantly ethnic Mohe, who are more or less related to other Tungusic tribes (e.g. Heishui Mohe, ancestors of the NuZhen tribes) of Northeast China. Not to mention all original sources that document these kingdoms were in fact, Chinese.

The reason why Gaogouli and Bohai are not in the Chinese history template is because they did not receive/were not in contention for the Mandate of Heaven. Nevertheless, they are still part of Chinese history - in the same manner the ancient kingdoms of NanZhao and DaLi are part of Chinese history.

Hope this cleared up some misunderstandings regarding my edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

690,000 households were incorporated into Tang? Not even the Chinese government makes such a ludicrous claim. This is not a place for your original research. Cydevil 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what you're even talking about? That 690,000 figure comes from Xin Tang Shu, it is a fact that most of Gaogouli's population migrated into Tang's domain after its demise. Then again, your ignorance comes as no surprise to me, considering the fact the very Koreans here who claim to be "heroes/heroines of 'Goguryeo'" have never even glanced upon these original sources concerning Gaogouli.

The 690,000 figure of Xin Tang Shu is the entire population of Koguryo at the time of its fall, not those that were subjected to Tang's forced relocations. And this just shows how ludicrous your claims are - do you seroiusly believe that a relocation of 3.5 million people(assuming 5 occupants per household) is possible? As I say again, not even the Chinese government makes such a claim, and this shall serve as evidence to your extremist POV. Cydevil 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In 668 AD, Tang sacked the Gaogouli capital at Pingrang (Pyongyang) and set up the 安东都护府 there, thereby incorporating 690,000 households under Tang. However, that was before Tang withdrew with Xinluo (Silla) uniting the peninsula. After that 300,000 Gaogouli households migrated into Tang, 100,000 into Bohai (modern day Jilin, Heilongjiang) and another 100,000 into Silla with 10,000 possibly into Tujue territory. Therefore we can conclude most of the descendants of Gaogoulis today are in fact Chinese.

Quit twisting and distorting words. Tang's | protectorate administration(安东都护府) set up in conquered Koguryo didn't last very long, thus the 690,000 figure has no relevance in incorporation of Koguryo people into the Chinese population. As for your figures on forced relocations, it's a disputable claim made by the Chinese government, and is stated in "Modern Politics" where it belongs. Mark Byington, one of the foremost experts on Koguryo in the United States, defined that claim as "very weak". Cydevil 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese argument for Koguryo's Chinese-ness is a pretty flimsy one. The two main arguments are, 1) that the Koguryo state grew out of the Han Chinese commandery of Xuantu (i.e., out of Chinese territory), and 2) that Koguryo kings acknowledged their places as "minority nationalities" of China by accepting investiture from Chinese emperors. The problems with this are obvious. There are even weaker arguments than this: for example, more Koguryo refugees wound up in Tang China than in Silla after 668, therefore Koguryo was more Chinese than Korean - this argument comes from a prominent historian in Shenyang. The weaknesses of the arguments are well known to the Chinese historians who promote them (and not all historians in China support the "official" position, by the way, but there are two or three very vocal ones who do). The fact that the two core arguments listed above could also be made to apply to Paekche (and even to Silla, with a little extra twisting of the source materials) is also a troubling matter to the Chinese historians I described above, who want to make clear that Paekche was NOT a Chinese state.[3]

As I've said earlier, these political rewriting of history by the Chinese government belongs to Modern Politics. The main article should be coherent with neutral sources of authority to maintain NPOV. As Assault11's claims reflect those of political rewriting of the Chinese government which are generally ignored outside of China, they should be strictly limited to Modern Politics, and reflection of his claims in the main article should be regarded as vandalism and be removed. Cydevil 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, stop putting words in my mouth. Bringing up irrelevant issues that has nothing to do with my comments is not helping your case at all. If you read my words clearly, you would know that of the 690,000 households of Gaogouli, 300,000 of which migrated into Tang (more specifically, the Central Plains area), 100,000 into Bohai (modern day Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces) with only 100,000 into Xinluo (modern day Korean peninsula), and another 10,000 into Tujue territories. The total populations of Tang and Bohai (which both lie within modern day China) constitute more than half of the total Gaogouli populations. Therefore, most descendants of Gaogoulis today are Chinese people.

After Goguryeo's fall most were assimilated into Silla or Balhae, which claimed itself as the successor to Goguryeo. Your claim that 690,000 were assimilated into China is horribly inaccurate. Good friend100 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you read properly? Re-read what I wrote above, if you have any problems with it, dig up Xin Tang Shu (New Book of Tang) yourself. Most Gaogouli descendants are now Chinese, end of discussion.

Your belief that 690,000 Koguryo households were assimilated into China is an extremely biased POV, a claim not even made by the Chinese government. In other words, this is original research, entirely of your fabrication. Even assuming that significant portions of Koguryo people were assimilated into Chinese populations, that still does not give any legitimate claim to its heritage by the Chinese. In ethnic heritage, culture is as much an important legacy as blood relationship. Who among the Chinese, who supposedly assimilated significant numbers of Koguryo prisoners, accept its cultural heritage? Who in China carry on its cultural legacy, as Koreans do? As much as Koguryo is a part of Korean cultural coninuity, Chinese will have to become "Koreans" culturally should they ever decide to practice Koguryo customs. If any Chinese believe they are of Koguryo ancestry, they are welcome to inherit its legacy. In the process of doing so, they'll inevitably becomes Koreans, culturally at least. Cydevil 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you consider Xin Tang Shu to be "entirely of my fabrication" then I am at a complete loss of words. I already stated my position quite clearly above regarding the assimilated Gaogouli populations into China. And about Gaogouli's cultural lineage, since when were Koreans the only inheritors of Gaogouli culture? Gaogouli language was not even mutually intelligible to the language of Silla. The language of Silla is the ancestor of the modern day Korean language, whereas the language of Gaogouli was more akin to the proto-Japanese. In terms of written language, the entire writing system used by Gaogouli was the Chinese Han Zi (Hanja), and all documents were written in classical Chinese. The ethnic Gaogoulis are also more or less related to Northeast Chinese Tungusic tribes as well. If Koreans carried on the Gaogouli cultural legacy exclusively, you would not be speaking modern day Korean or writing Hangul.

As it seems, Assault11 here ran out of any substansive refuations to my arguments, and any further discussion will only lead to bigotry on his part. Nlu, if you believe there are any remaining points from Assault11 that still holds any substansive value, please let me know. I will provide refutations accordingly. Otherwise, I believe it has been proven that this particular individual, Assault11, holds very extremist POV and his edits should be regarded as vandalism. Cydevil 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Wikipedia should be coherent with neutral sources of authority, notably other encyclopedias. The Chinese government's politically motivated rewritings of history is not reflected in any of those sources, and it is generally ignored outside of China. Thus, political revisionism of the Chinese government should be strictly limited to the Modern Politics section. Cydevil 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very disingenuous. The problem lies in your ability (or in this case, lack thereof) to interpret the arguments at hand, as a result, you had to succumb to ad hominem attacks with your usual anti-"Chinese nationalist/revisionist" rhetoric. I have repeatedly requested a Chinese/neutral source to confirm Professor Song's representations on the behalf of Beijing University, so far, I received none. Perhaps its high time that you stop arguing over semantics and repeating the same redundant phrases in your replies. Then again, I never expected to have a "civilized" conversation with someone who would even dismiss original documents (e.g. Xin Tang Shu) as "political revisionism." Oh, and the sheer hypocrisy of your self-styled "neutral sources of authority" is hilarious indeed. It is obvious this discussion is going nowhere, I stand by my original position that Gaogouli is part of Chinese history, and is not mutually exclusive as as some Koreans would like to portray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

If it means that much to you, move the article Three Kingdoms of Korea to Two Kingdoms of Korea. There is a reason why that time period is called the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu

Nlu, please delete the History of China template both on this article and the Balhae article. The template doesn't even include Goguryeo or Balhae. Good friend100 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nlu, if you're going to be neutral, please return the article to the version prior to the POV edits, the one that accurately reflects the references linked above (i.e., without Chinese name table, history template, and category). Etimesoy 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Both articles should retain the Chinese history template, and in the case of Bohai, there should DEFINITELY be a History of China template. Bohai being a Northeast Chinese Tungusic (Mohe) kingdom are related to the Northeast Chinese Heishui Mohe tribe, whose descendants (The NuZhen and ManZu) in turn established the Jin and Qing Dynasties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

There is no disagreement on whether Goguryeo is part of of Korean history. THe Korean history template is not controversial. The Chinese history template is highly controversial and is THE POINT of disagreement here. Chinese history template should be left out until the dispute can be resolved. Especially since the claim is being made in part of the recent Chinese government supported and funded NOrtheast Project that's rejected by even Chinese academics.Melonbarmonster 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, please delete the History of China template, it is not relevent in the article. Good friend100 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

no, don't. Since Goguryo played an important part in the fall of Sui and the rise of Tang, it would be an honor for Goguryo to be an article of Chinese history. Goguryo is a Korean state! Odst 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assault11's Deletions

Please explain your deletions. Those arguements exist and are worth mentioning unless you're denying the existence of these arguements.melonbarmonster 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like page needs to be locked, because of all the Chinese vandalism under new accounts. CronusXT 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CronusXT, you are making some ridiculas updates, whether Goguryeo belongs to Korean will not be proved by deleting everything China related, we must list facts. that is what wiki is about. I am ashamed that CronusXT is Korean. Another Korean nationalist.--KoreaisGreatestCountry 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as "ethnic Chinese" as far as the modern construct of the term is concerned. Secondly, there is no proof as far as I know that most Gaogouli migrated into United Silla after its fall, nor are there any definitive data concerning the total population of Gaogouli. Any sources you can back this up with, feel free to re-add those points.Assault11 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

However, that doesn't mean you can simply remove entire sections without discussion. Good friend100 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tang's Gaozong think Goguryeo people is also his subject

This passage, used in Zizhi Tongjian (see zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201) as well, is as below: 許敬宗等奏請復常，曰：「彗見東北，高麗將滅之兆也。」上曰：「朕之不德，謫見於天，豈可歸咎小夷！且高麗百姓，亦朕之百姓也。」 translated as: Officer Xu said to the emperor:"The comet appeared in the north-east, it is the sign that Goguryeo will fall." Gaozong said,"It is the god blaming my misbehavior, how can we blame on the minor people. meanwhile, Goguryeo people is also my subject。" It proved that Tang refer Goguryeo as a rebelled state.--207.168.191.2 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. (Wikimachine 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Not OR, as it cites a reliable ancient source, but it doesn't prove the point proffered. That Emperor Taizong considered Goguryeo people his subjects as well doesn't show that he believed that they were Chinese -- or that, even if he did, that that matters to us at all as to the Chinese character or lack thereof. --Nlu (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryo was a Tang vassal. That's why he said it, or maybe because of China's "mandate of heaven" philosophy. Odst 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Goguryo was a Tang vassal. Yes, it was. That is the point, and it should help us settle the dispute we have here. But I should say it is not the "mandate of heaven" philosophy, at least not only it, Gaozong did it this way to punish him but not to blaim on Goguryeo people, it to some extent showed his mercy on them, and think them as his subject. By that time, Tang think Goguryo as a rebeling vassal, and Silla as a wel-behaved vassal. It is Tang 's duty to protect the Silla subjects from Goguryo invasion. but in the article here, we did not see a single word from this side, which means it is not NPOV.--Yeahsoo 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

--Yeahsoo 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR mandates users to use secondary and tertiary sources. Use of primary source lists under OR. (Wikimachine 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

stop the wipe off right away

• • • I do not know much about Goguryeo, that is why I want to read, but I found most of Chinese related updates is wiped off right after it is updated, that is why I feel no good, I have to dig into the history records. And the sideeffect is, it makes people believe all Korean are nationalists. like category:history of China, there is no reasone it is excluded, part of Goguryeo territory is still in China. but it is wiped off by wiki fighter like CronusXT, I understand them, but I have to say it is not Korean wiki. At least we should have a chance to know what Chinese say. like CronusXT, change Goguryeo -sill-Tang war into Silla Tang invasion, change Tang's general Xue rengui into Xue rengui, and all the words with Korean bias, this is so abonormal. --KoreaisGreatestCountry 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Chinese name of Goguryeo should also be included, someone tell me why it should be deleted?--KoreaisGreatestCountry 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection on March 7

Folks, calm down and take a time out. This is not productive. Based on past experience, I don't expect much productive discussion to come out of this, but at least give at least some respect to WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, OK? Meanwhile, I am going to look at the history and I am ready to impose 3RR blocks this time to anyone who has violated it. --Nlu (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And comment before I impose the blocks (which will be coming in a few minutes): these blocks in no way means that I disapprove of your edits, necessarily. It's that this is clearly a edit war, not reversions of vandalism, and everyone who has violated 3RR sufficiently will be blocked this time, regardless of which "side" you are on. WP:3RR exists for a reason; follow it. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon examination of the history, Assault11 (talk · contribs) and Cydevil (talk · contribs) drew 24-hour blocks. As I protected the page, no one else will be blocked for 3RR, but please be aware that I, and other admins, are going to be quite willing to again impose 3RR blocks if edit warring resumes if/when the page is unprotected. Right now, I'm not going to unprotect it for a while, until I'm convinced that people have sufficiently settled down. --Nlu (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your decision of the block. Good friend100 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Korea history

I have filed a RfC on Korea history (talk · contribs)'s behavior. Any interested parties who are interested in certifying/commenting the matter may do so. --Nlu (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What did he do? Good friend100 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I have a fuller explanation of the reason in the RfC. --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For the chinese part

Basicly,I cann't find the reasonable pretext to not include the Goguryeo in Chinese history.Just take a small experiment.There are 3 country,one is China,one is X,one is Korea.China and Korea want to destroy the country X,so they formed a sino-korean allianze to fight againt X.Later the X was destroyed,and China got the 2 thirds of X's territories,and Korea got 1 third.Now,the Korea says that Because I got the 1/3 of X,I should got the 2/3 also,in my opinion,it is a bold and shameless request to betray the alliance.Obviously that,X is Goguryeo,China got legitimate reason to incorporate it in Chinese history if the Korea incorportate it in Korean History.--Ksyrie 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't work, because Goguryeo is as "Korean" as Silla and Baekje, not to mention Tang Dynasty didn't hold onto former Goguryeo territories for much long due to persistent resistence. Cydevil 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is of chaos,because the resistence in the Tang occupied Goguryeo,so the territorries is not of Tang.I will ask one question was there resistence in the Silla occupied Goguryeo?So if there was resistence,the Silla occupied Goguryeo is not of Silla.--Ksyrie 18:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your point of view.So if China consider Goguryeo to be of china,so the chinese could claims the nowadays North Korea?The only legitimate successor of Goguryeo should be the descendants of Goguryeo themselves.The Silla and Tang destroyed the Goguryeo and kill their nobles and intellects.That is whole story.They devided this country.And now,the successors of Silla asked for other parts of Goguryeo,it is completely absurd.How can the Silla proclaim the successors of Goguryeo?If Silla could,so Tang could the same way.--Ksyrie 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not my point of view. Mine is the neutral point of view, as expressed in neutral sources of authority as well as overwhelming numbers of other neutral sources. If I decided to be as absurd and extremist as some Chinese editors here, I could troll into articles like Shang Dynasty, Jin Dynasty and Qing Dynasty and start some trouble there, that those kingdoms weren't "Chinese". But I'm above that. Cydevil 02:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So Goguryeo is as Korean as Silla,the chinese will also say Goguryeo is as Chinese as Tang.You have to make distinct points to support Goguryeo is thorough korean,and not a spark of chinese.--Ksyrie 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What some Chinese individuals "think" here is irrelevant. The important fact is that neutral sources of authority as well as overwhelming numbers of neutral sources see Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom of Korean history, where China is often referred to as an exclusive entity to Goguryeo. Cydevil 10:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this argument is useless until we get neutral, sensical, consistent definitions of what is "Chinese" and what is "Korean." --Nlu (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say in describing ancient polities, "Korea" is a cultural conitnuity than today's modern nation-state. An example of how such a definition is used to this cultural conitnuity:

"China is on the very edge of the Korean-speaking area, in Jilin Province, adjacent to the North Korean border. Korean today is an isolated language, linked to Altaic, but not closely. However, in an earlier period there must have been a linguistic family, Koreanic, with more diversity than is apparent today, and probably spread over a broader area of NE China. Accounts of the ‘Neolithic’ in Jilin (Zhen-hua 1995) and Heilongjiang Provinces (Ying-jie 1995) suggest they a similar culture with strong links to the Korean peninsular, dating to >4000 to >2000 BC. Fish and aquatic resources were apparently of major importance in their diet and are characterised by incised and impressed pottery with geometric markings. It is possible that these regions were originally populated by Koreanic speakers."[4]

This is an example of how "Korea" can be used to define a cultural continuity, in this case, that of language.

Also, there's really no point in discussing whether or not "Koguryo is Korean" here. I believe the verdict has been already decided on this one. Plenty of neutral sources of authority point out that Koguryo was a "Korean" kingdom. And numbers of other neutral sources that define Goguryeo as a "Korean" kingdom, many of which are books on Korean history, are simply overwhelming. Debating on Goguryeo's Korean-ness just because the Chinese government decided that all ancient ethnicities and histories within the confines of its current territories is "Chinese" is absolutely ridiculous.

I believe all this "debate" on Chinese-ness of Goguryeo should be passed over to the Northeast Project article to keep this article clean from political bias. Just leave a simple summary on this dispute on this article, and leave it where it belongs. Please keep this article clean of bias. Cydevil 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing important,linguisic is one important factor to define one culture and one country,but it is not the final desicive factor.As far as I know,the japanese langue is in the same family of nowadays korean langue.So in your logic,the annex of Korea by Empire of Japan can be seen as legitimate as the you claim the whole Goguryeo as the only part in Korean history..I have to mention here,sometimes,nation,langue are of the most importance in forming a country,but it is not always for those who had similar culture and liguistic characteristics to be seen as one unified,unbroken social historic entity.China is deemed as a multiracial and mutiloriginal country,so every origin of nowadays chinese should be respected.Goguryeo went failed,the majority of its citizen were assimilated in nowadays chinese,Gao Xianzhi,he is the model.The Kitan,jurchen,who had occupied the chinese part of Goguryeo all be assimilated in nowadays chinese.Can you make a conclusion in the genes of nowadays chinese,there are no descendants of Goguryeo?No, you cann't,the majorities of descendants of Goguryeo become chinese,not korean.The Korean only assimilated small parts of descendants of Goguryeo,and you ask for the whole territory of Goguryeo,it is totally absurd and shameless.--Ksyrie 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely laughable. In no way does that excerpt explain the relationship between the Gaogouli language and modern day Korean language. There is little known about the Gaogouli language (there are no indications that it has anything to do with modern day Korean language), however, it is most likely to be linked to Proto-Japanese:

"本文用比较对照的方法,从<三国史记·地理四>中解读了高句丽语言中的20个词语,并且还发现有10个高句丽语词语的读音与日本语的读音几乎完全一致.本文以含有高句丽语词语的资料为依据,初步判明高句丽族居民既讲高句丽本族语言,同时又能讲汉语;高句丽族使用的文字是汉字,而且是在两种情况下使用,即一方面按原意使用汉字汉文,另一方面使用汉字标记高句丽语的语音,将汉字作为一种标音符号,从而进一步论证高句丽文化是古代中华文化的一个重要组成部分."[5]

The better way to settle such a cross-country former countries is to share not to occupy.The most ironical claims from the Korean is that,Silla and Goguryeo were mortal enemies,they had fought at least 300 years.nowadays theirs heirs seemed to too friendly too the arch-enemy of their ancestors.--Ksyrie 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion Tang and Silla are in the same situation.None of the two nation could claim the whole Goguryeo as their own--Ksyrie 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Again, Goguryeo is as "Korean" as Silla. Just as Shang Dynasty is as "Chinese" as Zhou Dynasty. Cydevil 02:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The mortal exemple to refute the claims from Korea

You know the Poland is a country of liguistic and cultural relation with the Russia (they are all slav),and relation between Germany and Poland are much more distant.See here History of Poland (1795–1918),the german and russian want to share this poor country and they devided the country.Ok,that's all.The Poland were devided,russian are reasonable to ask the other parts of Poland? Non,it is out of reason.--Ksyrie 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Poland is an excellent example of how Goguryeo is as "Korean" as Poland is "Polish". You see, just like Poland, Goguryeo perished, divided between Silla and Balhae. Later, a rebellion took place in northern Silla/southern Barhae, in the former heartland of Goguryeo. These people named their state after Goguryeo, Goryeo, and eventually united the Korean people, establishing the Goryeo state. And to this day, people around the world call us the Goryeo people, the Koreans. In other words, we are called the "Goguryeo people" even to this day, just as Polish today are called Polish. Cydevil 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL,I said of russia,and you are lying,the Balhae didn't exist at the fall the Goguryeo,this coutry is devided by Silla and Tang,non of bussinese of Balhae.The russian and polish are close relatives,just like Silla and Goguryeo.The Poland was devided between germany and russia just like devided between Tang and Silla.How can silla claims the whole country?And I wonder how many descendants of Goguryeo living in the nowadays korea?Dear Sir or Madam,the majority of descendant of Goguryeo live in nowadays China not in Korea.You tried to seize what doesnt' belong to you.If all the descendants of Goguryeo live in nowadays Korea,the Goguryeo is of course Korean.But it is not the truth.--Ksyrie 11:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally absurd,follow your logic,the russia may say,because we(russia and poland) are close relatives,so we are of one country.and the history of Poland is of Russia.LOL.And the Japanese may say,because we(japanese and korean) are close realtives,so we are of one country,and the annex of Korea by Japan is completely accepptable.--Ksyrie 11:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie's arguments are full of obvious fallacies and I feel they are not worth my time. If anyone feels any of his arguments are substansive, please point them out. Cydevil 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of Japanese affiliations to Goguryeo language, it is contestable and not conclusive at all. Beckwith's work has been put to much criticism. Nonetheless, at least personally, I feel that Japanese have a much greater claim to Goguryeo than Chinese. Then of course, Koreans have a much greater claim to Goguryeo than Japanese, except particular Japanese who consider themselves as Goguryeo descendents. In fact, there is such a community in Japan who believe themselves to be descendents of Goguryeo. On the entrance of their Koma(Goryeo/Goguryeo) Shinto Shrine, the spiritual center of their community as well as the Zainichi Koreans, lies two Korean totem poles[6] given as a gift from Zainichi Koreans, commemorating the 40th anniversary of Korea-Japan relations. And also, with regards to the Chinese claims to Goguryeo, to quote Koma Fumiyasu, the Koma Shrine's head priest, "I have visited Goguryeo remains in Jian, China, but I have never considered my ancestors to be Chinese. I am a descendent of the Korean people." Cydevil 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As you had stated the japanese could claim the Goguryeo,and Goguryeo is Korea,so the Japanese could claim Korea?your reasoning?--Ksyrie 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they may claim Goguryeo as a part of their heritage as well as history, as long as they acknowledge its much greater heritage in Koreans. But I doubt they'd be interested. And even though most of the inhabitants of Manchuria(Chinese Dongbei) are recent Han Chinese immigrants from China mainland, I guess they may claim its heritage as well if they must insist. However, the problem is that the Chinese government is twisting Goguryeo into something that it is not, something not "Korean", for political purposes. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt your says about the chinese government,as far as I had read about the publication from the chinese government,they emphasized Goguryeo is of China,and they didn't make any attempts to not connect Goguryeo with Korean,If they really twisted the history,show me your proof.--Ksyrie 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,there are also the descendants of Goguryeo in China,can these Goguryeo-chinese claim the Korea?--Ksyrie 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can "claim" Korean cultural heritage if they identify themselves as descendents of Goguryeo people. In fact, I've seen a few such Chinese individuals from Manchuria. Such people, as long as their claim of Goguryeo ancestry hold some credibility(such as not being a recent Han Chinese immigrant), are often welcomed by the Korean people. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a native of Dongbei (Northeast China), I must say, you Koreans are simply hilarious. You Koreans must feel a great degree of affinity towards us Northeast Chinese (or "Manchurians" as you would call it), while at the same time, come into our territory, steal our artifacts and hold up banners saying Chang Bai Shan is yours. Well, my fellow Korean "brother," we appreciate your display of "comaraderie", really, we do.Assault11 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And the majority of descendants of goguryeo lived in the province like Hebei,and Shandong,they are not the nowadays chinese in Dongbei.the chinese family name Gao is just one source of goguryeo descendants.They live throughout China.--Ksyrie 14:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, this is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. We already know what Goguryeo's NPOV article should be from the neutral sources of authority that have already been provided. Fringe theories belong elsewhere, especially if they're politically biased. Wikipedia is not a Chinese propaganda center. Cydevil 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You r right,this page is NPOV,the korean deem it as a chinese propaganda,while the chinese though it as a korean propaganda.--Ksyrie 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As it seems, you don't know the meaning of neutral sources of authority. You see, sources like Encyclopedia Britannica aren't "Korean propaganda". Cydevil 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

As noted on top of this talk page, a request for mediation as been filed. All parties are encouraged to agree to the mediation (and if you are not a listed party but wants to be involved, please add yourself), as we have to resolve this dispute somehow. If you do not agree, the mediation request will not be accepted, and we're back to square one. Please consider it. --Nlu (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is the reason for mediation? Is it for the edit wars between the two parties because it certainly isn't an edit war when all the vandalisms are being done by pro-Chinese editors that write nasty stuff. Good friend100 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To reach a consensus on the neutral point of view. To do this, we must forget where we came from and read the events like an outsider. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Balhae "Gao" family , as well as descendant of Goguryeo King family

The Bohai state was a state in the rein of the Tang Dynasty. The Gao family in the state was the second largest one after the royal family. Many Gao family members were officials in the Tang government.[7] this is real direct Goguryeo king family "GAO", the guy name: Gao Zhen" on his tomb, it carved as: “唐开府仪同三司工部尚书特进右金吾卫大将军安东都护郯国公上柱国高公墓志序”有云：　　大历八年夏五月廿有七日，右金吾卫大将军安东都护公毙于洛阳教业里之私第，春秋七十三。前年四月十二日，郯国夫人真定侯氏先毙于博陵郡，……礼也。公讳震，字某渤海人。祖藏，开府仪同三司工部尚书朝鲜郡王柳城郡开国公；祢讳连，云麾将军、右豹韬大将军安东都护。公迺扶余贵种，......见周绍良编《唐代墓志汇编》大历075条. It said he is from Balhae渤海. He become 安东都护, this is the lead officer in Balhae. this book published in 1930,by A Qing dynasty scholar. --Yeahsoo 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the Pohai state's royal family did not belong to the Goguryeo royal family. The founder of Pohai was Dae Jo young, son of the General Dae guljungsang. The Pohai royal family's name is Dae, and The Goguryo royal family"s name is Go. The Protectorate General position was given to former King Bojang, Goguryeo's last king. he was exiled to a remote area in Tang before Bohai was formed. my point is, that Gao zhen was not in relation to pohai. Odst 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:OR. You cannot use primary sources in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

WP:OR doesn't say you can't use primary sources -- only that what they state should be restated in a fair manner. --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can only use primary sources when you're making a description, not an affirmative statement in a controversial topic. It is widely accepted that way in the realm of academia because primary sources are POV while 2ndary & tertiary sources have examined multiple primary sources & made more accurate conclusions. (Wikimachine 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• • • • • Do you really know what WP:OR mean? I do not have a theory here, just facts list. Plus, there is 罗振玉编成《唐代海东藩阀志存》also mentioned same thing.[8]. Plus, the tomb is still in museum--Yeahsoo 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Korean embezzle the Goguryeo

The descendants of Goguryeo are of nowadays Han Chinese,Khitan,Manchu,of course nowadays Korean.the majority of descendant of Goguryeo live in nowadays China not in Korea,So how can Korean embezzle the whole nation?No matter from the view of primogeniture or from the view of numbers of descendants,China are the in first place to legitimately inherit the most part of Goguryeo.The Chinese had already accepted the somehow relationship between Goguryeo and Korea.Don't be too greedy.--Ksyrie 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for fringe theories, and if such theories must be mentioned, they should be presented in the proper context. Cydevil 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

...分高麗五部、百七十六城、六十九萬餘戶，為九都督府、四十二州、百縣，置安東都護府於平壤以統之。擢其酋帥有功者為都督、刺史、縣令，與華人參理。以右威衛大將軍薛仁貴檢校安東都護，總兵二萬人以鎮撫之。

I'd translate this as:

Goguryeo's five departments, with 176 cities, 690,000-odd households, were divided into nine military commands, 42 prefectures, 100 counties. The Andong Consulate was established at Pingrang (Pyongyang) to govern the land. Its chieftains with accomplishments were promoted to be military commanders, prefects, and county magistrates, along with Chinese officials. Xue Rengui, the Right Weiwei General, was made acting Andong Consul and given 20,000 soldiers to rule and calm the land.,that is the evidence,it is well documented and verifiable.--Ksyrie 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misappropriate my translation as yours. (It is funny that someone who accuse others of "embezzl[ing]" would do this.

In any case, as I pointed out then, this does not show, one way or the other, whether most of Goguryeo's people were absorbed into Chinese rule or not, since it doesn't address the issue of how many of them later were in turn absorbed by Silla after Tang gave up the southern half of the Goguryeo territory that it took. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I also repeat this: editors who propose that Goguryeo is Korean and not Chinese under any reasonable and consistent definition of "Chinese" and "Korean"; you have to make an election, in order to be logically consistent and intellectually honest. Either 1) Goguryeo's population was mostly in the north, in which case the Chinese claim to Goguryeo as part of China's history is much stronger or 2) Goguryeo's population was mostly in the south, in which case the Chinese claim to Goguryeo as part of China's history is much weaker, but the Chinese claim to Balhae as part of China's history is much stronger. It is logically inconsistent to deny both. --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, this is really pointless because people aren't fixed to the ground as if they're trees. They migrate. And most importantly, you follow the same political bias of the Chinese government by attempting to define history by territorial borders of today's nation-states. This is very absurd in many aspects. For example, even though the People's Republic of China took almost half of Mongolia and even though there are more Mongolians in China than Mongolia, that doesn't make Genghis Khan a "Chinese", nor the Mongol empire a "Chinese" empire. And the fact is, Chinese are making such ridiculous claims that infuriate those involved. And it is only natural that victims of same kind of offences seek cooperation against the common foe, the offender. Also, Goguryeo is so incompatible with Chinese historiography and politics that it must be twisted into a "provincial state" of the Chinese empire and its people into either "Han Chinese" descendents or "ethnic minorities" of the Chinese empire. The current article is fine as it is, "Modern Politics" being the exception. We should just leave a very brief summary in "Modern Politics" and redirect it to Northeast Project, where all this debate is put into proper context that readers should be aware of. As for the rest of the article, it follows NPOV standards, achieving coherence with neutral sources of authority as well as overhwelming numbers of neutral secondary sources. Cydevil 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Genghis Khan is no different from Qing Taizu (Nuerhachi), so I guess the Qing is no longer a legitimate "Chinese" dynasty. Then again, this coming from a person that subscribes to wishy-washy terms such as the "Mongol Empire" and "Chinese Empire," its no surprise.Assault11 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, the problem with the Northeast Project's leaders is that they, too, are intellectually dishonest in that they fail to acknowledge the Korean nature of the state at all. However, once the Korean nature of the state is acknowledged, the question becomes, "Was Goguryeo also 'Chinese' under a logical and consistent definition of 'Chinese' commensurate with the definition of 'Korean' used to characterize Goguryeo as a Korean state?" That Goguryeo was Korean does not mean that it was not also Chinese; it might be, or it might not be, depending on the definition. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question, relying instead only on how the Northeast Project had infuriated the Korean people. Whether it does or not, and whether the Northeast Project was wrong-spirited or not, is irrelevant to the question. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure that the Poles and the Lithuanians will dispute as much as to whether Vilnius is Polish or Lithuanian. That doesn't mean that the just because a characterization of Vilnius as either Polish or Lithuanian would infuriate the other side, that the question should be avoided. WP:NPOV is the guiding principle here, and you have continuously avoided addressing it.

I answered your question again and again. Goguryeo is part of the "Korean" cultural continuity, which legacy lies in both tangile and intangible forms, and also in a contemporary sense. And you persistently try to engage in WP:OR by trying to discuss the nature of Goguryeo at Wikipedia, when evidence has already been provided that netural sources of authority is coherent with the current version of the article, minus the Modern Politics part. Also, overwhelming numbers of neutral secondary sources refer to Goguryeo as a "Korean kingdom", and treat it as a part of the Korean historical continuum. Cydevil 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find it distressing that you have, without any evidence, asserted that I have "follow[ed] the same political bias of the Chinese government by attempting to define history by territorial borders of today's nation-states." I have not made up my mind as to whether Goguryeo can/should be characterized as "Chinese" in addition to "Korean" or not (although I have made up my mind that it was, in fact, "Korean"). You don't know what's in my mind. Don't presume to know it and don't presume to use it as an ad hominem attack -- a non-answer -- to the question I posed. Answer it honestly. Certainly, I do not, and have never considered Rouran or Dzungaria "Chinese" even though their territories are within modern Chinese borders. But Goguryeo is different, and you know it; its cultures were much closer to Han Chinese culture than Rouran or Dzungaria's was. That doesn't make it non-Korean (and as I've said, I'm convinced that a recharacterization of Goguryeo as non-Korean is intellectually dishonest). I also pose this question: by the definition you obviously implicitly used to define Goguryeo as Korean, was Gaya Confederacy Korean? If so, what's the evidence you use to reach that conclusion? Don't rely on a "defin[ition of] history by territorial borders of today's nation-states[,]" as you've already rejrected that. --Nlu (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo, as much as it is "Korean", it is as "Chinese" as Korea today, along with contemporary Korean states such as Baekje and Silla. Yes, Goguryeo has been influenced by Chinese culture. But the same can be said about Baekje and Silla at the same time, something that Chinese government scholars try to ignore, especially with regards to Bakeje. And today's Korea, as part of the same cultural continuity that Goguryeo was a part of, reflects that reality - Korea still retains Chinese cultural influence, yet we are also culturally unique from Chinese. And that which makes us culturally unique is embodied in Goguryeo, as well as other states that are part of the Korean cultural continuity.

And what I find most annoying about this debate on Goguryeo is that despite the evidence given, you persistently engage in WP:OR on this. And all this "debate" does take my time. Neither you nor I are experts on this matter. You don't show a single bit of consideration to the fact that as far as netural sources of authority and overwhelming numbers of neutral secondary sources are concerned, Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom. Rather, you show disapproval of them as "land-staking claims". I have a life, and I have wasted enough of my time here. If you want Wikipedia to be the only encyclopedia where Goguryeo is a "Chinese" kingdom, why don't you go ahead, you're the administrator. After all, Wikipedia doesn't have much of a reputation anyways. Perhaps this article shows why - a bunch of Chinese extremists trying to distort this article into a piece of state propaganda of the People's Republic of China. Cydevil 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As for Gaya Confederacy, why don't you go look it up yourself. Maybe you can make Wikpedia the only "encyclopedia" where it was "Japanese", considering there are Japanese extremists who claim that Gaya Confederacy was a Japnaese colony. Cydevil 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the Gaya confederacy is Korean? Thats like asking if there is any evidence that the Ming Dynasty is Chinese. And yes, you can't say that Goguryeo is Chinese because it was in present day China. Today's current borders means nothing to whether Goguryeo was Korean or not. Good friend100 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

“Any effort by an outside power, such as China, to deny that Koguryo is part of Korean history is bound to be seen as a denial of Korean nationhood, as an act of aggression that threatens the very existence of Korea as a human collectivity.”- John B. Duncan, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles Cydevil 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That your way of definition of Korean.The majorities of descedants of Koguryeo had never lived along with modern Korean,they all became Han chinese,Manchu or Mongol.The legitimate successors should be them not the modern Korean.--Ksyrie 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, I am disappointed that you are engaging, again, in an ad hominem (although not as much of an "attack" as it previously was). Since I cite sources, i don't think I can be accused of original research, and even if arguendo it is original research, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:NOR. The entire reason why we are discussing this is that, as an administrator, I do not have any special editing privileges, nor should I have them. Your inability to answer key questions (which will resolve the WP:NPOV aspects of the issue) is incomprehensible to me.

Further, the quote you cited of Prof. Duncan, even if arguendo it is to be taken as true, is not supportive of your position. Prof. Duncan was referring to the denial of the Korean character of the Goguryeo state (which I also disapprove and condemn), not about the assertion of the alleged Chinese character of the state.

I also find it bewildering that you repeat to me that Goguryeo was a Korean state, because of its cultural continuity with modern Korea. I have never disputed that. The question is, in addition to its being Korean, was it also Chinese? And if not, why not? You have continuously avoided that question.

It is easy to simply disregard the other side of the argument as "extremism" while disregarding one's own views which might be viewed as "extremism" by the other side, and justify one's own positions as a struggle against "extremism." That's the easy way out. I'm disappointed that you're taking it. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This material has already been put to the discussion in this very page: The Chinese argument for Koguryo's Chinese-ness is a pretty flimsy one. The two main arguments are, 1) that the Koguryo state grew out of the Han Chinese commandery of Xuantu (i.e., out of Chinese territory), and 2) that Koguryo kings acknowledged their places as "minority nationalities" of China by accepting investiture from Chinese emperors. The problems with this are obvious. There are even weaker arguments than this: for example, more Koguryo refugees wound up in Tang China than in Silla after 668, therefore Koguryo was more Chinese than Korean - this argument comes from a prominent historian in Shenyang. The weaknesses of the arguments are well known to the Chinese historians who promote them (and not all historians in China support the "official" position, by the way, but there are two or three very vocal ones who do). The fact that the two core arguments listed above could also be made to apply to Paekche (and even to Silla, with a little extra twisting of the source materials) is also a troubling matter to the Chinese historians I described above, who want to make clear that Paekche was NOT a Chinese state.[9] - Mark Byington, Harvard University Korea Institute

And this material is even available in the article: Prof. Song said neither he nor his department agree with the institute’s historical perspectives on Koguryo. “Our academic view is that Koguryo is part of a foreign country’s history,” he said.

Song is a senior scholar in the university, serving as deputy head of the department from 1991 to 1998 and now working as director of its Research Institute for Northeast Asian Studies. “It was not only Koguryo kings who had investitures under which the Chinese emperor recognized their status. The kings of Korea’s other ancient kingdoms Shilla and Baekje also had to be recognized by Chinese emperors,” he said. “Even Japanese kings were recognized as ‘Andong DaJianggun,’ the title of a subject, by Chinese emperors. It’s wrong to argue that Koguryo was a local government just because its kings had to be recognized by Chinese emperors.”- Chengyou Song, Peking University Research Institute for Northeast Asian Studies [10] Cydevil 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether Goguryeo was Chinese as well as Korean is not the same question as whether Goguryeo was simply a "regional government" of China (clearly false, as you pointed out), nor is it a comparative issue; I am not saying that Goguryeo was more Chinese than Korean (which, as you've already pointed out as well, is not true). You're still not addressing the issue, however, as to whether Goguryeo, in addition to its Korean character, also had a Chinese character. That's where the issue of "where did the people of Goguryeo end up?" becomes a highly relevant question. It's not a matter of "Goguryeo was more Korean than Chinese; therefore, it was not Chinese." By that logic, since Nanyue was (I feel, at least, and I think my feeling is backed up by evidence) clearly more Chinese than Vietnamese, the Vietnamese people would have no claim to the legacy of Nanyue, which would be wrong. Your underlying assumption is still that Goguryeo's being Korean necessarily meant that it was not also Chinese, and that assumption should not be considered true.

Goguryeo is really a sui generis situation; it cannot be compared with Baekje or Silla, since there, the people Baekje were clearly nearly all absorbed into Silla. On the other hand, I think you have to admit that that is not true of Goguryeo. If a substantial population of Goguryeo was absorbed into Tang, and if that population's progeny now consists of a significant portion of modern Chinese (two "ifs" that I am more than willing and happy to state have not been shown by PRC historians, but nor have they been disproven by Korean historians), then I don't think that you can or should deny that Goguryeo was Chinese in addition to being Korean. --Nlu (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted two experts on Goguryeo in a vain attempt to show you that Goguryeo isn't Chinese. Marky Byington summarized arguments on how Chinese scholars claim Goguryeo is "Chinese" and he has expressed his expert opinion. And some people of Baekje were also taken as prisoners by Tang. Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other side, Ksyrie, you have cited no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that the majority of Goguryeo's people were assimilated into Han Chinese. As I've pointed out, the passage you quoted shed no light on it. --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How twisted can you get? Goguryeo cannot be compared with Baekje or Silla? It is obvious that Baekje and Silla are Korean, at least Chinese historians can agree with that. It cannot be compared? So Goguryeo isn't Korean and its culture is not similiar to Korea? Your choice of words makes to seem like you agree that Goguryeo is Korean, but your not.

Why would they call it the Three Kingdoms of Korea? If Goguryeo is so much different from the rest of Korea and more like "Chinese" then move the Three Kingdoms of Korea to something like Two Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal as to language to (hopefully -- as naive as I might be) end the dispute

I think I've made my arguments as to why an absolute denial of a potential Chinese character of the Goguryeo state is not NPOV. What does this mean as we try to resolve the dispute over this article? My proposal is:

1. Note and expand on the Korean nature of the state and the cultural legacy of Goguryeo in the culture of Korea, but acknowledging (as the article does already, but should be done in clearer fashion) that the modern Korean language is not a descendant of Goguryeo's language, but Silla's.

   An encyclopedia is not an academic article, and one important factor in an encyclopedia is readability. As for your claim on language, it's controversial and inconclusive, not to mention there's an article covering that subject matter.Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   The failure to include it makes the article itself not NPOV. NPOV, again, is the guiding principle here, because it creates a POV that that improperly tips the question of whether Goguryeo is Korean, Chinese, both, or neither to the "Korean but not Chinese" side, without fairly acknowledging the counterarguments. And you don't see how not doing this would lead to an edit war?

   Oh please, don't even bring Chinese out in discussing Goguryeo language. Both Goguryeo and Baekje language, which were recorded to be similar to each other, had entirely different grammar systems(SOV) from Chinese(SVO). If Goguryeo language had any similarity to Chinese, they wouldn't have felt the need to use Idu, a phonetic variation of Chinese characters. None the less, if you must insist, the possibility that Goguryeo and Baekje language were replaced by Silla language can be acknowledged, along with the argument that modern Korean language dialects indicate a likely greater linguistic diversity that have been assimilated into modern Korean language. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   An encyclopedic is not an academic article, but it needs to have minimal academic standards. Further, even more so, an academic article can be an advocacy for arguments. A Wikipedia article cannot, under the NPOV guidelines. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Then why don't you go advocate this academic argument. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Note that the fate of the people of Goguryeo, after the destruction of Goguryeo by Tang and Silla, was unclear, particularly how the percentages of dispersal into Silla, Tang proper, Balhae, and Khitan is not known.

   This will lead to yet another edit war. Also, this matter is covered in Modern Politics and Northeast Project. Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Same; this article needs to be itself NPOV; the arguments cannot be simply addressed in another article. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Chinese arguments are represented in proper context in Northeast Project. Leave this article free from political POV from either sides. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Note that territorially, after a brief occupation of most of Goguryeo territory, Tang retained Liaodong Peninsula and the parts of the Korean Peninsula north of the Taedong River; that Silla retained the Goguryeo territory south of the Taedong River; that the northern territory of Goguryeo eventually became the backbone of Balhae territory; and that the very northwestern parts of Goguryeo, unretained by Tang or Balhae, became occupied by Khitan tribes.

   Tang did not "retain" those territories. They were taken by Balhae. Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Not true. Tang retained the Liaodong Peninsula, at least, as part of its Pinglu Circuit, until the An Shi Rebellion. See zh:s:資治通鑑/卷217, [11]. (After the An Shi Rebellion, Pinglu Circuit was moved to Shandong, but before the An Shi Rebellion, Pinglu was clearly in modern Liaoning. Andong, which was under Pinglu, was (less clear, but apparently) still retained by Tang at that point. See zh:s:資治通鑑/卷217 as well.) --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   WP:OR [12] As the map suggests, Tang didn't "retain" control over that territory. If you must insist, it can be acknowledged that Tang temporarily retained the Liaodong Peninsula. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   You are claiming that ancient Chinese sources are original research? --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Note that depending on the future of archaeological, linguistic, and DNA analyses, it might be concludable that Goguryeo had a secondary Chinese characteristic in addition to a primary Korean one, and that more research is necessary to conclude one way or the other.

   Absurd. Absolutely absurd. Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Absurd why? --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Because Wikipedia is not where you make guesswork with words such as "future" and "might", not to mention some of the recent archaeological studies suggest "Chinese influence" such as Buddhism in fact came along the Silk Road, not China. But to be fair, it can be acknowledged that Goguryeo was the first Korean kingdom to adopt Buddhism, Confucianism and Chinese characters which it then passed onto the other two kingdoms, a fact worth mentioning in the context of Korean cultural continuity. Chinese influence, however, shouldn't be a "Chinese characteristic" of Goguryeo, considering that it does not contribute to uniqueness of Goguryeo, nor does it make Goguryeo any more "unique" from the other two kingdoms within the Korean cultural conitnuity, aside from the fact that it was the first to do receive Chinese influence.

In addition, as far as the formatting of the article is concerned:

1. Include Chinese names for Goguryeo into the infobox, under the Korean ones. Doing so is informative and practical, since a major part of current news about Goguryeo will necessarily come out of China; it does not denote ownership.

   Chinese news sites also use "Koguryo"[13], and usage of "Gaogouli" in non-Chinese news sources is negligeable.[14] Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   The English Chinese sources, that is. In Chinese Chinese sources, you will see Chinese characters, obviously. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   There are plenty of Korean research on Chinese kingdoms and states, but we don't add Korean there. If readers are interested in how it's written in Chinese, they can check the Chinese article. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Exclude {{History of China}} template; it has no link to Goguryeo and therefore would serve no navigational purpose, nor should it include Goguryeo. (The template is already too cluttered, for one thing.)

Please comment specifically on each aspect of this. Please, to the extent that you can, avoid ad hominems and accusations. Let's see if we can reach a consensus. --Nlu (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt a consensus will ever be reached by the current Chinese participants, in the same sense that you can't really reach a consensus with Korean extremists who constantly claim that Chinese characters and Confucius are "Korean". When I say "extremist", I mean it. Cydevil 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is right now is fine as it is in following NPOV standards. Chinese claims are put into proper context in the Northeast Project article. I propose that we leave a short summary under Modern Politics, and relocate all the Chinese controversy over to that article. Cydevil 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But the entire reason why edit wars erupt is that it was not NPOV. I don't think you can accuse every single editor who has tried to put Chinese names into the article, as well as to discuss further the legitimate arguments (as opposed to the unsupported ones) about the Chinese claim, as an extremist, but that's what you are implicitly doing. The article had a clear anti-Chinese POV, and that needs to be neutralized.

I put forth what I obviously believe to be a reasonable proposal, and you might or might not believe it to be reasonable, but your attitude is showing why the article, as it stands, is not NPOV; and your proposal will make it even less NPOV, not more.

An article not coherent with Chinese government propaganda and its zealous adherent ultranataionalists does not make this article any "NPOV". Please consult neutral sources of authority, not Chinese government propaganda or claims made by ultranationalistic extremists, for NPOV. Even look at most of the Chinese editors who engaged in edit warring - they're mostly single purpose socks, and some of them even make racist attacks. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find it curious that you are always quoting academics who support your POV, while not addressing, for example, this one. [15]. I find Lankov's observations to be quite apt. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "all" neutral secondary sources support "my" POV. Also, Lankov is not an expert on Goguryeo. On the other hand, Mark Byington and Rosa Djarylgashinova wrote many works on Goguryeo history as well as archaeology. Cydevil 01:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I want to denial the Korean as the only successor of Goguryeo is that Korean is relative small and interlaced concept against Goguryeo.Not all the Korean are the descedants of Goguryeo(while to some extent),and not all the Goguryeo become Korean(obviously).The two entities are two relevant but not corresponding and same terms.So Korea shouldnt be the only country to claim this country.And Why China?Cuz,China hold the other parts of Goguryeo.--Ksyrie 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

History is not determined by modern territorial borders. "History does not change with borders" - Panjak Mohan, yet another expert on Goguryeo in refuting Chinese government propaganda. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the Northeast Project,why someone always want to turn the chinese side of Goguryeo in this project?Did they mean that the article of Goguryeo is 100% Korean and Northeast Prject ia 100% chinese?Somethings go wrong.Wiki is place of neutral Point of view,what ever the sources come from,they all get their right place.Your prposals are too arrogant.--Ksyrie 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the Three Kingdoms of Korea partly because the Samguk Sagi is an accepted history source. If it's accepted, however, it would then be inconsistent to reject it as "pro-Chinese." --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Northeast Project gives the proper context to Chinese claims on Goguryeo, which twist history for political and ideological purposes. Same can be said about the article on Japanese history textbook controversies, though Japanese history textbook isn't as political and controversial as the Northeast Project. And speaking of neutral point of view, why don't you consult neutral sources of authority as well as overwehlming numbers of neutral secondary sources that are not coherent with Chinese claims. Cydevil 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If Goguryeo was really a Chinese state or tributary or whatever, then we should examine the founding of its nation. Jumong, the founder of Goguryeo is from Bukbuyeo. Jumong's father is Hae Mosu, who is from Bukbuyeo. After Jumong founded Goguryeo, he annexed Bukbuyeo (and eventually all of Buyeo), he considered Goguryeo to be the successor of Buyeo and then began his rule. Buyeo, or Bukbuyeo, is definitely ethnically Korean and not culturally part of China (unless some of you extremists claim Buyeo too, might as well claim the entire Korean peninsula as well). We can conclude that Goguryeo is ethnically Korean and not a "Chinese tributary state". Good friend100 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Fuyu and Gaogouli were both Tungusic peoples, NOT "ethnically Korean". Gaogouli did pay tribute to successive Northern Chinese dynasties. The article regarding the "Northeast Project" is absolutely laughable, and is completely skewered towards a Korean POV. Makes me wonder, how can you Koreans even write an article on the Northeast Project, when you cannot even read the original text in full (that is, assuming you have zero competency in the Chinese language)?

I am in general support of Nlu's efforts here. It is important to apply WP:NPOV rules here.

The question here involves the interpretation of "Korean history" and "Chinese history" in lands occupied by Goguryeo and Balhae north of the Yalu River. Begining with the Liao Dynasty (907-1125) or the Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234, this region is undisputedly considered part of "Chinese history". Prior to that, Han Dynasty of China occupied the region through the Four Commanderies of Han (108BC - 220AD). In between, we have a lapse in clear Chinese control over the region, although many people there were ethnically Manchurian.--Endroit 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Manchuria is not part of Korean history? I don't think the length of time that China controlled Manchuria makes Manchuria "Chinese" and therefore everything that comes from Manchuria is Chinese.

And Goguryeo wasn't a weakling tributary state that bowed itself down to China. If it did, then Chinese dynasties wouldn't have had their obsession of destroying Goguryeo, rather they would have treated it like a "child" and exploit more of Goguryeo's resources. You need to remember Goguryeo's power in east Asia and its influence over the rise and fall of several Chinese dynasties. Good friend100 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. There are conflicting views involved here, obviously. Whenever that happens, WP:NPOV tells us editors to present the conflicting views fairly.--Endroit 07:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, all of Ksyrie's sources from Wikisource, etc... are primary sources. That qualifies under WP:OR. (Wikimachine 04:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Seriously, this is insane....

I'm probably one of the most extreme Korean Nationalists around here, yet the overall immaturity of the arguments here are laughable. Due to the fact that I'm sick, here's a summary of my thoughts:

1. What most non-Northeast Asians do not get is that over here, we equalize history with a right. In other words, if a certain piece of land was historically in a nation's forefather's hands, the nation believes it has a right to it.

2. What most people don't get about China's Northeast Project is that the project tries to view the history of Manchuria in a Sinocentristic way. No, I have no trouble with China viewing Manchuria as a part of its history, but the current problem is that the PC government is trying to assimulate the piece of land as an eternal Chinese history, when in fact the only time the central China Proper (not meant to mean that the Han Chinese are restricted to the south part) government got complete control over Manchuria was after 1945. Before that, Manchuria was ruled by the natives (mainly the Tungusic peoples), with short bursts of instable stabs into it by the Han Chinese.

Sorry if this sounds crazy at places, I'm not in a good condition. I'll try to add the problems witht the Korean side on this later on. -General Tiger

There a many Northeast Asians living in Nowadays China,at least the Manchu and some of the Han Chinese who trace their roots in Liaoning.Some ancient ethnics like Khitan,who had been the Northeast Asians Indigenous peoples as legitimate as the Buyeos.If you want to exclude the China's claims over the Northeast Asia,you had to negate all these men.--Ksyrie 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain further. Negate those people ("men" is attack on feminism), and what happens?

Furthermore, how do you answer General Tiger's comment that North East Project is CPOV to begin with? It doesn't fit with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. (Wikimachine 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Truth and Pitfalls in Chinese's Opinion

First, I would like to admit some true points in Chinese's opinion.

1. The most part of Goguryeo is now included in PRC. 2. Goguryeo was defeated by allied forces of Tang and Shilla. 3. After that, many ancient countries which occupied Goguryeo's land, also occupied most part of modern China.

However, There are several pitfalls.

1. Now, many Koreans are living there, actually they are one of the biggest minorities in PRC. - Their language is not Mandarin or anything related to Chinese but Korean itself. - They lived there before collapsing of the last Manchurian Empire - Qing.

It's partially ture,you know before 19th,the nowadays Manchuria was almost no men's land,nearly all of Indigenous people(mostly Manchu) there were leaving their homeland to other parts of China.You know the reason,cuz,Manchu were relative smaller than Han Chinese,they need the Human resources.It is well recorded in Chinese history.And nowadays nearly all the Korean in Dongbei immigrated from Korea after the 1900.So how can you take the Korean in China as one pro?

2. What is the difference between people in mordern China(PRC) and the ancient people occupied current territories of PRC? - There are many minorities in PRC. - Of course, they are the part of PRC and the people are also the part of PRC. - However, they are different people in major chinese - different language, culture and history.

I had stated before,nowadays Ethnic Koreans in China started to immegrate to China lately,they were somehow regarded as Illegal Immigrant,because the court of Qing forbidding the immigration to Manchuria.--Ksyrie 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, if Chinese consider the Goguryeo's history as an ancient Korean country whose territory is now included in PRC. Then, there is no problem. Why are they afraid of admitting 'it was ancient Korean country.' ? And the biggest concern of Northeast Project by PRC is that they just try to find the similarities to Chinese culture. If PRC admit the fact - the culture of Manchuria and Goguryeo has been different from Chinese and has almost never effected on the culture of Chinese, then this controversy is almost vague.

I would like to challenge the notion of 'descendant'. How do you know it? just because now just PRC are occupying the land? If you know some basic facts on genetics, then Chinese can't assert those kind of absurd and naive argument.Genetically, the gene of chinese are very different from the Manchurian, Mongolian and even if Korean.

Perhaps the government of PRC recognize many Korean still live there and they are not Chinese but Korean. Also many Manchurian and Mongolian has lived there for a long time than Chinese. Thus, I think the government of PRC are afraid of their identities. Since Mongol still exists and Korea still does. And many Korean in Manchuria now starts to move South Korea in order to find decent jobs and opportunities to share the wealth of South Korea.

I admit officially they are citizens of PRC but it doesn't mean they are Chinese. They are different races from Chinese and they have their own culture, history and language. It doesn't mean their culture, language and history is just a variant of chinese culture.

Noone try to Shlim76 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What if most part of Goguryeo is now in the People's Republic of China? IT's like this. Alexander's Empire should be regarded as Iranian because most of Alexander's Empire rested on Persia, even though Alexander was from Macedon. At the same time, Iranians hate Alexander the Great. Hmmm. Sounds like a same old movie that we're watching right now. (Wikimachine 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

How much of percentage of Descendants of Guguryeo Living in China,and How much in Korea?

Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL--Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not understand what you're trying to communicate. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are really original research. Its not very easy to make an accurate estimate as to how many Goguryeo people assimiliated into where. Also, you must remember that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo and most Goguryeo people followed Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae. Good friend100 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of Balhae?Did the remnant of Balhae become the modern Korean?--Ksyrie 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, some did. Also just as clearly, some were incorporated into Liao Dynasty. --Nlu (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Very true, this is a fake topic, since even Liao people is very difficult to trace the population of descendants. It is impossible the trace numbers descendants of Goguryeo or Balhae, the only reasonable evidence is the record on tombstone or family tree book. But it is unfair to Korea, since by the time few Korean know how to write (no offense), so it is meaningless --Yeahsoo 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So. What's your point? Native Americans are Native Americans, even though they are assimilated into the US. Koreans are Koreans, whether or not a foreign power conquers them. (Wikimachine 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) I'm actually very shocked by your post, Ksyrie. So it's true. Lots of CPOV's here. I didn't notice. (Wikimachine 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

And your point is -- Native Americans are not Americans? --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not play with words here. "American" is generic. Simply, Anglo-Saxons can't say that b/c NA were heavily influenced by European agendas & cultures, & they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, they are Anglo-Saxons. You can clearly see how ridiculous such situation would look like. It seems same to me here. (Wikimachine 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• • • Well now American is a new race, it combine a lot of different race, like Chinese have different minority group include Han and Chinese Korean. we'd better not to use native American sample here, Korean might lost score on this, since both US and China are big countries. Meanwhile, As for mediation purpose, we need evidences, not just "I think", right? The arguing will never end, and since modern research contain too much politics, we should use ancient documents or relic as evidence, either Chinese side or Korean side, it will be fair game.-

The whole point is....this has nothing to do with Goguryeo's past history. Of course, if Goguryeo's territory happens to be much of China's, then China has a right to endorse Goguryeo as a part of its 5,000 years history, but that most Goguryeo people assimilated into China, etc. doesn't justify anything here. (Wikimachine 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, apparently you're not aware that more Americans have German ancestry than British ancestry. In any case, even if that's not the case, your analogy is only apt if the "Chinese side" is claiming that Goguryeo was Han. There is a difference between being Han and being Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Han or Chinese or what not. That Goguryeo's part of China now doesn't give China the right to attempt to make Goguryeo its past & not Korea's past. At the same time, I'm wondering... where is this leading us to? (Wikimachine 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC))