Talk:First conflict of the Goguryeo–Tang War

Korean pronounciations and Chinese POV
This article is well-balanced overall. However, there are a few parts where I would have to say there was some Chinese POV, such as suggesting that Yeon Gaesomun was "arrogant" in his treatment to the Tang emissaries. Perhaps taking words that express personal opinion out of the article. Also, Yeon Gaesomun was not a magniji, but a Dae Magniji. --Kprideboi (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am open to alternative wording as well any help you can provide on Korean names. However, it should be noted that, assuming that you are complaining about some of the Korean names already in the article that are in Revised Romanization, WP:MOS-KO calls for the use of Revised Romanization when it comes to historical articles.  --Nlu (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Other articles/sources state 10-20,000 Tang soldiers were killed during the Seige of Ansi, would anyone oppose me changing the figure to 12-22,000 Tang dead? Jegal (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No opposition as long as the sources are cited. I am personally skeptical of the 2,000 figure given by Chinese sources (which, I might add, was also adopted by the Samguk Sagi), given that Emperor Taizong himself had been in battles that singly had much more than that killed and probably wouldn't have considered 2,000 deaths a large figure, although, of course, in his middle age (he did not live to what we would consider to be old age) he might be viewing human casualties much more seriously than when he was young.  It should also be noted, however, that it was said that he personally read the names of the dead at a ceremony.  20,000 names would be much harder to read for him personally than 2,000, although definitely not impossible.  --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Result field
According to Template:Infobox military conflict, the result field should be as follows:


 * "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"

So to be clear, the first and most important description in the result section should be "X victory", "Decisive X victory", etc. In this case, the result was a "Decisive Goguryeo victory".

You cited my additions to the Goryeo-Khitan War page as a "new position" regarding the result field, however it follows the guidelines listed above. It clearly makes use of one of the standard terms: "Goryeo Dynasty Victory". The guidelines do not exclude the use of other important components of the final result, such as concluding peace agreements, territorial changes, etc. See the American Civil War page, World War II page, and other established articles as a reference.

However, the result section should not be a summary of the events that took place, like in your revision: "Goguryeo relief force to Ansi fortress defeated,[1] however Tang attempts to take Ansi are defeated and successful defense of Ansi fortress forces the Tang army to withdraw from Goguryeo[2]". Here, none of the standard terms are used and none of the additional information you provided actually pertains to the final result of the conflict. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not what the source says. The commander of Ansi fortress, Yang Manchun, defeats the invading Tang army. I don't see where it says Decisive Goguryeo Victory for the entire campaign.Rajmaan (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your concern. I'm adding a source right now. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It says "unsuccessful attack", After the Tang dynasty succeeded the Sui, the second Tang emperor also tried to bring Goguryeo under its control, launching an unsuccessful attack in 645.Rajmaan (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unsuccessful attack, Tang defeat, etc. all mean that the other side (in this case Goguryeo) was victorious. For example, if a source says that the Axis powers (Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire and Italy) were defeated in the World War II by the Allied powers, it would be appropriate to cite this as an "Allied Victory" in an encyclopedia. I'll add another source that explicitly states Goguryeo's success in defeating the invading Tang armies. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)