Template talk:Goguryeo monarchs

Untitled
This is the original version

That version was doing fine for six months until a CPOV editor made a controversial change without consensus

So why are some editors keep making this controversial change with no discussion whatsoever, and prior to mediation? I say that we revert this to the original version prior to the controversial edit, and just deal it in mediation. Cydevil38 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the edit comments, these changes go somewhat hand in hand with the consensus in general on the talk page. A link probably should go there, so just like many other point of view issues, it's natural that it fluctuated back and forth (all Korea, nothing at all, etc.) until the consensus version was reached.  — LactoseTI T 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For consistency with the other Three Kingdoms templates, we should whether remove all of “Monarchs of Korea” titles from the Three Kingdoms Templates or add the title to the Goguryeo monarchs Template. In this case, even though this wording appears to be controversial, it would make more sense to respect the original version before reaching a consensus of making certain changes.


 * “Monarchs of Korea” doesn’t necessarily contradict with the template “History of Manchuria”. So, it would have no problem, in case of adding “History of Manchuria template” to the article “Qing Dynasty” which was the latest dynasty in Chinese history. And the template also would not imply that Qing emperors were not the monarchs of China. Even though “Nanyue” was an ancient kingdom of China, the inserted “History of Vietnam” template doesn’t contradict with the article of South Chinese “Nanyue”.


 * “Goguryeo dispute” is not an academic but a political issue, initiated by Chinese national institute as a counter-attack towards the offensive insistence of some nationalistic Korean individuals, reclaiming “Manchuria” as their ancient homeland and disregarding Chinese legal and moral sovereignty over Northeast China (Manchuria). So don’t be influenced by the recent revision on Goguryeo.


 * Since Manchus haven’t viewed Goguryeo as their history, they excluded Goguryeo from their historical records. To the contrary, Silla was included in Manchus historical records. In addition, they claimed, through their official records, that the founder of Jin(金) had the ancestral origin from Silla. Consequently, there has been no such perception as defining the Goguryeo monarchs as the monarchs of Manchuria.

Thus, even if taking into consideration all kind of revisionists theories, before gaining certain recognition from the worldwide historians, the conventional views of historians have to be respected and even prioritized. Jagello (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)