Talk:Goguryeo

Old discussions (2005 and earlier): Archive1

infobox

there is no significant historical controversy with authoritative publications. a paragraph explaining the political controversy is sufficient.

• Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668. Koguryo is traditionally said to have been founded in 37 BC in the Tongge River basin of northern Korea by Chu-mong, leader of one of the Puyo tribes native to the area, but modern historians believe it is more likely that the tribal state was formed in the 2nd century BC. (britannica) [1]
• Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom (columbia encyc) [2]
• Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc. (encarta) [3]

Appleby 17:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that constitutes a rationale for removing verifiable information from the article. -- Visviva 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that Britannica, the only one of the above publications that we might want to take as a model, carefully avoids calling Goguryeo "Korean." This is reasonable; while any claim that Goguryeo was "Chinese" is disingenuous, any claim that it was "Korean" is only slightly less disingenuous. As others have noted on this page, these are modern-day concepts without much relevance to the time period in question. By all accounts, Goguryeo was a multiethnic state covering large portions of modern-day China as well as modern-day Korea. Also, by some accounts, the language spoken among the ruling classes was not related to Sillan/Korean, but to the languages of Fuyu, Baekje and possibly Wa. This means that neither the Korean nor the Chinese names likely reflect the indigenous name of the kingdom; instead, they provide roughly equivalent levels of linguistic background information. And background information is what encyclopedias are all about. -- Visviva 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

information has to be relevant as well as verifiable. japanese or russian pronunciations wouldn't belong in this article, even if verifiably accurate. britannica 2005 classifies the 3 kingdoms, specifically including goguryeo, under korean history, & it uses the korean name only, the chinese name not even being a secondary or alternate name. if britannica, columbia, & encarta are consistent about something, i think you have a pretty high burden of proof before you can say otherwise. that can be done, but i haven't seen anything close yet. also, i don't think many, if any, linguists actually say silla & goguryeo languages are not at all related, in the sense that goguryeo is not "korean," since the same reasoning would render much chinese & japanese histories not chinese or japanese. Appleby 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can accept using other encyclopedias as models of what we should include; I am even (cautiously) willing to use them as examples of how we might include it. But to use them as examples of what we should not include, it seems to me, betrays a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. We are working to create something immeasurably more thorough and inclusive than any encyclopedia yet written. At least that's why I'm here...

Regarding the specific text in question, which I presume is the "Chinese name" in the infobox... this is a compromise position, worked out with a great deal of trouble. Nationalism comes in waves on Wikipedia; at the moment, an exclusionist pro-Korean wave (consisting mostly of you) is sweeping through these articles. In the past, pro-Chinese and even anti-Korean waves have also swept through here. Keeping both points of view in the name table, where they do not infect the article text, is the best way to keep this article from yet again becoming a whipping-boy for each new wave of nationalists. -- Visviva 04:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

we, or whoever is around, will deal with whatever waves come when they do. as i understand wikipedia, it is not a collection of any & all possible trivia, but an encyclopedia, accurately reflecting consensus scholarly knowledge. inclusion of a piece of data, even if itself accurate, is an editorial decision on the characterization of the topic. granted, other encyclopedias may be too brief, out-dated, or plain wrong, but you are suggesting we alter the content that is consistent throughout pretty much all reputable publications (characterization of goguryeo as a korean state) & succumb to one country's explicit political program to reframe history, just to avoid friction among editors. compromise for the sake of compromise is not the mission of wikipedia. npov verifiability, enforced through discussion of citable authority, needs to be the standard, if this project is to have any credibility. Appleby 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all I think the projection of Qing territory (or any maximal territorial expansion of "China") back in history and to view all cultures and peoples that at one point in time or another lived in this geographical space as "Chinese" is ahistorical, and the Chinese government isn't even consequent in this attempt.

My point here is that the deletion of the Chinese pronunciations is just a loss of information. Not only the Chinese pronunciation of the name of the kingdom, but also those of its rulers were deleted when the whole list was moved to "Rulers of Korea".

The sources for these names were all written in classical Chinese (so much for relevance), so this kind of censorship is not only politically motivated, but also philologically and historically questionable. —Babelfisch 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese characters (hanja) has not been removed from the Goguryeo sovereigns' articles. Well, regarding Chinese Romanization, it is in extreme minor use among English sources (as simple google search proves this, Gaoguli -wikipedia reveals 6 searches while Goguryeo and its variants reveal 250,000 searches; no Major NPOV English publications and such even makes a mention of Chinese Romanization), and even Chinese authorities don't use the term Gaoguli when describing the kingdom (www.china.org - Chinese official gov't uses Koguryo). I think the Chinese name could use a mention in the Modern Politics section as part of Chinese modern political agenda, but suggesting the Chinese name has the same weight as the Korean Romanization does not make much sense. The Chinese name "Gaoguli" weren't even remotely; it only came into extreme minor usage after the Chinese gov't made claims to Goguryeo heritage. Deiaemeth 05:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the list of japanese emperors does not contain chinese pronunciations. adding information in itself is not necessarily a good thing for an encyclopedia. other reference works treat goguryeo as korean, and we should be consistent. Appleby 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Little is known about the language spoken by the Goguryeo people, and the official language used for records was Chinese in Goguryeo. Since it is implausible that the Goguryeo language was identical to the Silla language (which is the antecedent of today's Korean), isn't it allowable to mention Chinese pronunciations? And, the modern Korean pronunciations of those kings and whatsoever themselves are the reflection of ancient Chinese, so I find it somewhat awkward to deliberately avoid the Chinese way of reading them... At least I have no idea why it could be so harmful. -59.143.134.204 15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the Chinese name in the infobox. I strongly disagree with the Chinese government's current position on Koguryŏ, but all primary sources on Koguryŏ are written in Classical Chinese, so it makes sense to include the Chinese name and pronunciation. Removing it is just a loss of information.

The fact that the transcription "Koguryŏ/Koguryo" is used instead of "Gaogouli/Gaojuli" by Chinese editors doesn't mean much. Editors of foreign language publications are obviously not aware about official standards concerning names of "Chinese minorities". (Tibetan and Uyghur names for example are very often not spelled according to official Chinese systems.)

I have reversed the template, so the Korean name comes first.

Another issue: In Chinese, there are different ways to write the name.

• There is no disagreement about the first character, 高.
• The second character is sometimes written 句 and sometimes 勾, in both simplified and traditional characters. According to the 现代汉语词典 (1996), 勾 is the standard simplified form and 句 is a traditional form or variant.
• The third character is sometimes written 麗/丽 and sometimes 驪/骊 (traditional/simplified characters).

There are also different Chinese readings of the second and the third character:

• 勾 can be read gōu, gòu and jù.
• 麗/丽 is usually read lì, but can also be read lí; 驪/骊 can only be read lí.

The 辞海 (1979) gives the form 高句骊 Gāogōulí, so this pronunciation should be used, but I think the second character should be written simplified as 勾, according to the newer 现代汉语词典.

Please don't remove the Chinese name before this discussion is settled. —Babelfisch 03:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

the use of chinese script is not really a reason to include chinese pronunciations, because that would require virtually all korean and japanese history articles also include chinese pronunciations. the primary source for goguryeo is goguryeo's own Gwanggaeto stele, & the modern korean language is certainly far closer to goguryeo language than chinese, which is a completely different language family. goguryeo is not a chinese minority, so tibet & uyghur examples don't apply either.

the issue is not how the goguryeo people pronounced goguryeo, which will not be determined by wikipedian consensus, since even scholars do not know (actually, modern korean reading of chinese characters is thought to more accurately preserve the original pronunciations than modern chinese pronunciation). the relevant question is how this historic kingdom is referred to today by reputable, independent reference works. it is called a "native korean kingdom" by major encyclopedias, which use the korean transcription exclusively. they do not mention the chinese romanization because it would be a misleading characterization. Appleby 04:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Answers to a few points: The Kwanggaet'o stele is inscribed in Classical Chinese (not in the Koguryŏ language).

The Koguryŏ language is not well documented, there is no certainty at all that it was very close to the Korean language. The only thing that's clear is that it is not very close to Chinese.

I never said that Koguryŏ was a "Chinese minority", because I don't think that this would make any sense. The Chinese state as a modern nation state did not exist then, and it is unhistorical to take modern concepts about nationhood and project them back 1500 years, although that is of course a favourite method of modern nationalists - not only in China.

I'm sorry if my statement above was misleading. My comparison involving the Tibetan and Uighur languages to the situation of the use of the term "Koguryŏ" in Chinese media was only to explain the inability of Chinese editors of foreign-language publications to spell any non-Chinese names correctly: contemporary names in "national minority" languages such as Tibetan and Uighur, but also historical names that are not Chinese.

An advantage of Wikipedia over other major encyclopaedias is that it can be constantly updated. Most reputable encyclopaedias probably don't mention the recent conflict at all. I don't see how the extra information could hurt anyone. It's great that the article has a section about the dispute, and it's quite clear.

The issue is not settled, the discussion whether or not to include the Chinese readings is not over, so don't remove them. That's vandalism. —Babelfisch 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" WP:V "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."

• Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668. Koguryo is traditionally said to have been founded in 37 BC in the Tongge River basin of northern Korea by Chu-mong, leader of one of the Puyo tribes native to the area, but modern historians believe it is more likely that the tribal state was formed in the 2nd century BC. (britannica) [4]
• Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom (columbia encyc) [5]
• Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc. (encarta) [6] Appleby 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, you need a citation that this is the Chinese name? That could easily be arranged. Or are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should exclude information merely because other encyclopedias do not include it? I don't think that's what WP:NOR is about. After all, we are not here to mimic Britannica; we're here to beat the stuffing out of Britannica. -- Visviva 06:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying you need a citation to prove that Gaoguli is the Chinese pronunciation, just that the Chinese pronunciation has very little place in English referenced works, as Goguryeo is portrayed most (if not all) English reference works. Even the Chinese government avoids refering the kingdom to its Chinese pronunciation in its English press releases. Anywho, if you feel that you need to add the Chinese name to the infobox, I don't think you should do so until the discussion is over. If we start putting Chinese names on Korean kingdoms just because they are situated in modern China right now or that their historicla info is available in classical Chinese, Jomon, Yayoi, and Yamato should have a Chinese infobox.. Deiaemeth 06:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

no, question is not that whether there is a chinese pronunciation, but that the majority view of commonly accepted reference works show that the chinese pronunciation is relevant to the topic. otherwise, it's just a very minority point of view. wikipedia is not a collection of all possible trivial facts, the selection & presentation of information should be logical, relevant and not misleading. Appleby 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) oops, sorry for the 4th revert, go ahead & revert again, but you still haven't provided any commonly accepted reference texts. Appleby 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the question is to put a Chinese langbox simply because Goguryeo's territory expanded to include that of Modern China, I think that argument is invald - just as Polish-Lithuania expanded to include Modern Latvian + Soviet Union + Modern Belorussian territory does not constitute a justifiable reason to include Russian/Belorussian/Latvian name for the old kingdom. Deiaemeth 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But I think Chinese name for the kingdom could have its own place in the Modern political section ... Deiaemeth 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." it is true that the chinese pronounce the characters a certain way, but how is that relevant to a topic that commonly accepted reference texts describe as "native korean" and "indigenous korean"? you have the burden of proof to show relevance. the relevance of korean romanization has been cited.

i agree, it can be included in the political controversy section. it is not relevant to goguryeo per se, but it could be relevant to the current chinese northeast history project. Appleby 06:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me like a very ugly attempt at yet again hijacking this article in the name of nationalism. In all likelihood, the people of Goguryeo spoke neither Korean nor Chinese, so there is no obvious reason to favor one over the other; Wikipedia is not paper, and we have plenty of room for both. However, inclusion of the Chinese name in the political controversy section would be better than nothing. -- Visviva 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

it is ugly to bring one party's political program into a history article. goguryeo language is generally thought to be closely related to silla, because both came from the tungusic/altaic migration waves from the north, though in different centuries. goguryeo language is completely different from chinese language, & the original pronunciation of chinese characters, if anything, is better preserved in hanja readings. the obvious reason to favor korean romanization is because that is the consensus of independent reputable reference works. Appleby 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better to cite Sanguo Zhi?

In the subsection Foudnation of the section History, first appears Samguk Sagi to explain the origin of Goguryeo. But this was compiled in the 12th century, so isn't it better to use Sanguo Zhi which is older by about 900 years? It doesn't seem to be clear why such a relatively "new" record is cited, and Sanguo Zhi was created contemporarily when Goguryeo existed. -59.143.134.204 14:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

we don't contribute our personal judgments or interpretations of ancient foreign-language original texts. we generally rely on reputable english reference works and academic consensus, & thus refer to whatever evidence they refer to. please see WP:NOR WP:V WP:NPOV. Appleby 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Sanguo Zhi have information about the events in the korean peninsula?--CrabTasterMan 11:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Book of Later Han[7] (record from 25 to 220) and Records of Three Kingdoms[8] (189 to 280) mension Goguryeo. Book of Han[9] (206 BC to 25), on the other hand, mensions Joseon (Gojoseon) but do not mension Goguryeo. --Kusunose 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh.. hello. Sanguo Zhi is a "novel" not a historical evidence.

Sanguo Zhi is one of the histrical records of China. Sanguo Yanyi is the novel. --Kusunose 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

language

I think mention should be made of Prof. Beckwith's important book on reconstructing the Koguryo language:

Beckwith, Christopher I. (2004) Koguryo: The Language of Japan's Continental Relatives, Leiden: Brill.

--149.159.3.53 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

name

Question on the name: In my ignorance, I had always assumed that Koguryo was a name given later, perhaps by Koryo, and that the first syllable/character is the character meaning "old" or "high" (as in "high school"). Am I wrong here, and if so, could someone explain, please? --Dan 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

check out Names of Korea for some more info. Appleby 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks. So the hanja came later, the name of the place first, eh? Most interesting. In the 70s, it was still quite common to find country people who referred to the the place as 'Chosun', and the language as "Chosunaw" or "Chosunmal". --Dan 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This Entire Dispute is Pointless

As far as I can see on this discussion page, the whole debate taking place here concerning the arguments set forth claiming Goguryeo as part of Chinese or Korean history is pointless, as it is obvious that hardly any objective editors in possession of actual historical knowledge are taking part; what's more, in their stead is an endless cacophony of conflicting Korean and Japanese interpretations of historical records. I, for one, wish that Japanese editors stop adding false and distorted content to this page simply out of their growing need to insult Korea, while Koreans stopped over-reacting towards edits that are objective, however far-fetched they may appear.

On an added note, I simply do not comprehend the desire for states on both of sides of the Yalu River to project their present national identities to incorporate a kingdom that rose and fell before the concept of "Korean" became evident, although the Chinese claim to history does seem more preposterous. For example, where is any evidence to the claim that Gogouryeo is equally significant to both China and Korea, or even more significant to China? Nearly all Korean history books mention Goguryeo if it also mentions the Three Kingdoms, and even the English name for Korea is derived from Goguryeo through Goryeo. Chinese history as known to foreigners and Chinese today today is far more focused on the Han Dynasty, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui Dynasty, and Tang Dynasty, all of which existed during the time of the Three Kingdoms of Korea. In fact, never do foreign historians include Goguryeo as a Chinese state, and simply because its territory extended into China does not mean that it is a regional power of China. For the sake of God, Goguryeo even used a different language. And how on earth was even a portion of the legacy of Goguryeo inherited by China? After its collapse, I distinctly remember that the vast majority of Goguryeo's refugees flooded southward or rebelled to form Balhae. I also find no evidence that any of Goguryeo's known customs survived to contribute to Chinese culture, by which it was simply obliterated.--Jh.daniell 08:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all Korean history books mention Goguryeo if it also mentions the Three Kingdoms

--because they are a little bit shy of history

and even the English name for Korea is derived from Goguryeo through Goryeo

--name similarity cannot tell you anything about the relationship between the two. there many kingdoms in Chinese history used exactly the same names as dynasties preceded while having nothing to do with them to gain fame and influence.happened gaoli is proved to be one of those.

Chinese history as known to foreigners and Chinese today today is far more focused on the Han Dynasty, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui Dynasty, and Tang Dynasty,

--and now they start to pay attention to the ignored.

never do foreign historians include Goguryeo as a Chinese state, and simply because its territory extended into China does not mean that it is a regional power of China

--are you sure? "never"? "any foreign historian"? and it is not only its terriotory falls into the current PRC's territory, but also a great portion of its descendants are still living on that very land, and you can never ever deny their existence.

So why did most of Goguryeo's descendants "migrate" to the Tang?? Did they even have a choice? Some people are talking as if these people had a choice. In war, there are always prisoners and spoils that the victors always take back to their homeland. These spoils include people to turn into slaves. The same was with the Goguryeo and Tang war. Millions of Goguryeo people were taken captive to Tang after the Silla-Tang alliance destroyed Goguryeo. They did not "migrate" over b/c of their own free will and b/c the Tang were their a "local government." --68.158.113.253 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of God, Goguryeo even used a different language.

--so what, it is still not totally proved that they speak the same language with korea's. and manchurians are chinese, they spoke different language, mogolian chinese are chinese, they spoke and are still speaking a different language, indians spoke no english, they are native americans, through history people changed, language changed too. chinese do not necessarily speak the chinese language.

And how on earth was even a portion of the legacy of Goguryeo inherited by China?

--because a great portion of the territory and descendants of gaogouli are in China.

After its collapse, I distinctly remember that the vast majority of Goguryeo's refugees flooded southward or rebelled to form Balhae.

--that is really debatable. maybe you should do a research on this. to your suprise, I distinctly remember that the vast majority of Gaogouli's refugees were assimilated by han chinese.

I also find no evidence that any of Goguryeo's known customs survived to contribute to Chinese culture, by which it was simply obliterated.

--well, try if you can find any remains in south korea, except the recently found tiny thing, so called "gaogouli barracks" around seoul. tell us some gaogouli's known customs, i will tell you if it survived in chinese culture or in korean culture.

I see the person who was kind enough to answer to my post is not only highly uninformed about the current realities of historical revisionism raging in East Asia, but also so blatantly crude in expressing his opinions and observing the manners considered necessary for all editors of Wikipedia to the point of insult. First, not only does has the person above failed in citing the same sources and proof he demands of my argument, he/she also takes care in leaving ihis post anonymous. Nonetheless, I'll have to take the time to make sure nobody leaves this page with the false impression of Goguryeo advocated by statements one can hardly consider an accurate form of rebuttal.

don't pretend to know it, gongbu haseyo--Goodthings 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Korean history books are shy of history.

When on earth did you obtain the evidence to support this claim? You don't cite any professional researcher or his work to make such a point. Korean history books and ancient records such as Samguk Sagi, Samguk Yusa, Goryeosa, and the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty generally match archaeological evidence when available. For example, Korean records and archaeological research are coherent in rebutting the occurrence of a Japanese invasion that conquered southern Korea (Korean books of the period make no such mention, and excavation in southern Korea has yet to yield any eveidence of a mass expedition), as is also the case with the Korean claim of Baekje settlements on the Shandong Peninsula and the cultural preeminence of Korean culture on ancient Japan, as demonstrated respectively by Chinese records and archaeological finds in the Kinki and Honshu regions. The Chinese and Japanese, on the other hand, have resorted to blocking access to important historical cites to Korean researchers and falsifying excavations (namely involving (re-burying and digging) and later celebrating with great pomp the supposed seniority of their civilizations, as was demonstrated by major Japanese archaeological fraud in 2000. So if anyone was shy of history, it be the compilers of Nihon Shoki and the current government officials of Japan and China.

"When available"???-------------kekekeke, What do you say if it is usually not available.

"For example, Korean records and archaeological research are coherent in rebutting the occurrence of a Japanese invasion that conquered southern Korea " -----------Oh, yeah? Let me give you some web pages, assuming you read Korean. Well, not conquered, it's just defeated and made to send a prince as a hostage.

http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_250_2001365.htm http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_020_5000198.htm http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_020_7000229.htm http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_010_6000094.htm http://www.koreandb.net/Sam/bon/samkuk/04_010_4000059.htm

Yes, PRC government does not allow Korean researchers to any important historical cites of Gaogouli after SOME KOREAN "EXPERTS" BROKE INTO AND ROBBED AND RUINED SOME OF THE INVALUEABLE TOMBS OF GAOGOULI. I belive ROK researchers can do very serious reseaches by themselves in the little Gaogouli Barracks around Seoul, why do they want to go to China?

--Goodthings 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Name similarity tells nothing of the relationship between two nations or dynasties.

No reputable historian of East Asia would say this. While it is true that mere similiarity between two dynastic titles will tell us nothing or may even be a mere coincidence, there is a fine line between that kind of resemblance and expressedly using the name as a form of revival. Both Goryeosa and the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty record that the names Goryeo and Joseon were chosen for previous usage in history, obviously suggesting an overall affinity. If one were to follow the refutation above, the entire history of China would not be relevant to the current PRC, nor would the various chapters of what we consider the history of Korea matter to the DPRK and the ROK, obviously because the person above has recklessly decided to deny the links between Korean past and present.

What an anology! You are so funny. The entire history would not be relevent to the current PRC? PRC doesn't even have any name similarity with any Chinese dynasty! PRC need not to use name similarity to prove anything. Official history books lie about their origin to gain legitimacy and political influnce and fame. Like in Samguk Sagi,Samguk Yusa, son of a bear or golden frog, blablabla......--Goodthings 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Chinese attention to the ignored developments of Manchuria and the fact that Manchuria is now Chinese terriotory makes those developments part of Chinese history.

An equivalent analogy would be identical to claiming that the later history of the Byazantine Empire is part of modern Turkish history, just because the entire region Asia Minor and the ancient Byzantine capital of Constantinople now lies in Turkish territory. On an added note, is this true? Certainly not. The Byzantines composed an entity distinct from the Turks, and just because their former territory fell to Turkish domination does not constitute the claim that Byzantine history is Turkish. To go one step further, if the Byzantine Empire was to pay tribute to the Arabs, Persians, and Turks to buy off any possible invasion and maintain cordial relations, does that bring the Byzantines any more closer to being a regional power? The answer is obviously no. And yes, all if not a great deal of Western scholars of East Asian history view the current spat over Goguryeo as part of Chinese scheming to pre-emptively crush any voices for independence from arising amongst its ethnic Korean minority in Yanbian by employing a distorted claim of historical legitimacy.

Oh, come on. I don't understand your citation. I didn't say that. And your analogy is false. As I told you, China does not equal Han China, China consists of many ethnic minorities. Hawaiians are Americans, understand? Ethnic minorities are also Chinese.

And your conspiracy theory was mainly advocated by Koreans as I know. those "western scholars", as you said, i think they just need a chance to listen to the other side of the story. --Goodthings 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It has not even been totally proved that the Goguryeo language is an ancestor of the modern Korean language.

The editor above added the word "totally" in his statement for a reason; because already has a great deal of evidence been presented to link the Korean language with the Goguryeo tongue, and thus he is unable deny such claims on his own. An example of ongoing research favoring the descent of the Korean language from the Goguryeo language is the comparison of the government post titles that were employed by the three kingdoms in their administration, which are strikingly similar in the cases of Baekje and Goguryeo, as well as the presentation of the hypothetical Buyeo language group, which would link the languages currently spoken in Korea and the Japanese archipelago. Thus far no project yet has been able to effectively put forth any claims of close relationship between the Goguryeo language and any dialect of Chinese as is with the Korean language.

You didn't understand me, Asian Americans speak English, they are American, but their Americanness doesnot deny their Asianness, get it? China is not ONE nation.--Goodthings 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the descendants of Goguryeo currently reside in China.

From this statement I see we still have a long way to go in fixing the gargantuan flaws in Chinese historigraphy. The reason, you may ask. First off, this cock-and-bill theory is based on the presumption that a great deal of descendants of Goguryeo currently inhabit China. Unfortunately, there simply is no officially recognized ethnic minority in China that concerns Goguryeo, and the closest we can get to such a group of people is the ethnic Korean minority in Manchuria, which unfortunately consists of settlers from the Korean kingdom of Joseon that migrated after Japanese rule was installed on the Korean peninsula, over 1,200 years after the fall of Goguryeo. As such, there is no documentation or evidence that these settlers or any other people (much less the Han Chinese) within China are descended from Goguryeo. Furthermore, both the Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa, both highly credible records of the history of the Three Kingdoms, cite that displaced subjects of Goguryeo either mograted en masse southward, where they staged massive revival movements along with the former subjects of Baekje in the newly acquired territory of Silla, or were taken hostage by the Tang Dynasty and escaped en route to enslavement in the chaos of the Khitan rebellions to found the kingdom of Balhae. And what happened to these people after Balhae fell to the Khitans in A.D. 926? Goryeosa records they were allowed to immigrate on a massive scale to Goryeo. There is no indication that the inhabitants of Goguryeo ended up anywhere else than eventually Goryeo, much less to support the claim that they were assimiliated into the Han Chinese.

Flaws in Chinese historigraphy? Why not flaws in Korean historigraphy? The people of Bohai were assimilated to Han Chinese, Khitan, Jurchens and Gaoli. Those who were assimilated by Han Chinese, Khitan and Jurchens remained in current Chinese territory. There are evidence. First, just take a look at the first picture of the article I believe it is from a tomb in Ji An. It was broke and robbed by Koreans. From the mural paintings of Gaogouli tombs, you can see there are both nomadic and agricultural. When were Koreans nomadic? According to History of Liao and History of Jin, a great portion of Bohai's people were assimilated by Khitan and Jurchens(close to the number of those went to Gaoli) and some(no exact number) were assimilated by Han Chinese. You cannot deny the lineages of their descendants.

Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa are written during Gaoli time. Of course they will say they are successor of Gaogouli to gain legitimacy, influnce and fame. I am not saying Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa are not reliable at all, they are not 100% reliable. Do you belive those myths recorded in those books, like Dangun is son of God of Heavon and a women who was a bear, or Jumong is a son of a golden frog? Moreover, the interpretations of these two books are really doubtable. Some records of Samguk Sagi are not even admitted by ROK's government for example this one,[[10]], it says Baekje lost the war against Japan and sent one of their princes to Japan as a hostage. --Goodthings 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Goguryeo culture cannot be found in South Korea.

Since when did South Korea represent the whole of Korean civilization? Isn't there a rather volatile neighbor called the DPRK occupying the northern half of the Korean Peninsula? And what customs of Goguryeo, may you ask? Perhaps it is you who should be doing more research. In any case, since you are asking for an example in South Korea, the answer to your amateur question would be the ondol stone floor heating system that has been modified to use heated water and is now found widely in a great deal of metropolitan and rural residences in alike. That method of heating, which by the way has no equivalent in pre-modern Chinese buildings, was used in Goguryeo during winter and was used throughout Korean antiquity to the modern era. Other forms of Goguryeo culture that are found in Korea are the tombs of Goguryeo royalty and aristocracy found in North Korea, which were registered by UNESCO as world heritage cites over opposition from China. Even the monuments of Goguryeo found in China are quite close to the border with North Korean border. So yes, remnants of Goguryeo culture can be found in Korea, while all China has of Goguryeo amounts to only a mere handful of monuments that aren't even consistent with the style of other Chinese tombs.--

Jh.daniell 16:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is so wrong and it is you that is amateur. Most contemporary Koreans, no matter DPRK or ROK, came from the southern part of the peninsula as descendants of Silla, it's the collapse of Gaogouli that gave the chance to the contemporary Koreans' ancestors the chance to multiply on the whole peninsula. There are gaogouli's descendants in Korea as well as in China.

I don't know if you are Korean or not. If you are, you really know little about your own nation's customs. Let me tell you about Ondol First, currently in Korea, it is heated water that circulating in the ondol system while it was smoke before. When people cook, heated smoke came out of "buddumak"(a kind of fireplace that is widely used in China and Korea, called "zao"(4) in Chinese) can go through passages under the floor to warm the room up. In this way, people can save energy by cooking and heating up the room at the same time. Ondol, as I know have been widely used in Manchuria since 1000 years ago. Ondol is called "huokang" or "dakang" in Chinese. Huokang and dakang are exactly the same as ondol except that in Manchuria people usually install this system only under a higher half of the room leaving the other lower half as kind of a living room. Let me give you a web page first. [11] I am sorry this website is in Chinese, but I can translate it for you. This piece of news says archaeologists found huokangs(ondols) used 800 years ago in the city of Chaoyang, Liaoning province, Manchuria. It also says it is the Jurchens that were using those huokangs(ondols). "Huokang were invented by the Northerners as a way to cope with the severe winter", it says. Huokang can be found at almost every home in the rural area of Manchuria now.

You really know little about Gaogouli remains. China applied only once and succeedded while DPRK failed at the first time due the authenticity problems. I can also that see you only know about the monuments in China. You should read some books first then come back again.

There are monuments, palaces, 3 cities, 14 kings' tombs and 26 aristocrats' tombs found so far in China.

I remember some Korean ghouls broke into and robbed one of the most famous tombs and were sentenced. Even the Koreans despised them. That is one of the direct reasons why Chinese government blockaged the Gaogouli remains from Korean reseachers. See the first picture of the article, the mural painting is not like that anymore, who did that? Koreans.

And you should notice that China is a civilization, not one nation. Don't generalize style of Chinese tombs. The diversity of Chinese tombs might not be understood by you, but it is one of the most diversiform. --Goodthings 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats your point? Oyo321 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Goodthings, you are the F!

They said there are 2 things you can't fake: history and logic. What an eye opener! Korean "scholars" and their nationalistic advocates broke another world record.

"There is no evidence that the Gaoguoli people went elsewhere after the Tang/Xinluo attack....so they must went to southern Xinluo....", man! What an ingenious logic! Korean patent number #123456 ???

-Don't know where people of Goguryeo went? They found new country, Balhae(Korean name). After it was conquered and perished by Kitan, Goryeo actively recieved them, and regarded Kitan with hostility.-

And they dare to claim at the first sentence: Gaogouli is a northern KOREAN....knowing 2/3 of its territory are in today's China!

What can I say? Now you know why they send 5 million emails to FIFA asking for a Swiss/Gaoli rematch...

Dulylomo 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Swiss lost against France, and Korea tied with France. Does that give u an idea that something was wrong? 3 HAND BALLS at the same time. hmm. maybe the ref was overdoing his job on one side of the field. AND add on to that, the manager of FIFA happens to be from Switzerland. THE MANAGER.. Ok, so he managed to let his team lose against France, another European country. BUT South Korea, an Asian country?? maybe he couldn't watch that happen. People from European countries even made their bets on Korea. People around the world and critics even look at the stats and say that Korea was among the most improved national teams of 2006. are u forgetting that this discussion page is on Goguryeo??? and u bring up a defeat that one nation and several people from around the world realize is not right??? HOW DARE U EVEN BRING IT UP??!? I DEMAND AN APOLOGY AT ONCE! --Kprideboi 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

-Then, why does Italian school teach history of the Roman Empire, though most of its territory has been ruled by France, Spain etc for more than 1500 years? Goguryeo's language, history, and the style of tomb shares more similarities with Baekjae or Silla than Chinese Dynasty at that time. I don't think that territory is more important than ethnical traits.-

 It's funny. It seems most Korean don't realize that China is a multiracial country with 56 ethnic groups and that coutry is a different concept from ethnic. China is not such homogeneous like Korea. Chinese historian never said it's Han-Chinese established Goguryeo. By the way, there is also no evidence that show most Goguryeo people went to Sinla.

Whats your point? Oyo321 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of my fellow Wikipedians really need to sign their work. signatures and time stamps are there for a special reason. Use them. I'd like to know what kind of people i'm talking to. HAHAHAHAHA. "Most Korean don't realize that China is a multiracial country with 56 ethnic groups and that country is a different concept from ethic." I admire how ur directly criticizing "most" Koreans. So are u telling me that i dont kno how big China is? Does that mean that a majority of Koreans are not aware of that big nation that has bullied them almost since its existance? Let me ask u a simple question. very simple. Why are people from all over the world staring at this Northeast Project of China? Why do they care if China decides to suddenly change their textbooks and look with greedy eyes upon a smaller country's history? WHY?? Why do u think this? Why do America and France scold and disapprove of China for doing this? I'll tell u why. Because that particular part of Korean history has been considered and reputed all over the world to be Korean history. It has been known and respected to be Korean history. And why would the world think this in the first place? Wasn't China the same back then as it is right now? Wasn't Manchuria also a part of Chinese territory back then as well? It didn't seem to matter back then. So why would it matter right now? A considerable amount of the descendants of Goguryeo's "migrating" people and monuments are currently living in territory that was maintained by a MANCHURIAN dynasty that is hated and detested by the Han Chinese and other "Chinese" ethnic groups. Did it really matter to the world back then? Does it realli matter now? Many empires and kingdoms have conquered territories that their descendants were not able to keep. for example, Mongolia, Germany, France, Britain, Macedonia, Syria, Hungary.. u get the point. I've used this analogy before, but i think its necessary to use it again. China's current behavior is like that of a rich and powerful king looking greedily upon a Peasant's few coins. --Kprideboi 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

History of China table

What is the history of China table doing in this article? I realize it's an attempt to balance the Korean side, represented by the History of Korea table. But really, even considering Goguryeo occupied territory that is now part of the PRC and interacted with numerous Chinese dynasties, the most that one could say is that Goguryeo had but a very perhipheral role in Chinese history (and obviously played the “outsider”, as a good part of its history saw it involved in a series of armed conflicts with those Chinese dynasties). The History of China table reveals this clearly enough: Goguryeo is not present, explicitly or implied (as it should not be present). Should the chart appear here? It just seems out of place.

Straitgate 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was put there by an anon IP address, and is removed now o_O Deiaemeth 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means reflecting the majority view as found in reputable reference works, not just including every possible minor dispute. WP:V says wikipedia articles are supposed to composed of information from these reputable publications, english preferred. WP:NOR means we write not what we think we personally know, but what the references say, period.

here's what the reputable english reference works say:

• Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668. Koguryo is traditionally said to have been founded in 37 BC in the Tongge River basin of northern Korea by Chu-mong, leader of one of the Puyo tribes native to the area, but modern historians believe it is more likely that the tribal state was formed in the 2nd century BC. (britannica) [12]
• Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom (columbia encyc) [13]
• Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc. (encarta) [14]

they say it's a korean kingdom, treat it as a part of korean history, not chinese, and use korean romanization, not chinese. end of story, unless you can point to even more widely accepted english reference works. thanks. Appleby 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Appleby 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the britannica one carefully. it does not say that gaogouli is korean kingdom. "ancient korea" and "northern korea" are only geographical.

And, what do you mean by "more widely accepted"? how do you prove that?

it was a division of korea. it's treated as one of the three kingdoms of korea. it's not a part of chinese history. cite your reputable english reference sources, then we can discuss which is more widely accepted. thanks. Appleby 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby: I think a [request for check user] is the sensible way to go. Tortfeasor 03:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My reference

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1135

"...All belong to the Koguryo culture, named after the dynasty that ruled over parts of northern China and the northern half of the Korean Peninsula from 37 BC to 668 AD."

"The tombs, particularly the important stele and a long inscription in one of the tombs, show the impact of Chinese culture on the Koguryo (who did not develop their own writing). "

"The Koguryo kingdom starts as a regional power and ethnic group in the year 37BC,"

where is it treated as part of chinese history? korea, japan, & vietnam "showed the impact of chinese culture," but they don't have china history templates. if they're impacted by china, that means they're not part of china. that brief unesco page describing one site does not contradict the "widely accepted reference works" encyclopedia, encarta AND columbia encyclopedia. Appleby 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is you have to see they are trying to be neutral. if it is a korean kingdom, they will say it is a korean kingdom in the description. do you think such an important description of WHC will lose information like that?--Goodthings 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

please review WP:NPOV for the concept of neutrality as applies at wikipedia. neutral doesn't mean giving each side equal weight; it means accurately reflecting academic consensus. and the academic consensus is that goguryeo is a korean kingdom, part of korean but not chinese history, referred to by korean not chinese romanization. this may be disputed within china, but the political dispute not taken seriously by western scholars or english reference publications. there already is a separate section on the current political controversy.

your single citation is a brief description of an archeological site (the more significant goguryeo site being in north korea, not a history of goguryeo, & does not contradict the detailed encyclopedia articles. & did you notice it uses korean romanization?

because of so many anonymous vandals, i don't think checkuser will be as useful as page protection, which i've requested. Appleby 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. FYI Goodthang asked that it be unprotected on the same page. Tortfeasor 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.

Goguryeo as a local government?

Taiwang(태왕), a great title that meant "ruler with no equal." Goguryeo's rulers were addressed as Peha(페하), which is the address for emperor. Junha(전하) is the addressing of a king or a prince. Goguryeo emperors, therefore, were the rulers of an empire. Let me warn you, don't try to desecrate the titles of the rulers of an ancient empire that expanded and eventually fell in greatness. Such words and action are a sign of disrespect for a people, not a country, that has stood for thousands of years. Goguryeo has been known to be Korean history since Goryeo times. So why didn't Silla consider it a part of its history? well, Shilla was a rival AKA enemy of Goguryeo. Why would they want to say anything good about it? This "Chinese World Order" that some of you are talking about only existed during the Qin, Han, and other unified periods of Chinese history. Goguryeo was a neighbor to the Han and several other empires, but that doesn't necessarily make it a part of those empires and kingdoms, does it? For example, the Parthian empire was a neighbor to the Roman Empire. Does that make the Parthians a local government? Does that make the Parthians Roman? Just because it was smaller in size doesn't mean that it could be butchered and distorted into something that it clearly wasn't. After Han fell, Goguryeo continued to be independent from the several disunified states of that period. How could a set of states that had no unity be considered as one, and control one growing empire? Goguryeo may have paid tribute from time-to-time, but if they considered themselves to be a part of this "Chinese world order" why did it destroy and fight against Xuantu, Lelang, and Liaodong commanderies? Weren't those commanderies also a control area for Han too?? Why would a Han commandery try to destroy another Han commandery? The Han commanderies were different from the Three Kingdoms of Korea. They all worked and pledged allegiance to the Han. They had no reason to fight each other. Buyeo was an independent state, and the Chinese today respect that. A prince of Buyeo, named Jumong, migrated south to start a kingdom and that kingdom was Goguryeo. Jumong was still on the throne when Goguryeo was starting to attack nearby tributaries of the Han. Now why would a "local government" of the Han attack a tributary state of the Han?? Doesn't that sound weird? That's like having Minnesota attack Texas with an army.--Kprideboi 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, why did the Chinese claim Goguryeo starting from when the capital was at Guknaesung to be Chinese history, and the period at which Pyongyang became the capital to be Korean? Wasn't it the same dynasty of rulers? That's like saying that the united Mongol Empire is Mongol history, and its Chinese history when it divided into four on Chinese land. Emperor Jangsu the Great succeeded his FATHER Emperor Gwanggaeto the Great. Jangsu the Great was clearly a descendant of Emperor Dongmyeongseong, and not an usurper to the throne or from a different family or clan. It was clearly the same dynasty. contradict me if i'm wrong.. if u can. Another question. Why is China trying so hard as to consider Goguryeo to be two different dynasties?? the Shang kings moved capitals and the dynasty is still known to be the same. Why do they turn around and start trying to desperately take away at least half of the history of Goguryeo. Is it that important? China is like a rich king looking enviously at a peasant. China is rich in history and is very famous and illustrious for it. Why does it look upon the history of a smaller nation? Is it because of the humiliating defeats that the Sui and Tang faced? Is it because of the fear of a unified Korea coming back to claim Manchuria? Instead of arguing over crap, let's solve these questions one at a time. and think about them. If you're gonna argue and say crap at me, dont even reply. If you aren't going to consider and actually think over the numerous examples and clear common sense that i've presented to you, then don't even start. I'm not interested in little kiddy arguments and pointless waste of breath. Those of you with an open mind and heart, i welcome you to this discussion. A famous Chinese philosopher named Confucius once said that a wise, big man looks at all sides of the argument, while the small incompetent man only sees himself. That comes from a Chinese sage. Not from me. hahaha. keep it in your minds and hearts. --Kprideboi 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

'Goguryeo was a neighbor to the Qin and the Han empires?' Hi, Qin dynasty was built in 221BC, and Han dynasty was built in 206BC. However, Goguryeo was built in 37BC. How can you say Goguryeo was a neighbor to both the Qin and the Han empires? Do you know '汉四郡' If do not, please check your history textbook. 'The humiliating defeats that the Sui and Tang faced?' Do not forget who destroy Goguryeo. Is it because of the fear of a unified Korea coming back to claim Manchuria?: I guess that's a big problem between two countries. Many korean including some law maker claim Kando is territory of Koea.

---

first off, thanks for answering my statements. I've been waiting for so long. everyone's been busy lately. oh.. hahaha. my bad. i see where my flaw was. i got Goguryeo and Gojoseon mixed up. As u said, Goguryeo wasn't exactly founded at the same times at the same exact minute and location as both the Qin and Han were, but Gojoseon was present during the existane of the Qin and Goguryeo coexisted with Han dynasty. There. i fixed that mistake. what exactly is '汉四郡'? i'm Korean. i dont can't read Chinese for squat. hahaha. and i try to get along with all of my fellow wikipedians regardless of race. i kno that it is pointless to get angry from simple arguments as these on an international website of such great importance. I did not intend to insult the Chinese for what they were doing in any of my statements above. If it looked that way to u, then i am sorry. But please understand that i am here to reason with people, not to get them pissed off. I come here for opinions and for thoughts of many different people. Hey, u have to admit, i do have a good point dont i? This is a simple question with no offense intended: Why would China suddenly claim Goguryeo to part of its own history after years of silence on the subject? China may have claimed Balhae, but it has never tried to lift a finger for Goguryeo. In fact, even China itself regarded Goguryeo to be history of Korea until recently. And honestly, isnt it kind of rude to just suddenly change textbooks without notice? seriously imagine this... The Mongols claiming that all of the land that the Mongol Khans conquered should belong to the Mongolian state. That's just an example, but how would u feel about dat? u r chinese rite? i wouldn't like it. and yes i kno, China isn't saying this to say that to gain land, but that just shows u how important and valuable history is to the Korean people. To you, it may seem like Korean people are just being hard-hearted and stubborn, but imagine what its like in the opposition's eyes. To some people, this proud history may be all they live for. I've seen so many people say that Koreans are very stubborn and proud. HAHAHA! and that is true for some. and you are right if u think so as well. my people are very proud and stubborn. Have you ever wondered why? These people are proud of the very thing that the Chinese are currently claiming to be theirs. History, culture, and land. These are three things that make up the pride of many Korean people. What if the North Koreans were to claim the Great Wall of China as a creation of the Gojoseon people. Would any Chinese person feel good about that? Would anybody jump for joy at hearing this? Just think about that. And keep in mind that i'm not trying to make u feel pissed or feel bad or anything like that. This is supposed to be a discussion. We are supposed to learn from this, and that is all i expect from these. --Kprideboi 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To discuss history problem, you should know some basic history knowledge, and should not make such a mistake. Or, you just want to show your angry? '汉四郡' are simplified Chinese characters. Then you must know '漢四郡'. I know middle school students in korea are required to know at least 1000 Chinese characters. To read history books, such as 《三國史記》and 《三國遺事》 two of the most important history book of Korea, you much be able to read Chinese characters. Then, you will not make such mistakes.

--- and what do i mean by "humiliating defeats of the Sui and Tang?" Tang Taizong was a superior general with legendary prowess and skill on the battlefield. It has been said that he never lost a battle until the siege of Ansi, a city in Goguryeo. Maybe i was a bit too broad when i said Sui AND Tang. The siege of Ansi was probably the only major defeat for the Tang, but the Sui did face numerous defeats against the Goguryeo, both on land and sea. That is probably something that you know about as well. And you do have a point in saying that Goguryeo did fall in the end to the Tang. BUT i never said that Goguryeo never collapsed. I merely said that the Tang faced a major and rather humiliating defeat against Goguryeo. Three months of siege under one of China's greatest generals and rulers. i'm talking stats here. The Tang were very powerful. The army that they brought was tremendous. i'm Korean and even i would say so. This humongous army defeated all of the border cities except one, Ansi. THink about that. And this is only the Tang. Wait till i tell you about the Sui. Emperor Wendi of the Sui Empire sent an army of 300,000 to Goguryeo. That was a tremendous army. 90% of this army was destroyed. Then, Emperor Yangdi, the son of Emperor Wendi, directly leads a gargantuan army of almost 3 to 4 million, into Goguryeo. There were some amazing statistics from this army, and i realli can't remember all of it.. but it is also said that it took 40 days just to get the entire army--Kprideboi 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA! i can see ur point in that last comment. but the thing is, i live in America. I was born in Seoul, South Korea, a pure Korean, but my family moved to America when i was 2. BEFORE i started school at all. So, i never had any opportunities to learn the language of the Chinese. i know plenty of Korean friends who are learning Chinese right now, but they're rich. My family isn't exactly rich enough to give me Chinese lessons. but tell me, do u kno how to read Korean?? haha. u probably don't. U probably wouldn't want to. Same here. I'm not interested in Chinese. haha. plain and simple. Those who are going into business careers might want to learn Chinese b/c China is rapidly becoming the world's major business power. So, r u gonna tell me wat those words are? i admitted to u. i dont kno Chinese. If ur gonna laugh at me for not knowing a language that i choose not to learn then fine. haha. i still can't figure out what kind of tone ur speaking in. Whether ur angry, annoyed.. my stance is always going to be at a relatively peaceful stance. and thank u for ur advice. I am very confident in my history. Maybe my dates and numbers are a little rusty, but i do kno the events and the people involved. That is just about enough for me. --Kprideboi 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I don't know you are Korean-American. In fact, I know a little Korean. I know the meanings of 태왕,페하 and 전하. Their pronunciations are very similar to the cooresponding Chinese words. If I dont know these characters, I would not be able to understand words, such as 'Taiwang','Peha' and 'Junha'. Afterall, there are not such words in English. But you know, there is no ancient hostory book written in Korean. And Korean is not an important language for me. So, i did not learn much. I just advice you to read some original history books. If not, just read some history books written in english. Why are you confident in your 'rusty' history, even said Qin dynasty was a neigbor of Gogyryeo. May be that's enought for you, but I guess it's not enough to discuss a history problem.

---

You are very honest and straight to the point. "Korean is not an important language for me." hahahahaha. and u are right about original history books not being written in Korean. And i guess my little mistake in one of those responses realli got to you. When i was talking about the Qin dynasty, i got Goguryeo and Gojoseon mixed up. Maybe i did not explain this earlier, but i got the two mixed up. People make mistakes. haha. I am correct about Gojoseon and Qin coexisting at one point their histories, am i not? Gojoseon was not founded at the same time and same place as the Qin Empire, but they did COEXIST at ONE POINT in their histories. Same is with the Han and Goguryeo. Though the Han Empire was established way before Goguryeo, the two empires did coexist for a period of time. Enough about that. I had already admitted my mistakes on one of the previous responses, and i corrected it didn't i? --Kprideboi 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gojoseon fell from Han Wudi's attacks. The remnants of Gojoseon form several states in Manchuria and northern Korea. Among these states was Buyeo, and born in Buyeo was Jumong, who was a prince of Buyeo. Jumong eventually flees from Buyeo with a handful of former Gojoseon people into Jolbon, where three rulers of one of Jolbon's states surrender to him. Jumong then founded Goguryeo and married a princess of Jolbon. Then, Jumong starts building a strong military and expands Goguryeo's territory. What i'm trying to point out here is that Goguryeo sprouts from Buyeo, and Buyeo comes from Gojoseon. Gojoseon has been considered the first unified state in Korean history. AND if Buyeo is founded by Gojoseon people with mostly Gojoseon people living in it, that makes Buyeo a significant part of Korean history, correct? AND if Goguryeo comes from Buyeo, that would also connect Goguryeo to Gojoseon, which would make Goguryeo another part of Korean history. Do u see my point? We've been going off topic for too long. hahahaha. Now, we're back to the point. U see where i stand in this discussion. Now, explain to me ur beliefs on the current historical disputes on Goguryeo. U are under the belief that Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history, rite? oh, and why don't u ever use ur signature? I would've gone to ur site and commented. U do have a signature rite? --Kprideboi 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Samjogo

Instead of the opening picture of Goguryeo archers, shouldn't the picture of Samjogo be placed there? Samjogo represents Goguryeo as a whole, not an ancient painting of hunters. Oyo321 05:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The samjogo is a symbol respected by all as the national symbol of Goguryeo. Go ahead.--Kprideboi 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Significant error in the Modern Politics section

There is a significant error in the Modern Politics section. The current ethnic Korean minority in China is only 2 million in total. Why did the author write that The existence of a sizeable ethnic Korean minority in the former Goguryeo territories in China (over 10 million)?

I think this section includes biased views, inaccurate data and emotional claims. It should be modified or deleted. Woshiwppaa 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's an error, then fix it. We want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible so that readers of all races, sizes, shapes, and religion can come here and research. Alot of us are forgetting that Wikipedia isn't one of those argument forums where one can just screw up data and use foul language. Our goal is to make this great encyclopedia a place for trustworthy and accurate data. If you're here to pick a fight about stupid crap, then take it somewhere else. and what is it with all of this tenseness? lighten up, yo. we must not forget our duties. --Kprideboi 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

hi, easy. He just adviced to delete one section which has some mistakes, not the whole article. Then, why not fix it? Just repeat your goal. Is that enough to ensure this is a place for accurate data?

Administrator Nlu removed the entire article about Modern Politics

The administrator Nlu have removed the section of Modern Politics
He said it is violating POV. But, I dont think that Modern Politics section violated the POV even though some words violated it. I have talked with him in his talk page, but he did not want to discuss it. See the talk page of him [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

As I've suggested, rewrite the section in a NPOV manner. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I said that I will start to modify the previous Nlu's version. But, you said it is also violating the POV. I think that you just dont want the section of modern politics. The article of wiki is not yours. Dont edit the article in your ways even though you are an administrator.

It is not right way to rewrite the Modern Politics even though there exists the section of Modern Politics.

If someone have a time, please discuss the territory map of Gojoseon Talk:Gojoseon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, unsourced content is subject to removal. I'm sure if the "Modern Politics" section is rewritten in an NPOV way citing reliable sources, there will be no objection to its reinstatement. -- Visviva 06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Have inserted the Samjoko. I'd like to replace the picture of the tiger hunter with the picture of a Samjoko. I agree that "the hunter" is a very famous picture in Korea of Goguryeo, but it does not describe Goguryeo as a whole. Any suggestions? Oyo321 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Multi-racial country... Does that realli matter?

Alright. China is a multiracial country. BUT so are America and Russia. Do u see Americans change their history books to say that Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Russian territories are all part of their history because a HUGE proportion of America's diverse population consists of ethnic Irish, English, French, German, Italian, and Russian people? NO!Irish history is barely cited in American schools. The only significant trace of Irish history written in American textbooks is the Great Irish migration to America. And these Irish people came to America for hopes of starting fresh. The people of Goguryeo are a different story. They didn't cross over the Great Wall of China because they wanted to. Some people are forgetting that and talking as if they HAD a choice! Great Britain? The only parts of British history mentioned in American textbooks are the parts when America and Britain interacted with each other. American textbooks don't claim Alfred the Great to be the first King of America. Or Richard the Lionheart to be a great American Hero. America respects all of the nations, whose people form minorities and majorities within its territory. China, however, has significantly and openly disrespected both North and South Korea by doing this selfish and greedy act. Do i need to go on? French history. Yes, American textbooks mention Napoleon Bonaparte b/c he sold the Louisiana Purchase to American President Thomas Jefferson. BUT do they say that Napoleon Bonaparte was an emperor of America? Do they claim him to be American? NO! China claims Goguryeo to be a "regime." A mere offshoot of China. THAT is what makes Koreans so prideful and overprotective of their highly ignored history. Because economically bigger neighbors distort things around like that. WHY is Goguryeo a regime? It was a dynasty that coexisted with China's Han Dynasty at one point in its history. It is an ancient kingdom. When one says regime, he would think of an insignificant group or family of governors or usurpers that ruled for a very short time. I'm not saying that that is what it means, but i'm saying that regime is simply a small word to describe the an ancient empire that stood for ALMOST a thousand years. ALMOST. --Kprideboi 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you crazy? Be mixed up? HAHAHAHAHA! Are some Amreican's ancester English? Why don't they said Richard the Lionheart to be a great American Hero just like what Korean do? China never claimed the history of Singapore. The territory of America have no relation with Euroupe. Does South Korea control the territory of Goguryeo? Why an american is so interested in history of Goguryeo. Again, the guy from a single racial country does not really know the condition of multiracial country, even he lives there. (unsigned visitor)

HAHAHA! i dont kno who u r. BUT i never mentioned in that response above, anything about SINGAPORE. AND i am not an American. I am Korean. I was born in Korea, came to America when i was young. That does not change my national identity. Just as it will never change the identity of Goguryeo's history just because a significant amount of its great territory is in another country's land. and speaking of a multi-racial country.. is there any country in the world that does not have a diverse group of people? The entire world is mixed and diverse. and maybe u should consider leaving ur name behind instead of being a coward. If ur not even a wikipedian, dont even bother coming here and responding to a response that u havent' even read properly. WHERE in that paragraph do u see the word SINGAPORE?? i mentioned Pakistan, India, North and South Korea... BUT never did i ever mention a Singapore. u left ur comment in the wrong place, kid. Go bother someone else. U did not write a single thing about GOGURYEO in that paragraph. ur an annoying fly. just go buzz off at the SINGAPORE article. I'm sure they're love u over there. --Kprideboi 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can not i mention Singapore? Only you can do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

---

Why did the Sui fall so quickly compared to other Chinese civilizations?? Well, yes, the constructions of the Grand Canal and Great Wall did contribute to it, but are those the only reasons?? NO! There's that one forgotten part that both Sui Wendi and Yangdi sent tremendously large armies to conquer Goguryeo and failed everytime, leaving the Sui Empire almost bankrupt to the floor. Why isn't this included in history books? Is it not "good" enough? Did General Eulji Mundeok not do a great and tremendous deed by defeating an army of 3 million, which came from the dominating power of the region?? Most people don't even know who Eulji Mundeok is. Is saving the Korean identity and race not a tremendous deed? Apparently, it isn't because the nation that he fought for is being described as a local "regime" or ... HAHAHAHA! "local government" by the Chinese. How disgraceful is that? China is changing a great Ancestral Korean Empire into a local regime... what do u people think about this? Does that sound like a good legacy to the Goguryeo nation? The Nation of the Samjogo fought the Chinese dynasties of Tang and Sui to the very last effort. Would a local government or regime of "China" do that to begin with? That doesn't make any sense. A local regime.. psh.. --Kprideboi 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would the Chinese like it if Japan were to claim all of its territory in China because they had occupied it during WWII? did the Chinese like the Rape of Nanjing? I'm pretty sure that any decent Chinese person despises Japan for that humiliation and disrespect. Well, let me tell u something... Japan's Rape of Nanjing is the equivalent to China's Northeast project. They may be different physically, but in the hearts of the people, they take the same toll. Recently, the South Korean dramas have concentrated on Goguryeo by releasing a huge number of Goguryeo-related dramas, including Jumong (now playing), Yeon Gaesommun (now playing), Dae Joyeong (now playing), Taewang Sasin-Gi (coming soon), Daemusin Wang (coming soon), and others. Why? The same reason why China is going to release a film titled "The Rape at Nanjing" in 2007. So why is Goguryeo so important to the Koreas? yeah, some of u r saying that its political and that the Koreans are looking greedily at Manchuria. That may be true to those who are incompetent and have no honor. but let me tell u of another category. The Korean people are reputed to be very prideful and stubborn.. What makes my people may not look like much to u, but to us, its our land, our peninsula, our culture, our food, and it makes us very proud regardless of how much greater our neighbors look to the world. Among those many things that makes my country proud is our long but mostly ignored history. And guess whose trying to take a part of that magnificant history.. That is why my people currently fight for Goguryeo. Yes, it is true that Goguryeo held significant territory in Manchuria that dishonorable people are looking toward, but our history is greater to us than land. U will be able to see that just by watching North Korea's reaction to the Northeast project. I guess North Korea tried way too hard and went as far as to making fabricated monuments and artifacts. That shows three things to the world: 1) This project was an outrageous sign of disrespect to BOTH Koreas, 2) North Korea's deeds were bad but that shows how important Goguryeo is to the people, and 3) Goguryeo is a part of every true Korean's heart regardless of political affliction. Therefore, i conclude, Goguryeo is a valuable part of my people. What China is claiming to be theirs is not just an ancient kingdom that's been around for a long time, but its an irreplacable icon of Korean greatness within the people's hearts. What China is doing is not the opening of a "multi-racial" theory, but a challenge to the Korean people and a sign of unspeakable disrespect that is fit for barbarians. China is acting like a greedy child, envying another respectful nation's history. This is not only happening to Korea. BUT it is and has happened to almost every nation that neighbors it. Pakistan, India, Tibet, Mongolia, and probably a whole list more, which Korea is included in. China is already very reputable to its victims to be a very envious and greedy nation. What is China famous for? ALOT of things, but among that is its reputation as the World's oldest civilization. Now, why would the world's oldest civilization claim a younger civilization's history, when it has a whole pile of history that can fill up rooms with books? WHY? hahaha. That just seems kind of funny and ridiculous. Would the richest man in the world. --Kprideboi 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You really don't know even a little history of China. Don't just show your unreasonal angry. Give us some evidence to show that all people of Goguryeo are ancester of modern Korea and not Goguryeo people became a portion of Chinese. Tibet is a portion of China. Tibet history is the history of minority of China. Is not Yuan Dynasty history of China. Even emporer of Yuan Dynasty admited they were emporer of China! We never claimed the small peninsula,not like some crazy Korean which said Manchuria should be territory of Korean. Korean culture? It's just a sub-culture influenced by China. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

People: Wikipedia is not a talk shop. Please calm down and get back on topic.

ABCBBCKBS: Your comments disparaging other nations are disruptive and unconstructive.

-- ran (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WHOA!! WHOA!! hey, wat did u say up there? Korean is a "sub-culture" influenced by China?? influenced by China.. yes, i kno that much. BUT does that mean that the people of India can come up to u and tell u that Chinese culture is a "sub-culture" of India because they gave u Buddhism??? u BETTER watch ur words of choice. NOBODY LIKES TO SEE THEIR COUNTRY BE CALLED A "SUBCULTURE!!!" That was a true sign of disrespect. If u have thoughts of that sort in ur mind, then keep them in ur mind. FAR away from causing any harm to another person. i can under stand that ur all heated up by these arguments, but doing that much is going off the line. talk about disparaging other nations. U jus frikin called Korea a "sub-culture" influenced by China. is dat something that u would want to hear from someone?? has this issue blinded u and robbed u of ur respect?? I DEMAND AN APOLOGY AT ONCE!! "crazy korean which said Manchuria should be territory of Korean." yes. that's true. We do have people that think Manchuria should be part of Korea. It even came up on some "crazy" American textbook at my school. Does that make America crazy? Would a personal opinion be in an American textbook if it weren't something that was agreed upon by many people around the world? --Kprideboi 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether you admit it, it is true. Did Chinese write using character from india? Did Chinese use medicine from india? Did Chinese use the calendar? Actually, many history books only mention the culture of China and Japan, not Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

I see who the real coward is.. ABCBBCKBS.. psh. i dont kno wat u want me to admit. BUT if its ur petty claim of Korea being a "sub-culture" of China, then go to hell. The reason as to why Chinese and Japanese cultures are more well known to America is because Korea was revealed alot later to the world than China and Japan, who were introduced since before WWI. If u had known anything about Korea or its people, then you would've considered that before giving off those pitiful words of urs. I dont kno if ur Chinese or not, but i have great respect to every nation both big and small. I have respect that disappears when that nation starts doing things that are very unfit for any nation to be doing. Iraq, for example, is the descendant of ancient empires that were very powerful, but it behaved with such brutality and terror, that it lost all respect from the world. China's move against Korea was direct disrespect. Something that is unfit for any nation to be doing. Daring to claim a respected part of another nation's history. History that has been known to belong to that nation since the Middle Ages. It doesn't matter if Korea is "regime" or a "sub-culture" in YOUR eyes, but what China did does not change. "sub-culture" or no "sub-culture," it is an independent nation that has interacted and shared much with China for more than thousands of years. The thoughts of one pitiful young boy doesn't change the pride and love of a patriot for his country. I keep looking at ur statement, "many history books only mention the culture of China and Japan, not Korea." hmmm. well, let's look back to the time of the DaeHan Empire. Daewon-gun, father of Emperor Gojong, possessed a considerable amount of the power within the empire, and he decided that the doors of Joseon were best to be closed from the rest of the world. Hence came the nickname, "Hermit Kingdom." This information comes from the books of elementary schools. That certainly shows how much u seem to know about Korean history. That was a bold claim, but there is ur answer. I can admit that barely anything on Korea is stated in literature because not much has been distributed about Korea and it has been overlooked as a small country with a "sub-culture" by people like u. People who refuse to look deeper into things before making pitiful claims as that, disparaging other countries without thinking twice. I warn u. never say those sorts of things about any country. Not just Korea.. but to any country. That is disrespect and every country has had its own troubles and good times. Korea has had many troubles and out of those troubles come heroes. This may interest u. If not, then nevermind. If u r going to live in this world and do business, then u must learn to widen ur mind and study more things. Not just look through a pragmatic, shallow view. Korea was influenced by many countries, China in particular, but it has its own unique culture in that peninsula. That's the end of story for me. I'm moving on. If u choose to continue to waste ur breath on disrespect and malice... go ahead. see how far in life u'll go. its ur life to use in wisdom and greatness. or in foolishness and incompetence. --Kprideboi 23:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright Kprideboi, you need to calm down and read more carefully. You are mistaking ABCBBCKBS's comments as mine. ABCBBCKBS said that Korea is a "sub-culture", not me. Also, when I talked about disparaging comments, I was talking to ABCBBCKBS, not you. -- ran (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Comment no longer applies -- ran (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

Conventional understanding of Goguryeo by Chinese based on Chinese History Books

1. 後漢書 東夷列傳
This book has a chapter of east barbarian東夷 that describes Korean ancient history such as Buyeo夫餘, Goguryeo高句麗, esat Okjeo東沃沮, north Okjeo北沃沮, samhan韓. This book describes the history of Goguryeo as 列傳. If chinese thought Goguryeo as their own history, the history of Goguryeo must be included in 本記
Based on the history book, <東夷>相傳以爲<夫餘>別種, which means that Goguryeo is some kinds of Buyeo.

2. 三國志卷 魏書 東夷傳
This book also has a chapter of east barbarian that descrbies the Korean history. If Chinese thought that east barbarian is Chinese history, they should be included in the chapter of 本記
Described states: Buyeo夫餘·Goguryeo高句麗·east Okjeo東沃沮·濊·Samhan韓.

3. 魏書 列傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Goguryeo高句麗·Baekje百濟·勿吉·失韋·豆莫婁·地豆于·庫莫奚·契丹·烏洛侯.

4. 宋 書 列 傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Goguryeo高句驪國·Baekje百濟國·倭國.

5. 晉書 東夷傳
If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Buyeo夫餘國·Mahan馬韓·Jinhan辰韓·肅愼氏·倭人·裨離等十國

6. 周書 傳列
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Goguryeo高麗(고구려)·Baekje百濟.

7. 北史 列傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Goguryeo高麗(高句麗)·百濟·新羅·勿吉·奚·契丹·室韋·豆莫婁·地豆干·烏洛侯·流求·倭.

8. 南史 列傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: Goguryeo高句麗·百濟·新羅·倭國·文身·大漢·扶桑.

9. 南齊書 列傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: 高麗國·百濟國·加羅國·倭國.

10. 隨書 列傳
This book also treat the history of Goguryeo as 列傳 If Chinese had thought that Goguryeo was Chinese history, it should be included in 本記
Described states: 高麗·百濟·新羅·靺鞨·流求·倭國.

Please dont say furthermore that Goguryeo is Chinese history.

If someone want to insist that Goguryeo is Chinese history, then rewrite the 25 Chinese history books again such that history of Goguryeo can be described in 本記.

Please dont say that Goguryeo was a local government. How can local government could continue more than central government. Goguryeo had continued for aboout 700 years at least. North Korean historian say that Goguryeo had continued for about 1000 years. --Hairwizard91 18:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Yue are described in 列傳 too, but today they are conventionally regarded as the history of China. Also, a lot of these 東夷傳 include 靺鞨, 契丹, 流求 and 倭國. Are they Korean as well?

In short, there is no simple solution to this problem. The terms "Chinese" and "Korean" are difficult to define, because the cultural / political boundaries are often unclear and open to interpretation. Certainly the Goguryeo spoke neither Chinese nor Korean. So please, don't push your POV. -- ran (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the states described in 列傳 is not chinese history. I do not mean that all the states in 列傳 is Korean history. I means that the states described in 列傳 must be states of other than Chinese. Dont make the concept of 列傳 vague. Absolutely, Goguryeo is not Chinese history but Korean history.

''HAHA, 本記 was just for the emperor, not the local kingdom.. 'Chinese history books' was wrote very serious.

You can not be more wrong. '契丹' was mentioned in 列傳. Can you say '契丹' is not a part of history of China ? All '契丹' people had become a part of Han Chinese. When some states mentioned in 列傳 , it was not ruled and ruled directly by the dynasty which the chinese history book described. Mordern chinese are the descendants of many different nations of ancient China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

So what would the 越 be? It's possible to argue that they're "Chinese" in a wider way, though of course this is open to interpretation. The same goes for Goguryeo. -- ran (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Yue is different from Goguryeo because Yue dont have any independent state currently, and annexed to current china. But, the descendants of Goguryeo have established Korea. --Hairwizard91 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

... which is again debatable, because it is possible to say that Goguryeo were assimilated to China after Tang conquest, and it was actually the people of Silla that established Korea. It's also possible to say Goguryeo was continued in Balhae, which was annexed by the Khitans, who were conquered by the Jurchens, who became the Manchus, who are now assimilated into China. In short, there are many interpretations and yours is not the only one. -- ran (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

However, Tang could not rule over the territory of Goguryeo. It is succeeded by Balhae. Moreover, when balhae was destroyed by Khitan, the people of Balhae entered into Goryeo (You may miss this point)

Yes, I know what you're saying, like I said, there are many interpretations, and in reality the situation was probably a complex one that combined all of these interpretations. Goguryeo did not speak Chinese or Korean, which makes the problem difficult to untangle; after the state was destroyed, the people scattered in many directions; many other ethnicities passed through, and several subsequent states liked to refer to Goguryeo as an ancestor; that's why there's confusion. Our job here at Wikipedia is to describe this confusion, not take sides. -- ran (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed also one thing. The languages of Korean Three Kingdoms are same... Exactly, they were considered as dialect. So, they could communicate with each other without interpretor. Survey the literatures about this fact.

.... Uh, no. See Goguryeo language. -- ran (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why NO??? the article you mentioned said that they are similar language. Read what you have mentioned....--Hairwizard91 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I only saw the book of Goguryeo writen by Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

Why dont you find korean book?

Blanking

Hairwizard: why are you reverting the Modern politics section? The later version is more NPOV and more detailed. Which part of it do you disagree with? -- ran (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is you that frstly added the article without any discussion. You must firstly discuss about it. I think that the version by Nlu has NPOV.

My version has more information than Nlu's version, and I'm fully entitled to add it. It is your responsibility, if you disagree with it, to raise specific points in the talk page. Which part of it do you disagree with? -- ran (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you firstly discuss about it in discussion page. Wiki is not your possession.

Okay, then discuss. What do you disagree with in my version? -- ran (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, you must say both of the objection advocacy by Korean and north east project advocacy by Chinese.

Moreover, discuss firstly in discussion page, do not directly edit the article.

My version does mention the Korean point of view. If you feel that it is insufficient, then add to it, don't remove what's already there. -- ran (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No! YOur version is mostly concentrated on the chinese point of view.

Okay, if that's what you feel, then add to the Korean point of view, don't remove the Chinese point of view. -- ran (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You MUST discuss it in discussion page.

Do not directly edit the article.

I'm here to discuss already, and have been for the past hour. Also, there is no rule that I can't edit first. If you disagree with my edits, it's your responsibility to point out what you disagree with. What do you disagree with in my edits? -- ran (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not say anthing about the korean point of view.

My version reads:

Conventionally, Goguryeo is viewed as a Korean state, more specifically as one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Traditional Chinese histories also identified Goguryeo with Goryeo, a Korean dynasty that took its name from Goguryeo and ruled Korea for centuries.

Starting from the 1980's, the People's Republic of China began to re-identify Goguryeo, especially the first half of Goguryeo's history before it moved its capital to the Korean peninsula, as a part of the regional history of China rather than Korea. This is based on the following:

• that Goguryeo was established in Manchuria, now a part of China;
• the claim that Goguryeo actively sought a tributary relationship with successive Chinese empires
• the claim that after the end of Goguryeo, its descendants were largely assimilated into the Han Chinese
• the claim that the Goryeo Dynasty and hence, the Korean nation, descends from Samhan and Silla, not Goguryeo; and that Goryeo appropriated the name from Goguryeo when in fact the two were established by different ethnicities.

[16]

As Tungusic ethnicities in Manchuria, such as Manchus, Oroqin and Evenks, are now regarded as regional ethnic minorities in China, this classification is therefore extended backwards to encompass the Buyeo and Malgal, and Goguryeo is similarly classified as a state established by ethnic minorities of China. The accepted position among Chinese historians therefore became the following: that the history of Goguryeo before the capital was transferred to Pyongyang in the Korean Peninsula, or even until its collapse, was to be considered part of Chinese history, a regional power of China.

This reclassification has drawn sharp criticism from Korea. Koreans speculate that this move is driven by the PRC's will to solidify its current borders and prevent unrest among ethnic minorities within China. They say that China is attempting to establish a historical claim over Manchuria and even northern Korea by folding Goguryeo into the Chinese civilization.

The Chinese government launched the Northeast China Project, a 20-billion-yuan (2.4 billion US dollars) project dealing with China's Northeast in 2002, rewriting history textbooks and restoring important Goguryeo sites in China. In 2004 this dispute threatened to lead to diplomatic disputes between China and South Korea, although all of the governments involved seem to exhibit no desire to see the issue damage relations. The existence of a sizeable ethnic Korean minority in the former Goguryeo territories in China (over 10 million), the issue of political influence over North Korea in the case of a collapse of the regime, and some nervousness over the rapidly increasing power of China contributed to the tensions.

Is there anything you feel that I've missed? If so, please add to it. -- ran (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Make items the korean point of view as the chinese point of view.

Each of the advocacy sentence of north east project has opposite opinion. You may missed them

Okay, so add those then. Don't remove what's already there. -- ran (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Also, you cannot remove "modern politics" without any discussion.

I changed the title to something that I felt was more fitting of the central theme of the section. If you don't like it then we can always changed it back.

So I take it that you don't object to me reverting it back to my version, so that you can add what you feel is missing? -- ran (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Consequently, you did not show no advocacy statements by Korean point of view corresponding the north east project advocacy statements.

Then add them after I revert to my version. Would you be ok with that? -- ran (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldnt. I am not expertise in this area. You can discuss the modern state of goguryeo in the discussion page, and wait until some expertises comment about it. Dont be hurry please. We have enough time.

Now you're just stalling for time. If you want expertise, go find a user with expertise and ask him/her. You can't just delay the editing of an article while waiting for "expertise". Wikipedia encourages us to be bold.

If you have no further additions to make, then I'm going to revert to my version. -- ran (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But, you cannot remove the current modern politics without discussion even though You can add your statements

Because you remove the previous sentence about the modern politics, I added to your version.

All the information in the old version is already in the new version. Do you see how much repetition you've added by adding two versions of the same thing? Also, the old version is very POV compared to the new one, and has bad grammar as well. If you feel that anything is missing from the new version that I had, then add to that, don't put the old version back. Now the article simply repeats itself twice. -- ran (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe We should not edit the article any more in order other people to edit it.

No, this is Wikipedia, and we should be bold. I'd like to ask you to remove the old version so that the article doesn't repeat itself twice, and then add what you think is missing to the new version. -- ran (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is the repeated sentence?

All of it!! My entire section was arrived at by rephrasing the old version. Just compare the last part, for example - I didn't even change it. -- ran (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your assertion that Goguryeo language was Korean is unfounded. There is very little information known about the Goguryeo language, and linguists have trouble even establishing a link between the languages of Goguryeo and Baekje, let alone identify the Goguryeo language as Korean.-- ran (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The language of three kingdoms were same, and their language have changed into Korean. That is proved by the city 集安. It is transliteration of 國內 by Korean language.

No, it is not, you do not prove a link between two languages using one single word. Look up the comparative method to see how much work goes into proving a relation between two languages. -- ran (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have modified it.

No, you should remove it then, because one single word proves nothing about the relationship between two languages. Without this link between Goguryeo and the Korean language, there is no reason for that point to stay there. -- ran (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This implies that the people of Goguryeo has same pattern of transliteration with the current Korean. -- this sentence doesn't even make any sense. What do you mean by a "pattern of transliteration"? Transliteration from what to what? -- ran (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK i removed it. you may not understand Idu

This has nothing to do with Idu. Idu was used from the Silla to Joseon periods. Also, had Goguryeo used Idu to write the Goguryeo language, we would have known a lot more about it, especially its phonology, and would have been able to prove or disprove a relationship between the languages of Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla, but unfortunately that is not true. -- ran (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is because there are few documents of Goguryeo written by transliteration. But, some of the word can be proved such as 集安. It is transliteration of 國內. The two words have the same meaning. --Hairwizard91 23:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not proof, that's a coincidence. Here's an interesting article on how likely it is to have hundreds of chance correspondences between any two languages: [17]. One is nothing. That's why linguists use the comparative method to make sure that their theories are rigorous. -- ran (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for listing 2 opposing theories

This debate is similar to the one they had for Yayoi Period#The Origin of Yayoi Culture, in Japanese history. There, the section was divided into 4 parts, one for each theory, on where the "Yayoi people" in Japan came from. Perhaps the disputed section in the "Goguryeo" article should be divided in a similar fashion?--Endroit 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add that good reputable secondary sources, in English, should accompany each theory.--Endroit 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation is different from Yayoi.

It is similar, in that there are opposing theories, including nationalistic ones.--Endroit 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCBBCKBS (talk • contribs)

I dont think so.--Hairwizard91 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo never paid tribute to successive Chinese dynasties?

三國史記　卷第二十一　高句麗本紀第九　　寶臧王　上

二年　春正月　封父爲王　遣使入唐朝貢 ...
三年　春正月　遣使入唐朝貢

三國史記　卷第二十　高句麗本紀第八　　榮留王

二年　春二月　遣使如唐朝貢　夏四月　王幸卒本　祀始祖廟　五月　王至自卒本
四年　秋七月　遣使如唐朝貢
五年　遣使如唐朝貢

三國史記　卷第二十　高句麗本紀第八　　嬰陽王

二年　春正月　遣使入隋　奉表謝恩進奉　因請封王　帝許之　三月　策封爲高句麗王　仍賜車服　夏五月　遣使謝恩
三年　春正月　遣使入隋朝貢
八年　夏五月　遣使入隋朝貢

三國史記　卷第十九　高句麗本紀第七　　平原王

二年　春二月　北齊廢帝封王爲使持節領東夷校尉遼東郡公高句麗王　王幸卒本　祀始祖廟　三月　王至自卒本　所經州郡獄囚　除二死　皆原之
三年　夏四月　異鳥集宮庭　六月　大水　冬十一月　遣使入陳朝貢
四年　春二月　陳文帝詔授王寧東將軍
五年　夏　大旱　王減常膳　祈山川
六年　遣使入北齊朝貢
七年　春正月　立王子元爲太子　遣使入北齊朝貢
八年　冬十二月　遣使入陳朝貢
十二年　冬十一月　遣使入陳朝貢
十三年　春二月　遣使入陳朝貢　秋七月　王畋於河之原　五旬而返　八月　重修宮室　蝗旱　罷役
十五年　遣使入北齊朝貢
十六年　春正月　遣使入陳朝貢

三國史記　卷第十九　高句麗本紀第七　　陽原王

二年　春二月　王都梨樹連理　夏四月　雹　冬十一月　遣使入東魏朝貢
三年　秋七月　改築白巖城　葺新城　遣使入東魏朝貢
四年　春正月　以兵六千攻百濟獨山城　新羅將軍朱珍來援　故不克而退　秋九月　丸都進嘉禾　遣使入東魏朝貢
五年　遣使入東魏朝貢

三國史記　卷第十九　高句麗本紀第七　　安原王

二年　春三月　魏帝詔策使持節散騎常侍領護東夷校尉遼東郡開國公　高句麗王　賜衣冠・車旗之飾　夏四月　遣使入梁朝貢　六月　遣使入魏朝貢　冬十一月　遣使入梁朝貢
三年　春正月　立王子平成爲太子　二月　遣使入魏朝貢
四年　東魏詔加王驃騎大將軍　餘悉如故　遣使入魏朝貢
五年　春二月　遣使入梁朝貢　夏五月　國南大水　漂沒民屋　死者二百餘人　冬十月　地震　十二月　雷　大疫
六年　春夏　大旱　發使撫恤饑民　秋八月　蝗　遣使入東魏朝貢
七年　春三月　民饑　王巡撫賑救　冬十二月　遣使入東魏朝貢
九年　夏五月　遣使入東魏朝貢
十年　秋九月　百濟圍牛山城　王遣精騎五千　撃走之　冬十月　桃李華　十二月　遣使入東魏朝貢
十一年　春三月　遣使入梁朝貢
十二年　春三月　大風拔木飛瓦　夏四月　雹　冬十二月　遣使入東魏朝貢
十三年　冬十一月　遣使入東魏朝貢
十四年　冬十一月　遣使入東魏朝貢

etc etc. There're a lot more but I think this is enough to get the point across.

-- ran (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the style of Chinese history books because samguk sagi is nothing but the copy of chinese history books. It has more possibility that they would be the envoy.

I agree the tributal of 寶臧王 and　榮留王 because it is almost the time of destruction of Goguryeo. But, 嬰陽王 attacked the Sui and defeated Sui. How can 嬰陽王 give a tributal if he attacked the Sui and defeated Sui. See the war between Goguryeo and Sui. I will show the obejction for other kings when I have a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Uh, Emperor Yang of Sui attacked him, and he repelled the attacks (quite successfully, of course). He clearly tried to then placate Emperor Yang by offering tributes. While there was no real peace between Sui and Goguryeo, it is not true that Goguryeo "attacked" Sui; it was a defensive war from Goguryeo's standpoint. You can't ignore both Chinese and Korean sources simply because you don't like what they say. --Nlu (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh Please... It is based on chinese history book. Goguryeo firstly attacked Sui. See 資治通鑑 volume券(is it right?)178 隋紀 2, 高祖 上之下. Maybe this records: 高麗王元帥靺鞨之眾萬餘寇遼西 I do not ignore any source. You may read the sources very carefully. --Hairwizard91 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaozu = Emperor Wen of Sui, not Emperor Yang. --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning whether Goguryeo is Chinese or not....

The current situation of whether Goguryeo is Chinese or not is not a matter of whether Goguryeo was part of Chinese history. Rather, it is an issue of WHAT the Goguryeo people were in the wider geopolitical history of Northeast Asia. Currently, the Northeast Project of China has an inititive to turn all countries that was in Manchuria to ethnic Chinese. This does not only mean that such countries were part of China's history (which they are, for now), but that they ARE part of Zhonghua minzu, having been assimulated into China.

Now, most people believe that this whole controversy is about whether Goguryeo should be in Chinese history books. However, the REAL issue is not this, but of whether the PRC government (they, after all, are funding the Northeast Project) is trying to assimulate every ethnic group close to them by fixing history.To use an anology, France(PRC) is saying that Rome(Goguryeo) was French because part of the empire's territory was in France's current boundries.

(To be continued)

--General Tiger

So, what is difference between China and Zhonghua minzu?? They are different?? According to the logic of north east project, the native american history should have been the history of USA. But, the native american history is not history of USA. --Hairwizard91 09:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)