Talk:Gungnae

Name

Both names are wrong. It is Guk Nae Sung. Orthodoxy 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, stop your POV attempts - we already had RFC on why Goguryeo is not Chinese. (Wikimachine 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Why did you call my name in the front of Orthodoxy (a Korean native speaker I believe) ? This kind of unnecessary name reference is rude and shows that you have trouble in mind. And where does this RFC on "Goguryeo is Chinese" stuff come from? Who told you that you can put a modern label on a controversial historical entity? --Jiejunkong 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was no RfC which covered Guknae Seong/Guonei City. Which RfC are you talking about? I know that the RfM for Goguryeo never went as far as discussing city names north of the Yalu River.--Endroit 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Guknae Seong? Shouldn't it be "Gungnae-seong" or "Gungnaeseong"?

According to South Korea's revised romanization rule, it must be one of Gungnae Seong, Gungnae-seong, or Gungnaeseong. (I know, I hate how it looks, but a rule is a rule...) As for me, I prefer it in all one single word. See, for example, Wiryeseong.

Well, if anybody wants to pursue a pinyin name, I don't want to make a fight... (I don't like it, and I think it's strange to use pinyin name for a country which Chinese people considered alien for millenia, but I hate naming wars even more.) But if we are to use a Korean name, at least let's get it right. Yongjik 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Han Chinese considered Jurchens and Tanguts as aliens for millenia. But right now in nearly all Chinese and English textbooks, Song Dynasty, Jurchen Jin Dynasty and Western Xia Dynasty are considered as a trio of Chinese Dynasties around 12th and 13th centuries. --Jiejunkong 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I mentioned this is due to the relation between Mohe and Goguryeo (assuming the relation between Mohe and Jurchen is well-known).--Jiejunkong 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As nobody opposed, I moved the article from "Guknae Seong" to "Gungnae-seong". Yongjik 08:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Move

(cur | prev) 03:16, 16 June 2017‎ Zanhe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,438 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Zanhe moved page Talk:Gungnae City to Talk:Guonei City: Official name as inscribed on UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites, also per move discussion for Wandu vs. Hwando) (undo | thank)

Requested move 13 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. After 27 days and two relistings (long enough for three relistings), it is time to close this debate, and consensus is to support this proposal. Happy New Year to All! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Guonei → Gungnae – Here, I will demonstrate through Google Books search and Google Scholars search that Gungnae and Kungnae, the Korean terms, not Guonei, the Chinese term, are the commonly used term in reliable sources, thereby justifying this move.

Google Books search, Gungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 110 results[1]

Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Gungnae" -wikipedia, 20 results[2]

Google Books search, Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 1490 results[3]

Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Kungnae" -wikipedia, 31 results[4]

Google Books search, Guonei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 447 results[5]

Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Guonei" -wikipedia, 25 results[6]

The Korean term, Gungnae, results in 130 hits. Kungnae, an alternative romanization of the same Korean term, results in 1,521 hits. By comparison, the Chinese term, Guonei, results in 472 hits, which is outnumbered by Kungnae by 1,049 hits. Here, Kungnae is clearly the most commonly used name. However, according to Korean naming convention, Gungnae should be used. Since Gungnae is clearly a historical term, its use should be limited to historical uses. The Chinese term "Guonei" can be used for modern Chinese sites and places. Sacker23 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Relist comment. Editors who participate in Wikiprojects for China, Korea, Archaeology, World Heritage Sites and Military history have been notified.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, revert June move - the UNESCO list obviously have the Chinese pronunciation as the site is now in China. But history books have the Korean pronunciation. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, evidence shows Gungnae is the more appropriate name. Sacker23 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Sacker23 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
• Oppose for the following reasons:

1. This issue was settled a decade ago with near unanimous support for using Chinese spelling for sites in China (see Talk:Wandu#Requested move).

2. WP:NEUTRAL: given the Goguryeo controversies and numerous past discussions on Talk:Goguryeo, the neutral consensus solution is to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, and Korean spelling for those in North Korea, which is the approach taken by UNESCO.

3. The proposer's common name claim does not hold water. He uses multiple variant spellings for Korean, but only one variant for Chinese. If you add more Chinese variants, you'd get 7,000 results for Kuo-nei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli OR Kao-kou-li -wikipedia, for example.

-Zanhe (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment Please provide a link where a consensus was reached at Talk:Goguryeo to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, or to accept UNESCO names.

• The consensus was reached here: Endroit proposed that "following WP:NPOV guidelines, Goguryeo (Koguryo) cities north of the Yalu River should use Chinese transliteration, and south, Korean". It received unanimous support save for one (now blocked) user. -Zanhe (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is not Talk:Goguryeo. Goguryeo uses Korean terms, such as Gungnae and Hwando. The requested move on Talk:Wandu was based on misinformation, that UNESCO is neutral. I have presented evidence here that UNESCO is not neutral, and also new evidence that use of the term Guonei violates WP:NCGN rule of using common names. Sacker23 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. Now you're squabbling over where consensus was reached? Well, if you insist on Talk:Goguryeo, note that Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll unanimously supports using both Korean and Chinese for that article. However, there are a bunch of dedicated POV pushers who keep violating the consensus and edit warring, which is why the article is now locked. And accusing UNESCO as being non-neutral only proves your own bias. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Don't leave out what the poll was about. Zanhe conveniently left out what the poll was actually about.Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Infobox_name_straw_poll The poll was about names in Goguryeo's infobox, not the names of historic cities of Goguryeo. And UNESCO is indeed not very neutral, because of the nomination and registration process, where the host country makes the nomination report. I have presented evidence in this discussion, China's nomination report of this UNESCO site, which is full of Chinese bias. Also, this is an example of UNESCO using the Korean term Gungnae, just showing how inconsistent UNESCO can be depending on which country makes the nomination report.Sacker23 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• For a new user, you're really good at Wikilawyering. First you argue about the venue where the neutrality consensus was reached, now you argue over the letter of another consensus, and then you keep insisting UNESCO is biased. Yes, the Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll consensus is about the infobox, but the Talk:Wandu#Requested_move consensus is specifically about article names such as this. And the spirit of both consensuses is clear: Wikipedia is not a place to push one's bias, and will take a strictly neutral stand in controversial issues such as this. And your endless tendentious arguments clearly prove that your sole purpose here to push your POV. -Zanhe (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• At present, 18 tumuli/tumuli groups located in 12 different countries have been designated as World Heritage Sites. However, it is difficult to observe, amongst these examples, the degree of clustered distribution that characterizes the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli. One World Heritage Site that demonstrates a similar degree of tomb clustering is the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom, located in Ji’an, China. However, in the case of this site, which comprises several tomb clusters, the outstanding feature is each individual tomb, rather than the clustered group. In addition, the area in which the tomb clusters are distributed also contains non-burial architecture, such as the site of Gungnae Fortress. Therefore, unlike in the case of the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli, it is not clearly evident whether the area in which the tomb clusters were located was regarded as a sacred place or the place of the afterlife.[7] Sacker23 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why are you citing this South Korean report to muddy the waters? Don't you even know the difference between an approved World Heritage Site such as Guonei/Wandu vs. a tentative site like the one above? UNESCO explicitly disclaims "the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by the States Parties" on their Tentative Lists page, and your quote above reflects solely the position of the South Korean government. -Zanhe (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Zanhe's search, which yields 552 hits, not 7000 hits, is invalid as it uses a hyphen, which results in an inflated number of hits. Without a hyphen, using Kuonei, search result yields 97 hits.[8] Using a hyphen on Kungnae, as Kung-nae, results in 2,380 hits.[9] Therefore, Zanhe's argument is based on a technical glitch and evidences still show that the Korean term Kungnae is the most common name. Sacker23 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• There was no technical glitch. Google books does return 7,000+ results on my computer, and it's well known that Google returns vary widely depending on one's location. That further shows that your original argument for common name based on the difference of a few dozen results is untenable. Also, the hyphen is required for the older Wade-Giles standard of Chinese romanization, which is why I used it. That's not the case for Korean romanizations. -Zanhe (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, using a hyphen inflates results, as I have demonstrated with Kung-nae. If you check the search term I have used, search results on Kuonei without the hyphen still yields results with reliable sources using Kuo-nei. Also, you can actually check the results of the term Kuo-nei, you can see that it yields hits like "Kuo" and "rennei," which proves hyphenated terms yields non-relevant hits. Sacker23 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

These are some example of results from Zanhe's search using hyphens, with hits in bold.

• Two Ch'in Administrators do likewise: Ho-nei and Li-yang # *# (Honan, NW of Chun hsien).” 355. ll Chtin commissions Mu-jung K'o to attack Tuan Lung #4. #, *7 at Kuang-ku } R (Shantung, 8 li NW of I-tu hsien). 355. 12 The King of Koguryo Chao 4| (Ku-kuo-yüan wang) l6. Ho-nei and Li-yang
• Kobun school, 215 Koguryo, 14, 20 Kojimachiku, Nagatacho, 118 Kojong, 143, 288 nl61 Komatsu Kiyokado, 291 n83 Komura Jutaro, 197; early career of, 227-228; as Charge d' Affaires in Peking legation, 228 Konoe Atsumaro, 101, ... 207 Kuan-ti temple, 117 Kuang fang-yen kuan, 96 Kuang-hsii, Emperor, 82, 210 Kumsong, 72 Kung, Prince, 76, 80-81; understanding of international law, 67 Kung Chao-yuan, 65, 275 n31 Kuo Sung-t'ao
• Several references in the stele inscription indicate that the patron, General Hsiin, was originally from either Paekche or Koguryo.7 The inscription states that he was of Korean ... T'ang, fighting barbarians and pacifying the land. Also, it may be noted that the writer of the General Hsiin stele inscription, Kuo Ch'ien- kuang, seems to be well versed not only in Buddhist doctrine but also in the Chinese classics, considering the references in the inscription to the Tso chuan and other texts.
• The legend of the King Tung-ming, the founder of Fu-yu-kuo. Memoirs of the Research Department of Toyo Bunko 10: ... Koguryo instruments in Tomb no. 1 at Ch'ang-ch'uan, Manchuria. Musica Asiatica 6: ... Reflections of the fall of Silla. Korea Journal 15.5: 54-62. Volkov, S.V. 1987. Chinovnichestvo i aristokratiia v rannei istorii Korei.
• Kim Pusik k'o-sheng chii Koguryo chan'ol yuch'wi ... Kuang-hsin IsRifi Kuang-hua jtft Kuei-lin tl;:l4- Kuei-te £j7 fg K'un-Iii ch'eng kung k'ung-lu Kung-shui Kung-sun Tu kung-te-shih-ssu K'ung Yen-chou kuo chu kuo-hsiang Kuo-hsin shih

This proves Zanhe's search is not reliable and my evidence that Kungnae is the common name is still valid. Sacker23 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This proves exactly my point, that complex Google searches that you presented are not reliable evidence because they can be easily manipulated. Let's look at your Google Books search for Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia with 1490 results [10]. Of the "1490 results", click on page 6 and almost none of the results are about Guonei/Kungnae, and after page 10 every single page is empty. So the "1490 results" are in reality no more than 50. -Zanhe (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Same restrictions apply to all searches. This still does not change the fact that Kungnae is the most common name used in reliable sources. Sacker23 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal - the nominator has made two simultaneous move requests regarding the same issue (as well as two RFCs). It's tiring to duplicate essentially the same arguments here and at Talk:Wandu. I propose that this request be closed and merged into Talk:Wandu#Requested move 13 December 2017. -Zanhe (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this. The issue is the same, which is that these articles do not use the common name and UNESCO is not neutral, but the presented evidences on common names are not identical. Sacker23 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Moved to Kungnaesong or Gungnaeseong; Korean and Chinese name of this region is include word "城" (Seong or Sŏng in Korean language), like Gungnaeseong in RR or Kungnaesŏng (or Kungnaesong in North Korea) in MR (국내성, 國內城; lit. Castle in the country). --Garam (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Gungnae per nom. Sawol (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Gungnae is the correct term. Zanhe has been spotted in many Sinocentrism-related articles. The individual is continueously changing all the names of the sites that does not use Mandarin into Mandarin names. This is completely incorrect in every level. Wandrative (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC on Move Request

Should the page name moved from Guonei to Gungnae? Please help reach a consensus on the request to move. Sacker23 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sacker23: This is a WP:RM matter, no need to hold a WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)