User talk:Goguryeo

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

King names
I would take those family names with a grain of salt. I think I may have incorrectly added some that are not attested. I'll go back through the list, although it looks like you've been doing a pretty good job of cleaning up already.

For the Goguryeo kings, I think my principal source was the c. 1983 새국사사전 ... not because it's a great resource, just because it was handy. (I wrote most of them while disconnected from the net, so didn't double-check against online sources). I think KoreanDB is generally a fairly good source, although some will quarrel with it (I was recently scolded for citing Empas in Korean name).

Cheers, -- Visviva 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The temple name / posthumous name issue should now be fixed. I edited Template:Koreanruler so that the "Temple name" bar only appears when the attribute "temple" has been specified.  It may or may not be worthwhile going through the Goryeo and Joseon rulers to set "temple=y."  At any rate, the template is no longer dispensing misinformation.
 * I also added fields for the ruler's posthumous name (hangulpost, hanjapost, rrpost, mrpost) and childhood name (hangula, hanjaa, rra, mra). It seems a little strange that Childhood name is a redlink; unfortunately I'm not sure what an article would say aside from "A childhood name is a name that is used in childhood.  ... This article is a stub." :-)  Cheers, -- Visviva 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I'm just leaving this note for you cause I'm tired of the revert wars and would like more input from other people to prevent revert wars.


 * Would you please look at this:

This version is the only one allowed to stand in the Japan Kofun period and Kofun section, but if you actually read the references this is not exactly accurate. I'm so tired of the lop-sided POV. If you read the actual reference some of the people misinterperted it and if you look at additional references you can see counter arguements, but that keeps getting deleted:


 * Japanese Archaeology: Kofun Culture

This reference which is used in the Kofun sit definately states that Koreans think Gaya influenced Japan in the Keyhole tombs. Someone keeps deleteing that sentence if I put it in, even though the reference they provided is the source of that statement.


 * Current version of kofun:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan.


 * My modifications which keep getting reverted for POV, I think it is more neutral or at least summarizes the actual reference better:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat or flow of culture from Gaya to Japan is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan. Similarly Japan dislikes adding more cultural inflow from Korea to Japan's ancient history. This lead to Japan refusing to open the tombs after a couple of the tombs they opened had definate Korean artifacts in them. Horse shaped artifacts and Korean style pottery were initially excuvated, then the Imperial family stated the tombs will not be disturbed because they are sacred to our people. No further excuvation has been done on these tombs leading many to speculate and both sides insist on their version of theory.

Here is another weird interpertation, and if I bring in counter arguements with references it is deleted. Look at this counter arguement reference, why do people keep deleteing it.


 * From Paekche to Origin of Yamato


 * Here is the current version in the kofun period section

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy. According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan. According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.

You can see this current verion is definately biased There are reasons why you can't find certain Japanese references in english cause most historians have nullified or discredited those references for lack of evidence or confusion in interpertation. But someone keeps using these Japanese references and will delete other references that counter their arguements.


 * Here is my version, I thought this was more neutral than the current one:

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy. According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan. According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397 and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402. Baekje's influence on Japanese culture has been a contentious issue in contemporary relations between South Korea and Japan. The exact nature of the relationship is always investigated. The above interpretations are not exactly accurate because ancient Chinese writing are difficult to deciper. People do not know when a sentence ends and where the puncutation such as commas are suppose to be. Even more confusing is one character can have multiple meaning depending on the context. The same sentence in the Book of Song can be translated to Yamato being an colony of Baekje's expansion efforts. Then if this sentence structure is followed, the Book of Sui would show that Koreans were already the rulers of Yamato. Another point of arguement for contemporary historians is whether the Silla and Baekje princes were hostages or guest teacher who came to transmit culture. In addition, the Korean rulers were always put ahead of Japanese rulers, but below the Chinese rulers in all the text, leading people to see this order as the confucian rank. This situation has lead to both nations to further investigate the situation.

I'm not as jumpy on reverts on these theories as I am with the definate misrepresentation reverts in the Japanese War Crime section and WWII/Korea section. Most of my info are from the East Asian studies courses I took and I try not to be POV. I'm only trying to correct the current POV. Any ways I hope you can provide more input.4.23.83.100 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

고구려 모던팔러틱스 편집좀 부탁합니다.

Numbering
Hi again,

As far as I can tell, the only way to make a numbered list start with a number other than "1" is to hard-code it. I have done so with Template:Silla monarchs 2.

I think the templates you have made are a nice idea, and may reduce the amount of POV fiddling that goes on with the current succession boxes. However, I wonder if it might be better to adapt the format into a footer, something like Template:Presidents of South Korea... it seems like the list is a bit too dominant as a sidebar. What do you think?

Anyway, thanks for all your hard work on the Three Kingdoms of Korea. -- Visviva 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

조선사편수회
Thanks for your editing....--Hairwizard91 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I have replied to your comment in talk page of 조선사편수회 --Hairwizard91 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Working group
Hi Goguryeo,

Thanks again for all your work on the Three Kingdoms articles, and for joining the WikiProject despite its current lack of organization. :-)  Would you care to join the working group for history?  That would be an ideal place for us all to work out what our priorities should be.  -- Visviva 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Goryeo-Khitan Wars
Hi, can you check out the last 2 sections on the talk page? I can't figure it out. Thanks --AW 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --AW 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh! Somebody reverted your edits saying they were too Korea-focused. I don't really know much about the topic or I'd fix it --AW 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Korean Spamers
Spam by Room218　http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Room218

Please explain the reason why the Soga clan is Korean. You have a lot of questions. Please come for the discussion. --218.218.129.57 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Yi-Sunsin
Greetings. I agree with your revert to the article on Toyotomi. That page has been reverted several times today (violating the wikipedia "three revert" rule) and the issue appears to be a big enough problem that it needs addressing in that article's talk page. Though it might do little good, I've posted a message on the talk page of most recent IP address of the person who keeps reverting Yi-Sunsin's inclusion in the Toyotomi article. It'd be nice to get some discussion of the issue before resorting to more drastic methods. Geeman 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Goguryeo,

Thanks for doing all those assessments. And also for the helpful comments on the layout of the WikiProject. Afraid it's still not quite what it should be; any more ideas? Cheers, -- Visviva 14:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo
You have serveral older socks that were oversighted and not blocked, along with some newer confirmed ones, which are now blocked. The length is indefinite. Using more socks to evade 3RR will result in an indefinite ban. Please use only one account (this one). Voice -of- All  01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't use sock puppets, you're making good contributions here and I don't want to see you banned --AW 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I did not ban this account, Goguryeo, your main account is not blocked (though some autoblocks may persist for a day). Voice -of- All  19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)