Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Lets keep it short! I couldn't stand this crap! sorry but you'll have to start over. keep it short or i'll delete it for youOdst 02:29, 31 December 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[4] (record from 25 to 220) and Records of Three Kingdoms[5] (189 to 280) mension Goguryeo. Book of Han[6] (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)

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) [7]
• Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom (columbia encyc) [8]
• Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc. (encarta) [9]

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)

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 [10] —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)

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)

We can say spanish and Italian are similar language. Can we say Italy and Spain are the same country?

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

Why dont you find korean book?

I think the arguments about history books don't stand. Since the difference betweent 本紀 and 列傳 is really not the mainland and the ruled state (this is just a part of it). In the history book just preceding the first book cited, there are 12 本紀，but 70 列傳。In the 12 本紀, 11 about emprors, and one only about 項羽，a very notable rebel, and rival of the first emporor of Han, who has been considered as a real empror by the author. The 70 列傳，mostly talk about notable people of the courtm generals, chancelors and so on, or of the country, such as...

As a matter of fact, Italian, spanish and French may be more similar than Mandrin Chinese and it's southern dielects as Cantonese or Shanghaiese. People don't really understand each other. that's why Chinese needed "manderin".

In this affaire, I don't totally agree with the Chinese government's position and disagree with the appropriation of Goguyeo by Korea. Every nation has it's history and no nation has a completely clean history. I mean every nation has done babaries things, as in this story and repression of Goguyeo by the Tang Dynasty, but that is the history, we can not rewite. If it's a part of China or Korea dosen't change anything to this. This dishoners the Chinese people in this world where we should work for the Peace, not conflicts, fed up, not you ?

Maybe in the future, i don't know, Goguryeo descendants will come together to build a new nation, why not ? This may be done by the double effect of the globalization : centralization and decentralization. For instance, the dispute between Korean's will not change history, but will incite the historians and acheologists to find more about our history, that's a good thing. But if it goes on to make conflicts in North-East Asia, it's really regrettable.

In any sense, the historical events would not justify the territory, otherwize Italy will claim or Europe, of the descendants of Charlemagne of Napoleon will claim all Europe, and unknown animals will claim the whole world! What matters if the descendants of one people live in different countres, as the Italians, the Frenchmen and the Germans ? If they today want to live together, the world should give the the freedom (not just war, rebel things) to construct a new nation ! Not by wall, but by peaceful means. Zj 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So Goguryeo got absorbed by the Tang! Then whats Balhae? The Tang did nothing but destroy Goguryeo, they never fully assimilated Goguryeo because then there never would have been a Balhae. China's claims over Goguryeo is just ridiculous. China claims that Goguryeo was Chinese and became "Korean" after Goguryeo moved its capital south into the Korean peninsula. ...So what if you move a capital? Does that magically change the Goguryeo ethnicity to what we call "Korean"? This is one of China's biggest claims, which is pretty lame. Don't Chinese historians have any dignity to do their research at all when they do know Goguryeo is Korean in the back of their mind? I'd rather spend $2.5 billion on the economy. Good friend100 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bohai was just another ancient kingdom that had long gone and had nothing to do with Korea, this time it was destroyed by Khitan. We have that money and we are gonna spend it whatever way we want, it's totally none of ur business.Time of flight 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

[11]

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: [12]. 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)

I would agree that this is the best way to proceed. ...with, as you say, good reputable secondary sources. -- Visviva 14:18, 29 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
Do 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. You're mixing wars and battles and emperors and chronology. --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to Eulji Mundeok's excellent battle and defensives against the Sui, then it was indeed Yang of Sui. The Battle of Salsu took place during the reign of Emperor Yang in Sui, and Emperor Yeong-Yang in Goguryeo. After the death of Emperor Wendi of Sui, his second son Yang Gwang took the throne after reportedly killing his father and brothers. His first targets were strengthening the Great Wall of China and creating the Grand Canal. Last but not least was the conquest of Goguryeo. Yang Gwang wanted to avenge his father's humiliating defeats by Goguryeo, and made its conquest one of his top priorities. As all of us should know, Emperor Yang summoned the largest Chinese army assembled in its history and attacked Goguryeo with great brutality and clever tactics. The Sui were defeated, however, at the Battle of Salsu, which involved the breaking of a dam upon retreating Sui soldiers. --Kprideboi 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that Goguryeo firstly attacked Sui... The wars by Yang of Sui can be thought of the extension of the wars by Wen of Sui.--Hairwizard91 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, Rouran never became a tributary state to Northern Wei because Rouran attacked Northern Wei first as well. Makes no logic sense. --Nlu (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Hairwizard91, Samguk Sagi is a Korean history book. And it is Samguk Sagi that uses the term 朝貢. In addition we have language like 陳文帝詔授王寧東將軍 "Emperor Wen of Chen bestows the title of Ningdong General on the King of Goguryeo"... envoy indeed! Like Nlu said, you can't just refuse to read what you don't agree with. Goguryeo paid tribute, it is a fact. That has nothing to do with whether Goguryeo was independent or whether Goguryeo fought wars with Sui / Tang -- all of these happened. -- ran (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi is a Chinese style history book? Then, what and which one is Korean style history book? The book writen in Korean or full of nationalism & imagination and ignoring history record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.38.254.132 (talk • contribs)

I would just like to remind everyone of WP:NOR, which obliges us to base our writing on the scholarship of others, rather than carrying out our own research. With that in mind, I note that Byeon (1999, p. 90) states that Goguryeo was in a tributary relationship with the Chinese states from an early time (specifically from 32 CE). Here we have a reputable scholar writing in a fairly recent, widely-used textbook of Korean history, published by a major Korean publishing house... unless comparable sources can be found which dispute this interpretation, we are bound to follow it. Of course, Byeon bases his assertion on the Samguk Sagi, but we are not in a position to judge that choice. The important thing is that he found the source credible. -- Visviva 15:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source that Goguryeo paid tribute to China? Or is this just another effort to downgrade Goguryeo into some Chinese province? Goguryeo probably paid tribute to China in its beginning days until it became a major power in the area. I don't think Goguryeo would have paid tribute to China while it was conquering lands in Manchuria. Good friend100 16:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see the preceding records from samguk sagi?

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)

Actually, if you look at the article History of the United States, it does talk about pre-colonial America. -- ran (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between south korea and Korean? Apparently, they are different concepts.

Korean ancestors today are from Goguryeo, if goguryeo was really China I suppose every Korean on planet Earth are Chinese. Good friend100 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

'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' There is no evidence showing the ancestors of Korean are from only Goguryeo, and Geguryeo people are only Korean ancestors, not other ethnic group.

Native americans are probably included in History of the United States since the article starts with what happened as the native americans came to America. Its obvious that native americans would be included in there. Good friend100 00:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"China. China replaces the term of Manchuria with North East after launching the project."

Yet another untrue statement that Hairwizard91 posts with no source. China has not used the term 滿洲 since World War II. 東北大區, corresponding to Manchuria, was one of the six 大區 (greater districts) the communists established in 1949. -- ran (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Talked with him, and found that he meant "China has been working to replace the word 'Manchuria' with 'Northeast China' for world usage." -- General Tiger

Reference for Morden Politic section.

• The articles reported by the Northeast China project posted in The China Border Land Homepage :

 1. 高句丽问题之一：高句丽是古代中国的一个地方民族政权
    -Koguryo was a local regime of China.  
 2. 高句丽问题之二：高句丽、高丽和朝鲜族不能混同
    -Koguryo should not be confused with Korea and Koreans living in China.    
 3. 高句丽问题之三：高句丽几易迁都历史概述
    -The change of the capital of Koguryo   
 4. 高句丽问题之四：高氏高丽和王氏高丽是两个性质不同的政权
    -Ko's Korea (Koguryo) is different from Wang's Korea.

However, while I realize that it is a governmental agency that hosts these pages, does this actually reflect PRC's official position? I am not sure that they do, and a more solid reference is needed, I think. --Nlu (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, could you give a more detailed description of what specifically is in these articles? thanks. Also, who is "Wang"? Good friend100 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wang's Korea" is Goryeo... Goguryeo's name was also often abbreviated to Goryeo, hence the desire to distinguish 고씨 고려 from 왕씨 고려. -- Visviva 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok

Goguryeo is Chinese because Goguryeo was established in Manchuria, now a part of China;

I don't understand why that this point is mentioned in the modern politics section. It doesn't matter where a kingdom is established. At the time, parts of Manchuria was part of Goguryeo. Is the above point a joke or something? Good friend100 02:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit strange, but I think the key distinction is between "Chinese" meaning "part of the history of China" and "Chinese" meaning "part of the history of the Chinese people." Since much of Goguryeo's territory coincided with what is today the People's Republic of China, Goguryeo is part of the history of the northeastern PRC, in the same way that Cahokia is part of the history of Illinois. At least I think that's the idea... -- Visviva 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some Chinese history is also Korean history. But lets say China once established a kingdom in Korea long ago. Is that kingdom then rightfully "Korean" simply because it was established in the Korean peninsula? Of course not. Good friend100 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 I am afraid if "China once established a kingdom in Korea long ago", and 1st the territory it had is within the current south Korea's territory and 2nd, many of its decedants are still living there, 3rd, the place now is called "Korea", then it is rightfully "Korean".

Was Korea establish Goguryeo? Obviously not. Goguryeo people established Goguryeo. Not modern korean at least. Can a kingdom, established by Goguryeo people in North East China and North Korean peninsula, be consider a Korean kingdom? Not. Was China establish Goguryeo? Not. 'China' is not equal to 'Chinese'. Ancient dynasties or kingdoms of China are different concepts from 'China'. And 'Chinese' is not equal to 'HAN' Chinese. China has 56 nation groups.

The funny thing is, Chinese government's website considered Goguryeo as a Korean state until April 2004 when they officially erased any mention of link between korea and goguryeo. And suddenly, all the Chinese people claim that it's rightfull their's. As far as I can remember, general consensus between scholars was that it was a Korean nation. I guess so much can change over a few years. from an american student studying east asian studies. (216.165.96.24 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Behold the power of government propaganda at insane saturation levels.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda? Its communism, remind you. Good friend100 20:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder if Chinese historians have any dignity to make up their claims about Goguryeo. Good friend100 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think most Chinese dont even know what Goguryeo is! As stupid as their people are, and plus theyve been brainwashed by their commie government.

requesting lock

Could an admin lock this article from being edited, either semi or full? There are continous POV edits. Good friend100 19:53, 17 December 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)

But are we talking about America and Ireland or China and Goguryo?--Kai.Standard

---

That analog does not hold. And your Irish example actually proved the Chinese side's argument.Irish history happened in current Irish territory is Irish history. However, as you mentioned, "the only significant trace of Irish history written in American text textbooks is the Great Irish migration to America", this is uncontrovertible American history, because 1st this happened within the current territory of the US, 2nd, the descendants of Irish immigrants are now part of the US population. Irish will not claim what happened later as Irish history. Here lets look back at the Goguryeo example. If China can prove that Goguryeo's territory falls into current Chinese territory(which is simply a fact), and Goguryeo's descendants inhabit this Chinese territory(debatable), then why cant they call goguryeo a part of Chinese history. I don't know how Americans will say if the French government say Louisiana's history is French history.

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)

Of course that war is in the officially published history books in mainland China. I have read it. Everybody knows that here in China. The earliest record of that event was in one of the Twenty-Four Histories about ancient Chinese history. It is not a taboo here at all. It was a defeat on our side, but the next war destroyed Goguryo once and for all, stablized the eastern frontier, and the Tang dynasty didn't fall easily. Time of flight 06:48, 7 February 2007 (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)

짱깨노는 곳에 한국인아 가지 마라 --(Darkstyx) 14:27, 04 January 2007

영광스러운 우리민족의 역사를 빨갱이 짱깨에게 넘겨줄지라도, 우리 민족의 한 사람으로서 참고 차분하게 반론을 제기합시다. 화이팅~

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) I'm living very well. But I guess it is Korean should open eyes. Some korean often asked me whether China has litchi, bread, whether China has mid-autumn festival. So funny? but it's really. Korean think all things of Korea are best in the world, beef, sandal... Some korean think Confucius was Korean,hahaha. Open you eyes, 'the DaeHan Empire'? What is that? "大韩帝国"？ Big Korean Empire? Isn't it a kingdom controlled by Japanese? Congratulations! Korean finally have an emporor instead of king for 15 years owing to the contribution of Japan.

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))

I think a Nation-State doesn't at all correspond to a Race-State, and it'll be terrible if so. So multiracial is not a problem at all, but a reality and a somehow good reality. China is a multiracial state, France is a multiracial State, America is a multiracial state, Germany, Russia... They don't claim anything ? In their history yes, in the case of France Alsace and Loraine from Germany and different colonies all around the world! So for UK and others. But they don't only claim, but fighted for gaining these territories. You may ague, Kprideboi, that it's the babarian historic peoriode, and they are civilized nowadays, fortunately.

But in the case of China it's radically different! Thought it's completely ridiculous for china to think of claiming territory from Korea, justifying the Korea is a part of China, the discussion about a historical nation that is Goguryeo, after the evidences discovered recently, it's very important for its theoretical value. Maybe Goguryeo is from a Korea Nation, or that Korea is a Goguryea nation born in a Chinese north county, but that is not a problem, the question is to know how is the real history and the culture of this great nation! To make a kind of inventory for their descendants.

I feel really sad to see the pure political reason or the interest of any county (china or Korea or others), stop the research of historians and the intellectual debates! I wish that Korean scolars and Chinese scholars and internationals researchers debate calmely and study this question in order to find our clearly the true history of this Nation and to make the inventory for their children. It's very hard in the political situation of the actual world and the territorial justification needed by every standing regimes (or state, or federation or any form of political organization).

The only thing that has justified the international divisions existing in our world it power, hard power essentially in the past and not less determinant nowadays. Israel is a special case that i don't want to discuss here. But the only thing that really justify a frontier is the will of people to live together. As a individual, I think all divisions by nation or empire is merely a bad thing for the long term because I think people as me fundamentally dislike the conflictual division of the world and desire living together. I embrace European integration, who make this utopy a reality in some way - erasing the frontiers between some countries. Certainly it's not enought, but is the premisse of the future of mankind. Zj 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain, then, why China is so aggresively claiming Goguryeo very suddenly? Good friend100 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

China is claiming Goguryo? Goguryeo is simply an eastern asian kingdom that was completely destroyed by Tang, and had long disappearred in history. Time of flight 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) And it has nothing to do with today's Korea.Time of flight 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Defend China's Gaogouli!

Gao Gou Li is China's, here's an advice for you Koreans: Don't fuck with China! You are no match for our might...

DefenderofGaogouli 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted your edits. So you are no match for my might :)--JudahBlaze 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are just jealous over there because of Goguryeo's rich history and culture. One of your biggest claims is that Goguryeo became "Korean" when it moved its capital south to the Korean peninsula. ??? What kind of reason is that? Pretty lame and please don't use language that stains this talk page.

If China is so powerful how come they got whipped during the Sui and Tang Dynasties? The Sui Dynasty fell because they were weakened by so many investments into the war against Goguryeo. At the Battle of Salsu River, at least 300,000 Chinese soldiers were beaten back by a mere 5,000 Goguryeo army. Now who's the one with might? Good friend100 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rich history and culture? Oh oh oh. Perhaps, if comparing it with some sub-cultures. But to Chinese history, it is just a branch. Did Goguryeo has his own language characters? The Sui Dynasty was defeated by Goguryeo? That is true. The main reason is the Sui Dynasty was ruled by a famous muddle-headed emperor in Chinese history. Do not forget who erase Goguryeo! When a stable and strong central chinese dynasty was built, one main task would be get re-control of the lost territories. So it was certain Goguryeo became a poor victim of Great Tang Dynasty “辽东之地，周为箕子之国，汉家之玄菟郡耳。魏晋已前，近在提封之内，不可许以不臣”。 "辽东旧中国之有，　自魏涉周，　置之度外。隋氏出师者四，丧律而还，杀中国良县不可胜数。今彼弑其主，恃险骄盈，朕长夜思之而掇寝。将为中国复子弟之仇．　为高丽讨弑君之贼。今九瀛大定，唯此一隅，用将士之余力，平荡妖寇耳。然恐于后子孙或因士马强盛必有奇决之士，劝其伐辽，兴师遐征，或起丧扎，及朕未老，欲自取之．亦不遗后人也。"

Shut the fuck up you fucking commie! Look, first you go and invade Tibet and murder its people while saying that Imperialism sucks. WHAT MAKES YOU COMMIES DIFFERENT FROM THE JAPANESE?! Just like the Japs did during WW2, you Chinese Communists go and incorporate all these cultures into the PRC history and claim that its all theirs, while persecuting the culture in its own land. Undoubtedly, this is all a fabrication of PRC communism. And now they are taking it to another step. Soon enough they will start claiming Vietnam's history, Japan's, Mongolia's, Russia's, India's and will even start saying that Zheng He discovered America and that Native Americans are Chinese. Face it, you cannot continue with this nationalist cultural imperialism. Korea has long claimed its right to Goguryeo and Balhae's history. The North-Eastern Reformation Policy just tries to remove Goguryeo from Korea. But why is it that the Wang Goryeo is named after Goguryeo, why is it that the Qing, Ming, Kuomintang never claimed Goguryeo? Look at Tienanmen Square of 1989, look at Tibet, look at the brainwashed Manchurians, Chinese Mongols, Hmongs and the other 53 minorities. So far, I haven't seen one non-Han, prominent politician in the PRC. What you said before, 'Dont mess with the Chinese.' I completely agree. Mess with them and you get brainwashed, purged and your history and personal records confiscated. The Imperialism of the Next Century. 200.494.592 18:39, 3 January 2007

--- Some Korean did more ridiculous. They thought Confucius is Korean. Wang Goryeo is named after Goguryeo? Yes. That is just a political trick. In history of China, one emporer '刘渊' who was Hunnish claimed he was descendant of '汉'. So he named his kingdom '汉' also. So funny. Tibet is one portion of China. Have you been there to see the fact? Do you need me to remind you what happened in Gwangju in 1980.

Please, feel free to name these 'some koreans'. Of course like in every nation, there are radicals who think in weird manners. And what makes you think that Goryeo is just a trick? Joseon is named after Go-Joseon. What youre implying there is that the Goguryeo race (majority at least) is not of Korean ethnicity. Goryeo is established in its own might in its own land, unlike the Hun king, who named his nation that way in order to politically dominate China. I have personally not been to tibet, but its imperialistic annexation is truly apparent. the Tibetans had their own culture, heritage and nation before the communists came. the Gwanju Massacre was due to a lack of democracy, but the SK government had to pull out the roots of communism somehow, but speaking of the lack of democracy, so is the Tibetan annexation. 'Religion is the opium of the masses?' If China did introduce this great awesome, majestic concept of democracy to Tibet, why is the relgion banned? Why cannot the Dalai Lama and his followers practice free spirit? Communism has truly stunted China's growth, and is now even attempting to destroy and absorb foreign heritage.

--You comments are really not related to this topic. I can not name those Korean. Would you show your true name at internet? Even in China, people can paste his articles on many websites. I do not know whether Korean need to provide their identity card to register as user of websites. China a not a democracy country But don't forget wikipedia is a freedom website. Is that a reason some Korean think Gando is territory of Korea. Goryeo was established in some portion of old land of Goguryeo. To illustrate the validity of its rule.

the is Tibetan annexation? All tibetan? Or just Dalai Lama and his followers? And China is growing very fast. Your words can not erase this fact. What youre implying there is that the Goguryeo race (majority at least) is not of Korean ethnicity.--Yes! Please refer to the preceding discussion. If you don't agree with that, show your evidences. Tibetans was a portion of during the periods of Yuan empirer, Ming empirer, Qing empirer and Republic of China. If you do not know this, you can check 元史，明史，清史 and 民国史. You can find them at some Korean libraries. Religions are not banned in China. You should know this fact. In China, there are 15 million Christian, at least 5 million catholic and 18 million Muslim. It is almost equal to the population of Sourth Korea.

Look, the reason I wrote this comment in the first place is to say that China's justification of claiming Goguryeo history is undemocratic and imperialistic. A majority of Russian Asia today was once dominated by the Mongol Empire, yet the Russians cant consider the Mongols part of their history. The same applies to China. Why do they claim such an empire if not for imperialistic non-Han pacification reasons? Its ok for China's politics to cause trouble nationwide, but once it gets international, it becomes an historical conspiracy. In Tibet's case, they had their own nation once, and you cannot deny that. Before the PRC entered the nation in 1950, the Dalai Lama was the sovereign of the nation, and a religious one at that. I do recall that Mao had condemned that or something. However, ur right, Tibet was under Chinese domination under various times, like Vietnam or Mongolia, but they were independant before the PRC. When i said relgion was banned i meant in Tibet at the time, when the Dalai Lama fled to India and thousands of monks and civilians were slaughtered.

Those are some betrayer. Most monks did not follow him. hoho, civilians were slaughtered.--You are liying

I think most monks did not follow him cuz they were threatened at gunpoint by PRC soldiers. Wouldnt you do the same? Plus, civlians were massacred in casualties while the PRC soldiers were fighting the Tibetan Rebels. You are lying stupid chink.

One more thing to consider is the population and landmass of China and Korea. Significantly, theres a huge difference, and due to this unimaginable number of people China has, more and more they feel confident to challenge smaller nations like Korea. Yes, youre right, some Koreans are trying to recover Gando, since it was one of the ancient sites of Korean history, but they do not THINK that it is their territory, they WISH to recover it. If China wants to coexist with the people around it, or if it wants to attempt waht the Japanese have previously attempted: Imperialism, that is their choice, but in my opinion, since China is claiming unbelivable shit like this, I hope American atom bombs do not spare Beijing.

You are a crazy and foolish Korean. Do not forget Chinese have enough atom bombs to erase small South Korea. You can kiss the ass of your master American, and beg them to fight a nuclear war with China. Do you think they will agree you. They are not as foolish as you. Wowo. But Small Korea can not be an enemy of China. At most, it is a troublesome bug.

Learn english stupid, what the fuck are u doing in english wikipedia, go to Chinese wikipedia where you can collaborate with your evil imperalistic govenrment. Your nation has long strived to destroy mine, but never succeeded, who fell to the mongols in a months while another fought for 60 years?! Who's nation was ruled by nomadic minorities for hundreds of years? Who now claims another nations history because they have none that stands as the symbol of freedom? You are right, we are weak, we are americanized, but we are not sinister evil-minded murderers like you and the Japanese. Look at Europe and how they collaborate with each other? But in Asia, hate and imperialism prevents coexistence. I will say no more, but as a more powerful nation, China should take more initiative to be less 'PRC-like', and more global.

You know what else? Your stupid Taiwanese brothers are worse. Japanese collaborators who still suck up to those Wokou just to feel proud. That is what makes up your race.

evil-minded murderers? Why not think bomb China using nuclear weapon? Go ahead Who is murderer? Do you want to learn to Janpanse? Our Chinese never forget, many Korean were enrolled in Japanese Army during WWII, and killed many Chinese in Najing massacre. Scram! Go tio Korean wikipedia, your can collaborate with your evil Nazi fellows and consider how to bomb China using atom weapons. You will be next Hitler! Congratulations!

Please write what you want to say in english and sign your name also. It is always the ignorant people who are too shameful to leave their name. It is is a jealousy problem. Why not claim Goguryeo from the start? Why a sudden claim in the 1980s? Goguryeo is Korean and that cannot be disproved. Good friend100 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that so important? Would you use you real name? Haha, do you think wikipedia is one of korean websites most of which require ID number of Korean to register? Try to understand some characeters you ancester have used.

Its better to know who you are talking to. I can read Chinese charecters but I don't speak fluent Mandarin or Cantonese. Good friend100 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me who you are?

I can't believe this. This page has ought to be the biggest load of shit I've ever seen. Mother fucking gooks swarming in like fucking flies. Who the fuck you think you are? While we are busy telling the Japs to fuck off, you stupid little dog eating gooks start bad mouthing us behind our backs. It's fucking laughable to see how these gooks swarm in and start boasting about how fucking amazing "their Goguryeo" - even when it's quite apparent that the very gooks who subscribe to this shit descended from an entirely different breed of barbarians from Xin Luo.

Your humor exceeds your reputation my mentally challenged friend. We may be the 'barbarian race' that eats 'stupid little dog' but at least we dont eat little baby girls or bury them in our backyards. Eating dog is incomparible with eating humans you sick chink fucks. I still dont understand why you call us gooks...its the racist term for asians... i mean its like if im a black person, i call another black person 'nigger' but not in a friendly way. Wow, you must think ur white or something...pity... And thank you for the fly comment. Im sure you and ur peasant children have experience. We dont make outrageous random claims to stuff that belong to others... oh i forgot, ur all fucking commies. no wonder.

Unfortunately, like most barbarian gooks, you do not have the capacity to comprehend normal intellect as do normal people. Along with the consumption of dogs, eating little girls and burying them in backyards is another common ritual that you and your fellow savage compatriots practice. Pot calling the kettle black, oh the irony. Yet you even have the nerve to accuse others of "racism." Nice logic. As well, maybe you should take your own peasant gook advice, such as keeping your Kim Jong-Il on a fucking leash. We may be commies, but in no way do we ever bow down and suck on grand daddy America's cock - something that you and your ancestors do too often. Oh, and Gaogouli is ours, bitch.

Think what you want, fellow gook, but history will eventually vindicate itself. One thing i find funny that you said: "eating little girls and burying them in backyards is another common ritual that you and your fellow savage compatriots practice." Interestingly, I think you are mistaken between your own race and ours, because I previously mentioned that it was (and most likely still are) the Chinese who love to eat human meat. I also fail to comprehend your evidence for claiming 'Gaoguli'...bitch.

Accordin to [my point of view] concerning that kingdom, Goguryeo/Gaogouli is not a Chinese Kingdom but a Korean-Manchurian kingdom. it was also actively involved with Chinese poltics affairs & culture therefore it belong to Korean, Manchurian and Chinese history. In addition to that Goguryeo language is related to Tungusic/Fuyu/Altaic languages on the other hand it doesn't belong to Chinese language family.Whlee 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

rv

Hey Nlu I suggest we re revert to see what Mr. GreatChinaPatriot wants to say about Gaogouli. Good friend100 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

- Hi, that's from original record of China history. Wowo

translation

“辽东之地，周为箕子之国，汉家之玄菟郡耳。魏晋已前，近在提封之内，不可许以不臣”。 "辽东旧中国之有，　自魏涉周，　置之度外。隋氏出师者四，丧律而还，杀中国良县不可胜数。今彼弑其主，恃险骄盈，朕长夜思之而掇寝。将为中国复子弟之仇．　为高丽讨弑君之贼。今九瀛大定，唯此一隅，用将士之余力，平荡妖寇耳。然恐于后子孙或因士马强盛必有奇决之士，劝其伐辽，兴师遐征，或起丧扎，及朕未老，欲自取之．亦不遗后人也。"

to

Place of the Liaodong, Zhou Weiji the country of, Chinese family unreliable 菟 county ear. In front of within Wei Jinyi, nearly in raises seals, cannot permit by not the feudal official ". Having of the "Liaodong old China, from Wei Shezhou, disregards. Sui finishing an apprenticeship four, loses the law also, kills Chinese good county countless. Now other murders its host, relies on the danger 骄盈, I am long 夜思 but 掇 the bedroom. . Will ask for enmity of for the Chinese duplicate juniors for Korea kills one's sovereign the thief. Now nine seas greatly decide, only this corner, with the officers and men -odd strength, evenly swings the monster invader ear. However fears to the after descendants or because the gentleman horse powerful must have the wonderful definitely gentleman, urges it to cut down distantly, raises forces 遐 to draft, or mourning grips, and I have not been old, want to bring on oneself it. also not to lose the posterity. using altavista babel fish

This translation is terrible.

yes it is... it cant be trusted either because its in simplified han text.Odst 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What absurb you are. I can recover it to traditional Chinese text at once. If you do not believe it is original record, going to some library in Korea, such like Seoul National University Library, you can find the original Chinese history book.

check this out

I found this image on flickr

The light pink area is supposed to be the land of Goguryeo. The image is from a chinese textbook and its all wrong. Goguryeo expanded to Manchuria and the north, not all the way down there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Good friend100 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

How [censored] You don't read any Chinese characters or hanja do you? There's nothing Goguryeo shown on this map, the light pink area is the Kingdom of Wei, or Cao Wei, one of the three kingdoms of the three kingdoms perid. .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[13] heres the link. Good friend100 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all. Territory of Goguryeo was dynamically changing. After the establishment of Goguryeo , it have tried to expand its territory and had serval wars with Eastern Han, GongSun, MuRong(Xianbei) and Wei(Cao). Goguryeo failed for some times. And its territory was limited and restricted in a not very large region. Several times Goguryeo even was close to perdition. Wei was established on 220. Before this, Liaodong and parts of North Korean region were controlled by GongSun Zan who was defeated by Yuan Shao. After Cao Cao defeated Yuan Shao, the preceding areas was controlled by Wei instead. However, it was after 313 'Goguryeo extended its reach into the Liaodong peninsula, the last Chinese commandery, at Lelang, was destroyed by Micheon of Goguryeo'. The territory of Goguryeo in some pictures shown by Korean mostly are the biggest one during the golden ages of Goguryeo, at least, after the rule of 고담덕(374~412).Mr. Horse 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo never expanded beyond liaodong, even in the so-called 'golden ages of Goguryeo'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Another picture Image:Tree_Kingdoms_of_China.jpgMr. Horse 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Goguryo is Korean!!!

No matter how you get at it, Goguryo is factually Korean. The word "samhan" is used many times in historical texts. The words of a Goguryo King included the word "samhan".

The importance of this word? why, let let me tell you. "Sam" means three in Korean, and maybe in chinese, too. "han" means Korea (hanguk) in korean. (it is not to be confused with the Chinese Han dynasty. The number three represents the three kingdoms of Korea. (beakje, silla, goguryo)

Its cultural aspects bear close resemblance to Korean and (ancient) Japanese culture, not the Sui and Tang.

You want to refute my argument? go ahead and try. we Koreans will continuously strive for the truth.Odst 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are so full of it, Goguryo existed way before the Korean ethnicity ever formed, and samhan was used to name completely different entities in the far south part of the Korean peninsular. How big was the cultural difference between Goguryo and Tang? they all used the classical chinese as their writing system. I don't even know what you were trying to compare with, maybe silla? there was nothing called Korea at that time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

In ancient Chinese history book, Samhan included Mahan, Jinhan, and Byeonhan. They are ancesters of Korean, not goguryo(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhan). According to the record of ancient Chinese history book, after Tang destroyed Gogouryo, most people of Goguryeo got absorbed by the Tang. 高仙芝 was a Gogouryo people, but he became a famous general of Tang after the fall of Goguryeo . By the way, I guess only some Korean can be confused with '韓' and '漢'. Truth sometimes is hard to accept.

• • • Nah, 高仙芝's father is Goguryeo general, he become Tang general after Goguryeo fall, Goguryeo fall in 668, 高仙芝 died in 775, how can one be more than 100 years old, 高仙芝 was born in China, and he join the army since teenage, he perhaps never go back to Goguryeo in his life, by that time, most Goguryeo noble people joined Tang, while some left in Balhae.But anyway, 高仙芝 is really nothing to do with Korean. Hope Korean members won't yell at me with capitaled words, this is just scholarship.--Yeahsoo 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GOGURYO IS KOREAN!!!! It is SHEER STUPIDITY to say that goguryo is chinese! The word Samhan was also used to mention the 3 kingdoms of Korea. Jinhan,Mahan, and Byunhan were absorbed by the later three kingdoms before the word was brought to the tongue. obviously, it was to mention Baekje, Goguryo, and Silla.66.214.242.93 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is sheer stupidity to say Goguryo was Korean. Nothing Korean existed at that time, the ethnic Korean didn't even exist at that time. They don't even speak the same language as you do, and the writings on their tomb walls are classical chinese! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Baekje, Goguryo, and Silla were three kingdoms in Korea peninsula, not Samhan, obviouslySamhan . If you insist, give me you evidence.

Absorbed? Just because half of Goguryo was absorbed into china does not mean it is a chinese kingdom. using the sense of pure logic, why do you think western historians label goguryo as a Korean kingdom? It is because of the fact that Goguryo's language were identical to that of the rest of Korea. Cultural aspects were very similar between the three kingdoms, and rather entirely different from that of Sui and Tang. For example, The land of the Armenian kingdoms of the past exist today scattered throughout many different middle eastern countries, most notably in Turkey.Do they now say that those kingdoms were Turkish? No! They recognize those falllen kingdoms as Armenian kingdoms. Thus, Goguryo should be considered a Korean kingdom.66.214.242.93 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't a Chinese kingdom, it was destroyed once and for all, its people were totally sinicized, and you guys have nothing to do with it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Give me you evidence to show that Goguryo's language were identical to that of the rest of Korea. I only saw Goguryo people used Chinese character. Armenian kingdoms are recognized as Armenian kingdoms. Then why Goguryo should be considered as a Korean kingdom? Is the reason they meight have the similar cultures, as Korean say? Then, as you said Japan also has more similar culture or language with Korea that China. Whether Japanese can say Goguryo was Japanese Kingdom? China have many ethic groups. Some of them have similar culture or language with Goguryo, Japanese, perhaps, Manchu. Can you say they are korean instead of Chinese? By the way most of Goguryo was absorbed into china, and China has most territory of Goguryo, now.

Look. I find it very shocking how China enjoys mocking smaller nations, but the truth cannot be denied. Soon enough China will start stealing Vietnamese, Mongolian, Thai, Nepalese, Phillipine and even Japanese history and claiming it for their own. Honestly, i do not think its because China wants to embrace their minorities. It is the greed of the Han (漢) race. Incorporating another race's history makes China seem more diverse and recognized, so the world can lick Chinas\'s ass. Possibly we can say that the Jurchen or Manchus are part of Chinas history as their race is totally under the PRC, but Korea has its own nation and culture for thousands of years. Also, i think that China is ashamed of some of hteir history with the Goguryeo. For example is Yangdi three defeats. Even with more than one million men, Yangdi failed to knock down Goguryeo's Yodong castle. But if China did consume Goguryeo's history. Yangdi's defeats would turn out to be 'civil defeats' within Chinese history, which covers the much more humiliating 'Defeat to a smaller, relatively weaker Korean Kingdom'.

No we are not interested in

Are you mocking me, sir, "truth is hard to accept" ? I strive for the truth!! Besides, Chinese text should not be trusted, anyway. It is only but a collection of hastily fabricated material.66.214.242.93 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

maybe you are striving for the truth? Then, show me you achievement and evidences. You may be not trust ancient Chinese history record. Then show me your ancient Korean history record and ensure me that's not a collection of hastily fabricated material.

I have trouble understanding you. anyway, Heres some LIVING proof.

A.Armenian kingdoms flourish

B.some armenian kingdoms get conquered

c.armenia is smaller than it was.

d.modern historians consider armenian kingdoms as armenian

on the other hand,

A.Korean kingdoms flourish

B.a korean kingdom gets conquered (goguryo)

c.korea is smaller than it was

d.modern historians consider goguryo as korean

By the way, Goguryo considered baekje and silla sister nations and considered the Tang and Sui barbarians. wow,i wonder what that's all about......Odst 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No actually Goguryo, baekje and silla were fierce enemies, just like Tang and Goguryo. In the end Goguryo fell to Tang-Silla alliance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I guess modern historians do not consider armenian kingdoms were built by ancester of mordern armenian? a korean kingdom gets conquered? Oh, your logic is mess. Can I consider it as 'goguryo, a korean kingdom gets conquered, so goguryo is a korean kingdom'? Goguryo is a ancient kingdom in Korean peninsula. Goguryo people are not ancester of mordern korean. Han dynasty ruled north korean peninsula for a period. But that does mean han dynasty is korean's. 'Goguryo considered baekje and silla sister nations and considered the Tang and Sui barbarians'. Show me the evidence. Why did Goguryo try to destroy silla? Why did Goguryo use barbarians's character(Chinese character)? Why did Goguryo pay intribute 'barbarians'?

Odst, just ignore these people and don't play at the same level of immaturity as them. Good friend100 13:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NEVER!!! I'll fight to my dying breath to retain the honor and dignity of my ancestors!!!! you should, too!!!! (I get to get away with it cause Im probably the youngest here)

They are not your ancesters. I am saying it. Don't get too emotional. You want it, then come and claim it!75.83.232.59 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They are my ancestors. I have direct Noble lineage of Goguryo. Odst 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

funniest thing ever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Time of flight (talk • contribs) 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Check this out

Check this article on the Chosun ilbo I know that there is a digital Chosun in English but I don't know how to get this article in english, sorry for those of you who can't read korean...

[14]

Basically, it is an interview with James Lilley, former ambassador to Korea and China, who said that when the communist government of North Korea will fall, China will rush to occupy at least half of North Korea and claim it as theirs so they can have more land to the already enormous country of theirs. How shocking. Good friend100 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shocking to Korean. In this way, Korean may be scared and would follow the arrangement of America so that a reason will be got to keep America troops in South Korea. James Lilley is not a mind reader of Hu. It is impossible that China would merge North Korea in the future. At most, China would send some troops in North Korea(just like american troops in S. Korea). Korea peninsula is valuable to be a buffer between China and America, now and in the furture. At least, China do not want a unified Korea who is a ally of America, especially it may want to enter Manchuria(Gando).

why would they send troops to north Korea? What, to do the same thing they did in the past? raid and sack our homeland,rape our women,and destroy national landmarks? They should be blocked from entering our sacred land.Odst 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'raid and sack our homeland,rape our women,and destroy national landmarks'? When have these happened? why would they send troops to north Korea? It is just one possible case. I guess you know the reason. Where is your sacred land? South Korea, North Korea or Manchuria included？

Yes. China has done that numerous times. During the Imjin Wars many of the Ming soldiers did more harm than help and China's assistance in the Japanese Invansions were greatly exaggerated. They have also done that in the Korean War when Mao sent millions of untrained PLA soldiers to Korea. What would all those men be doing in Korea other than fighting the UN troops? Mostly sacking the Korean villages and hurting civilians. Just because your land is big and ur people numerous doesnt make your nation the dominator of Asia. Look how the Japanese imperialists turned out, two bombs.

Evidence! Evidence! my korean friends. It was not Korean begged Chinese to help them. China is not the dominator of Asia now. China can dominate North Korea. That's the truth.

Once again, a korean friend wants to bomb China using nuclear weapons. China is big enough to survive from a nuclear war. How is South Korea?

At least Korea is still a morally and ethically Civilized culture... The Chinese? their culture got screwed up by the Jurchens. I respect the Ming, but the Qing and the PRC are two messed up countries. Odst 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What's Korean culture? It's just a mixture a Chinese culture, American culture and Japanese culture. Yes. China is a multiracial and unhomogenous country, not just now, bu during a long period since Tang Dynasty. This is a reason why China is great. However, Korea is a really homogenous society. All people eat almost similar foods every day. Most Korean think all of product of Korea are best in the world. They reject foods, car, etc., from the other country.

Korea's a dignified culture of honor. Japanese culture? hell, no!!!! Japan may be a mixture of Korean and chinese culture, but Korea is a mixture of China and its own. China was much influenced by Korea, too as well. Not as much as China, but Korea did its part, too. At least Korean society was Honorable and dignified. Even during a war, Korea would abide by the rules of engagements, but the Chinese were like artless barbaric scuts, Raping women and looting treasures. Odst 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

China was much influenced by Korea, too as well. --Only Korean think so. Japan may be a mixture of Korean and chinese culture, --only Korean think so. Korea would abide by the rules of engagements? -- It's a joke. Korean may be have no chance to fight in the terriotories of the other countries (except the Korean have been in Japanese Army during WW II), but just see how cruel Korean treat Korean of the other side.

HAHA, a real joke it is. Goguryo had lots of land, especially the liaodong area. The Koreans maintained the rules of engagements, even in their raids to tsushima island in 1419. No, not only Koreans think so, but the most prominent Chinese and Japanese scholars admit to it, too. The Japanese were influenced a LOT by the Koreans. The Nihon shoki denies this, but Chinese and Korean records prove it. The Northern and southern Koreans did not get along in the first place, anyway. It is only a simple display of tensions that were around since Koreans were ever around. I wish I could just mention more, but to keep this discussion down to topic to at least some degree, I cannot. Think beyond nationalistic pride. I'm trying hard, too. Odst 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dream on! All historical records on ancient Korean peninsular were written in Classical Chinese. I can read and understand them, but you can't! Want to know your ancesters? Learn Chinese first!75.83.232.59 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually Know how to read Hanja. I just have a hard time reading simplified chinese. Odst 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

again, create an account! It is imperative that you do Odst 06:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

An entry from Goguryeo appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.

Wikipedia

Goguryeo→Chinese history? That´s against all reason.

Chinese claim just 5~30 years That´s all.

but Koreans already 1,000 years exceed.

300px|thumb|left|real Goguryeo territory.

this map is real Goguryeo territory. chinese claim Goguryro territory different, but it is a wrong opinion.

Korea history (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice the news that several South Korean athletes Wednesday held up a banner claiming Baekdu Mountain for Korea at the Winter Asian Games in Changchun, China. Korean audience looked very excited at the athletes's behavior. But it is said that officials from the South Korean athletic team apologized to China. User:Mr. Horse 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Our Territory.jpg

Yes I have seen that ugly scene, I will never forget.75.83.232.59 05:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it's an ugly scene. It's okay. but theyre just hardcore nationalists. ignore them. Odst 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. look how funny it looks- their smiles... lol Odst 05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Accordin to [my point of view] concerning that kingdom, Goguryeo/Gaogouli is not a Chinese Kingdom but a Korean-Manchurian kingdom. it was also actively involved with Chinese poltics affairs & culture therefore it belong to Korean, Manchurian and Chinese history. In addition to that Goguryeo language is related to Tungusic/Fuyu/Altaic languages on the other hand it doesn't belong to Chinese language family.Whlee 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It is Sila beg Tang to conquer Goguryeo, Korean as a descendant of Sila, has no excuse to claim Goguryeo, Goguryeo is always a local kingdom in Chinese. Korea never pass the Han river untill Ming gives them some north territory.--Yeahsoo 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nlu

Nlu, I have been observing your removals of vandalism in this talk page. How come is it that you only remove Korean POV vandalizers and leave Chinese vandalizers? Don't give me some furtive answer. Good friend100 04:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Odst (talk · contribs) directed me to this question, which I didn't notice previously.

Basically, I don't believe that's what I've been doing. POV isn't "vandalism," and I don't remove talk comments for their POV (I will, however, remove POV from articles since they violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy). I remove personal attacks, which are a no-no no matter which namespace they are on, and are per se blockable offenses. But I also only remove comments when they're sufficiently recently in time for me to be able to do it cleanly without messing up other comments -- when the edit history gets old, it becomes tricky to do so without destroying the context of the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I deleted that utterly stupid image of beakje,silla, and goguryo having more land than tang... can someone tell me where he got that map? Cause it's utterly stupid beyond all forms of sane recognition. Odst 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

link

It seems it is from a history book of a Korean professorMr. Horse 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I got a message for my dear Korean friend

User talk:Mr. Horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

yo dude, Quit arguing about Goguryo... Goguryo is Korean!!!! Odst 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You can do not like me, hate me. But you have no right to stop me giving my opinion. I'll keep arguing with you.

Opinion? this is no place for opinions. It's the fact that truly matters.... don't worry. I don't hate you or anything. I respect the fact that you have a proud sense of nationalism for your country. That's good, but it can lead you to places where even your nation can't follow. Odst 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have told you the truth, Goguryeo people have been merged into Chinese. Korea has been dominated and occupied by different country, China, Japan, USA now. With the development of economy of Korea, inferiority complex became to extreme pride, nationalism of Korean went extremely. They began to fabricate history. Korean even forced Chinese changed Chinese name of Seoul. They also hate Chinese use 'Changbai Shan'(http://chn.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/02/05/20070205000025.html). These lead Korean you to places where even your nation can't follow.

Koreans did no such thing. "inferiority complex"? I think that should be properly aimed at the Japanese. There is no evidence saying that Koreans fabricated history. Rather, the Chinese have been fabricating history in significant amounts. I am infuriated by these outrageous comments, but I now see there is nothing possible to change your way of thinking. It will continue to be a fact that Goguryo is Korean. What does it mean to be Korean? It means to be descended from Ancient Joseon. Goguryo considered themselves the successors of Joseon. I got a another crazy idea for you. why don't you start saying that Ancient Joseon is Chinese, too? that'd be real funny. Odst 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HEADS UP

To all my Chinese brothers out there, Give us your opinion to why you think Goguryo "Gaogoli" is Chinese. Is it for strong pride of nationalism, or is it truly because you see something out of place? Have you ever imagined how we Koreans see it? Would you have cared if you were not Chinese? Tell me your views. I am willing to listen, provided that you bear the truth to your lips. Odst 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've previously told you, whether Goguryeo is Korean, Chinese, both, or neither depends on how you define "Korean" and "Chinese." --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

On how "Korean" should be defined with respect to Koguryo, it would be a cultural definition. How does this cultural definition work? Lets take Shang Dynasty for example. Shang Dynasty perished by Zhou Dynasty's conquest, but nevertheless is defined as a "Chinese" kingdom as it was part of a cultural continuity that eventually became what is now the nation of China. Cydevil 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as my Administrator friend has reminded me, Tell me what it means to you(s) for Goguryo to be a Chinese kingdom? I define Korean as belonging to the ethnic identity. Though much of the Goguryo population was absorbed into Tang China, Those people were Korean etnically and culturally. They considered themselves the successors of Joseon, a Korean kingdom. If they were Chinese, they would have considered themselves successors of some other Chinese kingdom or empire. I have no other thought in my mind right now, so I think I'll bring this topic more to thought. Odst 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the direction you're taking the discussion is unhelpful. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a debate forum, nor is this a ground for combating nationalistic ideologies. Do something productive here. If you can't do that, Wikipedia isn't for you. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Goguryo were not Korean etnically and culturally!!! '高句丽本夫余别种也'. 'Korean' is a modern concept. Joseon? Is it a kingdom during 1392-1910? In history of China, one emporer '刘渊' who was Hunnish claimed he was descendant of '汉'. So he named his kingdom '汉' also. Usually, this is a kind of political trick.

Yeah, but where does all that lead to? I wonder why the Chinese and the Koreans keep poking at Goguryo. It's all because of the nationalism and beliefs. If I was not Korean, I simply would not have cared. We need to look into the minds of the people for a resolution. Odst 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Clam down. We can persude each other side, but we can learn different mind, viewpoint and some evidence, even some of them are from nationalistic beliefs. I don't like my enemy, but I support their right of giving their opnions. Actually, I never think historical problem is a real important and serous problem between South Korea and China. The important thing which is behind history argument is territory, ethnic problem and politics. Anymore, there is no case that two countries fight for just history argument. But too many war were caused by territory argument and ethnic problem. These may be not evident between China and South Korea, now. However, if two Korea get unified one day, this problem will get very important. Afterall, China has a significant influence on North Korea; South Korea is an ally of USA; some Korean consider Gando as a territory of Korea; and, there are some millions of Korean-Chinese in China, some of which are keeping passports of both coutries (although, it is illegal in China)

SIGN YOUR COMMENTS!!!!!! THIS IS AN OFFICIAL POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA!!! Odst 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to sign my comments.75.83.232.59 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In bold, there is a writing on the editing page :Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted. right below that, it says "sign your name". right next to it, there are four little tildes. click on it.

Thanks a lot!75.83.232.59 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, create a user account, and personalize yur own user page. why dont you do it now? Odst 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

please notify me, so I can give you a warm welcome. Odst 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo - Chinese or Korean?

you know, even official chinese records say that Goguryeo was a state successor to gojoseon. It is also undoubtedly true that Goguryeo had a similar culture to Silla and Beakje. After all, the Beakje royal family descended from the Goguryeo royal family. even the royal crowns looked similar. evidence, you say? find it in the library or on the web. I got mine from a book, but I dont wanna go thru all that scanning and uploading... The Kaya, Silla, and Goguryeo royal crowns looked very similar. the Beakje one was a bit different, but also similar. and Why would people ever coin the "three kingdoms" name? It's fairly obvious why. Even the Chinese used that term, calling Koreans the "three savage states", according to "liang shu (tung i chan)", if my translations are correct. I wonder why they would name us that way... Odst 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is [my point of view] concerning Goguryeo kingdom. I just thought about that this morning. Whlee 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

An WP:RFC has been filed.

For what it's worth, this is my view, as an editor:

1. With regard to the navigation template, it should not be included. Right now, the template has no link to Goguryeo or Balhae, and therefore doesn't serve navigational purposes.
2. With regard to whether the Chinese or Korean name should go first on Goguryeo, my feeling is that the Korean name should go first. Goguryeo's main territory was in what is now Korea, as was its capital. That should be sufficiently determinative.
3. With regard to whether the Chinese or Korean name should go first on Balhae, my feeling is the reverse. Balhae, whether a Korean kingdom or not (and no, this should not degenerate into a nationalistic debate) was wholly within what is now Chinese territory.

--Nlu (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem I see all the time. Its all about whos living on whos land that determines everything to some of you. I can't believe some Chinese claim Goguryeo became "Korean" when it moved its capital south to Pyongyang since Pyongyang is now in modern day Korea. What kind of twisted logic is that? An ethnicity's DNA suddenly is changed when it moves somewhere. So Goguryeo was "Chinese" and then it became "Korean" when the capital was moved south into the Korean peninsula.

It doesn't matter where you live. It doesn't matter "what is now Chinese territory". Just because Balhae occupied almost all of Manchuria doesn't mean its Chinese just because its in present day China now.

I disagree with you on both. Goguryeo controlled and expanded into almost all of Manchuria and occupied large amounts of land, which is now controlled by the PRC. Goguryeo's "main" territory in the Korean peninsula? Note that Goguryeo only controlled half of the Korean peninsula, the other half divided between Silla and Baekje. Most of its land was in present day China. Good friend100 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of Goguryeo's population was on the modern Korean Peninsula. It might have nominally had control and sovereignty (or at least suzerainty) over the Mohe tribes to the north, but certainly those regions were not as populated as its Korean Peninsula holdings. I stand by my statement that the "main" territory was on the Korean Peninsula. For example, just because Liao Dynasty had nominal sovereignty/suzerainty over modern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia (which are far larger than southern Manchuria) doesn't mean that Liao's "main territory" was Mongolia and not southern Manchuria. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment: My only concern is with how well the article serves the needs of English readers.

• I see no need to place the Korean name above the Chinese name in either the Goguryeo or Balhae name boxes. The language information is organized alphabetically (per the Roman alphabet used in English). The names should be arranged consistently in both boxes. To the average reader this does not imply any sort of superiority or precedence of Chinese over Korean, much less of the Chinese nation over the Korean.
• The "History of China" box does not contribute to the article. (Perhaps this is the "navigation template" that Nlu refers to.) I favor its removal. In fact its presence may be somewhat confusing, as it does not relate to the article except tangentially, referring to dynasties at war with Goguryeo. An analogy would be a box on French history in an article on the Holy Roman Empire: Confusing at best, even though the HRE included some of present-day France.
• The "History of Korea" and "Monarchs of Korea" boxes should be retained in this article.
• It seems obvious that Goguryeo and Balhae are neither Chinese nor Korean, in the sense of being "part of" or "the root of" either of these modern nations. These two articles are about the past and should be written accordingly.

Both this article and Balhae have a lot of promise. Sadly, narrow-minded nationalists, both Chinese and Korean, will probably continue to distort the text in the pathetic hope that they can thereby form the opinions of much of the English-speaking world. These efforts are contemptible, but the people who carry them out are pitiable. Treat them kindly. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify which navigation template I was referring to -- specifically, I was referring to {{History of China}}. The {{History of Korea}} template is appropriate, in my opinion, in both articles, since it contains links to both. --Nlu (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to understand that "Korea", while a modern nation state(or rather, two nation states), is also a cultural continuity. Under this definition of a cultural continuity, Koguryo is very much at the root of it. For example, many of the earliest evidences of cultural elements that define the Korean ethnicity(thus, a cultural definition) can be traced to Koguryo tomb murals[15]. Cydevil 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

These sources, which describe Goguryeo as Korean, are the best tertiary sources that show the expert consensus, just like Wikipedia should:

• "Koguryo: Largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668." Koguryo (Encyclopedia Britannica)
• "Koguryo style: Korean visual-arts style characteristic of the Koguryo kingdom (37 BC–AD 668) of the Three Kingdoms period." [16] (Britannica)
• "Three Kingdoms period: in Korean history, the period (from c. 57 BC to AD 668) when the country was divided into the kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Paekche. [17] (Britannica)
• "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[18] (Encarta)
• "Chinese culture filtered into the indigenous Korean kingdoms of Koguryŏ (Goguryeo), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)."[19] (Encarta)
• "The earliest extant example of landscape painting in Korea is found in a Koguryô tomb"[20] (Metropolitan Museum, "Korea, 1-500 A.D.)
• Korea - The Three Kingdoms Period (U.S. Library of Congress)
• "Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom, arose in the north on both sides of the Yalu River"[21] (Columbia Encyclopedia)

Obviously, the Chinese history template doesn't belong here, but the Korean history template does. Given the above citations, I don't even see why the Chinese name is even in the name template. Etimesoy 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not find any Goguryeo word in these links. And they are just some links already cited from the article--207.168.191.2 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I quoted the text for you, showing that reputable sources say Goguryeo was Korean. Koguryo (with or without diacritics) and Goguryeo are just different Korean romanizations. Etimesoy 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, you are misleading. You should have described it as "main population in the Korean peninsula". Anyways, the population was not as concentrated in Korea as you might think. There were large Korean communities in Manchuria and the castles that protected the Goguryeo border from China. Also, the "large" Korean population that assimilated into China and the Korean population under Balhae, which claimed itself as the successor to Goguryeo, were Koreans that lived in Manchuria and the areas Goguryeo conquered. Good friend100 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it plainly insulting and mindboggling that you are accusing me of being biased while at the same time demanding that I modify the pages to your preferred version. That's not what protection is intended for. See WP:FULL. There is a reason why I protected and filed an RFC to request outside opinion; these articles have been subject to unacceptable edit warring by all parties. Cool down. Make logical arguments rather than accusations. When you have demonstrated you can do that and not before then, the articles will be protected. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for unprotection. And I have said that POV edits can be stopped by warning and/or blocking the anoymous users instead of protecting the entire page. And I have not accused you of anything on my last comment. I simply disagreed with your comment and that Korean communites were in existence in Manchuria, not just solely in the Korean peninsula. Good friend100 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo descendant tomb found in China

A bunch of Goguryeo descendant tombs are found in Luoyang, China. It showed where did Goguryeo people relocate to.[22]--Yeahsoo 22:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese sources... can you translate it or tell us what it says. Goguryo descendants dispersing into China doesn't really help with resolving disagreements.Melonbarmonster 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)