Talk:Goguryeo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Assault11's claim regarding the New Book of Tang

I have had a chance to look at volume 220 of the New Book of Tang. (See [1].) I do not find Assault11's claims regarding it to be good interpretation. This passage, used in Zizhi Tongjian (see zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201) as well, is as below:

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

I'd translate this as:

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

This does not show Assault11's claim is correct; quite the contrary. It is clear from this passage that all of Goguryeo's territory consisted of the nearly 700,000 households, and that later, when Tang abandoned the southern part of the former Goguryeo territory to Silla, it is not stated what percentage of the households remained under Tang rule and what percentage of the households came under Silla rule.

However, those of you who are in the "Goguryeo was Korean and not Chinese and anyone who says that it is is a racist nationalist" camp, this passage will cause you difficulties as well. If you accept this (and the New Book of Tang is certainly an established, even though it is clearly not reliable in all aspects, source, as is the Zizhi Tongjian) account, then you must make an election in your position:

1. Goguryeo's population was largely in its southern part; or
2. Goguryeo's population was not largely in its southern part.

The former allows you to claim that Goguryeo's populace later became a major part of united Silla's population, but requires you to give up the claim that Goguryeo was "mainly" in what is now Chinese territory. The later allows you to claim that a major part of Manchuria was "Korean" (and bolsters the claim that Bohai/Balhae was a "Korean" state) but requires you to give up the claim that most of the former Goguryeo residents were not incorporated into Tang's Manchurian holdings. Take your pick. In my opinion, neither position shows that Goguryeo is "Korean" or "Chinese" or neither or both; as i've stated before, whether Goguryeo was Korean, Chinese, both, or neither depends on what "Korean" and "Chinese" meant. Nationalist rhetoric and labels mean little. Until there is comprehensive DNA and linguistic analysis, throwing insults at each other don't mean much. Don't turn Wikipedia into your battlefield on paper (or, perhaps more appropriate, on electrons). --Nlu (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, thank you for your mediation. Finally, some sensible discussion in a logical manner. First, I believe this case wouldn't be as black and white. Personally, I'd say the southern part was more densely populated than the northern regions due to agriculture, but never the less, even that part of the Korean peninsula was divided between Silla and Balhae, later which was incorporated by Koryo. As for the Koguryo renmants in the north, I think it's important to point out that there were continuous migrations of refugees and defectors from Balhae to Shilla/Koryo for about two centuries. Upon this, along with other inconclusive evidence, scholars theorize that there was an ethnic conflict between the Koguryo ruling class and Mohe, which caused the kingdom's downfall and migrations of Koguryo renmants to Koryo. Others theorized, upon evidence of massive volcanic eruption contemporary with the kingdom's downfall, that devastation wrought by the volcanic eruption of [Baekdu Mountain] caused the dispora of Balhae refugees to the Korean peninsula. Consider this a stub, I'll look for some studies to explicate upon this further that perhaps could be used as sources to enrish the Balhae article as well. Cydevil 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And with the issue of where more Kougryo peole ended up aside, I think it's also important that, as I've said repeatedly, culture is also an essential element of ethnic/cultural heritage. Koguryo people have left rich evidence of their culture in their tomb murals, upon which modern Koreans today can trace many of our cultural traditions. This point is well made by Sarah Nelson, in defining ethnic distinctiveness of Koreans[2]. As much as Goguryeo was a part of the Korean cultural continuity that precedes it, its Korean-ness is as undeniable as Koguryo cultural legacies that Koreans today carry on. Cydevil 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But if you use that argument, you run into this difficulty: there's just as much, if not more, Han Chinese cultural elements in modern Korean culture. Does that make China Korean, or Korea Chinese? I don't think so. --Nlu (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot of Chinese cultural influence on Korean culture. We call it "sinification", a process of which the Three Kingdoms of Korea undertook. It was a shared geopolitical, or rather geocultural, fate of those kingdoms and its peoples as they were exposed to advanced Chinese culture from Lelang Commandery. However, does this make Koreans "Han Chinese"? Lets put this into perspective. Han Chinese today mostly where there are "westernized", or to put it less bluntly, "modernized" clothes, buildings and food, not to mention a political ideology of western origin. Nevertheless, there are cultural elements that make Han Chinese unique, such as Hanfu. And as I've said previously with a cited source, there are cultural elements that trace back to Goguryeo tomb murals which define ethnic distinctiveness of Koreans. That is, what makes unique at the face of globalization(i.e. standardization of culture). And this is just the tangible cultural legacy. Cydevil 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about intangible cultural legacy? Most Koreans would grow up reading about the tales of Jumong, Babo Ondal and the Pyonggang Princess, and numerous other tales and legends related to Goguryeo. How many Chinese, especially those who are supposedly the descendents of Goguryeo people, know of these tales? How do they inherit Goguryeo's cultural legacies? Does Assault11 here, who kindly says "Gaogouli is ours, bitch" to us here in this very discussion page, even know that such tales exist? Culture, tangible and intangible, is an essential element of ethnic/cultural legacy, such as that of Goguryeo and the cultural continuity(as opposed to modern nation-state) that we call "Korea" and "Korean". Cydevil 15:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But then by modern standards, wouldn't Goguryeo be Korean, regardless of the population issue? If Gojoseon is considered a Korean kingdom, and Goguryeo considered themselves successors of Gojoseon, wouldn't it make sense to say that Goguryeo is Korean? The Tang considered the Goguryeo and the other kingdoms inferior Barbarians. Why would the Chinese say that, if they knew Goguryeo was Chinese? It is very obvious in many ways that Goguryo is Korean. But as Nlu put it, it all depends on what korean or chinese means. In some ways, Goguryeo may be chinese. In many ways, Goguryeo may be Korean. Then again, does it really matter if it's Korean or Chinese? What if it's both? Chinese and Korean ethnic groups are pretty much modern ideas. back in the day, they were just neighboring countries. I would not think that the Koreans would call the Chinese the Chinese, but rather Sui or Tang, etc, and then the other way around. Odst 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There still has to be some objective and neutral way to handle the naming issues, and practically, the most disambiguated naming method is probably the best -- and that is why I don't object much to having Balhae rather than Bohai as the article title for that state, as using "Bohai" creates an unnecessary disambiguation issue with (future) articles on Bohai Commandery and the current article on Bohai Sea, where as "Balhae" has no such disambiguation difficulties. And as I mentioned, I do not support incorporating the {{History of China}} template, but it's also on a practical basis, as the template does not include either of the states under dispute here onto the template -- and including them and staying neutral will require the incorporation of, for example, each of the Sixteen Kingdoms, Xiongnu, Rouran, Tujue, Nanyue, &c., &c., &c., which will make the template a huge mess. It's a navigation template; treat it as a navigation template, not as a landstake. --Nlu (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As to your point about the Gojoseon -> Goguyreo -> "Korea" chain, that is not dispositive. Yuan Dynasty considered itself a successor in the chain of the Chinese Mandate of Heaven chain -- and was, indeed, considered as such by Ming Dynasty. However, it doesn't follow that modern Mongolia, which is clearly a successor state to Yuan (if not the successor state), is "Chinese." Cultural boundaries change, as do political boundaries. --Nlu (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Side comment: Cydevil, it is rather distracting to see the McCune-Reischauer spellings filling your comments. As WP:MOS-KO indicates that generally, Revised Romanization should be used, please do so if you can so that people, particularly non-Koreans, can be on the same page when discussing the issues. I can't force you to change, but please consider doing so to avoid confusion. Practicality, rather than politicization, is the issue here. That's the same reason why Taiwanese editors here have accepted the use of Hanyu Pinyin and switched over from Wade-Giles. --Nlu (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. But I just like Koguryo/Koryo/Korea better than Goguryeo/Goryeo/Gorea. Haha, just a joke(with a point nonetheless), I'll give it an effort. :) Cydevil 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to repeat the best references here, since Wikipedia is not the place to share personal opinions or do original research.

• "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." [3] (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. [4] (Britannica)
• "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[5] (Encarta)
• "Chinese culture filtered into the indigenous Korean kingdoms of Koguryŏ (Goguryeo), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)."[6] (Encarta)
• "The earliest extant example of landscape painting in Korea is found in a Koguryô tomb"[7] (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"[8] (Columbia Encyclopedia) Etimesoy 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you have no real intent to discuss logically. When one has to resort to citing undetailed articles out of context and refuses to engage in discussions, he/she is usually not intending to persuade or reach a consensus but intending instead to push a POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Nlu (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Etimesoy is making a very valid point that neutral sources of authority all regard Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom. Do you seriously believe sources such as Encylopedia Britannica, Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia are vehicles of propaganda? If so, propaganda of whom? The authors? The country where it was published? If anything, the ongoing discussion here is inherently POV unless you believe you qualify as an expert on history, Goguryeo or early history of Korea to be more specific. Mark Byington is such an expert, and if you read the discussion, I believe you've already read his opinion on this. Now that you're accusing such efforts to bring NPOV here as "pushing for POV", I'd like to know your opinion on what I've repeatedly proposed - 1. Any matters involving the recent historical disputes caused by the Chinese government should be strictly limited to Modern Politics, 2. The main body should follow NPOV, and thus be coherent with neutral sources of authority. 3. Any claims reflecting the Chinese government's recent rewriting of history outside of Modern Politics should be regarded as vandalism as it violates [WP:NPOV]. Cydevil 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's really simple. Have the rewriting of history by the Chinese government be presented in Modern Politics. And also have rebuttals made by Korean scholars be presented in Modern Politics. Otherwise, let the main article be free of bias, in coherence with netural sources of authority that both I and Etimesoy provided here. Cydevil 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And I perfectly agree with Etimesoy that Wikipedia is not a place to conduct original research such as citing primary sources and making our own interpretations. Not that I don't appreciate Nlu's efforts to mediate the discussion and engage in a sensible discourse, but I think it's important to get the big picture here. NPOV comes first, not original research or a consensus. If some Korean ultranationalists decided to do some original research on Wikipedia, they might as will engage in edit wars on Shang Dynasty, Chinese characters and Confucius. In such a case, would you protect the article and try to reach a consensus through original research, Nlu? Cydevil 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nealry each of the citations that Etimesoy made above was made out of context -- just as much, if not more, as Assault11's reference:

1. The first citation to Britannica was clearly referring to Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla sharing the modern Korean Peninsula.

That is your own interpretation. It says "ancient Korea", not "ancient Korean peninsula". It also integrates Goguryeo into the "Three Kingdoms period" of Korean historiography, and also describes China as an entirely seperate entity. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The second citation to Britannica was clearly referring to "Goguryeo-style" within the context of medieval and modern Korean art. If Chinese artists used, "Gaochang-style," for example, that would not make Gaochang Chinese.

The article is about Goguryeo art itself under the context of Three Kingdoms Period, which is described as "Korean" visual arts-style. Please read again. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The third citation is similar to the first; what else are you going to refer but to refer it to the Three Kingdoms period in Korean history? Refer to it as the Three Kingdoms period and have it be confused with the Cao Wei/Shu Han/Eastern Wei situation?

Then if Goguryeo was indeed not a Korean kingdom, why include it in Korean historiography as one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea? And it says "when the country was divided into the kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Paekche". What country was divided? China? Also, why is a [Go of Balhae|Goguryeo general] referred to as a Korean general?[9] Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The fifth citation, to the Metropolitan Museum, is a short description of the object stated, not a full exposition on whether Goguryeo is Korean. Moreover, since it did not state the location of the find, it could easily be using "Korean" in the context, again, of the Korean Peninsula.

That article makes use of terminologies such as "three Korean kingdoms" and "Korean monarchs". Please read again. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The sixth citation was within an article on Korea, not about Goguryeo, and Goguryeo can easily be a part of Korean history without being exclusively Korean. Moreover, it is unclear how the article would define what is "Korean" and what is "Chinese." In an article about Chinese myths, for example, Chi You might be mentioned. That doesn't mean that that is uncontrovertible evidence that the "neutral source" identifies Chi You as Chinese rather than Korean or Hmong.

"Chinese" is defined as a seperate entity throughout the article, indicating exclusiveness of "Chinese" from Goguryo. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Etimesoy's list of citations was not intended to be intellectually or scholarly honest. It is meant to be a land-staking type of citation. It's rude. It's not persuasive, and if tried in an academic world would earn him a D, if not worse. The tactic should not be considered acceptable here. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: I don't think I engaged in original research. Looking at and translating medieval Chinese primary/secondary sources of a generally accepted nature is not original research, and my discussion as to practicality and neutrality is a policy discussion, not a research discussion.

Then what do you prefer? That we take out primary sources and archaeological findings to discuss what Goguryeo is? Are we researchers here? Not that your arguments were a disingenuous attempt, but nevertheless, what you engaged in was original research. Even by referring to terminologies such as "scholarly", you are implying that this is to be an academic debate. Since when did Wikipedia become an academic journal? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encylopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica, MS Encarta and Columbia Encylcopedia, all of which refer to Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom? Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I propose that the main article be coherent with other neutral sources of authority provided here. The controversy lies in China's Northeast Project, so it should be included in Modern Politics. Or we can simply create a new article on the Chinese Northeast Project and keep all the controversy there. Delimit any controversial arguments reflecting the Chinese Northeast Project's claims under a seperate section/article, and keep the main article free from bias, coherent with neutral sources of authority. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if, for example, Lithuanian ultranationalists began to claim Crimea as Lithuanian, I'm sure I'd deal with it in the same way as I would vandalism, as such a claim is not only POV, but simply vandalistic. However, for example, if Polish editors (ultranationalist or not) began making one-sided claims about Vilnius being historically Polish and not Lithuanian, it would again come down to definitional statements about what is "Polish" and what is "Lithuanian," and that, if it resulted in an edit war, would require protection.--Nlu (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[10]. So how about we create an article on the Chinese Northeast Project? Or perhaps we can just create an article on Chinese government historiography, to include Northeast Project, Southwest Project(Tibet/Xizang Autonomous Region), Northwest Project(East Turkestan/Xinjiang Autonomous Region).

One more comment: this behavior isn't erupting at Nanyue, an arguably similar situation historically, and I believe that is because there's less nationalistic editing there. That's why that article has never been protected (because there had never been an edit war on the same scale) even though Vietnamese, Chinese, and other editors have had genuine disagreements about the content. Again, nationalistic stake-claiming isn't going to solve any issues. Tone down the rhetoric. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because China didn't start a South Project yet and that Vietnam isn't as connected to the internet as Korea. And personally, I think that article is seroiusly messed up, especially the name of the article, but it's not really my concern. Cydevil 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, you're right, I'm not here to discuss my personal views or to originally interpret primary sources, because that's not the goal of Wikipedia. Our collective goal is to create an encyclopedia with the best reputable, independent references. You are really stretching and twisting to parse the English encyclopedias. However you personally interpret them is up to you, but the reality is that Goguryeo is uncontroversially described as Korean. All I'm asking for is a similar number of English tertiary reference works as well-known and reputable as those above, which describe Goguryeo as Chinese. If you are intellectually honest, you will have to admit that the "controversy" is limited to a very small manufactured minority, and should not be misrepresented to be bigger. And you would revert the article to the relatively stable version before the POV revert warring. Etimesoy 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, then try this exercise: define "Chinese" and "Korean" in a neutral, principled, logical way. --Nlu (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to me to define or defend or explain. The sources say Korean kingdom, in Korean history, indigenous Korean, native Korean. Ask them what they mean by Korea or China, and any other questions of content. Don't ask me, I'm just citing them. Now provide just as reputable, independent tertiary references that say it was a Chinese kingdom. It's not even close. This article shouldn't act like it's a close call. Etimesoy 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has been some misinterpretation of my past replies. The 690,000 figure was derived from Xin Tang Shu, no doubt. Regarding the migration of Gaogouli people into China (Tang and Bohai), apparently, I have several sources confirming this: [11] [12] [13]] (all sources are in English, so understanding it should be no problem for most of us here, as well as included representation on both sides of dispute). There is also mention of relocation of Gaogoulis into Tang in Xin Wu Dai Shi.

In fact, only the first article, which happens to be a Chinese state media, is in favor of a "Chinese" Goguryeo, while the latter two are not. The second article is a rebuttal to the Chinese Northeast Project, and the third article clearly refers to Goguryeo as a "Korean kingdom", with "Chinese" as an exclusive entity. Also, the third article mentions nothing about migrationo f Goguryeo people into China. Nevertheless, China's claims are covered in Modern Politics, or perhaps it can be moved to a new article, "Chinese Northeast Project", should it be created. However, such controversial theories/claims do not belong in the main body of the article. Cydevil 01:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And that somehow disproves Gaogouli migrations into Tang/Bohai territory, how? Have you bothered to read the third article in its entirety, you would know exactly what I was referring to: "Following Goguryeo’s fall, almost 300,000 of its residents fled to China’s central plains and 100,000 of its 700,000 populace relocated north to form a part of the future kingdom of Balhae." Again, I am not interested in bickering over semantics and trivial issues with you. Had it been my intention to prove that Gaogouli is indeed Chinese, I would have used Chinese language sources.

It was a mistake on my part to overlook that part. Nevertheless, it's a scholarly journal, and its debated topic is not Goguryeo refugees so the article is not suitable to back your claims. Also, your claim that "most Goguryeo people" were assimilated by China is written in modern politics where it belongs, along with its rebuttals. That's where this controversy belongs. The main article should be coherent with neutral sources of authority. Cydevil 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I could hardly categorize such points as "rebuttals," given that there is no source (if I'm not mistaken) that sets Gaogouli's population at exactly 4 million (IIRC, Chinese historiography tend to emphasize household numbers, not the total population) or the proof that United Silla absorbed most of Gaogouli's population. As far as the previous 3 links are concerned, most of the Gaogouli population migrated into Chinese territory (Tang and Bohai), with Silla receiving only 100,000 of the overall 700,000 populace. With this in mind, I'm inclined to conclude that the "rebuttals" you were referring to are merely original research, with no back up, therefore I'll be removing them from the article.

Aside from your apparent lacking of the ability to follow up with the discussion and take heed to the opinion of others, the part you claim as "original research" cites actual works of Korean historians, and their rebuttals are as relevent in the Modern Politics section as the claims made by the Chinese government. Cydevil 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these "claims made by the Chinese government" are the only original sources available on Gaogouli, that is, if you consider Tang-era historiography to be mere "Chinese government claims." Sadly, so far, you have zero sources to back up the claim that most Gaogouli migrants ended up in United Silla. Until you can back up such ridiculous claims that is "verifiable" and "coherent with neutral sources of authority," that part of Korean argument does not hold up as an adequate rebuttal. Also removing "A nation that once controlled large areas of present day China does not mean it is ethnically Chinese." Chinese as a modern construct is not an "ethnicity."

How many Goguryeo people assimilated into China does not make the Goguryeo ethnicity Chinese. The destruction and assimilation of the Gauls (in France today) into the Roman Empire doesn't make the Gauls "Italian" and does not mean Italy can simply claim France as their own since "all the Gauls were assimilated into the Roman Empire" or even claim that the entire continent of Europe should be theirs. Good friend100 02:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the assimilated Gauls actually were and became Romans. That's where the term Gallo-Romans comes from. Romanized Gauls even declared a successor to the Roman empire called the Gallic Empire. Italian is a more modern identity (Italian unification happened only in the 19th century), but the assimilated Gauls certainly did become Romans. As for the other, do you have a source showing that China claimed the inhabitants of Goguryo were ethnic Chinese? --Yuje 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about their ethnicity and culture. Yes, the culture changes when assimilated but the Tang never absorbed enough Goguryeo people to say that Goguryeo is theirs. Balhae claimed itself as the successor to Goguryeo, so most Goguryeo people were absorbed into Balhae.

What else is China claiming besides another country's history and culture? Good friend100 00:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was simply pointing out that your analogy was flawed. You compared Guals with the Italians, but at the time of the Gauls, there were no "Italians". The Italian peninsula at the time was filled with either Italic peoples, Romans, or later, Germanic barbarians. You claimed that the Gauls weren't Italian just because they were absorbed by the Roman empire. That's a flawed analogy, since there wasn't an Italian ethnicity at the time. However, there was a Roman identity, and the assimilated Gauls became Romans, and declared a successor state to the Roman empire, even though they originally weren't Romans, as you said. --Yuje 11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine's Posts

The entire discussion's messed up, so I'm going to start my own. I can't post as much as I'd like to right now, but when spring break comes up, let us all have fun time debating! HOORAY (I'm a forensic debater)!

Contention One: 2 Different Theories

• History of Korea & the Northeast Project are 2 different theories, not 2 different viewpoints on a single theory or subject matter.

• Modes of construction are different. History of Korea is written just as any history would be written (skepticism, widely agreed theories, counter-theories, etc.). Northeast Project, however, is a theory outside the premises of the Korean history that is built upon advocacies and criticisms rather than a set of agreed fundamentals & exchange of opinions. The Project itself launched with a POV goal & excludes all other viewpoints. There is no dialog between historians on Korean history & the Chinese historians working for the Northeast Project.
• Available types of literature are different. History of Korea depends on academic sources that are widely approved and peer-reviewed. The Northeast Project is widely condemned & peer reviews that endorse the project can only be POV (because it offers no alternatives to its single, POV stance).

• Therefore, an article should exist for each one of them. You can't mix string theory & quantum physics, and say that presenting two different views in 1 article is good just because it's NPOV.

• Sub-contention: Mutual exclusivity: Under user Endroit's interpretation of NPOV, an editor can choose which two theories fit in an article. In a theoretical world, there is an infinite number of theories regarding the history of Goguryeo & Korea as a whole, but an editor frames the article so that only a selected number of theories are presented & thereby excluding all other theories, on the basis of NPOV -thus, making a POV presentation. (Wikimachine 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, you don't need to lie about what I said: I never said there can be only 2 views. If there are multiple views, they need to be fairly presented as specified in WP:NPOV, and that means even if there are 3 or more. Please watch yourself when you quote others.--Endroit 06:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't lie about what you said, and I never said that you said there should be only 2 views. The whole point is that, when we regard Northeast Project & Goguryeo history as 2 different theories, the editors choose how many different theories there can (based off of what they know) & therefore make a POV presentation by excluding all other theories (viewpoints have less chance of being excluded as a theory evolves around several contending viewpoints. (Wikimachine 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I don't agree with your bogus assumption that "Under user Endroit's interpretation of NPOV, an editor can choose which two theories fit in an article." Don't go around saying "Endroit said this or that", because I didn't say it, and that makes you a liar.

Unlike what you've said there, I believe that Wikipedia guidelines insure that input from MULTIPLE editors can coexist with properly cited sources. (...not just "an editor" like you misquoted me.) Quit interpreting what I said, and say it in your own words.--Endroit 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said you agreed with me. (Wikimachine 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

This is not a proper dichotomy, as far as NPOV is concerned. The contention is not between "history of Korea" and "the Northeast Project." The issue, really, is whether Goguryeo is a proper subject within Korean history, Chinese history, both, or neither. One does not need to agree with the beliefs of the leaders of the Northeast Project (and I certainly don't) to believe Goguryeo to be a proper subject of Chinese history. Your suggestion above suggests that everyone who believes that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history is an adherent of the Northeast Project's leaders, which is false. --Nlu (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Goguryeo is a proper subject within Korean history, Chinese history, both, or neither is outside of Korean history. That in itself is a different discussion on this ethnic, historical rights that present-day countries have for past histories that had overlapping boundaries with today's other coutnries, etc. (Wikimachine 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

However, I believe secondary works by experts that claim Goguryeo as a part of Chinese history is more relevant, and if most of them are guided and biased by a certain ideological principle, it is necessary to inform readers of the context under which such claims from experts are being made. Cydevil 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And that claim in itself is a theory separate from Korean history. Let's not try to legitimate "separate theories" with "secondary works" and "experts". We can do better than playing with words. (Wikimachine 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• • • • Actually, there is a government lead history project in Korea, we can call it "Korean history project" the government just expand one thousand year history in the textbook, and put the Dangun Gojoseon mythology into real history. A lot of independent Korean historians can not agree with government either. It will be skeptic that a thoery can change anytime without evidence--Yeahsoo 06:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody believes the Korean founding myth literally. I mean, let's be clear right now. Don't play with words. Let's all assume that we are all intelligent beings: I hate people who play with words, and it takes me good long amount of time to play back at them. If what you say truly applies, then so should Japanese history articles in Wikipedia be written in the same way. The truth is, that's not how the precedents have been set. And I've heard that the history project, etc. is only a counter-measure to China's history project. Other than that, I assume that any nation has right to investigate its own history. (Wikimachine 06:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• • • Do research is different from make history, like "the Northeast Project" at least is trying to approve something by research, but "Korean history project" just add 1000 year history because the government want to do it.( I have no offense here.) But this might be part of reason why Hwang Woo-Suk, such a great scientist become a fake, because the government pushed too hard. I do not think a country have right to fake history, like what Japan is doing for WWII part, and Korea and China are both against it.--Yeahsoo 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say this outright, you guys are full of bullshits & national biases. Instead of participating productively in a discussion by replying my answers directly, you relate Hwang Woo-suk to Goguryeo, you relate the amount of current population in China that could be Goguryeo descendents vs. that of S. & N. Koreas to the right to claim Goguryeo, etc.... But, I'll just participate in your playground.

• Our Education Ministry's decision to re-write history textbooks to stress the historic reality of ancient Korea by advancing the start of the Bronze Age on the Korean Peninsula by about 1,000 years, meanwhile, is not unrelated to efforts to counter China's Northeast Project, which many here feel attempts to co-opt Korean history for China. China’s actions are extremely, well, Chinese. Compared with the Japanese, with their hit-and-run strategy, the Chinese care about no one. Of course, the Korean approach to the question is also very Korean.[14]

(Wikimachine 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

• That Northeast Project & history of Goguryeo are 2 different theories has not been answered yet. History of Goguryeo already assumes that Goguryeo is Korean, while the Northeast Project begins at a level below that of the Korean history, beginning by questioning the origin of Goguryeo & re-affirming the claim that Goguryeo is of Chinese origin with arguments from the level of discourse from the Korean history (in other words, historical evidence), while history of Goguryeo already affirms that Goguryeo is Korean & therefore makes its initial level of discourse on the history of Goguryeo with historical evidence. Therefore, since the intention of the Northeast Project is to use the historical evidence (from the 2nd level) to prove its assertion (1st level), evidences indicating that Goguryeo is Chinese applies only to the Northeast Project. (Wikimachine 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Contention Two: Respect

• Wikipedia articles on histories of countries must present history as a whole, furnished product.

• US history is written plainly from US point of view, along with competing viewpoints within the framework of the discourse among the US historians. No articles regarding US history mix with Soviet viewpoints on how the cold war was, British viewpoints on how the American Revolution was not really a victory for the Americans but a concession, Vietnamese viewpoint on how Americans had really lost & Vietnamese won the Vietnam War, terrorists' viewpoints on how they're winning the War on Terror, etc.
• When people search for Korean history, they want Korean history. They want Goguryeo within the context of Korean history, and if they wanted to find out about Goguryeo from Chinese viewpoint, of course, they can click the link at "see also" to Northeast Project article.
• Putting assertions from the Northeast Project places challenge on the sovereignty of the Korean governments. All national governments are due proper respect & integrity. It is within people's rights to read Korean history as written within the context of Korea. This precedence has been set already within the Japanese history articles, etc. (where there are Korean claims over roots of Japanese culture, people, etc.)

• Northeast Project is not widely accepted. 2ndary source or what... I don't even care about the S. Korea's project. It's not widely accepted. (Wikimachine 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Contention Three: Argument Accessibility

• Let me outline the CPOV arguments under a critical construction.

• Goguryeo could have Chinese origin.

• The viewpoint must be included for NPOV.

• The "viewpoint" is not a personal theory, or original research. It is a widely accepted & established history.

• However, when Northeast Project began only a few years ago, has no established base, and the 2ndary sources (don't get tricked by the words now) are primarily from CASS (also 3rd party online sites that serve as sock puppets), the discussion must begin not on whether or not China retains most of Goguryeo's population, Goguryeo was heavily influenced by China, etc... but on the validity of the Northeast Project itself. This means that the CPOV editors lose all access to the arguments that branch from the 1st and 2nd levels of logic pyramid. And the evaluation of the validity of the project remains on the article for the project.
• Sub-contention: Impact Analysis: The risk that Wikipedia loses its NPOV & insults the Korean population by entrusting its sources on a theory that is very new & unrecognized to begin with outweighs the need for the assertions from the Northeast Project to be considered. (Wikimachine 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Contention Four: Invalid Approach

• Sub-contention: WP:OR: WP:OR entails that when you use primary sources, you can use them only to cite a description: "The Alamo was defended by around 300 men." However, you cannot use a primary source to shape your own thesis: "The Chinese emperor thought that Goguryeo was within his empire." --> "Goguryeo used to be one of China's subjects." Furthermore, in a discourse between two competing interpretations, a mere "description" advocates one side or the other, thus making a original research assertion, when primary source is used to side with one of the two sides.
• Sub-contention: Type of Arguments: The type of arguments that both sides should be making is "should viewpoints stemmed from the Northeast Project be included in the article?" Both CPOV & KPOV editors are making a serious mistake (especially the KPOV, who are giving CPOV's grounds to argue on). First of all, KPOV editors should not contest those CPOV theories. They're simply, CPOV, and CPOV is as good as it can be. On the other hand, CPOV editors should not contest KPOV viewpoints. So, KPOV editors, now you're going to say "but that leads to a completely messed up version of the article! We need to contest the CPOV assertions!" Not quite. If you press ONLY on whether or not the CPOV arguments should belong here or not, then that's all you need to win. I'm really frustrated with how you guys are talking about Goguryeo's language, NPOV citations, Macedonia, % descendants, etc.

(Wikimachine 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Dear Wikimachine

Before you made such a speech,you had to convince the chinese,the goguryeo have nothing with the modern chinese.But in fact,at least part of descendant of Goguryeo become nowadays Chinese(while in this case,excluding the Ethnic Koreans in China,they immigrated lately).The last king of Goguryeo died in China,and some chinese historian even can find the records of his offsprings living in China.They become at least partially chinese,and in the case of Manchu,they were somehow related to Goguryeo.Dear wikimachine,though the korean had something more close to Goguryeo,that didn't mean China have nothing to do with this defunct country.--Ksyrie 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So let's continue here. Do Chinese think that Goguryeo was one of the main sources of China's past, or just a sidestory? Sidestory; however, Korean history depends by a great amount on Goguryeo to trace Korea's past. That makes you link to the "Contention 2: Respect". Secondly, Chinese can write as much as they want about Chinese history on their article Northeast Project. Why not? What makes you want to write here so much? Make separate article on "Gaogouli", then, if the Northeast Project Article develops so much that it can only become a featured article & still have sister articles. (Wikimachine 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Finally, if you want to say that, as for "Contention 2: Respect", China, which contains more of the descendants of Goguryeo, deserves to make its interpretation of Goguryeo more than Korea, you're wrong on three levels:

• You need evidence to support the fact that a larger Goguryeo population lives within China, than those of S. Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Russia, and Japan.
• You need evidence to support the fact that the Goguryeo population within China supports the Northeast Project.
• The 2 Korean governments & their populations lose a third of their heritage while China maintains its rich 5,000 years of history, simply because China considers Goguryeo to be a side story to its dominant culture & because China itself consists of so many different races & people. Within that power dynamics, contesting China's claims on Goguryeo does not necessarily contest China's rights as a government & Chinese people's rights as people, but to contest Korean claims links 100% to the "Contestion 2: Respect". (Wikimachine 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Goguryeo language and writing system

Goguryeo language is far different from Korean (Silla/Goryeo), it is more close to Japanese[15], research showes Japanese and Goguryeo both origin from People in Chinese LiaoXi(辽西). from (Indiana University）白桂思 (Christopher I. Beckwith)。在他的《日本·高句丽语系的民族和早期中国》（"The Japanese-Koguryoic Peoples and Early China"). In the article, it said Goguryeo language is close to Korean, but there is no evidence. As for writing system, Goguryeo use Chinese characters with no doubt. of course, this is only Goguryeo culture aspect, as Goguryeo belonging, it is more political, what does Goguryeo history document say? --Yeahsoo 06:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

<semi-sarcasm> Chinese Liaoxi? Is that an Olympic Committee akin to Chinese Taipei? </semi-sarcasm> (I'd simply say that using the phrase "Chinese Liaoxi" is problematic.)--Nlu (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the Samguk Sagi said that Jumong was from Buyeo, but gives no further origin beyond that point. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he's talking about Hongshan Culture. Hongshan Culture was part of a cultural continuity that stretched from western Manchuria to northern Korea. While it's plausible to define it as "Altaic", I guess "proto-Dongyi" is a more moderate term considering the possibility that the majority of Chinese in Hebei and Shandong are also descendents of this proto-ethnicity. Anyways, this is how a linguist would define it:

"An interesting example of the politicisation of archaeological narratives is the description by Da-Shun(1995) of the Hongshan culture of Liaoning Province, northeast of Beijing. This is usually dated to 4-3000 BC, i.e. roughly contemporaneous with the Yangshao. Despite being well outside the imperial boundaries, Da-Shun sees this as ‘the dawn of Chinese civilization’ and attempts to link it with that civilization through a series of typological indicators, a writing system, bronze metallurgy etc. A particular type of altar, also found elsewhere in China is part of the thread that links this region with the later Ming dynasty. The reality is that there is no evidence that this region would have been Sinitic-speaking at this period; it is much more credible that the inhabitants would have been Altaic speakers, either speaking pre-Mongolic or Koreanic languages." Cydevil 08:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Yeahsoo would quote Riley's work[16]. I haven't read Beckwith's work, but lets just say it's implausible to posit a connection between Goguryeo language and Japonic languages while denying the Korean cultural continuity. Cydevil 08:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • There is no evidence Korea has relation to Hongshan culture. plus this is too big topic.

As Liaoxi, NLU please do not be too sensitive here, Liaoxi is always a Chinese area, like Liaodong, I add Chinese just incase that someone do not know what is Liaoxi. I quote the laguage essay, but it showes Goguryeo laguage is not much to do with Korean laguage, please do not switch to other topic. As Korean is never independant untill Qing dynasty, it is alway part of China culture, Korea used to be proud to claim as "Little China" for its authentc Chinese Confucius culture. --Yeahsoo 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you define "Chinese," you can't really argue that Liaoxi was "Chinese" until at least the Zhou Dynasty. Whether it was "Chinese" during Liao Dynasty, Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234, and Yuan Dynasty may be just as controversial as whether Goguryeo was "Chinese." --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Goguryeo's language has nothing to do with the Chinese language. Also in case you didn't know the 3 Korean Kingdoms all spoke different languages. Since Silla with T'ang help conquered the other two Kingdoms, Silla's language would be dominant. From what I have researched Goguryeo's language was the most "Tungus" of the Three Korean Kingdoms and Tungus has little to no realtionship with Sino-Tibetan languages, nor does Tungus as an ethnic term have a strong relationship with the Han Chinese beyond some Northerners who have been affected by various Tungus groups like the Manchus. The Claim that Korea was never independent until Qing Dynasty is uninformed and very untrue and does not warrant a real response. Please stop making huge generalizations about "little China" that was largely done by Neo-Confucists of the heavily sinified Joseon Dynasty who with Confucian thought saw China as the older brother and Japan as the upstart brat.

Jegal 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jumong, the founder of Goguryeo is from Buyeo. Buyeo is undoubtly a Korean kingdom and since Jumong raised Goguryeo as the successor to Buyeo, it is definitely a Korean kingdom. Good friend100 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Korean-Manchurian" or "Tungusic-Korean" seems to be a more appropriate description for Goguryeo (高句麗). Saying that they're "Korean" outright doesn't seem accurate. The same goes for Buyeo (夫餘 Fuyu) as well.--Endroit 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who? You? Cydevil 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Says....

(Goguryeo/Koguryo/Gaogouli/高句麗)

• "Koguryo, a Manchurian-Korean regime" p.142, History and Climate Change: a eurocentric perspective By Neville G. Brown, Published 2001 Routledge (UK), ISBN 0415019591
• "Manchurian-Korean Koguryo kingdom" p.180, The Genesis of East Asia, 221 B.C.-A.D. 907 By Charles Holcombe, Published 2001 University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 0824824652

(Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu/夫餘)

• "Korean/Tungus state of Puyo" p. 219, Imperial Chinese Military History: 8000 BC - 1912 Ad By Marvin C. Whiting, Published 2002 iUniverse, ISBN 0595221343
• "Tungusic Puyo tribes" p. 27, Area Handbook for the Republic of Korea By Kenneth G. Clare, American University (Washington, D.C.). Foreign Areas Studies Division, American University (Washington, D.C.). Foreign Area Studies, Published 1969 the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
• "Puyo's identity blurred the distinctions between Manchurians and Koreans" p.14, Korea, the Divided Nation By Edward A. Olsen, Published 2005 Praeger/Greenwood, ISBN 0275983072

--Endroit 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that all? Cydevil 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, if i were you, I would steer clear of the argument of "Jumong was from Buyeo; therefore, the kingdom he founded must be Korean and not Chinese." It has a couple logical problems:

1. It presupposes that Buyeo was 1) Korean and 2) not Chinese, which, unlike the situation with Goguryeo, is not strongly supported with archaeological and documentary evidence. It is also contrary to how Buyeo (granted, two centuries later) conducted its relations with the Murongs (who were ethnically Xianbei but culturally much more Han than Buyeo) of Former Yan, and how the Murongs acted toward it after capturing its capital, compared to how the Murongs acted after capturing Goguryeo's capital.
2. But let's say that your presupposition is right that Buyeo was Korean and not Chinese. For you to argue "Jumong was from a Korean kingdom, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Goguryeo, was a Korean state and not Chinese" would logically require you to argue "Wei Man was from a Chinese state, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Wiman Joseon, was a Chinese state and not Korean." I don't think you want to go down that road. (Of course, you can then take the (untenable) position that Yan was a Korean state, but that's up to you.) --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For my korean brother Don't mix up the Ethnic Koreans in China and descendants of Goguryeo in China

As I had stated before,the Ethnic Koreans in China didnt' emigrate to China until 1860,bear it in mind--Ksyrie 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • most Ethnic Koreans in China migrate to China during WWII, as a result of Japanese colony policy. It is rediculas to relate it to descendants of Goguryeo. It is same logic that Goryeo hase a similar name to Goguryeo, so Goryeo is descendant of Goguryeo, but actually Goryeo use this name to get politic benifit so it can have the right to overturn Silla. same thing happenes in China history, there is several "Wei", "Han", "Yan","Song", but most of them are not related.

While the descendants of Goguryeo, like "Gao" family, we can found evidence like the tombstone and family tree book,which I listed above.--Yeahsoo 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some Korean didn't want anythings relating china to be presented in this article.So No matter how we had discussed and how many sources(the korean didn't see it as neutral) the chinese side could find.It is just useless.Because,they didn't accept the balanced view from other side.--Ksyrie 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

東夷校尉

東夷校尉 this is the officer in # kingdoms and Jin dynasty to rule the Four_Commanderies_of_Han —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeahsoo (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Goguryeo edit wars have become newsworthy

If this page didn't qualify for Wikipedia:LAME before, it certainly does now. The edit wars have become newsworthy now. Here's an article from Salon.com. Two wikipedia editors, Assault11 and Cydevil, were singled out by name in the article. This goes to show, that what you guys say here is public for the world to see. Something to think about before you say something that potentially embarrasses yourself before countless readers. So keep it civil, guys. --Yuje 11:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm,the wiki is swarmed with edit wars....sigh--Ksyrie 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • It is painful that you spend hours to add useful info to the article, at least you think it is valueable, but get undo by some wiki fighter a minute later for no reason--Yeahsoo 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

...And that's why WP:NPOV is the key, no matter what your view is. Stick with non-POV useful information, and nobody would be in this mess. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some Korean didn't want anythings relating china to be presented in this article.So No matter how we had discussed and how many sources(the korean didn't see it as neutral) the chinese side could find.It is just useless.Because,they didn't accept the balanced view from other side.--Ksyrie 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • Yes, let's say, the "category:history of China", it will be deleted by some "heroes" right away, more than several dozen times as I know. If Korean can not accept Goguryeo is related to history of China, it means they do not want to discuss at all, they just have enough time to kill. I am not saying that all Korean are nationalists, but some of the fighters here should really need to respect rules. And when you delete info or redo, please give a reason.--207.168.191.2 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ksyrie, leave it to the evil Korean editors to ruin an article... Good friend100 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree with putting this article on the WP:Lame because this isn't a funny issue. Yes, WP:LAME says its "only for fun and not to be taken seriously" but I think putting this article on there is comparing a powerful and respectable Korean kingdom to some stupid edit wars in other articles. Good friend100 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV citations

People keep forgetting the point of an encyclopedia.

I'm just going to repeat the best neutral, non-Korean and non-Chinese tertiary references here, since Wikipedia is not the place to share personal opinions or do original research.

• "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." [17] (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. [18] (Britannica)
• "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[19] (Encarta)
• "Chinese culture filtered into the indigenous Korean kingdoms of Koguryŏ (Goguryeo), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)."[20] (Encarta)
• "The earliest extant example of landscape painting in Korea is found in a Koguryô tomb"[21] (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"[22] (Columbia Encyclopedia) Etimesoy 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained why these citations at out of context. In any case, NPOV demands that the point of view be neutral. That means that Chinese sources have to be given due weight as well. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good, good, hope we can find some POV on China side as well, unfortunately, they are deleted right away, so I have to add some more on Korean side
• Silla-Tang invasion: Goguryeo invade Silla first then Silla ask Tang for help. why call "Silla-Tang invasion", why not call it "Goguryeo,Baekje-vs-Silla,Tang war".
• A Chinese name template of Goguryeo is kept deleted right away, see, someone can not accept anything other than Korean, but the funny thing is they still have to use Chinese characters, although they called "hanja".--Yeahsoo 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• The language relation to old Korean is WP:OR,it should be [citation needed], and fighters do not give chance for others to post evidence against them.
• Again, no chance for stuff to be listed, like descendants of Goguryeo found in China, and Goguryeo use Chinese characters as writing system, and how Goguryeo kept as a vassal to China in hundreds years.(I bet some Korean hero rather undo this article everyminute than let this to be listed on wiki)--Yeahsoo 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys keep completely missing the point. This article should not be "Chinese POV" or "Korean POV" or even a mix of Korean and Chinese POV. This article in its entirety should be NEUTRAL point of view. That means relying on independent neutral (not Korean, not Chinese, not a combination of Korean and Chinese, but NEUTRAL) secondary sources. The main article about Goguryeo should contain a neutral description of the scholarly consensus on Goguryeo, which is that it was Korean. If there is a modern political dispute, then we cite a BBC article on it, neutrally describing the dispute, in a separate section about that dispute. Not a single word in this article should be a Wikipedian's interpretation of primary sources, Korean or Chinese. Etimesoy 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am totally supporting your thinking,But the problem is that whenever there is some sources which favoured somehow chinese claim,it was deleted quickly or modified.it seems a bit of self-censorship by the korean side.--Ksyrie 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The problem is BBC is citing from Wiki nowdays, I am ok Goguryeo is related with Korean as soon as a reliable source is provided, but one should also allow other point of view if it is also from reliable source. "Editing hegemonism" is not good practice. All I listed above is no "Chinese POV", you can not say a Chinese Goguryeo name is "Chinese POV", right, but even that is forbidden by some Korean Heroes, not to mention anything else.--Yeahsoo 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not say "exclude the parties that are having disagreements." --Nlu (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All the above sites are true and not to be disputed. And suggesting that Chinese sites should be used is not POV? Then I suppose we can use Korean sites which some of you vehemently oppose. And how out of context?

Its not just censorship from the korean side, I wouldn't call "please no Korean crap on here" that was pasted onto the extenal links section a couple weeks ago korean censorship. Good friend100 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That was simply vandalism, and should be dealt with as vandalism, not as argument. --Nlu (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats right. However saying that Chinese sites should be "weighted as well" is ridiculous. You should be supporting NPOV sites like BBC or Britannica, etc. Its pretty easy to extract many Korean sources considering the Korean interest in the subject. Good friend100 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo, an issue of Histography

I thought I'd weight in here. But due to the fact that I'm a busy professional and not a student with tons of time (as I suspect many prolific writers here are) I'm going to have to write in several phases. People who are interested in reading my thoughts on the matter can check here periodically as I update. WangKon936 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd weight in here. But due to the fact that I'm a busy professional and not a student with tons of time (as I suspect many prolific writers here are) I'm going to have to write in several phases. People who are interested in reading my thoughts on the matter can check here periodically as I update.

Now histography is the study of history. How we view it, how we put it together, etc. It is interesting to see the Chinese historgraphy of Koguryo and see how it has changed over time. The first reference to Koguryo in Chinese histories (from the San-kuo Chih) didn't always refer to it by name, but by some of its tribes such as the Yemek, Puyo and Okcho. Some of these tribes were in present day Manchuria and some were in the northern part of the Korean peninsula. They were referred to as "Eastern Barbarians" and never seen as being part of the Chinese world.

Next the Chinese histories of Sui and Tang saw Koguryo as one of the three "Han" of the Korean peninsula. The other two Han were Silla and Baekje. The Chinese histories, when referring to the region (Southern Manchuria and the Korean peninsula) always said Kor[gur]yo, Baekje, Silla together. These things implying that the Chinese acknowledged the similarities between these three kingdoms.

Next, during the Ming Dynasty and in the Imjin War, there was a Chinese offical known by the name of Ding Yingtai who tried to pursuade the imperial court that Korea was in collusion with Japan to start that war so they could claim the Liaodong peninsula for themselves. Was was his main evidence? The fact that the kingdom of Koguryo, which he admitted was firmly in the historgraphy of Korea, had once occupied Liaodong, therefore the Korea of the 16th century must also want it today. Ding would not have used that as evidence unless there was a general concensus in Chinese histographic understanding that Koguryo was a Korean kingdom. The historical evidence is pretty clear that Ding got a lot of other Chinese officials to believe his reasoning and his sway in the Ming court gave the Korean king many sleepless nights. WangKon936 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Your update wiped out one minute after, if you update anything do not meet Korean taste.(Of cause, I mean if Korean cares about the topic, and not all Koreans are nationalists) --Yeahsoo 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Your claims that The chinese didn't regard Goguryeo as Chinese doesn't make any sense.Before 7th the first unification of Korea by Silla,Silla didn't regard the Goguryeo and Baekje as Sillanese either.The border changes always,and the definition of chinese changes the same way.Before 1644,Manchu was definitely not chinese,but nowadays,they are somehow chinese.--Ksyrie 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • How does it not make sense? Facts are facts. The Chinese, for most of their history, did not consider Koguryo as Chinese. That's not my opinion. It's true. Cite me one Chinese source prior to the Cultural Revolution that says "Koguryo is a Chinese kingdom." Give me just one. WangKon936 05:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
          • • • • • answer: check above discussion: Tang's Gaozong think Goguryeo people is also his subject, it is mentioned in Zizhi Tongjian (see zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201)--Yeahsoo 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • Hummm..... I don't think you understand or overestimate the Chinese theory of tributary relationships. Due to the fact that Koguryo, Baekje and Silla relied on China for technology, learning and culture, they participated in the tributary system. This helped China because it provided stability to their borders. For kingdoms that participated in China's tributary system, the emperor did consider them as subjects. I mean, why constaintly fight the barbarians all the time, when you can just calm them down a little bit by giving them a little bit of culture and technology to play with? The Tang considered not just Koguryo subjects, but also Baekje, Silla and even Wa (Yamato Japan). Despite being in the tributary relationship, it does not mean that any of the aforementioned kingdoms were in any way "Chinese" kingdoms. WangKon936 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • • • • • That is not logic, Gaozhong never say Silla people or Japanese are subjects, only you say they are Chinese subjects, what is your point? Plus a tributary relationship has several type,Goguryeo used to be JIMI STATE(depandant state) and is ruled directly after war, Silla and baike is independant kingdom. --Yeahsoo 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Point taken. (Specifically, the History of Northern Dynasties, which is the source that is going to be the most relevant as its period of coverage was the longest during Goguryeo's lifespan, certainly did not consider Goguryeo a Chinese state.) However, that is not necessarily determinative. The History of Northern Dynasties also did not consider Khitan Chinese, but subsequent events that its author, the Tang Dynasty historian Li Yanshou, certainly could not have anticipated, made the Khitan far more relevant to Chinese history. In any case, prior to the 20th century, no one would have considered Hawaii American, either. That doesn't mean that the history of Hawaii is not part of American history. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, Hawaii and the United States is probably not a great example for you. You see, most Koreans would not have objections to China saying that Koguryo territory north of the Yalu River is now a part of Chinese territory. That's just fact. However, what Koreans have an objection to is that the Chinese say that ALL Koguryo history is a part of Chinese history. Given that Koguryo straddled both sides of the Yalu, Koreans are naturally upset. Americans would say that the island became a part of American history after the Hawaiian royal house was overthrown in the late 19th century. Americans would not say that Hawaii was all in American history before that. Again, Hawaii is a poor example to bring up because the nature of American's argument is very different and Hawaiian territory is not currently occupied by two different countries. WangKon936 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well according to your logic, Korean is claim Goguryeo is all Korean, Given that Koguryo straddled both sides of the Yalu, Chinese are naturally upset, What are you trying to prove? Plus Goguryeo occupied Four Commanderies of Han, for Tang it is natural to regain his land, plus, it is Silla ask Tang to help him defend Goguryeo--Yeahsoo 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt, can you cite the resources?Besides,it was an defunct kindom,the claim of inheritage of Goguryeo was among the Manchu.Maybe Khitan.--Ksyrie 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For what would you like me to cite sources on? Please let me know. Regarding Manchu and Khitan claims to Koguryo. Now, there was one tribe of Malgal, also known as proto-Jurchens, hence proto-Manchu, although we are talking about somewhat different peoples here, that were a part of the Koguryo kingdom. That was the Blackwater tribe of Malgal. There was like what? 8 or 10 tribes of Malgals? And with the Khitan. I'm not aware of any Khitan dynastic history that says Koguryo is a part their heritage. Furthermore, the Khitan (Liao Dynasty) never wrote a court sponsored history of Koguryo. Korea, however, did in the Samguk Sagi. Lastly, the Khitan acknowledged Korean claim to Koguryo heritage during discussions with the Koryo general So Hui during the First Goryeo-Khitan War. WangKon936 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi in 1145 appeared 400 hundred years after the fall the nation,while in the Zizhi Tongjian in 1065 which appeared before the Samguk Sagi also mentioned the subjects of Goguryeo are of Chinese.Your claim is invalid.Both side got the same accounts.--Ksyrie 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ksyrie. I don't think you understand my claim very well. You see, the Chinese dynasties sponsored the writing of histories to striengthen their claim as sucessors to the previous dynasty. The Tang sponsored court histories for the Sui Dynasty, the Song sponsored histories for the Tang dynasty, etc. etc. Koryo in the 12th century saw themselves as the successors of Koguryo, Baekje and Silla and commissioned Kim Pu Shik to write the Samguk Sagi, the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms [of Korea]. Thus, the Koguryo Pongi has the complete history of Koguryo from the 1st century BC to it's fall in the 7th century AD. The Chinese, who did not see Koguryo as being a part of a Chinese Dynasty (remember, Koguryo provided no emperors to China) did not write a COMPLETE dynastic sponsored history of Koguryo. Now the histories of Tang and Sui do have extensive information on those kingdom's wars with Koguryo, but there is not in existance any single Chinese work that is dynastically sponsored that tells the story of Koguryo from its start to its finish. In the eyes of someone who is a trained confucian scholar, this would seriously hamper any Chinese claim to Koguryo's heritage. To get to the second part of your entry, it makes sense that some Chinese sources would say that some Koguryo people became Chinese by the 11th century AD, but again that assertion is vastly different then the Samguk Sagi, which attempted to write the total history of Koguryo in one set of books, thus firmly placing the historaphy of Koguryo within Koryo's. WangKon936 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To advance,I will take an exemple,before 1800,the USA was limited in her original 13 states.At that time the Louisiana wasn't seen as American as Today,and the frech lived in Louisiana were not recognised as Amercan.And Before the Mexican–American War in 1846,the New Mexico wasn't seen as American as Today,and the mexican lived there were not recognised as Amercan as Today.Ok,I had finished my little speech.--Ksyrie 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some very good points Wangkon. However, I recommend that you save your arguments and evidence for the mediation. That's what I'm doing. I doubt any of the current participants(Assault11, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Endroit) here can be convinced otherwise. Cydevil 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Really, then why salon.com refer you as a key wiki fighter keeps undo edits, if you really behave that reasonable as you claimed. Well, it is not important now, just hope you will obey the rule in future.--Yeahsoo 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When do arguments for the mediation open up? WangKon936 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the Polish and Lithuanian names should be removed from Prussia? --Nlu (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not debating whether or not the Chinese name should be removed from this article. It can stay as long as it needs to, but that doesn't mean its Chinese. Good friend100 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Xuantu Commandery

The Goguryeo (高句麗 Gaogouli) appears to have originated in the Gaogouli (高句麗 Goguryeo) Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery of Han Dynasty China. It was at a later century that the Goguryeo moved into the Korean peninsula and grew powerful. At least that's one of the theories we have today. Now tell me why or why not this information belongs in this article?--Endroit 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, there is a very good reason why this information is not in the Koguryo article. That's because the only people who prescribe to this view are scholars sponsored by the People's Republic of China, thus it's not mainstream and not accepted by the majority of international scholarship on Koguryo. Wiki should express theories that are accepted by the international standard and should explain non-standard theories in separate articles. There are no non-PRC scholars who think that Koguryo is Chinese because it came from Xuantu Commandery. The best scholar on Koguryo history in the Western world is probably Dr. Mark Byington at Harvard and he thinks this PRC idea is pretty weak. And I quote:

• • The Chinese argument for Koguryo's Chinese-ness is a pretty flimsy one. The two main arguments are, 1) that the Koguryo state grew out of the Han Chinese commandery of Xuantu (i.e., out of Chinese territory)...
  • The gist of my long-winded statement above is that the Chinese argument regarding Koguryo is weak and defensive...

You can read Mark's full article here: http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004-January/004054.html - Please read it for yourself. WangKon936 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, here's the source: "The Koguryo branch was under the administration of Kaogouli (K. Koguryo) prefecture of the Xuantu commandery in Southeastern Manchuria (Gardiner 1979)" p.22, State Formation in Korea: historical and archaeological perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, Published 2001 Routledge (UK), ISBN 0700713239 .

Gardiner and Barnes are not from the PRC, and the theory has been around in the Western world since 1979. Also, whether or not this theory is flimsy is not for you or me to decide.--Endroit 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Endroit. You know what? I have this book in my personal library at home. Gina Barnes is not a Koguryo specialist. She is an early Korean, early Japanese history generalist. Anyways, you need to reread this page again. No where does she or Gardniner say that Koguryo people were Chinese people. She and Gardiner say that Koguryo people were under the administration of the Xuautu commandery and their sub-division administration of Gaoguli. It goes further to say that the term Gaoguli may or may not have been the native word transcribed into Chinese characters, something I had mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Koguryo people of this period were also decribed as clients of the Han Dynasty, but not a part of the Han Dynasty, clearly an important distinction. Lastly, you need to reread my earlier comment when I quoted Dr. Mark Byington. My use of the word flimsy is not my opinion. It is Dr. Byington's and I make that sufficiently clear and even quote my sources. Please understand my comments before responding. Thanks. WangKon936 21:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pen/Insular polities are secondary states, which - by definition - arise in situations of contact with already extant and operating states. Thus, they have at their disposal ready-made models for polity administration and the means to create and maintain elite status through interaction with the 'higher court', as it may be called. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. They arose in a power vacuum when Mainland influence in the region was on the wane. Exposure to Mainland empire practices in the preceding centuries had led to a useful familiarity with highly organized political systems. But consider two facts: I) that the strongest states (Yamato, Koguryo and Shilla) developed in areas which had the least contact with the dynastic courts, and 2) that their internal organization was highly variable. This suggests that the hierarchcical systems of these states represent local solutions with their own creative (rather than externally imposed) choice of rulership components. - Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. There goes your "Xuantu Commandery theory", which in fact doesn't even exist. Don't you find it interesting that she refers to Koguryo as a peninsular state? And besides, you can't say the Republic of Korea is "Japanese" because it grew out of a Japanese colony. Also, the passage you quoted is from Eary Korean States, yet another reconfirmation that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom. Cydevil 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, I'm not talking about the 3rd and 4th centuries. I'm talking about the earlier history of Goguryeo, before Goguryeo moved into the Korean peninsula, at around the 1st century.--Endroit 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

First, according to Barnes, Goguryeo was a peninsular polity, which is categorized as Mounded Tomb Cultures, which includes Goguryeo, Baekje, Shilla and Yamato. Also, Goguryeo was a secondary state that was formed in the absense of Chinese political control. Even your own quotation came from the chapter Early Korean States, and to add another quatation from the same book, Koguryo was the first Korean state to accept Buddhism; though known as early as 313, it was officially adopted in AD 372. And also, The earliest extant written material from the Korean peninsula consists of a stone monument erected near the Kungnaesong capital on the occasion of the death of the nineteenth king of Koguryo, Kwanggaeto, in AD 414. Gina Barnes clearly sees Koguryo as a Korean state, be it geographical, historical, or cultural definition. And in case you haven't noticed, the book we're citing from is called State formation in Korea: Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Cydevil 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So then, we agree that the glory of Goguryeo as a Korean (& peninsular) regional power occurred sometime between the 3rd & 7th centuries AD. And that's what most mainstream history books say. But did you choose to ignore Goguryeo's history before that? Barnes & Gardiner covers the early stages of Goguryeo's history, which are sometimes forgotten.

According to Barnes & Gardiner.... Until 12AD, Goguryeo (Gaogouli) was a Chinese frontier state belonging to the Chinese Han Dynasty empire. Even after independence from the Chinese empire in 12AD, Goguryeo's main activities remained north of the Yalu River, up until a few years after the collapse of the Han Dynasty in 220AD. Then after the ensueing power struggles between 220AD & 313AD, and the moving of their capital to Pyongyang in 427AD, Goguryeo was transformed from a Chinese frontier state, into a predominantly Korean kingdom.--Endroit 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So then, do we agree that Xuantu Commandery be mentioned in the article? And that they were in the Gaogouli (Goguryeo) Prefecture of Xuantu Commandery? Why or why not?--Endroit 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Personally, I don't see any harm in saying that Koguryo people once lived in Xuantu Commandery and had to report to that commandery's ruling structure for a number of years. They revolted against and separated from the commandery in 12 AD anyways. Besides, Xuantu was GoJoseon territory for much longer then it was Han Dynasty territory. Xuantu was established in 106 BC, after the fall of GoJoseon. Now Endroit, I think I have been very accommodating with you and have done the best to answer most, if now all your questions. I have asked you a number of questions myself and I'd like you to reciprocate. WangKon936 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could people read my post above? This was exactly what I was asking. (Wikimachine 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Mine is an independent question, unrelated to Wikimachine's questions.--Endroit 16:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Let me say this. My question was posted earlier, & mine was completely independent from that of Endroit. (Wikimachine 16:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, your posts don't address the Xuantu Commandery, or do they?--Endroit 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My post addresses the root of this discussion. That spills over to ythe Xuantu Commandry. (Wikimachine 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Tell me exactly where you mention Xuantu Commandery, then.--Endroit 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, your contention (and self-debate) that "History of Korea & the Northeast Project are 2 different theories" is irrelevant to that fact that we are discussing the "History of Goguryeo" here. And the theory about Xuantu Commandery existed prior to the Northeast Project anyways.--Endroit 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Endroit. You seeem to have a confused understanding of what the function of a Chinese commandery was in northeast asia. Chinese Commanderies in northeast asia were set-up in non-Chinese areas to help control barbarian populations. Xuantu was set-up when the Han Dynasty conquered the Gojoseon kingdom in the late second century BC. It was an administrative area to help control a preexisting, non-Chinese population and eventually "pacify" an area. Commandaries, particularly in northeast asia, helped the Chinese keep the borderlands OUTSIDE the Great Wall secure. To say that Koguryo "came out" or "grew out" of Xuantu does not mean that Koguryo people are of Chinese ancestry. Actually, Chinese dynastic histories are clear in that they believe Koguryo "came out" or "originated" from Puyo and Yemek tribes, which the Chinese Dynastic histories make ABUNDANTLY clear are not Chinese. WangKon936 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Goguryeo (Gaogouli) was the southern branch of Buyeo (Fuyu), so we're in agreement there. However they originated (were reborn) with their new name Goguryeo (Gaogouli) at around the same time Gaogouli (Goguryeo) Prefecture existed in Xuantu Commandery. Also, the Han Dynasty's control over Manchuria and Goguryeo is analogous to the Roman Empire's control over England. The Chinese (Roman) ways were greatly adopted by Goguryeo (ancient England) during their times.--Endroit 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, you need to read the San-kuo Chih, the section on the "Account of the Eastern Barbarians." I think it would help you understand how the Chinese who lived during that time perdiod viewed non-Chinese people. The people who wrote that obviously saw Koguryo people as a blend of the Puyo and Yemek people. Another point is that Chinese will often name their commandary and/or sections of their commandary (you call it prefectures) the name that the native barbarians had. For example: Mississippi, Massachusetts, Oklahoma are not Anglo/English names, but Native American ones that were transliterated in Roman characters. This was also common practice among the Chinese when they set-up commandaries to pacify barbarians. For example, when Tang and Silla Armies conquered Baekje, the Tang called Silla territory "Kyerim Commandary." Kyerim is a play on a native Silla term meaning forest of the cock, although the Chinese ideograms are pronounced Chi-Lin. Another example is when the last King of Koguryo was given administrative control over Liaodong by Tang after the fall of Koguryo. The Tang called Liaodong at this time Joseon or Chaoxian Commandary. WangKon936 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Goguryeo (高句麗 Koguryo/Gaogouli) may have been non-Chinese to begin with, but clearly came under the control of the Chinese Han Dynasty, as a result of Chinese territorial expansion by Emperor Wu of Han (ruled 141 BC to 87 BC). And the Goguryeo were under the jurisdiction of Gaogouli (高句麗 Goguryeo) Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery within the this Chinese empire. Regarding its origin, the Goguryeo was a tribe of Manchurian or Tungusic origin, and the southern branch of Buyeo (夫餘 Puyo/Fuyu), dwelling in Manchuria (today's Northeast China), north of the Yalu River, and outside of the Korean peninsula.--Endroit 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If imperialism can be a justification to include another's history, then should Phillipines be a part of U.S. history? Is Phillinpines an American state? Should India should be a part of British history? Is India a British state? And also, it seems you're somehow thinking that defining something as "Tungusic" somehow excludes Koreans. Let me brush a bit of Korean prehistory for you: The gradual inflitration of bronzes into the Korean Peninsula and their clear derivation from Manchurian and steppe precedents have suggested to many Korean archaeologists that they arrived with an influx of Tungusic-language speakers. The Korean and Japanese langauges today are both generally thought to be related to the Altaic language family rather than the Chinese language family, even though they incorporate many Chinese loanwords. The question is, when were the Altaic elements introduced into the Pen/Insular region? The hypothesis that the proto-Eastern Altaic languages spread into the Korean Peninsula during the early 1st millennium BC is compatible not only with the appearance of bronzes from the Northern Bronze Complex but also with the theoretical location of the Tungusic homeland being somewhere in south-central Siberia. Moreover, the Rong ethnic group, associated with the Upper Xiajiadian culture, is also thought to have consisted of Tungusic speakers. If this language group did become established on the Peninsula during the Korean Bronze Age, it would have been transmitted to the Japanese Islands during the spread of rice agriculture, replacing (with some incorporations) whatever previous languages were spoken there. Gina L. Barnes, The rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. For your information, this Korean bronze age also covers the area from which Goguryeo will spawn. Cydevil 04:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The crucial point here is that the activities of Goguryeo (Gaogouli) before the 1st century AD occurred NORTH of the Yalu River. Is it fair to say Goguryeo was already Korean in the 1st century AD to begin with, even though they were outside of the Korean peninsula? This is the question of "the chicken or the egg".... Which came first, Korea or Goguryeo? Were the Goguryeo born as Koreans? Or did they become Korean later? As an analogy, let me ask you this... Were the Angles English before they crossed the North Sea from Angeln into England? Or were they just Germanic (Manchurian or Tungusic)?--Endroit 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, I'm not interested in your original interpretations. The fact of the matter is, the very sources that yourself have cited regard Goguryeo as a "Korean" kingdom. Goguryeo and "Korea" is very closely interlocked to eachother - if "Korea" is a peninsular entity, so is Goguryeo. If Goguryeo is a peninsular entity, so is "Korea". As you're so insistent on the Manchurians, for your information, Goguryeo and proto-Manchus were regarded as seperate entities by contemporary peoples. Cydevil 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple, Goguryeo (Koguryo/Gaogouli) was greatly transformed in the 3rd century according to Barnes & Gardiner. Barnes & Gardiner clearly describe Goguryeo as a "Chinese border state" before this transformation took place. And the "Korean kingdom" description applies strictly AFTER this transformation. Why hide this information, Cydevil? Here's the source:

• "Gardiner (1964:428) has characterized the late 3rd century as one in which Koguryo was transformed: 'from a Chinese border state, existing mainly by the plunder of the Chinese outposts in the north-east, to a kingdom centred in Korea proper, in which the formerly independent tribal communities of the ... Wo-chu [K. Okcho] and others had been merged.'" p. 24, State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, Published 2001 Routledge, ISBN 0700713239

Also, like I said, Goguryeo in the early years is analogous to Angeln. Early Goguryeo (Angeln) were not yet Korean (English).--Endroit 07:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, Goguryeo is closely interlocked with the concept of "Korea". Korea, back then, was under Chinese occupation, as was Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla. If you wish to put such a statement in the article, you should also provide the proper context of Chinese imperialism of the times and its influence on Korean state formation. In fact, information on state formation is already included in Three kingdoms of Korea. Also, Wangkon has pointed out that distinction has been made that Goguryeo was a client state, not a part of Han Dynasty. He has made some good points in this regard, so why don't you answer to him. Also, I've provided sources from Barnes which is directly relevant to your quotation. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. Cydevil 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. Just put both concepts into the article... the "concept of China" under the Han Dynasty prior to the 3rd century, followed by the "concept of Korea" within the Three kingdoms of Korea, in chronological order, like Barnes does. They're not mutually exclusive concepts. And there's no need to hide anything, is there?--Endroit 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are different concepts. By Barne's archaeological perspective, Goguryeo arose in late 3rd century. Don't distort a scholar's honest work for your zealous anti-Korea crusade. Three Kingdoms of Korea already addresses this archaeological state-formation perspective, so why don't you go on editing there. Cydevil 10:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're denying that Goguryeo existed prior to the 3rd century? Provide your source for "Goguryeo arose in the late 3rd century" complete with the page number. I don't see it in Barnes' book.--Endroit 10:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Goguryeo didn't exist prior to 3rd century. However, Barnes takes a strictly archaeological perpsective on this, and I was quoting her work to prove the point that Barnes is yet another scholar who shares the general consensus that Goguryeo is a Korean kingdom. As for her chronology of Goguryeo state, I've already cited her works that included such, and you questioning on this obviously means that you are not reading my cited quotataions. The Pen/Insular polities are secondary states, which - by definition - arise in situations of contact with already extant and operating states. Thus, they have at their disposal ready-made models for polity administration and the means to create and maintain elite status through interaction with the 'higher court', as it may be called. Nevertheless, the Pen/Insular polities that arose in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were neither mere extensions of Wei Dynasty power through Lelang nor copycat borrowings of the dynastic system. They arose in a power vacuum when Mainland influence in the region was on the wane. Exposure to Mainland empire practices in the preceding centuries had led to a useful familiarity with highly organized political systems. But consider two facts: I) that the strongest states (Yamato, Koguryo and Shilla) developed in areas which had the least contact with the dynastic courts, and 2) that their internal organization was highly variable. This suggests that the hierarchcical systems of these states represent local solutions with their own creative (rather than externally imposed) choice of rulership components. - Gina L. Barnes, The Rise of Civilization in East Asia: The Archaeology of China, Korea and Japan. page 241, under "Mounded Tomb Cultures, Secondary State Formation".

Her view of Koguryo as a Korean entity, even before it becomes established as a state, is further attested in the very book that you cited, which you simply glossed over: The peninsular groups under varying degrees of domination by the Chinese commanderies included the Koguryo in the northern mountains and the Samhan of the southern peninsula. page 19.

Anyways, I've already wasted enough of my time on you. Take this to the mediation, and good luck on your relentless anti-Korea crusade. You're gonna need it on this one. Cydevil 10:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read it, and it says "in the late 3rd and 4th centuries". Your source says nothing about the earlier centuries, does it Cydevil? And I'm not denying that Goguryeo was a Korean peninsular polity since the 3rd century, am I?

I've cited my sources as well, for Goguryeo under Chinese control during the Han Dynasty, PRIOR TO the 3rd century. Your cited description of Goguryeo since the 3rd century does nothing to discredit the information cited in my sources.

What are you trying to deny, Cydevil? Are you trying to censor me somehow?--Endroit 11:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Know that this will be my last reply to you, because I honestly don't have the slightest will to talk sense into a hell-bent anti-Korea crusader. Gina Barnes is an archaeologist who sees state-formation in Korea as having taken place in late 3rd ~ 4th centuries. There are also different opinions on this by other experts, but this is her view anyways. As far as Gina Barnes's view is concerned, there was no such thing as a "Goguryeo state" prior to late 3rd century. Prior to that, there is the Han Commanderies. Prior to that, there is Gojoseon. Wangkon already told you about this, but obviously you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith. You're just hell-bent on making Goguryeo into something "Chinese", taking whatever POV that is against Korea. Also, by the way, prior to statehood, you can see that Gina Barnes clearly regards Goguryeo as a peninsular group that engaged in similar interactions with Han Commanderies as other peninsular groups, such as Samhan. I agree with Wangkon that there is no problem with including the claim that Goguryeo was under Xuantu Commandery's dominion, but proper historical context that he mentioned should also be provided lest readers are misguided to think Goguryeo was "Chinese", which is precisely your POV intentions. Cydevil 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil, so you've obviously misinterpreted Barnes, in violation of WP:ATT. On page 20 of State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives By Gina Lee Barnes, Published 2001 Routledge, ISBN 0700713239, Barnes said:

• The polity of Koguryo developed among the peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif during the first few centuries after Han China established its commanderies on the peninsula.
  (My interpretation: Han Dynasty controlled "the peninsula" while the Goguryeo (Koguryo) state grew in Manchuria).

And on page 22, Barnes says:

• During the earliest stage between 75BC and AD12, the Koguryo are known only as a branch of the Fuyu peoples of the northern Manchurian Basin (K. Puyo) (cf. Ikeuchi 1932; Lee K.B. 1963). The Koguryo branch was under the administration of the Kaogouli (K. Koguryo) prefecture of the Xuantu commandery in southeastern Manchuria (Gardiner 1979). It is not known whether the prefecture took its name from the people, or whether the people came to be known by the place name of the prefecture. Although the Koguryo had a leader who was titled "Marquis" (C. hou) (Gardiner 1964: 101) they do not appear to have comprised a territorial polity in their homeland, the Hun river drainage. Gardiner sees them as mere "clients of the Han empire who were recruited to fight in the border conflicts against the steppe nomads. In AD12 the Koguryo rebelled against the Han and in 32/33 sent an embassy to the Han court under a chieftain" who styled himself "king for the first time" (Gardiner 1979: 67). Han W.K. attributes much more power to Koguryo in this first stage than does Gardiner: he sees Koguryo as the agents of the fall of an earlier "Chinese colony" in the area in 128BC and also states that Koguryo insurgency was responsible for the collapse of the original Xuantu commandery in 75BC (1970: 38-9).
• The second stage of Koguryo development (AD 12 - 207) covers the period after they established themselves independently of Han China in the Hun river drainage. They were reportedly unable to eke out a satisfactory living in the steep mountains and thus resorted to raids on surrounding tribes and lowland settlements (Sangouzhi, quoted in Gardiner 1964: 162). Some scholars postulate that by the mid-1st century AD the Koguryo may have advanced from periodic raiding to demanding regular tribute from their peninsular neighbors, thus dominating them politically and economically. Tribute is said to have been collected by "tribal nobles of [Koguryo] families [that] were stationed amongst the ... Okjo communities of northeastern Korea" (ibid.: 172). Koguryo attacked the Chinese commanderies of Xuantu and Liaodong in AD 105-6, 121, and 167-9, although it also sent tribute to the Chinese court in 109. Sohn et al. treat Koguryo as a coherent power from AD 12 when, they state, it attacked Han China; and the raiding activities of AD 47 they portray as Koguryo having again "attacked Han and advanced deep into mainland China to occupy Peking" (1970: 38-9).
• The third stage (AD 207-45) begins with the removal of the Koguryo capital from the Hun river valley to the Yalu river valley near Mt. Wandu (K. Hwando) after retaliatory attacks by the Liaodong commandery. Their stone-walled capital city in the Donggou region of China's Jilin province has tentatively been identified by Japanese archaeologists near the modern town of Jian (Sekino et al. 1929).
  ... and so on.

I submit the above as an NPOV source regarding the early history of Goguryeo.

When Barnes says Goguryeo (Koguryo) was a "peninsular state", she means it was a "peninsular state" of Manchurian origin.

Can anybody else find sources which actually say that Goguryeo (Koguryo) originated in the Korean peninsula?--Endroit 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that Endroit's interpretation is fallacious and misleading. She makes no clear distinction between the Pen/Insular region and Manchuria, and also, on page 19(his quotation actually came from page 20, not 19), she refers to Goguryeo as a peninsular group contemporary with Samhan. Samhan is an entity that existed during Proto-Three Kingdoms of Korea, thus she's referring to Goguryeo prior to 300CE as a peninsular group. I submit the following as evidence as to Gina Barnes's interpretation:

The peninsular groups under varying degrees of domination by the Chinese commanderies included the Koguryo in the northern mountains and the Samhan of the southern peninsula. page 19, same book as Endroit's. Cydevil 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the page number already, it's page 20, where Barnes says "The polity of Koguryo developed among the peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif during the first few centuries after Han China established its commanderies on the peninsula." Sorry for any confusion.

Cydevil, so you're saying that there is no distinction between "Peninsular region" and "Manchuria"? And that's what Barnes is saying? So what, does Manchuria "belong" to Korea now? Yeah, right. Perhaps there is a nationalist agenda on your part, Cydevil? That's just original research on your part, because those are just your words, not Barnes'.

Perhaps we should put a disclaimer in the article, to clarify your Korean-POV feelings, and say that Koreans consider Ji'an and other areas in Manchuria previously belonging to Goguryeo, as rightfully belonging to Korea now.--Endroit 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your apparent lack of ability to distinguish between history and modern politics is a good indicator of your intellectual capacity. Gina Barnes includes "Manchuria" into the concept "Pen/Insular region" or "Peninsular" or "Korean", as she uses those terms to define Goguryeo after 300 CE, when it held much territory in Manchruia. Also, regarding the following quote: "The polity of Koguryo developed among the peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif during the first few centuries after Han China established its commanderies on the peninsula." She cites this from none other than the Korean scholar Rhee Song-nai, who specializes in ancient Korean history. Thus, should Endroit's claim on Goguryeo's "Manchurian origin" be included in the aritcle, it should be coherent with secondary sources that it is based upon. Cydevil 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't understand me, I'll repeat it. I'm talking about the earlier history of Goguryeo. Just tell it like they do in the source: "Goguryeo was a branch of the Buyeo people, who served the Chinese Han Dynasty until 12AD, under the Gaogouli Prefecture of the Xuantu Commandery." And: "The Hun River Drainage in Manchuria was their home until 207AD." The readers can determine if that means "Peninsular" or not... there's no need to explicitly mention it ("Peninsular") or deny it.--Endroit 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but under the condition that it's coherent with the historical/archaeological context and analysis provided by secondary sources that your claims are based upon. And of course, the way you've written it doesn't satify this condition. This is something that should be worked out later on when other editors, such as Wangkon, can focus on this issue. Cydevil 03:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be based on Gardiner as the secondary source, and also the Records of Three Kingdoms as a primary source. I understand that archaeological evidence is virtually nil for it, and so this part of Guguryeo history is often discredited. It may help to put that into perspective.--Endroit 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Endroit, Rhee, whom Barnes cited, is a professional archaeologist who has written much on the archaeological aspects of ancient Korea. Cydevil 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhee may be one of them, but there's no reason to omit Gardiner and the Records of Three Kingdoms.--Endroit 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to address the entire challenge that CPOV editors brought w/ the Northeast Project assertions, which spills over into the History of Goguryeo. Remember. Those who are silent agree. Uncontested arguments, until they are contested, remain 100% applicable. (Wikimachine 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

It's neither CPOV nor KPOV. The theory of Xuantu Commandery existed prior to the Northeast Project to begin with.--Endroit 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not simply attacking Northeast Project. (Wikimachine 17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Yes, you did.--Endroit 17:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned this before. Lets start at Goguryeo's founding. It is obviously Jumong who founded Goguryeo and Jumong was originally from Buyeo. Buyeo is definitely a Korean state, part of Korean history. So that makes Jumong Korean and his country Goguryeo undoubtly Korean. Good friend100 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address this point of mine, made earlier:

Good friend100, if i were you, I would steer clear of the argument of "Jumong was from Buyeo; therefore, the kingdom he founded must be Korean and not Chinese." It has a couple logical problems:

1. It presupposes that Buyeo was 1) Korean and 2) not Chinese, which, unlike the situation with Goguryeo, is not strongly supported with archaeological and documentary evidence. It is also contrary to how Buyeo (granted, two centuries later) conducted its relations with the Murongs (who were ethnically Xianbei but culturally much more Han than Buyeo) of Former Yan, and how the Murongs acted toward it after capturing its capital, compared to how the Murongs acted after capturing Goguryeo's capital.
2. But let's say that your presupposition is right that Buyeo was Korean and not Chinese. For you to argue "Jumong was from a Korean kingdom, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Goguryeo, was a Korean state and not Chinese" would logically require you to argue "Wei Man was from a Chinese state, and therefore the kingdom he founded, Wiman Joseon, was a Chinese state and not Korean." I don't think you want to go down that road. (Of course, you can then take the (untenable) position that Yan was a Korean state, but that's up to you.)

--Nlu (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to argue this, Good friend100. This is just simply CPOV that questions the validity of a "truth" (from KPOV) that Buyeo was Korean to begin with. As I posted above, all we need to argue is whether or not even such contestation belongs here. (Wikimachine 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

• • I agree. Good friend100's arguement about Jumong coming from Puyo and that Puyo is definately a Korean kingdom is untenuable, has logical problems and doesn't help the cause. I'd refrain from using it. WangKon936 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Xuantu, as one of Four Commanderies of Han, is Han's territory, Han get it from "Wei man", a Chinese Yan general, "Wei man" build the kingdom from "Jizi" another Chinese. You can mention about Tangun but he is a half-man,half-god. So do not try to use these as an evidence, it will turn against you.--Yeahsoo 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Good friend100 00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)