Talk:Goguryeo

Single user dominating page

Tprtm is clearly policing this and other pages according to Korean nationalist ideas. I am not going to waste my time in a Wikipedia edit war, but it is not healthy when one user dominates pages to prevent edits

You made with a pretty far-reaching, controversial statement with citations to back your point. Also both in traditional historiography and also in modern academic literature such as in the West, Goguryeo generally is considered to be Koreanic. For example, scholars such as Mark Byington, Alexander Vovin, John Duncan, etc. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Please fix this error. The picture of the moon goddess is not Nuwa.

The picture of the moon goddess is not Nuwa. Nuwa is a Chinese Primordial Mother Goddess said to be responsible for the creation of the Han Chinese people and is exclusively from Chinese mythology/folklore. She does not exist in Korean mythology/folklore nor is she mentioned in Korean historical sources. In Korean Mythology/folklore, the father/mother of Koreans is said to be the Ungnyeo, Samshin Halmoni, or Mireuk.

The picture shown in the article is actually an unnamed moon goddess holding a white turtle that represents the moon. She is usually shown alongside a sun god that holds a three-legged crow that represents the sun. In Goguryeo, the three-legged crow is a symbol of great power said to be even greater than the dragon.

I can only assume the mistake of interpreting the moon goddess as Nuwa was made because of this outdated article from 1993 I discovered, http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/features.php?searchterm=011_murals.inc&issue=011. The article says they "believe" the moon goddess and sun god "could" be Nuwa and Fuxi as an "alternative interpretation" based on Chinese assessment, not Korean. There are no sources to prove they are and is based only on guesswork. Adding to this, the article was written in a time when research on Korean mythology/folklore was still young. I am arguing on the grounds that there is no evidence that they are Nuwa and Fuxi for the reasons stated above. It seems that this mistake is also based on a misconception that the Golden Crow, the representative animal of Fuxi, is the same as the Three-Legged Crow which is not necessarily the case. By this poor logic, the Japanese Emperor Jimmu can be interpreted as Fuxi which I'd imagine many Japanese would disagree. In the case for Korean mythology, I'd also imagine Koreans would also disagree with this and would even potentially find it insulting to the culture and history of Korea.

Here is a proper and official Korean source on the samjogo, the three-legged crow, which dives deep into Korean legends of it and has no mentions of Fuxi or Nuwa. https://folkency.nfm.go.kr/en/topic/detail/5550

Please fix this error. I believe this will cause confusion for those who have an interest in Korean history and culture. I suggest you refer the moon goddess as an "unnamed moon goddess of Goguryeo" if wish to remain neutral to any controversy. Also can you please fix this article here too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-legged_crow, which also makes the mistake of referring the three-legged crow of Korea as Fuxi.

needs to be semi-protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo This document needs permanent semi-protection like the 'Baekje' or 'Gaya' documents. Discussion between operators is required on this. It is still semi-protected, but the protection period should be permanently increased. It is likely that large-scale revisions to existing document content will occur soon after the semi-protected action ends. I believe that permanent semi-protection measures are required for documents in which the act of modifying the document definition itself without permission occurs. I hope that Wikipedia will strengthen overall protection measures for documents related to Korean history, culture, and ethnic groups.

Exaggerated size of the state

On the territory of Russia and Mongolia there is not a single archaeological object of this state. TTACH (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I remind you. Links to other analogues of Wikipedia are not reliable sources like a link to Wikipedia itself.

The article written by a journalist, not a specialist, is an original study and also violates the rule of reliability of the source.

The source in another language is perfectly checked by Google Translate.

In particular, I made in the article the notes not reablity of the link to the analogue of Wikipedia, as well as to the Boulevard Korean newspapers. The same source that allegedly testified to the presence of Korean fortresses in Mongolia was a journalist article about the great campaigns of the Korean primary principals who do not exist in a scientific literature and only the Korean foreigners of Hwandan Gogi. I deleted this source. Since he did not confirm the presence of Korean fortresses in Mongolia. Although it was offered as confirming. Although Hwandan Gogi is an aggressive, anti-scientist, ultra-nationalist korean sect, and it also cannot take a reliable source.TTACH (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

On the territory of Russia and Mongolia there is not a single archaeological object of this state. TTACH (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I've marked the "answered"-parameter on the edit request as "no", this way the requests that are being completed don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. NotAGenious (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

According to the rules of Wikipedia and normal logic, it is supposed to prove the presence of a fact and not its absence.

There is no hard evidence to prove that Goguryeo did not exist in Australia. But that doesn't mean that Goguryeo was there.

The assertions that the state of Goguryeo was on the territory of Russia and Mongolia must be confirmed by authoritative scientific works. And this is not in the article.TTACH (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Null, you get ? not one reliable source not mentioned not any Archeological Site Goguryeo in Russia or Australia Barasilia or France . TTACH (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please support your assertions with reliable sources. This has nothing to do with archeological sites. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 16:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you think may look like such sources? Explain how you can write about what is not the existence? Scientific work that in Primorye there are no archaeological objects of Germany, the Roman Empire, France or the Inca Empire, oh and Goguryeo? And who would write this and why? Not a single object was found and therefore was not written about them anywhere. Also, in Primorye, not one object of civilization of the Mayan or the Roman Empire was not found.

You bring to absurdity. There are no sources in the article on the fact that in the territory of Russia and Mongolia there are such objects, someone has made editing without sources and you demand to prove that it is not possible to prove because no one will list all countries in the history of archelogic objects of which are not on which territory! The proof requires the presence of archaeological objects, and not their absence. TTACH (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is verified presence Goguryeo in Russia, verified articles here:

https://www.koreasociety.org/images/pdf/KoreanStudies/Monographs_GeneralReading/BRIEF%20HISTORY%20OF%20KOREA.pdf

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20090722000068

I can't attest to the Mongolian element as I'm not as familiar with that, but for now I will undo your edits as there is clear evidence of the presence of Goguryeo in Russia even if it was only a small portion of territory Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)