Jump to content

Talk:Goguryeo controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goguryeo controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tungusnistic/Turkic Goguryeo

[edit]

When about 10,000 Annamese Tang soldiers invaded Goguryeo in 645, thus they left proven records in Hanoi. We believe Tungus people such as Jurchen and Xibe were the main inhabitants of Goguryeo empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E9F1:F9A4:A75:8065 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No source and There is a Chinese record that the language of Goguryeo was different from Tungus. Do you ignore this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringechina (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Goguryeo controversies

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Goguryeo controversies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kyunghyang":

  • From Samhan: 이기환 (30 August 2017). [이기환의 흔적의 역사]국호논쟁의 전말…대한민국이냐 고려공화국이냐. 경향신문 [The Kyunghyang Shinmun] (in Korean). Retrieved 2 July 2018.
  • From Three Kingdoms of Korea: 이기환 (30 August 2017). "[이기환의 흔적의 역사]국호논쟁의 전말…대한민국이냐 고려공화국이냐". 경향신문 (in Korean). The Kyunghyang Shinmun. Retrieved 2 July 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major POV and accuracy issues with the "Speculative Motives" section

[edit]

This section currently has some major issues. It frequently presents the claims of Chinese professor Dingding Chen (who has a Wiki article about him) as speaking authoritatively in Wiki's voice. While several other scholars are named in the article when their views are stated, Chen's claims (all hailing from a single linked article, but interspersed throughout the section in a manner that gives the impression of hailing from multiple sources) are presented as being authoritative judgments instead of being correctly pointed out as individual claims that do not have widespread support among scholars. In fact, multiple of the other links in the section (Byington and Ahn) essentially debunk Chen's claims, as they specify that the Korean and Western scholarship is focused mainly on the historical inaccuracy of the Chinese claims.

Furthermore, the section tries to give greater weight to the Chinese scholars and their theories found in this section, often presenting their claims as authoritative rebuttals to the Western and Korean scholars cited. The linked sources do not support this, as the claims made by the linked Chinese scholars in this section are actually refuted by what is found in the linked articles in the section from non-Chinese scholars. As it is, the section is clearly intentionally slanted to attempt to give undue weight to the Chinese position.

So, this section needs a major overhaul. I realize that this topic is contentious, so I figured we should probably work out here on the talk page the best way to revise it. There are a few possibilities I can think of, and perhaps other editors could come up with more possible solutions as well. One possibility would be to clearly state who the Chinese claims in the section come from, and then present immediately after each of them the non-Chinese sources refuting these allegations. I realize that some Chinese editors might not like that, as it demonstrates the speciousness of the claims of some of their academics. Another possibility would be to remove the refuted linked Chinese claims altogether, and instead search for Chinese sources that present more moderate claims which aren't directly debunked by the other linked sources. Another possibility would be to separate the section into two subsections, one for the official Chinese view about what the motives underlying the controversy are, and one for what the rest of the world's academics consider to be the motives. However, in that case, it would still have to be noted somehow that the other linked academics refute Chen's assertions, so we would still need to either remove those or note that the other sources refute his claims (possibly necessitating the inclusion of more moderate claims from other Chinese scholars in that subsection). So this third option is really just a combination of the first two options.

As currently written, this section is heavily biased and inaccurate, so it absolutely needs to be revised. Hopefully we can civilly talk through here what the best way to do that is for an article that's already quite contentious. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is most western and korean scholars have shared opinions on Goguryeo (they agree it was probably korean and related to the other 2 samhan kingdoms). The one about the Tungustic theory was one guy and he doesn't even specialize in that part of Asia and Japonic theories are losing steam. And the sheer amount of info (due to probably ease of access) makes it easy to rebuttle the Chinese claims which are harder to get our Western hands on. I more think the page should be simplified to saying "there's a controversy" and not add any details that favor toward any side by just going more into the controversy itself (like why is it even a thing or how did it start) rather than another page arguing Goguryeo's origin which is largely agreed upon (in the West and Korea at least) to be Korean 2001:56A:F825:7400:E07E:9AC5:FF6F:5A4D (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a history section but it should be explored more imo 2001:56A:F825:7400:E07E:9AC5:FF6F:5A4D (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like what were the views before the controversy and how it affects the view of Goguryeo today 2001:56A:F825:7400:E07E:9AC5:FF6F:5A4D (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry if it sounds weird (or even biased) i wasn't sure how to word it without letting bias slip in 2001:56A:F825:7400:E07E:9AC5:FF6F:5A4D (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that dramatically simplifying the entire page is something we can get into right now, given the long and contentious history of this article. As far as this specific section goes however, simplifying it down to a few sourced speculations on the motives behind the controversy might be a good idea. Could help to clean the section up and make it less argumentative/problematic. MojaveSummit (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank I think this entire page is trash. The above problems apply generally to the entire page. I previously went through it and added maintenance templates where I could find but entire sections are written in a combative tone while citing only primary sources or non-English sources, which is usually fine but in these situations leads to a myriad of interpretation and translation issues. This isn't just the Chinese sections but the Korean perspectives as well. If it was up to me I would eliminate all Chinese and Korean sources and restrict this entire page to only English sources to reduce the above problems. Qiushufang (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would just end up with Western scholars the majority agreeing with the Koreans like the first comment stated so nothing really changes there 2001:56A:F825:7400:1C5E:CCEA:4013:2ABE (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be improved regarding citations quality and style

[edit]

It has been two years since users have pointed out that this article has quite a few issues regarding POV and quality. This has remained unchanged with the exception of some removal of tagged content, but notably not any that is not original research. There still remains large portions of the article such as points and arguments that are based solely on primary sources that are hundreds if not thousands of years old. Some of the sources are directly from state organizations promoting their narrative. Many do not have page numbers specified. The majority of this article reads like an argumentative debate with extensive lists of pros or cons to support such and such. It does not make for easy reading and it is not clear what the reliability of these sources are as they are so varied and differing in quality in addition to citation style differences. Qiushufang (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A generic case of two belligerent parties trying to out-content each other on a single wiki article.
The biggest problem I see on this article (and the Gorguryeo debate in general) is that the article is formatted into arguments that support whether the Goguryeo state was part of Chinese history or Korean history. I find that sentence somewhat idiotic. Generally speaking, the history of one historical state is not confined to the lineage of one specific modern-day country. This debate is similar to the Macedonia naming dispute, where two nations have conflicted over whether which side is the ethnic successor of a historical nation. Thus, this debate should be about the nature of the Goguryeo state, and what claims about it have been the subject of 'historical appropriation'.
I believe the "arguments" section (and a large amount of content from "history") should be re-formatted into sections on each specific contention over the issue (such as #anthropological origin or #diplomatic reception) before any further improvements could be made. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goguryeo_controversies&oldid=1253417004"