Talk:Goguryeo controversies/Archive 1

...
I thought Goguryeo was Korean all my life. I'm quite surprised. Japan declaring that Dokdo is theirs. China declaring that Gogureyo is theirs, and Americans hating Koreans because of the Virginia Tech Incident. OOOO!! I realize now that I was born in an unlucky country. Amphitere 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need for you to be upset about Goguryeo (assuming you are a Korean). Goguryeo's China connection is from Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu lines.  But indeed Jurchen and Joseon are very likely siblings (though no written proof of the connection, because only Han Chinese had the habit to write everything down since 300BC), the name Jurchen itself is very likely a split from Joseon.  In my personal opinion, the current Manchu people can be thought as an intermediate form between Korean and Chinese.  They were split from Joseon in ancient time and mixed with Chinese in the last 1000 years.--Jiejunkong 08:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Manchu founder Nurhaci have specifically wrote that they are not related to the Korean peoples.  It is very apparent from history that the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu line have always kept a distinction between itself and that of the indigenous peoples of the Korean peninsula.  Joseon and Jurchen are only similar in English transliteration, but radically different in pronunciation in the Archaic and Middle Chinese pronunciations. Joseon/Chosun (朝鮮) starts with a voiceless consonant /tS/ (朝 = tSAu), while Jurchen (女真) is a voiced consonant /dZ/ (女 = dZnjo). Chinese transliterations at the time (pre-Yuan Dynasty) were acutely aware of the difference between voiced and voiceless consonants and would have never mixed them up.  The Japanese language still retains a lot of Archaic and Middle Chinese voiced consonants and you see clearly that in Japanese 朝鮮 = Chousen (ちょうせん) and 女真 = Joshin　(じょしん). --JakeLM 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't really say that Goguryeo is China's, or Korea's. Goguryeo was a country of its own that existed in history. Neither does it belong to any country. And, if Goguryeo was Chinese, how come they are declaring that its their's now? And same for Korea. Anyways, I don't want a fight to start with China and Korea. The fight with Japan is enough. My point is that, this argument is unnecessary, because Goguryeo is not China, nor Korea. Amphitere 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get such impression Amphitere,the Goguryeo Dokdo and VTK are all minor unpleasant experiences for the majority People.Like the Goguryeo one is just one history passing，people are just trying to interpret it from their own logic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no Chinese official textbooks claim Goguryeo's history is part of Chinese history. Even if there is, I think it is not abnormal. The relationship between countries those time is different from that now. So it will be surprising if such issue doesn't arouse controversy when all nations are rising. Haofangjia 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are clearly misinformed about what your government is trying to do. Everything points to the fact that Koreans come from Goguryeo, and from the kingdoms before Goguryeo. Making vague claims about "mohe connections" and other baloney doesn't really matter here. Politics don't matter here, and making dumb claims that Goguryeo was part of china doesn't matter here. No one cares about your own beliefs, and what you do here, on this insignificant website that is part of a billion websites out there, isn't going to change the minds of the historians who don't care about your claims. So, you guys should just stop now. Trying to push your beliefs here isn't going to help persuade the rest of the world that Goguryeo is part of China, because honestly, no one really cares about your claims. I don't see anyone participating here frequently but you. This place is nearly dead. There are hardly any kind of improvements to the article, and the only edits that you want to do are biased, so the administrators won't allow that. You are obviously not here to improve the article as a whole, only to find ways to insert sentences that are true with your beliefs.

So just stop, cause no one cares, and none of your edits are going to pull through. Good friend100 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't believe there are ungenerous Chinese out there still trusting their NE project to include Goguryeo and Balhae as their history when no Chinese ever placed mark on Goguryeo and Balhae history other than Koreans. --Korsentry 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Yes, your nation is quite pathetic... it might as well accept vassalage from a stronger power just to retain nominal sovereignty like your ancient ancestors did with clever diplomacy. As of right now, there is a power struggle between China and US for hegemony in East Asia after USSR and Japan were knocked out of the playing field... It really sucks to be Korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

North Korea being "relatively silent"
''As for Western observers, they began to blame North Korea for being relatively quiet on the matter. Allegedly, the studied silence of DPRK historians was attributed to the fact that China remains their only benefactor (Scofield 2003). Indeed, economic and political turmoil, which followed the collapse of the Communist Bloc in the late 1980s, did leave North Korea in the cold practically without reliable allies.'' Cydevil38 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And we don't get to hear or see their voices thanks to biased Chinese media and Government's propaganda. --Korsentry 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Comment
Oh yeah, and its your own assumption that some information is "dubious". How can the fact that Korean historians dispute Chinese claims be "dubious"? Or maybe you still can't accept that Korean historians dispute Chinese claims when the entire article has Korean historians and links to arguments against China.

I don't see nothing dubious and I just added several good sources. And, I also don't see why email messages cannot be valid. This [guy] uses Byington's email message as a reference and I don't see why we can't either. It seems to me that this dubious problem is over and that we don't need anymore of those tags. Good friend100 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a very bias article. One reading this article can easy understand which side the writer stands on the arguement which comes off that everyone is wrong but the Koreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.243.213.19 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Koreans just could not accept the fact that their history is not so glorious, at least compare to China and Japan. In most of the time they are either occupied by China or colonized by Japan, and now they are semi-controled by Uncle Sam.From my old memory, Korea is always a peace, little, developed country. But what happened to your guys in recently 10 years? You guys seems mad about history, rewritten your history and steal other's history. Everything becomes yours, so Goguryeo is no exception, take it, enjoy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A fine example of an average indoctrinated chinese. And let me just say, for the sake of better understanding our little peasant friend here, such baseless slander is a common habit of a certain neighboring country of Korea with a huge inferiority complex. Notice how they are oblivious to centuries of foriegn domination in china (Mongol Dynasty, Liao Dynasty, Manchu Dynasty, British Empire), and quite frankly love playing the victim. And what better way to counter their follies? Accuse us of doing the same thing (see echoism). Their claims on Goguryeo are based on territorial hogwash (basically since we now own A, every letter that starts with A is ours). The chinese have a history of distortion (Tibet) and outright cultural theft (Goguryeo), it's almost impossible to have an objective view when a nation continues to intentionally fabricate lies (Xinhua). Kuebie (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * han dynasty china ruled the region before it was ownd by goguryeo, so your analogy with the letter A is wrong. Owned.
 * Nope. Gojoseon. Pwnd. Kuebie (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, in my western history books written by western scholors, gojoseon is nonexistent
 * I really doubt that. That's basically saying that the Han dynasty had no opposition, which is pretty stupid. Kuebie (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice how the manchu qing dynasty had staged and invasion of korea, as had the mongol empire, and the liao dynasty, notice how all of these owned korea too.


 * Nah, no one conquered Korea until the 19th century which was done by the Japanese Empire. Another wet dream of the Chinese. Kuebie (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Map by WESTERN mapmaker Dr. Ian Barnes, in his book MAPPING HISTORY ISBN 978-1-84573-323-0 shows 70% of korean peninsula controleed by chinese han dynasty, about up to half of south korea.
 * Inaccurate. Your argument sucks. PS you should really stop sucking Western DICK. Kuebie (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the one who loves Western dicks is Korea. At least there are no Western soldiers on Chinese soil. If you Koreans want to show some toughness, you should get rid of Uncle Sam's soldiers first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Chinese homes bulldozed for the Olympics (what's up with that?) Chinese dairy knew milk fault weeks before recall/Payments for melamine-tainted milk victims to top 13.5 billion yuan (talk about saving face - once the [http:// www.nowpublic.com/health/china-moves-save-face-milk-scandal FDA kicked in], you guys were all of sudden apologetic) Akkies (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, did I hurt the little peasant's feelings? Koreans couldn't care less what the chinese think of them. After all, you guys even turn on each other just to appease to westerners. Akkies (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * actually south korea was documented in the act of supporting prostituion of korean women to USA WESTERN military soldiers.Paraster (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * even says in the article south korean gov. enjoys having US troops on its soil, and alleveating their "natural needs" :)Paraster (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job on finding a link about prostitutes servicing customers. Oh lookie here, I found one too. Not to mention China is literally a brothel farm with its people lining up to Malaysian/Singaporean immigration offices to pimp themselves out to the locals. But on to my original point:

--deleted for using racial slurs and biased source-- For these Chinese have issue with Korean history please learn the correct history before accusing us being slave race of Qing and so on. It seems only Korean dynasty kept their heritage while Manchus destroyed Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan dynasties. Sorry that was the real deal.

Stop budging into other people history and future, there is no place for Chinese nationalists who can not control their bad habit of blaming it onto other people when it was Chinese always have been under non Chinese rules.

Japan never have colonized Korea or other people, this is another fabrication made up by Japanese nationalists. Japan annexed Korean dynasty & incorporated Korea into their royal line. Korean royals were forced to marry Japanese royals. Todays Japanese royals have Korean DNA, sorry so Japanese in the end was serving Korean after all.

--KoreanSentry (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I've always been curious with their obsession with Korea. Not too long ago this same guy was trying convince us that Koreans came from china. By the way, why delete the comments? Akkies (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * never said koreans came from china....

strange because i have 2 sources documenting korea under chinese rule.....Paraster (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yeah, and chinese people descended from a dragon. What a load of crap. Go masturbate somewhere else. Akkies (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)



The bear-woman (Ungnyeo; 웅녀; 熊女) was grateful and made offerings to Hwanung. However, she lacked a husband, and soon became sad and prayed beneath a Sindansu (신단수; 神檀樹, "Divine Betula") tree to be blessed with a child. Hwanung, moved by her prayers, took her for his wife and soon she gave birth to a son, who was named Dangun Wanggeom. LOL, and yeah, koreans descended from a bear LMAO.Paraster (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension, you need it. Akkies (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe you should stop spamming the page with advertisements.Paraster (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. Akkies (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * your choice of words clearly shows what the typical korean looks up in their spare time.Paraster (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh? And what's that? Akkies (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * at least its obvious what YOU look up in your spare time, looking at pictures in those articles.....Paraster (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What pictures are you refering to my little peasant? Akkies (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * im not stupid enough to display it here and be accused of being obscene. interlinked word below


 * Ha! Yeah, and chinese people descended from a dragon. What a load of crap. Go masturbate somewhere else. Akkies (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Purely psychological projection. I don't know what your talking about. Akkies (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe it is in your own little worldParaster (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well atleast you understand the gist of it. I assume you were thinking about self-pleasuring when you saw my edit? Eww. Once again it's psychological projection. Akkies (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * actually its about you reading the article and looking at all the pictures...Paraster (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * actually its about you reading the article and looking at all the pictures... Akkies (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, judging from your comments, i bet you spend a good 5 hours a day looking up these things to insult people with.Paraster (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See echoism. Akkies (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No wonder all Coreans seem angry.... They came from Bear... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.107.200 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What a nonsense Chinese are claiming here, since when bear totem is Chinese culture? Also, Koreans have never originated from Chinese culture, Shang, Han, and Tang Dynasties were never Chinese to begun with when Current Chinese are mostly originated from further South near Vietnam. --Korsentry 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)


 * God, why cannot people be civil here? Comments about masturbation here, comments about slurs there... this is Wikipedia, not a forum, children. I wonder how old many of you are. Haven't your parents taught you values of moral respect? I feel deep pity for those whom you all interact with; it must be bothersome. From now on, please refrain from using substandard vocabulary, and act like gentlemen. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * QUOTE: "What pictures are you refering to my little peasant?" - This is an statual/ethnic slur and a personal attack against another user, and is going directly to the Administrator's noticeboard. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Question of Goguryeo's ethnicity and that of Baekje
--deleted due to biased & nonsense claims from well known troll--


 * The linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeo-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that some Japonic toponymes or place names, found in the central part of Korean peninsula, don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language in the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
 * Firstly, None of the Japonic toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated. Secondly, some Japonic toponymes (such as Japonic numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in the southern part of Korean peninsula. On the contrary, many Koreanic toponymes were evenly distributed all around the territory of Goguryeo kingdom from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula.
 * The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new states on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples
 * Jagello 14:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Japan is known for stealing Korean tombs artifacts and they did this in order to claim on ancient Korean states. There is no such thing is called Japonic language that have survived in Korean peninsula, both Goguryeo, Baekje languages were from Buyeo origin and mixed with language of Ma-han tribe (one of Samhan tribes of Korea). Gaya state came from Byeon-han tribe and Shilla state came from Jin-Han tribe, both Byeon-Han and Jin-Han spoke same language, so claimed in Gaya or Kaya by Japanese are false.--KoreanSentry (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

edit warring - PRC or Chinese views are all based on Sun Jinji's cass paper
This is practically the only official stance of China, and yet there are two users that keep resurrecting that section - with zero explanations whatsoever. I keep telling them it's WP:OR to you know, make up own conclusions and 'publish' it on wikipedia. That and the Korean government or some centralized body of academia has never published a journal which states 'Korean views' on this topic. Get it? Which means the section is just a post for people's personal arguments. Kuebie 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And really, I've actually tried to negotiate by offering to get whatever "Chinese views" (which I assume is from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences - the institution that's actually doing the history revision) I've missed to be included in the background section. Kuebie (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim Jizi and Gija Joseon are not real it's WP:OP, even Kim Jung-bae and Sin Chaeho hasn't disprove Jizi. Ancient Koreans opposite your view are not based Sun Jinji's cass paper.Imbonwwwww (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's clear English is your second language. I only got the first part, so I'll respond to that; they aren't real. Pure fantasy. A fairy tale. Myth. Know why? Simply because the fact that there are no archeological or recorded history of a "Gija Joseon" or the person known as "Jizi". Now I'd appreciate it if you would stop wiki-stalking me. Kuebie (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the removal of all of that material. I feel like I'm only catching a bit of your explanation but you're saying the whole section should be deleted because it generalized too much? That warrants a change in heading, not complete deletion. What if instead the heading read "arguments for the Korean claim over Goguryeo?" Ace52387 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I hoped that we could have solved this ourselves...
An FYI that I'll be requesting a mediator (unless, you know, Ksyrie actually decides to participate in the discussion). Really, it's for your own benefit my Chinese friend. I'm actually helping you not seem like a stubborn Maobot that refuses join in on a discussion made over 2 weeks ago. Kuebie (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Defining a claim of ultra-nationalism as a fact
Ultra-nationalism is a relative concept, not an absolute one with fixed standards, and it cannot be established as a fact. I strongly suggest editors think twice before reverting an edit that removes such an erroneous establishment of fact. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PRC Gov. and China
There is a radical difference between PRC gov. and China. So in this sector the editor should revise all China to PRC gov. In addition, vast majority of Chinese will either not buy "the saying" or do not even know the topic at all. It is not an even topic in China since even in Chinese textbook (the editor can go to search Chinese version world history textbook covering east Asia : three kingdoms of Korea or something like that). As stated, aside of Peking U. professor, many Chinese history scholars have expressed similar opinions on the topics. The editor can ask help from friends who know mandarin to search. As a result, it is more a argument between PRC gov. and Korea people instead of China vs. Korea. So please change it accordingly.

As for political reason, it is very unlikely even the possible "united Korea" to claim a dispute with China regarding current Liaoning prov. of China as somehow 40 million Chinese live there vs. maybe less than 1 million (as many of Korean ethnics lives in Jilin prov.)Precisely even Manchu has better saying in Liaoning as Manchu has more population than the Korean and history tie to Liaoning (from Nvzhen, Jin dynasty, Hou Jin and Qing dynasty). The second argument of possible North Korea collaps explains better.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.3 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The veracity of either side's claims on Goguryeo and the use of the word "revisionist"
I notice here that the article regularly states that the PRC is "revising" history to adopt goguryeo as their own. While I have read the basics of the claims from both sides, I am not an expert on the subject and I do not know the level evidence supporting either side. On the other hand, I was under the impression that a well accepted opinion is that ANY nationalistic claim on Goguryeo is unacademic in nature because today's national identity and borders are not applicable to ancient kingdoms. Assertions about ethnic ancestry and such cannot support an argument for exclusivity.

source: http://hnn.us/articles/21617.html

Rather than the term revising history, I believe a more apporpriate term would be "asserting its claim." Revisionist history may have occured but that should be mentioned to specific facts. For example, statements about Goguryeo as a tributary state as Byington points out, are not well supported. But this actually does not make its entire claim revionist or invalid anymore than the North Korean claim about its independence from Chinese and Korean history or the popular south korean claim that it is exclusively the history of the korean penninsula as a whole.

The article as is appears biased and implies that Korean claims on Goguryeo are legitimate while the PRC is trying to revise that. The strength of the evidence provided in this case is actually independent of the applicability of a national claim on this historical kingdom in general, and should therefore be addressed independenlty. I'm aware that Byington addresses the weakness of the PRC's claims, but in Yonson Ahn's paper, she mentions that Korean scholars use very similar (maybe more factually accurate or maybe not) claims on genetic/ethnic/racial lineage and using that as a justification for its claims on Goguryeo as exclusively Korean, an argument that is fundamentally flawed. The PRC historians make similar but opposite claims on Goguryeo lineage and then assert that it and Parhae after it were tributary states to Chinese dynasties. This wikipedia article does not address the core problems with staking claims on ancient kingdoms the way Ahn and other Chinese and Korean scholars do. Granted they appear to be in the minority of their respective nations but their views do appear to be the most objective.

The implication throughout this wiki article is that the Korean claim over Goguryeo is legitamate. It's actually one of the more biased articles I've read on wikipedia particularly in its language use. This article does not treat the issue as a controversy, but rather it only presents the arguments of non-south Korean claims on Goguryeo and then strikes them as revisionist or flawed without actually addressing the South Korean argument for Goguryeo being exclusively a part of the history of the Korean penninsula. It assumes the position that Goguryeo is exclusively korean history. The lack of NPOV here is painfully obvious.

The entire criticism section criticizes Chinese claims on Goguryeo. There is no objectivity. I'm not saying you have to incorporate any poorly supported arguments made by certain Chinese historians, but there must be more criticism of Goguryeo's history belonging to any modern nation exclusively. This is a somewhat popular opinion amongst historians from what I gather. This section would be more suitable to an article titled "Chinese claims on Goguryeo history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace52387 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether Korean nationalists really want to talk about this issue.The modern Korean people  really have great consanguinity with Goguryeo people,but it doesn't mean modern Chinese people don't have any consanguinity with Goguryeo people.Taking Manchu as exemple,I am sure Some of them are the direct succesion of Goguryeo people,and Manchu are now Chinese,So it's improper to just remove any statements relating the Chinese-Goguryeo inheritance and claiming the virginity and uniqueness Korean-Goguryeo inheritance.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think Chinese attempts to claim Goguryeo are equally, if not more unfounded. At least Korean claims are rooted in status quo, however unreasonable that may have been, but trying to uproot the status quo with ridiculous assertions about the Chineseness of Goguryeo is probably more irrational and quite frankly, to most people, laughable.  Arguments about the extent of Han/Tang influence on Goguryeo can be made. Arguments about the similarities to the other Korean nations in the penninsula may also be made.  Arguments about the descendents or the ancestors of Goguryeo people may also be made.  The strength of any of these arguments has no effect on the irrationality of actually trying to claim Goguryeo as a history that belongs solely to any modern nation.  Neither bloodline nor cultural influence are valid claims on history for obvious reasons.  No one will say "I'm a Goguryeo person."  The fact is the ethnicity/nationality has long since disappeared.  The only thing left to discuss is its impact on history and its influence.  This is even more true because Goguryeo eventually was incorporated into 2 (3 if you seperate N.Korea) modern nations.  Calling Goguryeo an inheretence may actually fuel the argument.


 * I think the only rationally defensible arguments are either: Goguryeo is independent of both Chinese and Korean history, or that it should be included in both. Ace52387 (talk)

Goguryeo lasted during the periods of several dynasties including Han Dynasty (202 BC–AD 220), Wei and Jin Period (AD 265–420), Wu Hu Period (AD 304–439), Southern and Northern Dynasties (AD 420–589), Sui Dynasty (AD 589–618), Tang Dynasty (AD 618–907). These dynasties located in the current Chinese territory never occupied Goguryo. Emperor Taechong of Tang Dynasty himself participated its attack against Goguryo with morn than 1 million soliders, but failed. Three years later the emporer died with his injured in the attack. The territories of Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty never reached to Goguryo.

Most of the territory of Goguryo is within today's Chinese territory which does not mean that Goguryo was a part of the past China or a part of Chinese dynasties. If Goguryo was so, Austria and Hungary once occupied by the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty should be a part of the past China or a part of Chinese dynasties.

In the past, even Yuan Dynasty was not accepted as part of China. The countries beyond the Great Wall was not considered as part of China. Chinese History was the history of the relations between the Chinese(tribe Han)and the other barbarians. In the past China means things of tribe Han. But today Chinese version claims that all things once existed in the current Chinese territory is the possission of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.105.191.180 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

我看到了很有趣的讨论. 似乎有韩国人提出了各种观点反驳高句丽不是中国一部分，但问题是，中国有哪本教材声称高句丽是中国一部分？这也不是中国人民的普遍观点，普遍观点是认为高句丽跟历史上西夏（western Xia）差不多是灭亡的周边国家，而且与韩国无关，高句丽不是高丽（Koryo）. 而把高句丽误当作韩国一部分的韩国人却是真实存在的，据说很少有韩国人知道高句丽其实是现今韩国祖先之一新罗（Silla）的敌人（Enemies）. 题外话，满族（Manchu）倒是可以主张高句丽是自己的祖先，不过已经没有满洲（Manchuria）这个国了.

需要补充的是，中国网上注意到韩国2004年抗议后，网民普遍认为这是韩国的侵占中国东北领土的意图暴露，而且中国网民认为韩国正在对其人民洗脑，为侵占中国作准备——并没有说事实如此，但，鉴于韩国从未公开承诺不对中国领土有非分之想以撇清前述嫌疑，这导致中国民间总是有人对韩国充满警惕. 我只是把实际情况写在这里. -- 林卯  talk?  added 22:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

a bunch of nationalists keep insulting eachother
First, people don't get what you people are arguing about, because you pathetic people only know about insulting or mocking Chinese side's point of view. But, can you give any reliable evidence to prove Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom? No.Goguryeo belonged to neither nation even though it was related to both Chinese and Korean nation. PS.China doesn't have to correct its history because it has enough historical records and archaeological evidence to prove or deny any wrong claims o about history. I think Koreans have "corrected" their history a lot, and they will fix up their history until whole world believes Korea once controlled whole Asia in 10000 BC. First, Goguryeo was originated in today's North Eastern China and before that, China already had effective control over that area; Second, Goguryeo had their own language, religion, and tradtion that influenced Korean culture; Third, ancient Goguryeo civilization was gone, and parts of its population moved to Central Plain and Korean Peninsula. It's really stupid to say an extinct kingdom belongs to a modern nation when that nation can't even prove it. For Korean people, Goguryeo was like a foreign force, but today's Koreans rather like to accept it as their ancestor because the kingdom was so powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.158.154 (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A few recent sources to develop this page
Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Grace Oh. (23 December 2012). "(LEAD) U.S. to publish report on Chinese distortion of Korean history: official." Yonhap News Agency. Retrieved on 26 December 2012.
 * Jin Linbo. (2011). Sino-South Korean Differences over Koguryo and the U.S. Role." In Gilbert Rozman (ed.), U.S. Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia (Cambridge University Press), pp. 171-89. ISBN 978-0-521-19056-5.
 * Scott Snyder. (2011). "New Grounds for Contestation: South Korea's Koguryo-Era Historical Dramas and Sino-Korean Relations." In same book, pp. 190-212.
 * Samuel S. Kim. (2011). "Nationalism and Globalization in South Korea's Sino–South Korean Differences over History." In same book, pp. 213-?.

China's dirty tactic - Put Koreans' claim as nationalism: Hiding its own nationalism over Koguryeo.
China's ultimate goal - Making Goguryeo as Dang's province will be failed eventually since Dang's war against Goguryeo is too clear and too big to get rid of.Jameskim235 (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you can voice your opinions. See WP:SOAP. Please keep your comments here to issues concerning the article it self and not the topic discussed by the article. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Goguryeo controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901222656/http://www.freenorthkorea.net:80/archives/freenorthkorea/00818.html to http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/00818.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate weight given to knowingly false claims
The entire Chinese arguments section should not exist in the article, the fact that it does makes the article incredibly biased. Every single one of those arguments is knowingly false, invented less than 100 years ago. The Chineszse portion of the Goguryeo debate is knowingly and certifiably false, and all of the actual academic links in the article are from sources that decisively state so, that the Chinese position is recent, revisionist, and knowingly false. All of the Chinese links are from sources ties to the Chinese government and are just part of CCP propaganda. When a "controversy" is verifiably entirely manufactured and made up out of thin air by one side, it is biased to even attempt to give that viewpoint equal weight. An unbiased article on the subject would state that the controversy is a revisionist attempt by China and is knowingly and certifiably false. It woulod correctly point out that the controversy is wholly a product of CCP propaganda, so all readers are correctly informed. Currently, the article attempts to give certified propaganda from an authoritarian regime the same weight as actual perr-reviewed and correctly done scholarship. which is a huge no-no for a wikipedia article, and makes the article itself a propaganda piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.127.55 (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)