Jump to content

Talk:Goguryeo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Remsense (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 6 November 2023 (→How to organize a cooperative revision of this bibliography ?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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I can only assume the mistake of interpreting the moon goddess as Nuwa was made because of this outdated article from 1993 I discovered, http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/features.php?searchterm=011_murals.inc&issue=011.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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not my preferred version, just the version before your broken attempt. Also when did I say "an unacceptable desolate state"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pldx1, please go back and check the state of the article when you made edits.
I am seconding @ActivelyDisinterested here, the edits introduced were not done properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&oldid=1183514593
This is how the first paragraph, that viewers would see, reads after your edit:
"A full reorganization of the references is undertaken.
  • cyan links = quotations without a full reference. To be replaced or ousted. Due date for completion= 2023-11-11.
  • magenta links = "not so sources" : the assertion is not questionned, but the source used seems too weak. A better source from the list given will be used as a replacement. Due date for completion= 2023-11-11.
  • sourcing from not centered works will be reduced.
  • and the anchors refxxx will be removed
Goguryeo (37 BC – 668 AD) (Korean: 고구려; Hanja: 高句麗; RR: Goguryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko̞ɡuɾjʌ̹]; lit.: high castle; Old Korean: Guryeo) ref007  also later known as Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ), ref008  was a Korean kingdom ref003  ref009  ref010  ref011  ref012  located in the northern and central parts of the Korean Peninsula and the southern and central parts of modern day Northeast China. At its peak of power, Goguryeo controlled most of the Korean Peninsula, large parts of Manchuria and parts of eastern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia as well as Russia. ref013  ref014  ref015  ref016 "
Those refs are word for word in the article, and completely disrupts the flow of the article and makes it impossible to read."
The fact that the first paragraph starts with "A full reorganization of the references is undertaken, cyan links...magenta links...sourcing.." is not ok. Yes the page needs updated edits, but the edits that were made to fix it were not done correctly. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to organize a cooperative revision of this bibliography ?

The first paragraph of the proposed working document was not as quoted above. What the reading revizor should have read was rather:

Goguryeo (37 BC[a] – 668 AD) (Korean: 고구려; Hanja: 高句麗; RR: Goguryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko̞ɡuɾjʌ̹]; lit.: high castle; Old Korean: Guryeo)

ref007 [2] also later known as Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ), ref008 [3] was a Korean kingdom ref003 [4] ref009 [5] ref010 [6] ref011 [7] ref012 [8] located in the northern and central parts of the Korean Peninsula and the southern and central parts of modern day Northeast China. At its peak of power, Goguryeo controlled most of the Korean Peninsula, large parts of Manchuria and parts of eastern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia as well as Russia. ref013 [9] ref014 [10] ref015 [11] ref016 [12]

  1. ^ North Korea claims that the country was established in 277 BC. ref001 [1]
  1. ^ MFA-DPRK/overview.
  2. ^ Encykor/Goguryeo/search.
  3. ^ NONO-08.
  4. ^ Britannica/Koguryo.
  5. ^ ref009.
  6. ^ Barnes 2013, p. 20.
  7. ^ Li Narangoa 2014, p. 152.
  8. ^ Wechsler 1979, p. 231.
  9. ^ CWHE/Goguryeo.
  10. ^ Kim Hakjoon 1995, p. 303.
  11. ^ Bedeski 2021, p. 133.
  12. ^ Matray 2016, p. 7.

Do you really think that the author of this working document could have missed the fact that these hardcoded anchors were introduced on purpose ? Or could have missed the fact that *some* of these hardcoded anchors were colored (cyan, magenta, etc) ? Therefore, let us suppose that these anchors and colors weren't attributed at random, but on purpose, and, additionally, let us suppose that some editor would pass by, with the intent of curing this set of references.

We have a magenta one, namely ref013. The corresponding source was questioned (not by me). In my opinion, this source is rather a "not-so-source", while, in any case, the factoid to address has already the backup of THREE RS, and has never been challenged. Thus: curation = remove.

Moreover, we have a cyan one, namely ref008, supposed to address the factoid << Goryeo (Korean: 고려; Hanja: 高麗; RR: Goryeo; Korean pronunciation: [ko.ɾjʌ]; lit.: high and beautiful; Middle Korean: 고ᇢ롕〮, Gowoyeliᴇ)>>. But this reference leads to a "wiki-article which is not even written in full". Moreover, Korean blogs aren't providing such "}}lit}}"!!! Thus curation = remove.

And now, we can see the usefulness of the hardrefs: when suppressing some refs, the softrefs are rolling since they are not supposed to be significant. At the end of the process, a simple script can remove all the hardrefs. Obviously, this suppose that some editors will come and evaluate the NONO set, the not-so-source set and the large-hammers set. As of now, only the color of the hardrefs has been discussed.

Good work to everyone ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah please don't do any of this to a live article. If you believe a source is unreliable simply remove it and replace it with {{citation needed}}, or it you believe something is wrong correct it and supply a new reference. There are other templates you can use to highlight other type of issues in the article. All of this should be done without introducing your own custom ref# + colour coding system.
You are also introducing errors into the article, including no-target errors which is what brought me to the article. You may not be able to see these as they are off by default, not my decision, but you can turn them on by following the directions in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. The Sources / Further reading / External Links sections all have specific purposes you shouldn't just add a boat load of additional cites to the end of the article. Nor should you add your own commentry to articles.
If you want to improve the article that's great, but the way you're currently going about it is all wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the reply above, in general, do not use colors to communicate information like this on Wikipedia, as per MOS:COLOR. It's not good for accessibility and it can create articles that are very out of place compared to the rest of the wiki. Remsense聊 22:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If you believe that a source is unreliable"... This is not the problem that need to be fixed here. In fact, I don't believe that ONE source is unreliable. I believe that the whole reference set is unreliable, being an indistinct mix of academic sources with low grade things. A great example is the "External Links" section, where Pr. Beckwith is crucified with three larrons. A full, systematic, revision is needed. And therefore editors should be gathered, not only people wanting to discuss about colors. But doing nothing is also an option. Have a good day ! Pldx1 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking here because I'd like to generally contribute, I just brought up the colors as a salient point that hadn't been specifically articulated yet. Remsense聊 20:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk with editors about the state of the article you can do so on this talk page, or the talk page of the appropriate project. You shouldn't do this by putting commentry into the article.
Also the external links are not sources used in the article, they are links that the reader may also be interested in. You can remove them if they fail any of the points laid out in WP:ELNO. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, to be clear, it sounds a bit like you want to establish basic consent for the changes you already wanted to make/possible farm the work of it out, rather than broaching a potential issue and then collaborating on figuring out what needs to done. this is wikipedia, there are plenty of options available other than what you have deemed a 'full, systematic, revision' and 'doing nothing', as you have presented. Hopefully you are open to that if consensus looks different than what you initially envisioned. Remsense聊 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goguryeo&oldid=1183851887"