Misplaced Pages

Talk:Goguryeo–Sui War

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Visviva (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 26 May 2007 (→This article needs to be renamed: how about Wars of Goguryeo?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:35, 26 May 2007 by Visviva (talk | contribs) (→This article needs to be renamed: how about Wars of Goguryeo?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Korean:  Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); Hanja:  Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); RR: history

WikiProject iconChina: History B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Chinese / Korean Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. 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.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Chinese military history task force
Taskforce icon
Korean military history task force
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

According to Graff, the size of the Sui army is most likely exaggerated; he points out that the Tang chroniclers, who wrote the History of the Sui Dynasty, tried to dissuade the Tang emperors from invading Korea by exaggerating the magnitude of the Sui defeats. In addition, by comparing the size of the army against the size of the population, he shows that this figure was most likely implausible. His estimated figure is a total army of half the size, comparible to the army that invaded the Chen Dynasty.--Confuzion 22:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

According to the History of the Sui Dynasty, 1,138,000 combat troops were mobilised. The support troops, responsible for logistics and transportation of resources, are believed to have dwarfed even that number. The total strength of the army is in dispute, with estimates ranging from 3 to more than 5 million.

Move to Goguryeo-China Wars

As visible in the history (here), the wars of the Sui and the Tang dynasties it's a serie of wars in the same geopolitic line. Chinese new Empire wanted to submit all it's neighbourgs. For the case of Goguryeo, the Cambridge history of China say that "Taizong became more and more concerne by Goguryeo and the Sui campaign. Taizong wanted submit the only kingdom which resisted to Chinese expansion."
The fact seem clear to me that it's a story about Chinese proudness and Goguryeo proudness. Not about Sui dynasty.
Yug (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Goguryeo-Sui Wars is a distinct topic, and should not be merged into the later Tang wars. The later wars were in significant different context, in alliance with Silla, and involving attacks on Baekje. Besides, if this article was truly about Goguryeo-China wars, it would have to go back to the founding of Goguryeo and cover all wars between Goguryeo and the Han colonies and every Chinese battle since that. This article is clearly more limited and specific. OpieNn 17:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Commonly, the wikipedia policy is to divide articles when they are too big and dividable in two or three. That's not the case. Make an article "Goguryeo-Sui wars" and an other "Goguryeo-Tang wars" is, currently, not the best way.
Yug (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Yug has renamed Goguryeo-Sui Wars to Goguryeo-China Wars, because he wants to include later Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, which I think is really a separate war. It doesn't make sense, because if you call it Goguryeo-China Wars, the article should include all wars between Goguryeo and China, including the wars against the Four Han Colonies, all the way through Goguryeo's fall. The article as-is, is not about that, it's really about the war between Goguryeo and the Sui Dynasty, which itself is a major, specific topic that should have its own article. If he wants to create another article on the Tang-Silla invasions of Baekje-Goguryeo, that's fine, but don't hijack an existing article on a different topic. Please see and say what you think about it. Thank you. OpieNn 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I know, my choice is the best one : it's one idea => the Chinese will to submit/conquest Goguryeo.
I also suspect that Pro-Korean users may prefer divide in 2 articles to show one beautifull article "Goguryeo-Sui wars" where Korean people is amazingly strong with a final victory. And don't want show the final defeat.
The Cambridge history of China doesn't seem to say that the Sui's wars/campaigns (598,612,613,614) are different from the Tang's wars/campaigns (645,661,667,668).
What are your sources ? What is your school studies ? The fact that you are a new user (4 edits) doesn't help me to trust you or what you will say.
Yug (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One idea to consider—indeed, the more common way of dealing with situations like this—would be to leave this as an overview article covering all the wars between Goguryeo and the various Chinese states, and then to break out each individual (major) war into its own article to allow for more detailed coverage. (See, for example, the Italian Wars article & child articles.) This would be much easier than trying to break the wars into "series", since the beginning and end of each individual war are usually fairly clear, even when the connection between successive wars is not. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill. After this article is expanded more further, we can start a sub-article on Sui's campaigns on Gogueyeo. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objects to creating new articles, on Goguryeo-China wars, Goguryeo-Tang war, or whatever. But just changing a long-established article messes up a lot of links.

Since there was a fully developed article on the specific topic of Goguryeo-Sui Wars, I have restored that specific article, so that the links will be correct. There are many links to that article from other articles already, which intend to refer to the Goguryeo-Sui war, not all Goguryeo wars with China. It's a very long-standing article many people have worked on, and it's on the Korean History box too.

I have just cut-and-pasted some information from the Goguryeo article to fill out this page with information on Goguryeo's battles with various Chinese dynasties. You can see that it's more than just Sui and Tang. Anybody with more information should be welcome to make this article more complete, but don't mess up the existing article, please. OpieNn 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Split this article into subarticle

Reason:the span of this article is too long.abount 500 or 600 years.It's not suitable to put all the odds in the same article.Just like the war between German and France,we cann't put together all the 3 majors conflits between the two countries.see Franco-Prussian War,Western Front (World War I) and Battle of France.--Ksyrie 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I completely agree. Goguryeo / China wars are just too long. Goguryeo fought again the Han dynasty, Wei, Sui and Tang, that's 600 years. WangKon936 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by OpieNn

  • Version by Ksyrie : China-Goguryeo wars, long history (about 600 years). I agree with this improvement.

Then OpieNn come back :

  • Modif by OpieNn : restaure an old version about Sui's campaigns, delete content (Han + Tang Campaigns) without moving it to an other article.

Comment : It's the second time that this user use this way : he restore old version, without looking on what he delete. (n^1).

Two solutions : First, he is a good user who act too fast. Second, he is a pro-korean user, using a new account and many revert, to keep divide the subject.
I continue to think, as the Cambridge history of China, that Sui and Tang campaigns are the same line. I ask it again : What are your sources ? What is your studies ? Yug (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am Ksyrie,I just want to say,I am not OpieNn.And I am Chinese,not a pro-Korean.I can see full your justification for restoring your edits concerning Han and Tang.It's I who add the Split.Surtout,t'as raison de continuter des guerres dans des nouveau stubs au titre de Goguryeo-Tang Wars.Il est vivement conseille de ne pas t'inquieter trop.qlq fois,on trouve des coreens sont assez fiers de ne vouloir pas changer ses idees.Ok,si on ne peut pas les changer ,on change nousmeme.Essaie toi de creer stubs.Bonne chance et joyeux noel!--Ksyrie 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Ksyrie, I agree with your edits. But I disagree with OpieNn's edits, who destroyed your work too. Yug (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about, Yug. The current state is the way the article was before your changes. I didn't destroy anyone's work. As I already explained above, when you moved Goguryeo-Sui to Goguryeo-China, I made changes so that Goguryeo-Sui remained about Goguryeo-Sui (by keeping the original, before your addition of Tang), and I (not Ksyrie) expanded your new Goguryeo-China with Han, Yan, Tang and other information which I copied from the Goguryeo article. When Ksyrie reverted your move (he didn't add the part about Han, I did), I restored everything as before, by undoing my own changes, since there was no Goguryeo-China article anymore.

Again, please feel free to make a NEW article about Goguryeo's wars with all Chinese dynasties, or all Korean dynasties with all Chinese dynasties, or whatever. Just don't change this long-standing, widely-linked article into something else. Thanks. OpieNn 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As of 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC), you still haven't provide your source to explain your controversial edits.
As I said it, my edits are based upon The Cambridge history of China.
2/ look on the bottom what you deleted without move it in a new article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yug (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
In my opinion, your edits aim to divide the topic in two, to keep a proud, victorious and pro-korean Goguryeo-Sui Wars article.
Your contributions -still unsourced- doesn't seem to look on the full semantic story.
So : I will set up a "NEW article" Goguryeo-Tang Wars, then, I will ask the opinion of an administrators-historian : Nlu, and he will decide. --Yug (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge historics

Please, an Admin may him merge :

--Yug (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"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)
Categories: