Talk:Goguryeo

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I can only assume the mistake of interpreting the moon goddess as Nuwa was made because of this outdated article from 1993 I discovered, http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/features.php?searchterm=011_murals.inc&issue=011.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)

The statement made in the Korea Herald in 2010 was false, a false rumor. Kraskino settlement (object of cultural heritage 2500418000 [1]) is not listed as a Goguryeo site.

This is an object of the state of Bohai and was founded no earlier than 727. Completely different state. During the time of the Goguryeo state, there is no cultural layer. The closest object to it in which there :::is a cultural layer during the period of the Goguryeo state is a dump of shells in the Whale Harbor near Zarubino, which belongs to the Ainu culture. To the seasonal settlement of Ainu, which have nothing to do with Goguryeo.

Here are the data from the FEGI of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. [2], Here is the catalog of scientific works "Cyberleninka" of the Lenin Library (if you are not aware, this is the Russian analogue of the Library of Congress in the USA). You can read all these scientific works using Google Translate. [3], Scientific journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences [4]. Absolutely all scientific data point this site exclusively to the state of Bohai, and the strong influence of two Japanese states - Yamato and the chieftain confederation of the Emichi peoples. Even the rampart was built not according to the Goguryeo technology that was widely used in Bohai, but according to the Yamato technology. The end discs on roof tile from the buildings are from Yamato and Zhejiang Province of China.

Yes, in Bohai, the technologies for building fortress walls based on Goguryeo technology were widely used, but Kraskino is just an exception. For example, the South Usuri settlement. [5] It uses Goguryeo technology to build walls, but the cultural layer only begins in the second half of the 8th century and within the Jurchen layout, Heishui Mohe people. For Bohai, this is a fairly frequent occurrence in the south of this state, BUT Kraskino is just completely different.TTACH (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

[https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/epigraficheskie-materialy-bohaya-i-bohayskogo-vremeni-iz-primorya/viewer] For examle Hiromoto and Mititaka who lived in Kraskino. TTACH (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have combed through significant Western literature when I had some time, and found these reliable sources published by academics from the West that all state that Goguryeo had territory in Russia contrary to your claims.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

No verification of original source nor consensus met on figures

I came across the part where it says <<Over 200,000 prisoners from Goguryeo were taken by the Tang forces and sent to Chang'an.>> This part needs to be fixed as they were dispersed thoroughly around China and not just cramped into Chang'an. Original sources from both Korea and China makes it clear that approximately 28,200 - 38,200 households out of 690,000 were forcefully moved into Tang Proper such as Jiangnan (江南), Huinan (淮南), Sannan (山南), and Jingsi (京西) after the fall of Goguryeo.

● Samguk Sagi (삼국사기 / 三國史記): 38,300戶 "夏四月, 髙宗移三萬八千三百戸於江·淮之南及山南·京西諸州空曠之地." ● Zizi Tongjian (資治通鑑): 38,200戶 "(總章二年(669) 四月) 高麗之民多離叛者, 敕徙高麗戶三萬八千二百於江·淮之南, 及山南·京西諸州空曠之地. 留其貧弱者, 使守安東." ● Old Book of Tang (舊唐書): 28,200戶 "(總章二年(669)) 五月庚子, 移高麗戶二萬八千二百, 車一千八十乘, 牛三千三百頭, 馬二千九百匹, 駝六十頭, 將入內地, 萊·營二州般次發遣, 量配於江·淮以南及山南·幷·涼以西諸州空閑處安置." ● Tongjian (通傳): 28,200戶 "二年(669), 移高麗戶二萬八千二百配江·淮以南·山南·京西." ● New Book of Tang (新唐書): 30,000戶 (or 30,000人 -> unlikely) "總章二年(669), 徙高麗民三萬於江淮·山南." Maplebaron (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe it will be better to find another reference that clearly mentions these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplebaron (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

Dear all.

Before trying to fix this or that, we should better try to fix the collection of sources we are using. Therefore, I have extracted and sorted ALL the sources that are used in this article. In order to have an useful discussion, I have kept all the reference numbers and changed NOTHING in the text itself.

In what follows, "an English source" should be understand as an academic text, written in English by some academic people, from Korea or from China or from Japan or from somewhere else...

1. There are "usuals" and "other sources", that are... usual references, and other sources.
2. There are "promising sources" that, in my opinion, should be used more often
3. There are "large hammers", i.e. huge books only used to backup a single factoid, as part of some reference bombing. For example, using "International Commission for a History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind (1994). Laet, Sigfried J. de; et al. (eds.). History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. seven tomes, circa 4000 p. UNESCO. ISBN 978-9231028137" (ref019) ... only to prove that "Goguryeo was a great power" seems over the top.
4. There are the magenta links = "not so sources". The point is not if the corresponding assertion has to be kept or not. The point is: the source used seems too weak. A better source from the 1. and 2. lists should be used as a replacement.
5. There are the "cyan links" = citations without a full reference, e.g. hanja citations given without translation and only referenced to a large collection of scrolls. In my opinion, these texts should be integrated in the article, and linked to an English academic source, with a precise reference.
6. And finally, there are the documents utilized in the section "Gogyryeo controversy". In my opinion, these sources should be kept "as is" because they are either academic ... or descriptive of how huge the controversy was ... or remains!

Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

All of this may be true but your implementation is absolutely and completely broken. It leaves the article in an unacceptable sorry state. You need to learn how Wikipedia articles are formatted are start again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Note per WP:ONUS you will need to gain consensus before re-implementing your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear User:ActivelyDisinterested. To quote your own words, the historical state of this article on Goguryeo is "an unacceptable desolate state". Especially the references. In your preferred version, they form a broken mix of "whatever comes up from a Google search." But if you think such a mess is better than pointing out the problems and sorting what should be kept from what should be left out, you are entitled to your opinion. My intent was only to obtain an academic level bibliography. This bibliography has been constructed and published. Someone was talking about "upgrading Wikipedia's perceived trustworthiness to be meme-worthy...". Hurray up !!! Pldx1 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)