Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 26 October 2007

China Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Korea Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Contents from "Goguryeo-China war is imprecise, where is Silla?" to the 1st "Vote to rename the current title" section are moved from Talk:Goguryeo-Sui wars as the talk page was improperly managed at the time of creating "Goguryeo-China wars".

"Goguryeo-China war" is imprecise, where is Silla?

Silla and Tang Dynasty were on the same side. Silla is arguably more connected to modern Korea than Goguryeo. Jurchens were from Goguryeo, but had weaker connection with Silla.--Jiejunkong 06:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Just figured out some guy created "Goguryeo-China wars" item, but didn't change the corresponding talk page. A quite bad decision.--Jiejunkong 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding POV edits on Goguryeo related articles and use only reputable sources that we know are not heavily biased. And both Goguryeo and Silla are connected to Korean history. Silla was Goguryeo's enemy mainly in the Silla-Tang invasion of Goguryeo.

Pertinent discussion is being held at Talk:Goguryeo Cydevil38 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments I think the action to create a Goguryeo-China Wars from Goguryeo-Sui Wars, while not moving the talk page and obfuscating this talk page we are writing on here, is not only malicious, but also lazy. Something is very wrong here.--Jiejunkong 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jiejunkong, this move is malicious and biased. A term such as "Goguryeo-China Wars" imply immediately that Goguryeo is not of China, which is far from the consensus. --Naus 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong there, the mover probably didn't move the talk page by mistake. It doesn't mean that the person is "lazy". Good friend100 14:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed

The name of article Goguryeo-China wars implyed that Goguryeo is not of China,which was controversial.The Goguryeo is seen by many as chinese kindom,how can a chinese kindom to be equal with China?The title may further give others impression Goguryeo isn't of China.--Ksyrie 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether Goguryeo is to be historically viewed as "Chinese" or not -- and I'd doubt that it should -- it clearly would not have been viewed as Chinese at that time. The situation would be analogous to, I think, Tuyuhun; its descendants are now clearly part of the Chinese population, and it's clearly part of Chinese history, but it was not viewed as Chinese at that time. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The name of this article "Goguryeo-China wars" has extreme pro-Korean POV. --128.135.36.144 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• How about Wars of Goguryeo Military history of Goguryeo, to include wars with both Chinese and Korean polities? -- Visviva 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That is much better than the current Korean ultranationalist crap. --Naus 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The name "Military history of Goguryeo" is neutral at appearance, so I conditionally support the move if the article's contents match its name. If the move is approved, please remember to open a new Talk: page and move these related talks there.--Jiejunkong 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

An analogy for some Korean ultranationalists: The tributory system between Goguryeo and various Central Plain Dynasties does not say much about the actual relation between Goguryeo's history and China's history (as many other non-Chinese polities, e.g., Yamato Japan, followed the same tributory system). Likewise, the wars between Goguryeo and various Central Plain Dynasties do not say much about the actual relation between Goguryeo's history and China's history. For example, the Former Yan Dynasty was founded by (Murong) Xianbei people who attacked Han Chinese. When Goguryeo was at its peak time, the so-called "China" in your twisted figure is the Northern Wei dynasty, which was again founded by (Tuoba) Xianbei people who attacked Han Chinese. Then what are you implying from your writings? Were Goguryeo and Han Chinese people allies? This is either a joke or a byproduct of your improper writings.--Jiejunkong 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support "Military history of Goguryeo" — Sounds correct, and is a uniquely identifying name. (War history of Goguryeo is acceptable as well.) Goguryeo-China Wars is obviously a misnomer, and needs to be changed.--Endroit 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Split of the controversial article "Goguryeo-China Wars"

According to some neutral users who participated in the first deletion of "Goguryeo-China Wars" discussion, {{split}} is more proper.--03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree.--Ksyrie 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask why this not taking place at Goguryeo-China Wars. Good friend100 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Good friend100 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison: Goguryeo-Korea war

For those people who support the name "Goguryeo-China wars", by your exact logic the article "Goguryeo-Korea wars" should be created. Goguryeo-Silla war obviously belongs to the proposed article. Goguryeo-Baekje war, for example, the war fought by King Geunchogo against Goguryeo, obviously also belongs to the proposed article. Note that this is based exactly on the same logic of yours.--Jiejunkong 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't what your talking about. Goguryeo fought Baekje in a major war? Good friend100 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't you spend some time to read some wiki articles in my message, for example, King Geunchogo? "In 369, Baekje was invaded by Goguryeo, but counterattacked in force (Battle of Chiyang). In the year 371, the Baekje army of 30,000, led by Crown Prince Geungusu, took the fortress of Pyongyang and killed Gogugwon of Goguryeo." If the king of Goguryeo is killed, then why you say this is not a major war, or you didn't know this before you spoke?--Jiejunkong 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a general consensus among neutral scholars(NPOV) that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Korea", while Goguryeo's wars with "China" is often covered as a subject important to Goguryeo's history as well as that of Korea in general. Cydevil38 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus you mentioned is also applied to Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group. There is a general consensus among neutral scholars(NPOV) that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group". Whether Goguryeo is exclusively of Korean history is being disputed in the meditation on the article Goguryeo. And the general consensus is that the exclusiveness isn't true. Due to the disputation and meditation, you should not make the assumption that Goguryeo is purely Korean here. If Goguryeo-China wars is a valid title, then Goguryeo-Korea wars is also valid.--Jiejunkong 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please prove that consensus. That Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group", or any "Chinese ethnic minority group" for that matter. Cydevil38 01:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page of Goguryeo. Also because you mentioned the word "consensus" at first, I think you should at first prove the non-existing consensus that Goguryeo is exclusively Korean. --Jiejunkong 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything oon the talk page of Goguryeo that attests your assumption on the consensus among NPOV scholars that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group", or any "Chinese ethnic minority group" for that matter. And about the general consensus that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom:

• "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." (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. (Britannica)
• "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc." (Encarta)
• "Chinese culture filtered into the indigenous Korean kingdoms of Koguryŏ (Goguryeo), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)." (Encarta)
• "The earliest extant example of landscape painting in Korea is found in a Koguryô tomb" (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" (Columbia Encyclopedia)

More evidence here.

Cydevil38 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is fine with me to say that Korea is of Goguryeo inheritance, or anything equivalent. These sources never said Goguryeo is exclusively Korean, and some sources you listed here are non-professional ones that better be replaced by authoritative and professional ones. If you cannot deny (1) the significant Mohe presence in Northern Goguryeo and Balhae, (2) the fact Balhae is a descendant of Goguryeo, and (3) the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line, then you have no right to deny the consensus.--Jiejunkong 01:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, first, Mohe presense in Goguryeo was not that significant. They were an ethnic minority in Goguryeo, like the ethnic-Koreans in China today or Chinese Americans in the United States. True, they were an ethnic minority in the kingdom nonetheless, and the Mohe and their descendents, the Jurchens and Manchus, continued to migrate to Korea and play some role in the flow of Korean history as ethnic minorities. For this reason, many Koreans feel a special kinship to the Manchus, though such a feeling many not necessarily be reciprocated. Anyways, it's rather unfeasible to describe Mohe of the times as "Chinese" or "Chinese ethnic minority group", and use the fact that there was an ethnic minority of Mohe in Goguryeo as a basis to claim that Goguryeo was "Chinese" or even "Manchurian"(though, in a geographic sense, Goguryeo can partially be considered Manchurian). Even today, the Manchus are culturally distinct from the Han Chinese, though many of them are getting assimilated, losing their cultural identity as a Manchu. No doubt, the majority of Manchus today are Chinese, but to characterize their past as "Chinese" would be to undermine their unique historical and cultural heritage. If China really wants to become a "multi-ethnic state" that can be appreciated by others, it really needs to appreciate the unique history and culture of those ethnicities, rather than outright saying they're "Chinese" in all aspects, including their history. Cydevil38 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are talking about the prototypes like Mohe, Jurchen were not Chinese at that time. And I have to tell you that prototypes like Silla, Baekje were also not Korean at that time. Please put the correct word "inheritance" in the sentences, as I did. Without the word, your sentences and rebuttals do not make much sense. Again, don't proclaim dubious messages such as 'this one is Korean', 'that one is Chinese', because the term "Korea" and "China" didn't exist at the time discussed (before year 1000). All you can talk about is the inheritance line.--Jiejunkong 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also you should stop commenting on Manchu's status amongst Chinese. User:Naus said he is partially Manchu and fully Chinese, and I know lots of Manchu friends who take the same stand. There is no ethnic issue between Manchu and other Chinese ethnic groups. You need to back off on this point.--Jiejunkong 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern concepts of nation, such as "Korea" or "China", is often used in historical interpretations of cultural continuities to help understanding of readers. While Goguryeo was strongly embedded into the "Korean" cultural continuity of the time, as well as historiography of today, the Mohe and Jurchen were not. These people, at the time, were very different from the Chinese, so defining them as "Chinese" would be undermining their unique past and culture. I don't see anything wrong with claiming that Manchus in China today are "Chinese" or that entities strongly embedded into the Chinese cultural continuity, such as Han Dynasty, are "Chinese", but to project "Chinese-ness" to the ancient past on very different and unique ethnicities(or nationalities), such as Manchus, Koreans and Mongolians, finds little acceptance outside of China, and at least for Koreans and Mongolians, Chinese claims on their unique past and culture is very infuriating and offensive. Cydevil38 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Who defines Mohe-Jurchen as "Chinese"? Not me. Where is the correct word "inheritance" in your message? I see none. Who messed up with the timeline? Not me. As to Mongolian issues, I am on the side of excluding Mongolian history from Chinese history before year 1644 (My personal opinion is that the Mongolian's convergence into Chinese history started from Manchu's Qing Dynasty due to Manchu-Mongolian alliance after Ligdan Khan's death, not from Han Chinese), so stop drawing this controversial issue into this discussion because it is irrelevant.--Jiejunkong 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its just a Korean kingdom that was heavily influenced by Chinese dynasties. Is that a good compromise? Good friend100 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions please. The Northern Goguryeo was of significant Mohe presence, which is also consistent with Balhae's location and population constituent. If you want to define Silla and Baekje as Korean, fine with me but there are some still factual errors because you omitted the correct word "inheritance" (The word Korea didn't exist at Silla time, it's delayed to Goryeo time); If you want to define Mohe people as Korean, fine with me but you also need to say the word "inheritance", and more importantly, proclaim that in your definition Chinese and Korean are not mutually exclusive.--Jiejunkong 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, Mohe's contemporary presense, along with other Tungusic tribes, from Goguryeo's geographic standpoint was rather to the east, not the north. As far as I know, they were primarily distributed along the east of Northeast Asia, in eastern Manchuria, Russian Far East, and northeastern Korea. Proto-Koreans were primarily distributed along the northwestern coasts of the Korean peninsula and southwestern Manchuria, with continuous migrations towards the south eventually dominating the entire Korean peninsula. And I definitely don't think the Mohes were "Korean" - proto-Koreans and proto-Manchus were culturally distinct far before the founding of Goguryeo. Cydevil38 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mohe scattered mostly around the area of Changbai Mountains and northward, which is geographically Northern Goguryeo (you call it Northeastern is also correct, but what you said "not the north" is wrong. Northeast is also north, isn't it? Or do we have some language problem here?). What you said here may help you to classify Goguryeo as "Korean", but also force you to classify Balhae as non-Korean because Mohe is not a minority in Balhae. I am not sure where this discussion goes if this kind of "classification" goes on. My remark is that we have to be careful about the dubious statements "Historical entity A is Korean" "Historical entity B is Chinese", because what you can figure out is the inheritance line, not this kind of dubious conclusions thrown upon other users' face.--Jiejunkong 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference in Balhae however, is that Koreans, even though an ethnic minority in the kingdom, took a much more prominent role in the kingdom than did Manchus in Goguryeo. Nonetheless, I believe Balhae was dominantly Manchurian, and is a turning point in the history of geographic Manchuria, where its main ethnic group shifted from Koreans to various Mongolic and Tungusic semi-sedentary peoples such as Khitans and Jurchens. Cydevil38 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "Koreans, even though an ethnic minority in the (Balhae) kingdom, took a much more prominent role in the kingdom than did Manchus in Goguryeo." It is dubious to call Sumo Mohe as Manchus or Manchurian, which is historically wrong. Instead, a better expression is Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line. Similarly, the concept of Korea didn't exist until Goryeo time. When there are better options available, it is a poor choice to state historical facts in this dubious way.--Jiejunkong 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

reasons to go back to the very original state of article before disputing

The fact that Goguryeo fought Tang and Sui is not "dubious". It does not need a reference. Obvious facts do not need any sources. Don't you agree that it is a fact that Goguryeo fought Chinese dynasties?

As long as the title stays at "Goguryeo-China wars", leave the templates and intro paragraphs alone in terms of naming.

Stop adding "dubious" tags on sentences you don't like. There are not neccessary. One tag at the top of the article is sufficient. More tags simply disrupt the article and make it look messy. Good friend100 01:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But getting rid of this article might be another good idea. (Wikimachine 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

this vote

this vote is not going anywhere.

First, there are too few editors interested in this subject and even fewer editors trying to make a compromise.

Second, there are not enough opinions about this. I dislike third opinion and RfC due to the fact that most admins avoid these subjects because they don't know about them. Its not their fault they don't know, but at least they can help out. I am finding the third opinion and RfC to be of hardly any help.

Third, we are starting all over with the arguing. We can't we come to a compromise. Jiejunkong and Cydevil, stop arguing over whether Goguryeo is only Korean or not, etc. Assault11 has an RfC filed against him because of his disprutive comments and edits, you two are going down the same path. One of the biggest reasons why we can't come to a compromise in minor problems is because of editors like Assault11 who fail to compromise and are stubborn. Good friend100 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am using another example Goguryeo-Korea Wars to show the anachronistic absurdity in this funny title Goguryeo-China Wars. It has too many modern politics POV in it. The actual history is messed up. I don't think this kind of title is proper.--Jiejunkong 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

what a pity for us,we lost too many times and spittles on these controversial subjects,which is both cherished by chinese and korean.So I propose the constructive one,we rename current article into Military history，try to expand it rather than waste our energies.Although it cann't solve the fundamental dispute,we still advance.--Ksyrie 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Goguryeo is the most suitable title but the present article remained Incompleted please add Kwanggaetto campaign as wellWhlee 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So why not add it？We rename it and add more infos to this article.--Ksyrie 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets add it then : the aim of Misplaced Pages consist in adopting a NPOV policy, sharing our knowledge in addtion to that i would give you a nice example for us Category:Wars involving Persia , we can see Greco-Persians wars Marathon, Salamnis,Roman-Persian Wars battle of Carrahe, Byzantine-Sassanid Wars between Heraclius and Khosro, eww... shame on them they forgot tat article Islamic conquest of Persia the battle of Nehavaned in 642Whlee 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is fundamental disagreement about the Goguryeo relating articles,the key is the definition of Chinese and Korean,which Chinese favours all the ancient peoples who had lived in the nowadays China and fostered some offsprings in nowadays China should be considered as Chinese,while the Korean favours Three Kindoms origins who had ever been considered as the citizens of the three countries would only be deemed as Korean.So for whatever the articls about Goguryeo,there will be predicable debates.--Ksyrie 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you therefore considering Koguryeo as an ancient kingdom in the north-east of Asia would not offense anyone.Whlee 16:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make edits as if the article was moved. The title hasn't changed yet, so stop editing until the move is done (if its not moved then don't edit it). Good friend100 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done that to avoid revert edit wars. There is absolutely no reason not to mention Gwangaetto the Great achievement. Right?Whlee 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no reason to rename this article to "Military history of Goguryeo" just because of this trash logic that Goguryeo is a constituent of China and therefore cannot war China - simply b/c the two do not link, and there are so many better options.

I disagree with that argument Goguryeo is a constituent of China and therefore cannot war China Goguryeo is certainly NOT a constituent of China

• Everyone should know better that a country's military history is not defined by its single war with another country.

I agree that the reason why Goguryeo-China wars is inadequate and can be felt by as an "anti-Chinese sentiment" while on the other hand Military history of Goguryeo is a neutral term for instance Gwanggaeto made war against the Khitans both also made war against Yamato.

It's not a neutral term, and there are many more neutral terms - such as Goguryeo-China Wars. I don't understand how it is anti-Chinese. (Wikimachine 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

It seems to be anti-Chinese because Goguryeo-China wars means unoffcially that Goguryeo is exclusively Korean although it is not completely real. And Goguryeo have also made campaign against other kindoms like Yamato (an ancient kingdom on the Japanese archipelago), considering Goguryeo as a Proto-Korean kingdom is according to me the most suitable term.Whlee 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Goguryeo-China War doesn't mean that Goguryeo is exclusively Korean. Nothing in the title implies that. (Wikimachine 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

• Second, the consensus is that Goguryeo is a Korean country. See Britannica, etc. above.

I would remain cautious on that statement : Goguryeo language is not the ancestor of Korean language for instance.

You should be cautious on that statement as well. It is not certain whether Goguryeo language significantly differed from other Korean kingdoms, such as Shilla, and of the very limited corpus of surviving words, cognates have been found with the Korean language. Scholars don't really have a consensus on this. Some say it was a dialect of a proto-Korean language, some say it was a variant of a proto-Korean-Japonic language, some say it was a variant of a proto-Japonic language. Cydevil38 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

According to me the ancestor of Korean language is a "mixture between Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla languages, but with a predominant amount of Silla terms". The only thing i'm sur at 100% is that Goguryeo language has no relationship with Chinese one.Whlee 22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. Nobody here cares about your cautious CPOV theories. When Britannica says no, no. (Wikimachine 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine 고만해라... 저는 한국인 입니다. 한국 문화 및 역사 너무 좋와고. 근대 중국 및 한국 민족주의 미워하구요 ! We are not here to attack anyone personally as you are doing towards me, in addition to that, it is neutral than you are expecting to, you have to put yourself in the history context. Hope that in the future, you will understand that my POV is nether KPOV nor CPOV Whlee 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, see your talk page. (Wikimachine 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

• Third, you cannot use WP:RM to test ethnic neutrality (that is, the CPOV editors are trying to use this naming dispute to overturn the consensus that Goguryeo is a Korean country).
• Fourth, even a constituent state can fight its containing entity. For example, war between Hawaii and U.S. Even then, Goguryeo (even if you were to consider the Chinese tributary system, everyone knows that this didn't mean Chinese control but just diplomatic relations) was a separate country anyways. And it doesn't matter which tribes and people constitute which countries - as long as they're separate countries.
• Fifth, there are so many better options: 1) Get rid of this article & categorize other related articles 2) Remain at this article's title 3) Choose another title similar to this (Wikimachine 05:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Why do you say "Goguryeo is certainly NOT a constituent of China"? Where does your certainty come from? Are you denying the Sumo Mohe's significant presence in Northern Gorguryeo (or more precisely Northeastern Gorguryeo) and the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line? In contrast, Goguryeo is certainly a constituent of Chinese minority group Manchu's history, hence a constituent of China's history (as I don't think you can argue against Manchu's Chinese stance about their own identity decision). What you can argue is whether Goguryeo had more impact on modern Korea's history than modern China's history. For this argument I would answer yes, but it is a different question.--Jiejunkong 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, within the context of Misplaced Pages's naming policy, most reliable sources describe Goguryeo as Korean. Remember that Korean is an ethnicity. You can't have a country fight an ethnicity. The word "Korea" is derived from "Goryeo", but Goryeo never fought Goguryeo. Ok. I see where you're coming from. But still NPOV naming policy prevents you from contesting neutrality through article naming. (Wikimachine 06:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Let's put ourselves in the context (i mean between 300-600 CE) At this period, are we allowed to say that Goguryeo was a constituent of China? I dont think so because if you see the Sui campaign in 612 more than 1 million of men have been defeated by Goguryeo troops , one of the most disatrous campaign of the unfamous Emperor Yang of Sui. I think we have to assimilate Goguryeo kingdom as an Ancient kingdom or a proto-Korean kingdom or an altaic kingdom and consider it as an independent kingdom of the Northeast of Asia. Whlee 22:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You have used the term "China" and "Korea" in an anachronistic way. While you can claim Goguryeo as a proto-Korean kingdom, you cannot deny that Mohe's significant presence in the Northeastern Goguryeo as a proto-Manchu activity (given both Korean and Manchu are modern terms). As I said many times, the Goguryeo's inheritance in China is not about the Han Chinese, but the Manchu ethnic minority group. The Goguryeo's inheritance in China has nothing to do with Sui Dynasty because Sui Dynasty is of Han Chinese.--Jiejunkong 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But being "anachronistic" is part of Misplaced Pages's naming policy. For example, even if Korea should be called "Dae-Han-Min-Gook", the most common name is Korea, and therefore we use Korea anachronistically, too. Misplaced Pages naming policy entails that you use the most common and descriptive English title. Simply, when the purpose of this article is about Goguryeo's war with many constituents of modern-day China over hundreds of years, there is no way that you can name it "accurately" (i.e. Goguryeo-x-y-z- (x: abcd B.C., y: efgh B.C. z: qwer A.D.) In a sense, "China" is not used anachronistically because we're using China to refer to the participants on modern-day geographical context. And this is why at the very least we can't move the article to military history of Goguryeo, b/c that's even a worse option according to our policies. When we are supposed to choose the best title, the article cannot be moved as long as the move target is worse than the current title. (Wikimachine 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

To User:Wikimachine, please quote original texts of wikipolicy. Don't fabricate non-existing wikipolicies. Quote:"But being 'anachronistic' is part of Misplaced Pages's naming policy." This is a astounding "discovery" or "original research". In contrast, wikipolicies like WP:NCGN try to avoid anchronistic names. If you start from the current name like "Tokyo" and describe the history of this current name (i.e., History of Tokyo), then there is no anachronisticity. I don't agree to your personal interpretation of the term "China", as I have pointed out that you are not an expert of China's history and your interpretation is problematic. Moreover, whenever such a disputation happens, wikiusers should apply wikipolicies to resolve it. When the wikipolicies are applied, wikiusers should quote original texts instead of baseless interpretations (because baseless interpretations are likely wrong).--Jiejunkong 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand Misplaced Pages policies. Misplaced Pages policies are not absolute, which means that you don't have to follow them 100% of the time (this is where WP:IAR comes in). However, you must put together all the Misplaced Pages policies and bring out the best possibility. Depending on the situation, different policies apply. Many Misplaced Pages policies are contradictory to each other to begin with. And in this situation, you shouldn't think of "China" as being used anachronistically, but out of necessity in terms of simplicity, descriptiveness, and English form. (Wikimachine 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Please read rules more carefully. In Misplaced Pages:What "Ignore all rules" means, it says "Ignore all rules" does not mean that you shouldn't listen when somebody points out to you that you're breaking a rule. If you want to interpret wikipedia as an anarchy, it is your own personal opinion. WP:IAR is for the purpose of improving wikipedia, not for the convenience of some amateurs to degrade the wikicontents. Again, if you refuse to present original wikipolicy texts but bluff the wikipolicy names to threaten other users, you fail miserably as a wikipedian because you have a bad habbit (as I still see no original wikipolicy texts in your replies, only some meaningless personal conclusions)--Jiejunkong 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, you put WP:OR everywhere, but most of them don't apply correctly. (Wikimachine 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

I only quoted WP:OR 3 times in the entire talk. What do you mean by "everywhere"? And I present original wikipolicy texts as my basis. This is different from your baseless arguments.--Jiejunkong 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, you can say that the United States is "Mexican" or EU is "Arabic". The consensus among experts on this subject is that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom, and often uses China as an exclusive entity in relatin to Goguryoe(i.e. NOT a Chinese entity). Deal with it. Cydevil38 22:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't cast your nationalist bias on historical topics. A better expression is that Goguryeo is a proto-Korean kingdom. A even better expression is that Goryeo (and then Joseon and Korea) is a direct descedent of Goguryeo. Your statement "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom" is anachronistic and the researchers on Eastern Asia history are switching from this amateurish imprecise expression to more professional expressions.--Jiejunkong 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Goguryeo is the best option an alternative issue consists as you said to get rid of this article & categorize it as Wars involving Goguryo while keeping this article's title or choosing a synonym of the current one would not make a significant improvement.Whlee 08:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Goguryeo is the worst option because this article is not about Goguryeo's military history. (Wikimachine 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Let's move on

We talked too much on whether Goguryeo is or not Chinese.It doesnn't help solve the problem.Misplaced Pages is a place to sum up all the references from all over the world,following the contradictory sources, we have to continue wrangling without any foreseable fruits until the breaking ground new academic findings.So I propose we move on.Goguryeo controversies is already setup,it is the best place to present different views.And For each Goguryeo-relating article,we place Goguryeo controversies at the bottom to make a mark and remind it is a controvercial issue.With this end in view,we can almost reach somehow agreement(dubious) to all the articles except the one of Goguryeo controversies.I regard it as a suboptimum solution.--Ksyrie 03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Move

All I can say is "WOW". Some just have this Korea phobia or something. I'll get an admin & set this up straight. (Wikimachine 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

I moved the article back. For now. Be advised however that this sounds like "wrong version!" syndrome to me. To me I see a consensus here. But you'll have 5 days to persuade the next admin that handles this otherwise. --Woohookitty 23:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons as to why this article should not be moved

I'll make it clear as to why the article should not be moved.

Firstly, the editors who wish to move this article have a conflict of interest with Misplaced Pages policies. See WP:COI. I recently requested a report on the editors and the article on violation of COI, however the article got moved back. The COI is clear, as is the POV-based interest in which several users have. Having your own biased viewpoint that Goguryeo could be Chinese therefore this title is your own POV because there is already enough controversy on the issue and Goguryeo controversies and Template:History of Manchuria were made to keep a NPOV here. I'm sure most readers know of the dispute between Korea and China.

Please read WP:COI carefully before you quote it. WP:COI enumerates 1.Financial, 2.Legal antagonists, 3.Self-promotion, 4.Autobiography, 5.Close relationships, 6.Campaigning, 7.Citing oneself, 8.Promotional article production on behalf of clients. None of these cases applies to an ordinary wikiuser. For example, you cannot challenge other wikiusers by saying they have financial (or other) motives to write wiki articles unless you have solid physical proofs. Otherwise nobody is qualified to write wiki articles. In addition, I remember you always quote WP:3RR, but failed to understand the meaning of WP:3RR and got blocked. This reduces your credibility of quoting wikipolicies.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those "chapters" are further elaborations for specific cases. This in the intro summarizes it: "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups". (Wikimachine 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

What's your point here? You want to block American origin users to edit America-related articles, to block Asia origin wikiusers to edit Asia-related articles? Show your point here and we can further discuss.--Jiejunkong 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No. There is significant difference b/w Americans editing America-related articles, and American internet business boomers expanding articles related to their websites & businesses. (Wikimachine 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

You are still making no sense here. Show your point about WP:COI and we can further discuss. For the COI sentence you quoted, are you saying that someone's editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups? That is quite a charge. If you blame yourself with this, I would say nothing. But if you blame other users with this charge, I would say you must acquire solid proofs to make your point. Otherwise, if the rule WP:COI is abused---note that this rule applies to everybody including you---it is likely nobody can edit this wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, there is no long "conflict" or long standing dispute on this article, as some editors try to make it. There has been nothing majorly wrong with this article until users like Assault11, Naus, and Wiki pokemon began to disrupt this and other Goguryeo related articles, including the Template:History of Manchuria (which is another problem to fix). My accusation for you has enough ground. Your attitudes and biased edits are very clear and the fact that you have not been punished for personal attacks shows that you will be in trouble.

The title is logically inconsistent. I asked the question why Silla is excluded in the wars. As the alliance led by Silla destroyed Goguryeo and ended all Goguryeo related wars, Silla can't be excluded. Then I was told that Silla is included in the Goguryeo-Silla-Tang war section. Then I asked the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because of this funny title?" Then the funny thing is that you disappeared, and now you appear again, without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about Goguryeo and Silla, but I thought that Silla was an infrequent player in the war (participated in only 1 war?), and this article describes many wars b/w Goguryeo and China. (Wikimachine 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I am also not pleased with how Komdori, LactoseTI, and Endroit simply turn away when this is going on. You preach good faith, NPOV, and no personal attacks (not to mention sprinkling tags all over the place as if they were limitless), but when there is wrongdoing on your side, you don't admonish them or warn them in an NPOV way. Disgraceful in my opinion.

Back to my point, POV editors ARE the ones who created this unstability. Trying to destroy the credibility of this article by blowing tags all over the article and tagging sentences with "dubious" and "unsourced" on every singly sentence you don't like, shows your biased viewpoint, therefore making your arguments to be POV. I don't understand why you have to tag the sentence "Goguryeo fought with several Chinese dynasties" as "dubious". So Goguryeo didn't fight Chinese dynasties? Obvious facts don't need tags, if you didn't know that.

Third, Misplaced Pages is not a place to prove your point or whatever. If the majority of the world agrees that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom, then thats that. You can't try and force the Chinese viewpoint into Misplaced Pages. Saying that the word "Manchuria" insults the Chinese people because of its supposed implication of Manchukuo is totally wrong here and although we may be sympathetic towards the Chinese, no english users believe that "Manchuria" is offensive. You keep emphasizing about China and the Chinese people's viewpoint, but its not fair to other viewpoints.

Don't play word games. The majority of the world doesn't say "Goguryeo is Korean". Instead, look at the expressions, what they say is that "Goguryeo is an ancestral kingdom of Unified Silla, Goryeo, Joseon and Korea". This doesn't mean they deny the fact that "Goguryeo is also an ancestral kingdom of Mohe's Balhae, Jurchen's Jin and Manchu's Qing". The inheritance is not meant to be exclusive. If you think historical facts are offensive to you, it is your problem, not the wikipedia's problem.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You began the play, Jiejunkong. That Goguryeo fought China and Goguryeo is not Chinese aren't mutually exclusive either. The title only implies "Goguryeo fight China". It doesn't say "Korean Kingdom Goguryeo-China Wars". This is exactly why WP:COI applies because you have already taken a wrong framework to base your viewpoint. You created your own enemy & you're fighting your own war. I almost never edited on this article, nor am I strongly interested or feel passionate about this. However, I'm angry about these nationalist POV's, NPOV sweating, and POV bullies. (Wikimachine 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

First, your history knowledge about China is very limited (I don't know your history knowledge about Korea, so no comment). You played the game on the word "China". Fine. Without proper historical concept, you make mistakes. For example, Murong Xianbei's Former Yan in this article is considered as part of "5 Hu" (i.e., 5 foreign tribes) in Twenty-four Histories. You call Former Yan as China, well, a casual & anachronistic usage of the term China and incorrect usage of the term Chinese. Second, I am not going to create an equally controversial article "Goguryeo-Korea wars", which unfortunately demonstrates the anachronistic nature of putting one's ancestor and one's grand grand sons together.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that China had many different tribes and countries & I'm not blind in Chinese history. Just read what I wrote above on WP:NPOV#Article naming. (Wikimachine 06:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

You are not blind in Chinese history, but this has no conflict with the statement that your history knowledge about China is very limited. Based on your logic, you forgot to put Later Yan into the so-called Goguryeo-China wars; you forgot to mention that Northern Yan was arguably founded by a Goguryeo royal family member; you forgot to put Northern Wei into the so-called G-C war, etc. I don't want to write these events because I don't agree to the current title and I don't think you can call Later Yan, Northern Yan, Northern Wei as "China". But you are different---you advocate for the title, and you are responsible to make it consistent. Also I didn't mention WP:NPOV for the title moving, you mentioned it again and again. I called the title "inconsistent", "funny", "should go to Uncyclopedia", because it was named in an amateurish way to confuse first-time readers. Misplaced Pages should avoid such Uncyclopedia names.--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, your reasons for the move is not solid enough. The comments and discussions you make (this also includes the Korean side) is by making up your own arguments that "Goguryeo is only Korean" or arguing about some stuff about "Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu" and what ethnicity is what. You are not here to try to prove something. If you are, then this is not the right place.

Agree, this is not the right place for you to prove "Goguryeo is only Korean". I think you can never prove that, here or somewhere else in the wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what's your reason for making the move? Where in the title does "Goguryeo is only Korean" come up? (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, look at User:Good friend100's words. It is right on top of your question.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth, there are other options for compromise. For example you could make a separate category. I'm leaning into this, I overlooked it in the latest poll, but its a compromise we can agree on, if the word "China" is such a pain to you (which I still don't understand why).

Let me repeat again. The title is logically inconsistent. I asked the question why Silla is excluded in the wars. As the alliance led by Silla destroyed Goguryeo and ended all Goguryeo related wars, Silla can't be excluded. Then I was told that Silla is included in the Goguryeo-Silla-Tang war section. Then I asked the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because of this funny title?" Then the funny thing is that you disappeared, and now you appear again, without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We will include Silla if that is the logical solution. Remember, 2 wrongs don't make a right. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Agree. That's the reason why Goguryeo-Korea wars is not created, and the title of this article should be changed.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sixth, the creation of the Template:Military history of Goguryeo was not called for by both sides and saying that the template and title go hand in hand is invalid.

I find that this article was fine until it got disrupted and turned into an ugly article with all these tags. I also believe that this is only the wish of a few editors who think that the Chinese viewpoint should be included in these discussions and in Misplaced Pages.

Without Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources and WP:NPOV statements, anything can be challenged in the wikipedia. Please follow the rules.--Jiejunkong 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You must present your own set of verifiable materials before putting fact tags everywhere. According to your interpretation, about 80~90% of all English Misplaced Pages articles should be deleted b/c they don't present references. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

So, maybe you can answer the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?"--Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my speech is pretty long, but if you fail to read it, then I guess we can go back in the wheel of arguments. Good friend100 00:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

emmm,I want to propose one different policy,the WP:NPOV,which required not only the content of articles should be neutral but also the title of the article.For the moment,the current title is not neutral.WP:COI is a behavioral guidelines but not a formal policy. --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How is current title not neutral? This only strenghtens Good friend100's WP:COI accusation. The title doesn't imply anything about Goguryeo being Korean only. Also, you NPOV lovers, see "Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Misplaced Pages contributors." in WP:NPOV#Article_naming. (Wikimachine 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm really surprised that a person who has no reliable source can write such a long lecture. Prove your unreliable conclusions, or your personal opinions are useless here. For example, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that Manchuria is considered as an offensive term by modern Chinese. And wikipolicies Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided.--Jiejunkong 03:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aliens can only surprise humans. Your responses surprise me too b/c now you're going off the subject, and this proves that you're interested not in the title but in your Chinese nationalist Goguryeo-Manchuria-Korea-ethnicity "dispute". WP:COI. (Wikimachine 03:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Answer the question: "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" Why do you avoid this question about the title being discussed? It is you who are going off the subject, as my question is right on the target---the inconsistent title. --Jiejunkong 03:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Also my remarks about Manchuria was a response to User:Good friend100's sentences Saying that the word "Manchuria" insults the Chinese people because of its supposed implication of Manchukuo is totally wrong here and although we may be sympathetic towards the Chinese, no english users believe that "Manchuria" is offensive. Do a string search and you can find his words.--Jiejunkong 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Silla is excluded in the wars? Read Goguryeo-Tang Wars for that. Silla is included in the article, only that it fought Goguryeo as an ally of the Tang dynasty. Good friend100 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, could you please answer the question "does this mean Silla is part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" The funny thing is that you appear and re-appear constantly without answering the question.--Jiejunkong 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on WP:COI, it says that COI is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals

Your personal interests are representative of only the Chinese people (this applies to your argument at template:History of Manchuria) and is not neutral. You are trying to promote the Chinese view that this article should be moved. You keep emphasizing "modern Chinese", which is not the

This article is solely about wars between Goguryeo and Chinese dynasties. Goguryeo fought the Tang for the majority of the time until near the end of Goguryeo's existence, Silla made a deal with the Tang to destroy Goguryeo together. The title "Goguryeo-Tang Wars" is correct. Silla played a part only near the end of Goguryeo's rule. Good friend100 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What you said is invalid. If your invalid conclusion is otherwise valid, you are disqualified to edit articles like Seoul because, according to your own logic, you are selling something or emphasizing modern Korean. To User:Good friend100, filing baseless charges hurts yourself. If a wikiuser write articles with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV expression, then the user is a qualified editor and his/her ethnic origin doesn't matter. You repetitively twist wikipolicies by quoting ethnic origins. I have to point out that this tendency of interpreting wikipolicies in an ethnic framework matches a ultranationalistic Nazi mindset.--Jiejunkong 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But Koreans were the Jews, never the Japanese Nazis. In its proclaimed 5,000 years of history (3,000 years of recorded history & 30,000 years of human habitation), Koreans have never participated in Nazi ultranationalistic crimes (except something like that in Korean War but that was US policy too). On the other hand, communist China has played as an authoritarian state. Again, NPOV lovers, In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe. in Misplaced Pages:Naming_conflict. When Encarta says yes, yes. No, no. (Wikimachine 03:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I understand that you respect Goguryeo very much. But why are you against a neutral title like "Military history of Goguryeo"? Goguryeo fought a number of China polities, Baekji, Silla and Yamato Japan. It would be an original research to rank the significance of these battles, and no original research is allowed in wikipedia. If you persist, equally controversial articles like Goguryeo-Korea wars and Goguryeo-Japan wars have to be created. From the titles you can tell something is wrong. I don't comment on the Jews part and communist part because they are irrelevant to the argument here.--Jiejunkong 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't respect anything except common sense pedestrianism. I'm against it b/c this article is not about military history of Goguryeo. The fact is, there are infinite number of "neutral" titles for this article (or any other article). The fact that it's neutral is not the singular reason to go for it. Ok. You can create Goguryeo-Japan wars if you want. But you cannot use article name move to test neutrality per WP:NPOV#Article_naming. Also, something is definitely wrong w/ Goguryeo-Korea Wars because the general definition of Korea includes Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo. Also, Korea is not a country. It's a concept. There was never a country called Korea on the peninsula. There was Goryeo, but Goguryeo-Goryeo War never happened. You can try writing it though. (see above) It would be more WP:OR or whatever to do your exclusively Korean or Chinese analysis... Misplaced Pages article names are based on commonality & the naming policy is derived from the NPOV policy. Misplaced Pages should describe, not prescribe. What you are doing is prescribing - and therefore you begin your reasoning within the wrong framework - that is you make a POV by giving extra weight/favor to an argument more than it deserves/the accepted amount. (Wikimachine 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages should describe, not prescribe? What exactly does this sentence mean? Why is other users' action a prescribing, but yours is describing? Where does it appear in wikipolicies? Why are you throwing these philosophical challenges against other users? Please present original texts of wikipolicies to support your move. This kind of arguments on personal philosophy will lead this discussion to nowhere. Stick to wikipolicies (and original texts of wikipolicies) please.--Jiejunkong 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. In case you're disputing that Goguryeo is Korean (and exclusively Korean, too), only what the rest of the world thinks Goguryeo is what Misplaced Pages should include. And that is describing. This is the root of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. If Encarta says Goguryeo is Korean, it's Korean, and you can't use naming to contest that (which is also against NPOV policy). (Wikimachine 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

The logical connection between original wikipolicy texts and your conclusions is missing. This happens many times in your writings (e.g., the failed WP:COI move mentioned at the beginning of this section). Therefore, if there is no original wikipolicy text in your writings, then you are wasting wikiuser's time to babble the WPs like NPOV. You need to build your arguments on some sound basis most wikipedians accept (e.g., wikipolicies, in particular original wikipolicy texts rather than the enchanting names of those wikipolicies), not personal conclusions which are nothing but failed superstructures.--Jiejunkong 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:COI, and I didn't read everything there, but I could be a professor at NPOV & article naming b/c I had to deal with them a lot. "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Read that. (Wikimachine 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

solution?

How about another option we can agree on?

I think we should put all wars including Goguryeo into a disambiguation page. This eliminates the need for an article title. Good friend100 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First I'd like some clarification:

1. Why did you pressure the closing admin to reverse the decision when there was clear consensus among diverse editors that this page be moved?

2. What is wrong with Military history of Goguryeo? Why do we need to treat this differently from all other states, ancient and modern?

I am trying very hard not to get involved in a move war here, but the current situation just seems bizarre. -- Visviva 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained my reasons on the above thread. As for the poll, there were not enough votes to make a clear consensus. If you could read through the discussions, you can obviously see that several editors here cannot reach a compromise. I'm thinking that Jiejunkong doesn't seem to understand english very well since he is concluding from my reasoning that I'm a nazi.

It is also a COI among Jiejunkong, Assault11, etc. It is their own interests (and China's interests) that they are trying to promote. Saying that Manchuria cannot be used because it insults the "modern Chinese people" is not fair. I could say the same thing for Koreans for Sea of Japan.

Also, this article is solely about Goguryeo and China alone (of course, Silla plays a part near the end of Goguryeo's rule). If it was truly in the wish of Jiejunkong and fellow editors to improve the article, they would write articles and expand this article about Goguryeo's wars with the other Korean kingdoms. The move was simply their own wish to erase the word "China".

Using the word "China" does not imply anything about whether Goguryeo was Chinese or not. I'm sure most readers are aware of the dispute. Again, the article is only about Goguryeo vs. China wars and this is true since it only describes the wars between Goguryeo and various Chinese dynasties. If the other editors wish to do so, they can write articles like Goguryeo-Baekje Wars or Goguryeo-Silla Wars.

I have been proposing that we should just throw everything related to Goguryeo wars into a disambiguation page. This eliminates the need for a "master article" and we don't need to argue over a title. A list of Goguryeo wars with other kingdoms is a good compromise, in my opinion, and something we can agree on. Good friend100 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, almost half of the voters for the move have a COI with Misplaced Pages's neutral viewpoint and there are not enough votes overall. I posted announcements for the poll to both Korea and China portals and wikiprojects. Apparently, nobody cares, something I find to be very sad. Also, a majority simply doesn't mean its right. They have given no good reason as to why a normal article with normal content should be moved. Good friend100 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Visviva, I'm really confused about your confusion on this matter. So I'll outline clearly here:

• This article is not about military history of Goguryeo, but a series of wars with its neighboring countries that once stood on present-day China or relate to.
• There is no reason to change an article's title when you can create a new article about the military history of Goguryeo - simply this is an indirect way of deleting the current article.
• It is against Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy to settle POV through naming.
• There is no link b/w the current title and its implication that Goguryeo is solely Korean. In order for this to be true, they have to prove that an inner faction of a country cannot fight its own country (ridiculous & unrealistic) and that therefore provide mutual exclusivity on Goguryeo's national identity as Korean. However, there can be internal struggles - Confederates vs. USA, how about?
• And Goguryeo is definitely Korean. (Wikimachine 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Put your NPOV arguments aside and please answer the long-awaiting question: "does this title classify Silla as part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" This question is right on the target---the inconsistent title. --Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting because I'm not sure where to indent to) A couple of things...

• WP:COI, as I read it, does not apply to editors who simply have an ideological interest in the topic; rather, it is written to address problems related to vanity and self- or group-promotion. Beyond that, I must note that editorial bias is not found on only one "side" of this conversation.
• It's true that the current title reflects the current scope of the article, but that seems to be a problem with the article. Obviously it doesn't make sense to add content on Goguryeo-Baekje and Goguryeo-Silla conflicts under the article's current name... But it's not at all clear why we would have a "Goguryeo-China wars" article except perhaps if we had a "Military history of Goguryeo" article which had grown too large... and even in that case this is not the first spinoff that would have sprung to mind.
• Many of the issues that are being thrown around on this page do not seem directly pertinent to the specific issue of moving, and seem to come out of the larger dispute over Goguryeo. That dispute is important, and extraordinarily tiring, but not directly pertinent here. -- Visviva 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• The main focus of the current article is the series of wars b/w Goguryeo & China. We can definitely create separate articles that focus & expertise in wars b/w Gogurye & Baekje, and Goguryeo & Silla. When the main focus is the series of wars b/w Goguryeo & China, whatever Baekje & Silla did in the few of the wars should be background info. Why, should Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) be Japan-Korea-China War? Or... should the Korean War (war that took place in the early 1950s b/w the two divided Koreas) be US-ROK-UN-PROC-DPRK-USSR War?

(Official name preference and no original research please) You provide another anachronistic title here (Japan-Korea-China War is anachronistic). A better name following your mindset would be Japan-Joseon-Ming_China War (1592-1598), which is not anachronistic. However, I know the official name in nowdays Korea and China is Imjin War (壬辰战争), which should be used according to WP:NC. As to the 1950s war, also use the official name Korean War according to WP:NC. The name Goguryeo-China wars is your original research rather than an official name. Original research is not allowed in Misplaced Pages.--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Many of the issues that are thrown around here are perfectly (and let me emphasize Jiejunkung's rhetorical suggestion for Goguryeo-Korea wars, etc.) pertinent to this issue. They are using name move to contest neutrality, which against Misplaced Pages's NPOV#Article naming (specifies that unless the article is not common, you can't use naming to resolve NPOV issues).
• We don't have a military history of Goguryeo article and that serves as only one reason to one and only possible outcome, the creation of the military history of Goguryeo article. Yes, X without Y is bad, but Y without X is just as bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.
• Also remember that Misplaced Pages articles do not follow some sort of hierarchy. Military history of Goguryeo should not come before Goguryeo-China Wars. (Wikimachine 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know why you are quoting NPOV in the context of article naming. In my question: "does this title classify Silla as part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" This question is not related to NPOV, and you haven't yet answered it for the past weeks.--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I already answered it. Silla is not part of China but it should be included in the background info. I talk about NPOV b/c NPOV & naming policy are the only things that matter concerning this article's name. (Wikimachine 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't see your answer, at least no formal answer. This kind of "I already answered it" answer is not an answer, at least not formal. Silla is not part of China, that is well-known. Unfortunately, Silla and Goguryeo are the protagonist/antagonist pair in the final decisive Goguryeo-Silla Tang war. Compared to Silla, the China polities were supporting roles. Are you calling your protagonist/antagonist "background info"? What kind of director/author will do such a thing? In addition, if you want to justify this inconsistent title "Goguryeo-China wars", all your words can be used to justify an equally-controversial title "Goguryeo-Korea wars" (if China polities are substituted by Korea polities).--Jiejunkong 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo-Korea wars can exist if you can prove that the consensus in both the academia and the public that Goguryeo is not Korean. At the same time, I posted somewhere else that there is no point of having a Goguryeo-Korea wars when there were only 2 countries to begin with. The article would fail to meet its purpose, which is summarization. However, there are many tribes in China that Goguryeo warred over hundreds of years. Which means that the article has its one and only exclusive niche: summarization & analysis. (Wikimachine 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Goguryeo-Korea wars certainly can exist with many wikiusers calling for a renaming and 3 nationalists calling for keeping the name. This could happen. As to your magic number "2", sorry it is your personal POV because it is baseless in the wikipedia. I don't comment on it because it should be ignored.--Jiejunkong 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the poll, but let me bring a neutral admin, Husond to explain things to you. (Wikimachine 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Look at your reasons. Let me tell you one thing. The reason Goguryeo-Korea wars won't be created is not your magic number 2---the reason is that the title is inconsistent and suitable in Uncyclopedia. The magic number 2 is merely a distraction or nuisance.--Jiejunkong 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, test by creating the article yourself. It will get deleted or merged eventually. Or look at WP:MERGE and WP:Afd. I've been in Misplaced Pages much longer than you, and I've been in these cases. (Wikimachine 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Vote to rename the current title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Military history of Goguryeo.--Húsönd 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the majorties of replys favours a rebaptism of the article.Lets vote!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksyrie (talk • contribs)

The current name "Goguryeo-China wars" does not accurately describe the participants of the war who were neither Chinese nor Goguryeo. See Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars for discussions that lead to this vote.--Endroit 23:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Goguryeo

1. Support，good title，in uniformity with most of ancient countries.--Ksyrie 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)(This vote was moved over here from Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars).
2. Support— I support "Military history of Goguryeo" as 1st choice, "War history of Goguryeo" as 2nd choice. Goguryeo-China Wars is obviously a misnomer and needs to be changed.--Endroit 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)(This vote was moved over here from Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars).
3. Support--Objective NPOV statement is always the choice.--Jiejunkong 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Reasonable title that more accurately captures the idea of the article. —LactoseTI 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Conditional Support : Do not forget Gwangaetto the great achievement who was considered as the only one Goguryeo ruler who "unify" Korean peninsula for a short time (between 396-399)under his rule (cf. History of Misahun).Whlee 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support This is the most neutral title.--Opp2 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Manages to successfully sidestep issues (at least for the title) that have led to numerous edit wars. --Cheers, Komdori 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Suitable title for main article of template:Military history of Goguryeo Jjok 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. -- Visviva 04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support It is most reasonable tittle.--Watermint 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. Per above comments. Assault11 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. NPOV and better wording. --Saintjust 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

War history of Goguryeo

1. Support— I support "Military history of Goguryeo" as 1st choice, "War history of Goguryeo" as 2nd choice. Goguryeo-China Wars is obviously a misnomer and needs to be changed.--Endroit 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)(This vote was moved over here from Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars).
2. Support--This one is also fine. But it seems that "Military history" is better than "War history" in terms of English expression.--Jiejunkong 23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. More NPOV than the current title. Assault11 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep the current one

1. Support: Again another classic example of sweating, where CPOV nationalists are making a strategic move to make the article larger & minimize some national loss. The article was originally about the Goguryeo-Sui Wars, and we're going to keep it there. If you want another article about the Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, create a new article. If you want to write about the military history of Goguryeo, write about that. But, don't make an article about a single war into a military history of an entire and separate country? Do you seriously think that Goguryeo's military history is defined solely by its wars with China? I suspect "ultranationalists" from CPOV to be the same guys using sock puppets. Lol, Endroit. What's up again? Are you a Chinese American? (Wikimachine 23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC))(This vote was moved over here from Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars).

   The title "Goguryeo-China war" is incorrect due to two reasons: (1) Let's use an analogy here. It is invalid to combine "Goguryeo-Silla war" and "Goguryeo-Baekje war" into a single article "Goguryeo-Korea war". The user who did such a renaming injected unwanted modern political slur in the title. Likewise, it is invalid to combine "Goguryeo-Sui War" and "Goguryeo-Tang war" into a single article "Goguryeo-China war". (2) The users who put something like Former Yan into the article are twisting the history. The Former Yan Dynasty was founded by (Murong) Xianbei people who attacked Han Chinese. When Goguryeo was at its peak time, the so-called "China" in the current article's top figure is the Northern Wei dynasty, which was again founded by (Tuoba) Xianbei people who attacked Han Chinese. Then what is implied? Were Goguryeo and Han Chinese people allies? This is either a joke or a byproduct of the improper depiction/writings. Yes, two hundred years later, Xianbei people merged into Han Chinese and then they became indistinguishable. But you cannot turn back the clock to use grandsons' identities to identify their grandparents' identities.--Jiejunkong 00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Two wrongs don't make a right. This is not a reason to move the article to "military history of..." (Wikimachine 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

   Additionally, let me reference some stuffs from the Gogurye-Sui Wars discussion. What's so POV for an article describing a war where there's bound to be a victor and a loser? Is that in itself POV? Wow. That's one point for ultranationalist Koreans. No. And that because the article is not big enough it must get bigger by combining other topics is complete nonsense. This article should be about Goguryeo-Sui Wars, and all the other wars deserve their own articles. Duh. And where did you get the major consensus that Goguryeo is part of China? Wow, so CPOV here. If you look at the dispute for Goguryeo article, you'll clearly see that all neutral editors agree that Goguryeo is NOT CHINESE. (Wikimachine 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

   Note that a biased driven poll (calling us Korean ultranationlists) clearly will not work. Good friend100 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Support I'm tired of CPOV editors who try to make the article their own way. Agree with Wikimachine in that they are trying to minimize national loss on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way, as in the case with List of tributaries of imperial China and template:History of Manchuria. And Endroit, I don't understand your reasoning that its a misnomer. The title isn't clear enough? Tang, Sui, Cao, Han, etc, are not Chinese dynasties yet they are on the Chinese history template. Good friend100 00:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Support "China" is often used as an exclusive concept to Goguryeo in many NPOV, reliable publications. I also believe that some historical context unique to Goguryeo-China wars can be added to the article, to help readers understand the role of Goguryeo in Korea, one role possibly being preventing the Korean peninsula becoming a Chinese posession and eradication of Korea as a unique cultural entity. In turn, I think another article on Goguryeo's wars with other Korean kingdoms, Baekje and Silla, should be created. Goguryeo engaged in constant struggle for dominance of the Korean peninsula, namely the region that is now Seoul, and considered itself the master of Korea, people Baekje and Silla being their "subject citizens". However, the article can't be named Goguryeo-Korea wars, since there is a general consensus among neutral academics(non-Korean, non-Chinese) that Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom. The article's name should be something like "Goguryeo's struggle for dominance over the Korean peninsula", or "Goguryeo's wars with other Korean kingdoms", or "Goguryoe's peninsular wars". Another possible choice is merging the article with a new article on "Sino-Korean Wars", covering series of wars between Korean kingdoms and Chinese states, ending with Silla's victory over Tang and Balhae's independence. Cydevil38 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Whether Goguryeo is exclusively of Korean history is being disputed in the meditation on the article Goguryeo. Currently no serious researcher has ever denied that Goguryeo is part of history of Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu Chinese minority heritage. Due to the disputation and meditation, you should not make the assumption that Goguryeo is purely Korean here. If Goguryeo-China wars is a valid title, then Goguryeo-Korea wars is also valid.--Jiejunkong 01:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Again, "China" is often used as an exclusive concept in relation to Goguryeo in NPOV(non-Korean, non-Chinese) reliable sources. For example, The tension between the three Korean kingdoms grew more intense, and Koguryo became increasingly belligerent towards China. Denis Twitchett, the Cambridge History of China, page 232~233. Cydevil38 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Second Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 219:"Balhae's founder, whose surname is Dae, was originally Sumo Mohe joining Goguryeo. When Goguryeo was destroyed, he led his people to guard Dong Mou Mountain, located to the very east of YinZhou, with southern border touching Silla separated by River Ni, eastern border at sea, western border touching Khitan. They built cities to reside in, and Goguryeo remnants joined them." Sumo Mohe's Balhae was later conquered by Khitan Empire and Jurchen Jin Dynasty (Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty: （Wanyan Aguda asked his officer to tell Balhae descendants: "Balhae and Jurchen are members of the same familiy"). --Jiejunkong 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   First, I said NPOV(non-Korean, non-Chinese) relaible sources, and by relaible sources, I mean secondary or tertiary sources written by experts who are familiar with modern methodological analysis of history and archaeology. Not to mention anything you said doesn't prove your point that Goguryeo was a constituent of "Chinese Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu ethnic minority group". Though, I do know, from reliable sources, that Balhae was dominantly "Manchurian", as opposed to Goguryeo, which was dominantly "Korean". Cydevil38 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   I think your understanding of NPOV is wrong because it doesn't match the definition. NPOV means neutral point of view, not "non-Korean, non-Chinese". You have an annoying habit to treat the word "Chinese" here as "Chinese language", which was used in ancient canonical records like Samguk Sagi and Twenty-Four Histories. Then you said you are against ancient canonical records like Samguk Sagi and Twenty-Four Histories because of this Chinese language problem. Then you said you only respect those biologically non-Korean, non-Chinese (the funny thing is that Chinese becomes a biological term here) Caucasian researcher's work. Then I told you that these Caucasian researchers are not magicians, they must build their work on top of ancient reliable sources, and you failed to respond, and then you throw out this biologically non-Korean, non-Chinese argument again and again. I think this is a bad cycle. The good news to me is that only User:Good friend100 is with you with respect to this NPOV issue. You have gone too far to deny that reliable sources like Samguk Sagi are NPOV.--Jiejunkong 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   To User:Cydevil38, the linguistic or biological interpretation of WP:NPOV is invented by you. There is no such definition in WP:NPOV. Please be noted that your interpretation is never accepted as a consensus. For example, Samguk Sagi, the Korean-side ancient canonical record written in classical Chinese, is used by many Korean users in related articles like "Goguryeo, Balhae" with faithful English translation. By the same criteria of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Chinese users are using Twenty-Four Histories with faithful English translation. If you have problem with that, we can open a new thread to debate it. So far only you and User:Good friend100 are in the same non-professional team to deny this rule in professional Eastern Asia history research community.--Jiejunkong 08:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'd be very much glad if Korean sources can be accepted as NPOV sources, since much of research on Goguryeo is done in Korea, but I'm not using them due to possible nationalistic bias, even though such bias is far less problematic than that in PRC sources. NPOV sources are not necessarily Caucasian. For instance, Panjak Mohan, whom I'd consider a NPOV scholar, is a South Asian. Cydevil38 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   In Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, the answer to the question "What is a reliable source?" is "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." It doesn't say anything about Korean sources or Chinese sources or whatever linguistic or biological origins the source must have. In WP:NPOV, neutral point of view (NPOV) is stated as "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Again, it doesn't say anything about Korean sources or Chinese sources or whatever linguistic or biological origins. I am curious why you stress on the linguistic or biological issues. Your linguistic and biological arguments are baseless in this wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, NPOV policy states that you cannot test neutrality through article naming. (Wikimachine 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Who is quoting NPOV for article title naming? (The above NPOV is only for answering User:Cydevil38's false interpretation of NPOV) Put aside your NPOV sweating and answer the question: "does this title classify Silla as part of China because you put Silla under the title 'Goguryeo-China wars'?" Note that this valid question is right on the target---the inconsistent title (which should go to Uncyclopedia).--Jiejunkong 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV sweating is a phrase that I made up to describe a situation where people concede everything on basis of NPOV. And no, the title doesn't classify Silla as part of China simply b/c it's put under the title. And I see no point to that question. But if you're going to use that same rhetorical reasoning to push that Goguryeo is not exclusively Korean & also part of China, that's classified as neutrality naming test which goes under WP:NPOV#Article naming. If you don't know, Misplaced Pages's naming convention is derived from the NPOV policy. (Wikimachine 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Get rid of this article and put all the articles about Goguryeo-China wars into a category

1. Support This article offers no information that is not already covered in the "main" articles it links to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Support per HongQiGong. (Wikimachine 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

   Comment: This is not a valid option for WP:RM, hence I'll refrain here. However, I'd support it outside the context of WP:RM.--Endroit 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Who cares if it's not a valid option for WP:RM. We're trying to decide what to do with this article. Let's skip the bureaucracy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   Let me know if you initiate an WP:AfD, and I'll support it.--Endroit 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

   The article need to be kept it was the right way for us (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) to expand our knowledge about Goguryeo history. The only things which should be rearrnaged is the Infobox meanwhile i create a template which is more appropriate in that case. Infobox should be employed in articles like Goguryeo-Sui Wars for instance where we have information about the strenght and the causalities of both "protagonist".Whlee 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

a compromise : Military history of Goguryeo with some conditions

1)Although belonging to Korean ethnicity, I support that title but with SOME conditions : that article need to shortly introduce (2/3 sentnce) all of the wars where Goguryeo was involved regardless their ethnicity therefore to should include :

- Goguryeo-Wei war(s)

- Goguryeo-Sui wars and its 3 campaings (ca.598-612),

- Goguryeo-Tang wars and Tang Taizong's campaign (there were four ca.642-645);

- Goguryeo-Paekche wars (ca.371- ca.392)

- Goguryeo-Yamato wars (ca. 396-404) (4 campaign)

- the last one would be called the defeat of the Goguryeo-Paekche-Wa 여제동맹 (North-South) alliance against Silla-Tang allied army 나당군(West-East alliance) starting from ca. 642 to 663 (final battle of Hakusukinoe)etc.

2)And would forward it to main article because englobing all of the wars where Goguryeo was involved into ONE single article is almost impossible. Other possiblilty creating a Category called Wars involving Goguryeo like Wars involving Korea or Wars involving China exist
3)supporting Goguryeo-China is a little be considered as KPOV and anachronistic because as it was said above how can we define Goguryeo-Paekche wars then (Goguryeo-Korea wars)? and what about Goguryeo-Yamato wars (Goguryeo-Japan wars during Gwangaetto reign (391-413)?
Japan and Korea statred to exist between 7-8th century Korea is born when Goruyeo, Paekche and Silla have united their forces against Tang Andong Protectorate on the other side Japan is born when the term Nihon was adopted.Whlee 16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This option is not something I'd oppose. But Goguryeo-China wars should persist at least as a category and as a template. A general explanation on the historical context of Goguryeo's conflicts with China should also be expounded in the article, as well as that with other Korean kingdoms. And those wars have to be listed in chronological order. Your proposal is also missing some of Goguryeo's important wars, such as those against the Chinese commanderies, Yan, and expansions during Gwanggaeto and Jangsu's reign. In short, I consider this a viable compromise, with Goguryeo-China wars as a category and a template, and some technical improvements to the proposal. Cydevil38 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, you're going off track. See my explanation to Visviva. There is absolutely no reason to move it to any sort of "military history" whatsoever. (Wikimachine 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I know that some of Goguryeo's important wars are missing that is the reason why i created a navigation template and both Japanese, Korean and Chinese user could work together to gather an exhaustive list of ALL the wars where Goguryeo was involved.Whlee 22:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you're starting off wrong to begin with. We don't need those missing important wars because this is about wars b/w Goguryeo and present-day China constituents, not Japan, Silla, and Baekje. Read again. (Wikimachine 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

The term "Goguryeo-China" or "Goguryeo-Korea" is anachronistic. A chinese proverb describing such things is "let Guan Yu (of Three Kingdoms era) fight Qin Qiong (of Tang Dynasty)". It is confusing and should go to Uncyclopedia. A better wikipedia option is creating categories like "Wars involving Goguryeo", "Wars involving Baekje", "Wars involving Silla", "Wars involving China", "Wars involving Korea", etc. This is NPOV and doesn't invoke any anachronistic confusions.--Jiejunkong 02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, I uderstand what u mean, i quote that few days ago see above #2)Whlee 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, I just think that you're NPOV sweating. All of what you say is unreasonable and incomprehensible. First rebut my explanations to Visviva. (Wikimachine 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, while I find the motives and reasonings of some editors here disagreeable and disturbing, the thing is though I don't consider the title to be that important. The general relations and historical context of Goguryeo's wars with Chinese dynasties can always be expounded within the article. This is something that I consider much more important, having readers informed of history. A category and a template for Goguryeo-China wars is also a useful tool that readers can follow through these series of conflicts to see how they went. Having that said in fact, it would be ideal to create Military History of Goguryeo as a new article that summarizes all these wars with links to sub-articles for Goguryeo-China wars, Goguryeo's expansion and Goguryeo's struggle for the Korean peninsula, but with all these Chinese nationalists and anti-Korea editors involved here, that's something hard to achieve. Cydevil38 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're just NPOV sweating as well. The title is very important. It defines what the article is about. This article is about the many wars b/w Goguryeo and China and those only. If you want to write military history, write a new article & that would be pretty nice. It is absolutely unnecessary to move an existing article to another title & change its content when the current article already has a distinct purpose or niche. While you might say that we can have this little compromise b/c it's not that big of a deal, the same applies to CPOV - it's not that big of a deal, why make a move? (Wikimachine 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Cydevil38, what I mean by NPOV sweating is that when people participate in a dispute for so long they finally feel like giving concessions - often too unreasonably & everyone goes into happy friendly mode. You've been in Goguryeo disputes for so long Cydevil, so you don't see this yourself. I do because I was busy with other articles & haven't argued disputes on Goguryeo as much as you. I'm more like a pedestrian walking through a street & seeing bizarre and ludicrous things happening & trying to prevent further damage per my common sense. (Wikimachine 05:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

I've filed a complaint at WP:COIN. Let's wait for response from outsiders. (Wikimachine 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Based on my understanding of the wikipedia, I think your move on WP:COI is unsupported and will get no result. It doesn't apply to any user here, or even with exceptions, it would firstly apply to some nationalists.--Jiejunkong 04:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the contention that an editor has a "conflict of interest" concerning this article: It is very rare for there to be a true COI for any distant historical event. Examples would include owners of landmarks or memorabilia trying to attract business, or in some cases authors trying to promote unusual points of view. Merely sharing ethnic and national identity with a topic is not a conflict of interest. The important thing is for all of us to simply present information in a neutral manner. Focussing on the problems of individual editors on this article talk page isn't productive; that's what user talk pages and noticeboards are for. So let's drop the COI contention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Request for comment

Summary

User:Endroit made an requested move for the Goguryeo-China wars because not all of the participants of the many wars apply to the title (i.e. Silla). Other users argued that Goguryeo-China wars implies that Goguryeo is not Chinese - an argument that CPOV contests with the reasoning that Goguryeo consisted of many ancestral tribes and countries that now constitute part of the Chinese population & that reliable sources do not say that Goguryeo is Korean only (thus offers space for inclusiveness on the topic) & therefore the title is KPOV. They offer the reasoning that thre wouldn't be an article named Goguryeo-Korea war & therefore there is mutual exclusivity b/w the two cases. (one which is KPOV & other "neutral") They also argue that the usage of "China" is anachronistic b/c there was no China when the wars took place. These editors advocate for a move to the Military history of Goguryeo.

Caveats This summary failed to mention the following reliably sourced statements: Mohe's presence in the Northeastern Goguryeo, in particular around Changbai Mountains and northward, is at least significant (and arguably dominant). If you look at the geographic map, you will know how large this Mohe-region is in Goguryeo's controlled region (even using the largest region size Goguryeo had ever controlled). Balhae, which inherited Northern Goguryeo, was mainly Mohe, while proto-Korean was minority. Mohe later became part of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, and then of descendent Manchu, a nowadays Chinese ethnic minority group. Goguryeo is a proto-Manchu entity. Therefore, the title "Goguryeo-China wars" refers to anachronistic wars between an ancestor and its descendants.--Jiejunkong 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users object to that option but are open to other better titles. 1) Niche: this article is about a series of wars b/w Goguryeo and modern-day China constituents, not the military history of Goguryeo 2) Focus: it is inevitable that there be other actors when describing a series of wars spanning over hundreds of years - they should be background info 3) NPOV: Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy regarding article naming states that: "Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Misplaced Pages contributors." 4) Common Usage: a) Korea has come to define a national identity on the Korean peninsula b) Goguryeo is defined as a Korean kingdom (& it's unrealistic that encyclopedias will say "Goguryeo is ONLY Korean kingdom") b) China has come to define a national identity on modern-day Chinese territory and some parts of current day Russia. (03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Caveats on the "Focus": (1) Please make it clear that the actor, i.e., Silla, is unfortunately the protagonist/antagonist, who won the best actor award by killing Goguryeo the antagonist/protagonist. Compared to Silla, the other China polities were supporting actors. (2) For other wars spanning over hundreds of years, there are official names. In contrast, this Goguryeo-China wars is not. It is somebody's original research. Original research is not allowed in Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:No original research).--Jiejunkong 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So what if Silla was the main protagonist? This war should focus mainly and only on the wars b/w Goguryeo China. Even a major event, such as the Civil War, can be a background info. If this article's original research, fix it yourself. And if you want to create Military history of Goguryeo, thanks for your interest & enthusiasm - create it. (Wikimachine 11:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

If Silla was the main protagonist/antagonist, then Goguryeo-Silla wars is a major reference. Moreover, the war fought between King Geunchogo of Baekje and Gogugwon of Goguryeo can be put into the article Goguryeo-Baekje wars. So we have a pool of articles to be put into the category that depicts the wars between Goguryeo and Korea polities. Now, if you indiscriminately call all types of China polities as "China", then it is equally valid that Korea polities Baekje and Silla can be called "Korea". Then the article Goguryeo-Korea wars must be created in parallel to this article. I know both names are anachronistic, but this analogy shows the absurdity. Another strong challenge is that both Goguryeo-China wars and Goguryeo-Korea wars are original research (Original research (OR) is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.") --Jiejunkong 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to make a Goguryeo-Korea wars when there were only 2 wars to begin with, and I explained why Goguryeo-Korea wars is inappropriate for other reasons, so don't bring that up again. I'm fine with Goguryeo-Silla & Goguryeo-Baekje wars. You're justifying a wrong with another "wrong". Just because something hasn't been done shouldn't be a reason why this shouldn't be done too. You definitely don't understand what original research means. That's right, bringing together different articles & using areas that match to link them to create up a larger thesis. WP:OR applies only to the article content. Misplaced Pages's NPOV & naming convention matter here. And as for few other things I'm not answering b/c you failed to answer my answers to them either preempted or made after. (i.e. "anachronistic" is answered by Misplaced Pages's naming policy.) (Wikimachine 01:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

(1) Quote:"There is no reason to make a Goguryeo-Korea wars when there were only 2 wars to begin with". This is a fabricated reason as no wikipolicy is supporting such a reason. If the number 2 doesn't work, then what's the magic number? You cannot use such a reason to justify the equally-controversial title "Goguryeo-China wars". (2) Quote:"You're justifying a wrong with another wrong". Interesting expression. By this statement you admit you have committed a wrong deed (I guess you are referring to the amateurish and inconsistent title "Goguryeo-China wars"). Nevertheless, I always state that I am against creating an equally-controversial title "Goguryeo-Korea wars". This is against wrong deeds, not justifying them (but it seems that you are doing the justifying part). (3) You are advocating an unpublished concept "Goguryeo-China wars". This matches WP:OR's definition.--Jiejunkong 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no magic number. But even a kindergartener can figure out that there is no point of summarizing a country's wars with 2 other countries. You can just have 2 articles. However, if you had wars with many countries over many years, then it's worth summarizing. And yes I can, it's not a justification (since I'm not defending that) but an if-situational answer to your rhetorical justification. And no, I'm not necessarily saying that Goguryeo-China wars is wrong - I'm only testing your correctness on a theoretical ground. Goguryeo-China wars is not a concept, and just because there is no literature about it doesn't mean that you can't write about it. For example, Clannad (visual novel) that I worked on as a GA reviewer. A lot of what's said there aren't sourced & actually there's not much literature over all those factual stuffs. However, people wrote about it anyways & succeeded in making it a GA. (Wikimachine 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, this is wikipedia, not your kindergarten. The kindergarten rules do not work here. Again, in your writings, I see no original wikipolicy texts and sound arguments built on top of the policies. No way your kindergarten arguments will be treated seriously. Also don't draw irrelevant subjects like "Clannad (visual novel)" into the talk. It leads the talk to nowhere. Would you please stay in the lane?--Jiejunkong 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident that Wikipedians are not kindergarteners so let's move on. You haven't made replies to anything yet. (Wikimachine 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

You have no case yet. I think most wikiusers want to see you build your case by (1) quoting original wikipolicy texts and (2) building your arguments on those original texts. Before this happens, you have no case.--Jiejunkong 22:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeat the caveats: (1) Silla and Goguryeo were the protagonist/antagonist pair in the final decisive Goguryeo-Silla-Tang war which ended Goguryeo's role in the entire history. Given this fact, it is not proper for User:Wikimachine to call Silla as "background info". (For example, no way King Geunchogo of Baekje is called "background info" in Goguryeo-Baekje wars) User:Wikimachine is advancing his position by denying historical facts. (2) User:Wikimachine's reason (i.e., "2" as the magic number) to block "Goguryeo-Korea wars" but meanwhile to keep "Goguryeo-China wars" is a baseless fabrication with no wikipedia origin. Indeed, 2 is the TOTAL number of Korea polities other than Goguryeo at that time. 2 is actually the maximum. The reason why "Goguryeo-China wars" and "Goguryeo-Korea wars" are wrong titles is due to their anachronisticity and inconsistency, not the invented magic number 2. (3) According to WP:OR, "Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." "Goguryeo-China wars" is an unpublished concept introduced by several amateurs here, not a published concept.--Jiejunkong 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point of repeating. And I did quote exactly the words in the policies (the ones in bold or the ones in quotations). Try finding them. (Wikimachine 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Also I never wrote this article. I'm not sure where I'm denying historical facts, etc. How is Goguryeo-China wars a fabrication? If there are no sources, add them yourself. If you can't figure out by now, I'm repeating a lot of things already posted above. (Wikimachine 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Could you be a bit more straightforward Wikimachine? Are you denying that a large part of your position is just to try to draw a distinction saying that Goguryeo is not Chinese? Of course this is a big part of it, but this is contentious and your point of view. Why not pick something that avoids these issues entirely? —LactoseTI 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was begun on that NPOV basis, so it is inevitably a large part of this discussion. My main point is that you cannot use article title to test neutrality. I'd love it if admin Husond would explain where the consensus was & his own reasons for supporting the current title. (Wikimachine 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

12:3 is a pretty strong consensus. Even 9:3 was pretty strong, it was relisted and got 3 more. The votes had reasonable justifications per policy. —LactoseTI 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was my impression that consensus meant 100% (vaguely stated, since the official policy states that all of the voters agree to go with the move even if they disagree - I myself don't get this part). It was also under my impression that only when the voters participate in the discussion they actually experience the process of shaping your choice. All these move are disappointing me a lot. They don't show any logical side to you humans. This is like a mass pushing their way in. You guys never participated in the discussion. I mean, I'm ok with the move in and of itself but how it was moved seems to me to be completely ridiculous. I'm not working on this article right now, but when I become an admin and get myself a place, I'll make sure to move it back or create another article of the same niche. (Wikimachine 02:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

In Webster New World Dictionary, "consensus" is defined as "an opinion held by all or most". This is consistent with the Misplaced Pages's interpretation of "consensus". Also rules are rules, they are fairly applied to everybody---system admins must also respect wikirules, otherwise immediate impeachment is pending.--Jiejunkong 09:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is really unnecessary. (Wikimachine 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, check out WP:CON. 60% is often more than enough for consensus. In fact, WP:RM's used to pass almost automatically if the 60% bar was met, but the 60% "rule" was changed since often consensus is reached with less than this supermajority number. In this case, we had about 80%, a very clear consensus per Misplaced Pages's ideas. As for not participating in the discussions, what needed to be said was already being said, diving in and being repetitive doesn't help anything. Signing without reason on the survey isn't helpful because people don't know why people are thinking the way they do, but that didn't happen here.

I don't want to be blunt, but that diff there is a perfect reason you are not close to being ready for administration rights. Those things can be done now without being an admin--the only way they couldn't is if you were planning some unilateral action that would be considered abuse of admin power. —LactoseTI 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm too busy to keep track of all the bureaucratic bourgeoisie crap like you, Lactose. I think you took it too far when you assumed that I'd force my way in ("unilateral action") once I become an admin. If you had all these to say, why didn't you before? I'd love to read you refute my warrants behind why the move is illegit. (Wikimachine 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Putting aside small-minded Lactose & Komdori who love to show what others don't know that they know - despite the fact that I admitted that I don't get the stuffs here, could someone explain consensus & its role in polls? (Wikimachine 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Comments

Correction: The WP:RM was formally initiated with the following comments by myself:

• "The current name "Goguryeo-China wars" does not accurately describe the participants of the war who were neither Chinese nor Goguryeo. See Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars for discussions that lead to this vote."

Most significantly, Silla is neither Chinese nor Goguryeo. Furthermore, the current contents now include Yamato (Japan), which is neither Chinese nor Goguryeo.--Endroit 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you start the discussion or did somebody else? (Wikimachine 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm not an expert on this subject by any means, and barely have even a basic undertsanding of it. But, I do know that I've read numerous news articles on this being a contentious issue between Koreans (both North and South), and Chinese, with both sides laying claim to the heritage of Goguryeo. As I remember though, the Koreans had a much more beleivable claim to the Goguryeo heritage than the Chinese do, and one of the articles stated that this all flared up again when China made a concerted effort to start re-writing history books claiming Chinese "ownership" (whatever would the most appropriate word) of the Goguryeo heritage. Good luck trying to sort it all out, as I see no possiblity unless one side or the other goes on extended vacation. wbfergus 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that you can't use article naming to test ethnic neutrality. That's why the article title move is illegitimate. (Wikimachine 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Lack of communication

Theres no communication between everybody. It is obvious that Jiejunkong does not understand english, seeing how he responds to people.

And, consensus doesn't mean everything, as you showed at Liancourt Rocks before.

The sad thing is that you scream for this title but when you get what you want, I see absolutely no improvement over the article and absolutely nothing about Goguryeo vs Baekje, etc in the article itself.

Isn't that what you want? To improve the article? Certainly not that but only the wishes of CPOV editors.

I snorted at least 5 times reading the discussion so far, quite ridiculous, all of you. Good friend100 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that the administrators cannot see the dumb logic Jiejunkong is screaming about. For example, I don't get how Jiejunkong can justify that Manchuria is a "bad word" because the "chinese people don't like it". Even as I'm typing this, I'm expecting another one of those lame comments with quotes from the rules. Good friend100 03:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He comments that "Silla and Goguryeo were the protagonist/antagonist pair" in the Goguryeo-Tang War? Who says that they were the final pair in the war? Him? Does he think he can make anything up?

Even if he and the other CPOV editors have been editing here for a while, you can't call their votes valid because their reasons are so immature ("oh the Chinese people are sad, we can't do this," cries Jiejunkong).

At te template of Manchuria, Lactose and Komdori hardly help out their own side (including Assault, Jiejunkong, naus, etc) because they know that the CPOV editors have a crappy reason to try to make everything their way.

So lame.

And if you think I'm harsh, Lactose (oh man, here comes the reports), or Komdori (whoever, which one of you, I don't care), listen to the CPOV editors, who call us "ultranationalists" and "gooks".

Again, the sad thing is that you don't make any attempt to improve the article and edit it according to the new title you like. Its obvious that the only thing you and the CPOV editors wanted was a name change because your guts hurt to see the word "Goguryeo" and "China" stuck together. Good friend100 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I really really agree with you,communication is essentially important.Your accusation I found at least resonble as the renaming request.The things is that though I thought Goguryeo is as chinese as korean,but in fact Goguryeo is not deemed as important by chinese as by korean.Considering there are huge number of ethics (it means they are partial or entire sinicized) in chinese history,(I cann't count,Xiongnu,Xianbei,Qidan,more recently Manchu etc)I mean Goguryeo is among these ethics though some special(there's no other nation than China to claim the inheritage of Xianbei Qidan etc),so we cann't take too much attention as Korea do in article of Goguryeo do,because there are too many ethics comparing too little english-speaking chinese(3M chinese-american to 1M korean-american,and the 3M chinese-american is not all favoring the concept of China,an important of part coming from Taiwan).I will contribute to this article as many as I can.In fact,there are really a huge number of Gao (surname) in China,while I thought some of them are from the Goguryeo heritage,what a pity most of them don't speak english and cann't access to wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, what's the point of putting up a good face now? (Wikimachine 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Tried a bit of good faith,even the most bad enemy sometimes will become your friend.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Americans, British & basically most other people with English as their first language don't use proverbs and adages - just keep that in mind. Also, good faith is pre-action only (before I know you, I must assume that you have good intentions). What I did is post-action (through my observations of your actions, I now determine whether you have good or bad intentions). (Wikimachine 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Dead wrong Wikimachine, you should really keep trying to assume good faith barring some evidence of true malice (not just having a different point of view than yours). Your personal points of view are quite painfully clear, but I am not going to stop trying to assume you are trying to improve the articles. Really, you've been around awhile; please spend some time reading up on some of the most basic wikipedia ideas. In the span of a few days you've, among others, illustrated gross misunderstandings of WP:AGF, WP:COI, and WP:CONSENSUS. --Cheers, Komdori 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Actually, Lactose said 60% to 80% is sufficient for consensus, but that's not what WP:CON says. And, according to AGF, This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I already admitted that I was wrong on COI. So, if you've been reading the discussion all this time, why didn't you answer any of the claims brought against your opinion? And why play these trump cards? (~ Lactose) I have moments of self-doubt, but I just read the guidelines, and I reaffirm that I'm right. (Wikimachine 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

You need to keep reading past the first sentence. Evidence to the contrary was clearly defined as malicious intent. Read the article on supermajority to see what consensus is talking about. --Cheers, Komdori 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 articles on supermajority. Plain supermajority is irrelevant b/c it's not WP rule. WP supermajority is rejected by the community. (Wikimachine 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

And its a fact that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and that A consensus of idiots don't mean something is right, as Jimbo Wales said before. A majority is not enough for a change of title. The move was simply a wish that CPOV editors had to erase the word "China" cuase they just can't stand it. Look at the article for Goguryeo. Did anything change besides the section title for "Goguryeo-China Wars"? Nothing, absolutely nothing about this "Goguryeo-Korea Wars" that Jiejunkong keeps talking about. Its obvious that these editors have no wish to improve Misplaced Pages but simply make changes to it so they are happy. Good friend100 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down; the move was supported by a wide range of editors, some with overall Korean viewpoints, some with Chinese, some with neither. You seem to fail to see your argument can be turned round quite easily--that you wanted the name China to stay because you "can't stand" an insinuation that Goguryeo was anything but Korean. Try to be objective; the article is clearly more accurate now, avoids some issues that some editors had problems with, and leaves openings for additional content that otherwise might not have a good place. As for consensus--you're right, a supermajority is often too strict, we often can get away with less and still have a consensus, but since we had well beyond a supermajority of diverse editors with reasons per policy, the situation was clear. --Cheers, Komdori 15:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Good friend was always "calm". What angers me is your arrogant bullshit. Read some philosophy. "Construction of the other." You make Good friend look as if he is impatient or irritable, violent, etc. If you're going to talk here again, fix your attitude. Now. (Wikimachine 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC))CHeers

Thats the only thing I hear from you when you have nothing to say. "Calm down". At least half of the voters had an interest for China alone, and its shameful to see that you can't tell they are obviously biased. Ridiculous. Do you think those same editors are here improving the article? Nope, now they are at Template:History of Manchuria, trying to change the title since they got what they wanted here.

Stop telling me to calm down and other bullcrap. Your problem is that you are biased too. Tell me then, why aren't you supporting "Manchuria" if you are the great NPOV editor who reports wrongdoers and trys to make everything look NPOV with colorful words? "Oh, I don't have interest in the subject" you say.

The Chinese editors' interests are clear and I'm wondering why you always see the "Korean interests" but ignore the Chinese. So stop making lame comments like "supermajority" "diverse editors" (which it was not, unless you consider Jiejukong a legible editor), or "situation was clear". Good friend100 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These editors are just plain POV. They ignore (in other words, pure hubris) whatever legitimate things you've got to say & slam the desk whenever they see a bullseye. It's quite ridiculous that 1 claimed to be a professor & another a Korean...... Oh yeah, defending the policy, but they didn't defend it in Liancourt Rocks - I made the same moves & same justification on Sea of Japan to test that they were POVs. All they're good for is causing trouble. Again, how in the world does an article about a series of wars that a country took against another country (except over different dynasties, regimes, etc.) suddenly evolve into a military history? Wow. So sinocentric. China determines what a country's military history's going to be about. These are very simple & plain concepts that these anti-x, x-haters, etc. can't accept. (Wikimachine 01:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

To User:Good friend100: From my understanding of the term "communication", both parties need to be on the same page or the communication will fail miserably. In order to communicate, you'd better get rid of those ultranationalistic readings teemed with modern political POVs, and read some basic history records. Don't use TV series, amateurish magazines, casual emails as reliable sources. If you are a college student or even younger, wait until you have gathered enough proofs to impress the world.--Jiejunkong 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I can add contents about Goguryeo vs Baekje wars, but one trouble is that, either I add the content or I don't, your bad faith assumption offers me a Sophie's choice.--Jiejunkong 22:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New section

Uh huh, Komdori, assume good faith to somebody who thinks censorship of free speech is good. Maybe you should hit up on Talk:Korean War and read what kind of claims Ksyrie makes. Your personal points of view are quite painfully clear and its disappointing that you support Ksyrie and his buddies here. Wow. Good friend100 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any support of anyone here, don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that we really should be assuming good faith unless it's clear that the other user is malicious, rather than holding a view that is different than our own. --Cheers, Komdori 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Then that's an act of defending, thus translating into supporting. You already voted. (Wikimachine 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Defending wikipedia policies, not specific editors. --Cheers, Komdori 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe not for you this time, but other CPOV editors have defended advantageous parts of the WP policies while excluding the rest to defend their positions. So have you, on Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

And I don't need to put words in your mouth in order to see that what you are supporting and such. And Ksyrie's intentions are obvious. He thinks that the article Korean War is biased because it has an "exxagerated number of Chinese deaths during the war". I mean come on, why do you care how many Chinese people died in a war 50 years ago? Its another case of CPOV editors trying to make everything so they like it just as they did to this article with sheer weight of numbers. "Human wave attacks" as we were discussing at Korean War. Hahaha, I can't believe I'm building a relationship between this article and Korean War. Good friend100 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it, either, many people here may have no interest in what is happening in unrelated articles. I wish I had time to read through that article, too. --Cheers, Komdori 15:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the talk page for Korean War. Good friend100 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to make clear one thing,I do say Thanks to GFW,there's many articles in chinese wikipediam hardly to be found in China,but it's not my standing to support the censorship,it is a humourous way,trying to deliberately say in the way of heavy irony,and someone cannt understand it,so I added the black humour statement to make me clear.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont you find my upcoming word?It's called black humor,if you understand--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove China-related category

Why does it remove ONLY the China-related category "Category:Military history of China" and see also "List of China-related topics & History of China" although does not remove the Korea related? I consider that is a partial POV. Let us know a reason If you want to continue deletion. --Watermint 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuebie and User:Guidales, please explain a legitimate reason before carrying out revert forcibly. Why is there only relation with Korea? Remember, Goguryeo is being controversy topic between China and Korea. --Watermint 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (addition) --Watermint 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Korea doesn't consider it as a dispute, merely a one-sided claim by China. Simply because China claims Goguryeo doesn't mean that its part of its history. Do we put History of Korea at Tang Dynasty simply because Goguryeo fought the Tang? Does the History of China template even include Goguryeo? Good friend100 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As we've discussed on the main article, a great portion of the land in Goguryeo is in modern day China, and Goguryeo is considered an important part of both Chinese and Korean history. World heritage sites, etc. are in both nations. It would certainly make things simpler if borders never changed, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Please don't "copy/paste" arguments from other pages--countries don't "decide" historical events, there are no "one-sided claims." —LactoseTI 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Start-Class Korea-related articles
• Unknown-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Start-Class military history articles