Talk:Goryeo

Empire...

Should the fact that Goryeo "functioned" as an empire (which, in my opinion, is misleading and wrongly emphasised) really take up that much of the introduction? I might be in the minority among Koreans in feeling that being associated with empire is nothing to brag about, but there is a host of problems that come from claiming that Goryeo functioned as an empire. The gross simplification of equivalating hwangje to emperor aside, the significance of taking on imperial trappings would be lost to most general readers not versed in ancient East Asian order. Besides, Goryeo did not conquer many different peoples and made them imperial subjects, as many general readers might understand "functioning as an empire" to mean. --Iceager 18:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to "Empire..."

Well, one must understand what it means to be an empire in the traditional Asian world. An empire in a westerner's point of view is a nation that conquers other ehtnic groups and incorporates them into its society. However, an empire in East Asia is merely a fully sovereign nation that does not submit itself to another. Goryeo was indeed an empire. It did not submit itself to China, and its rulers carried the name "Hwangje" (up until Mongol rule). That's what defines an empire in East Asia. Similar to Japan, it didn't conquer other peoples and incorporate them into its society, they merely were just independent from outside nations. Yet we have no problem refering to the Japanese as an Empire because of contemporary history regarding the Japanese in WWII.

However, you must also realize that Goryeo DID have subjects. Northern tribes submitted tribute to the Goryeo rulers, as well as many Japanese shogun and the island nation of Tamna (current day Jejudo) that was incorporated into the Joseon dynasty later. So, infact Goryeo did have subjects. I think that the writer did a good job in explaining that it functioned as an empire, but that they should also state that it was not tributary to China or any other nations.

Goryeo's Original Status

It is clearly seen in pictures that Wang-geon was considered an emperor. He wore yellow/gold. When the Mongols vassalized Goryeo, the ruler was prohibitted from wearing gold as a symbol of Mongol sovereignty. The same happened during Joseon when it submitted itself to both Ming and Qing. Gold is a color reserved for emperors, kings must wear red or blue. Notice that in every picture you see a Joseon-ese ruler in, he wears either red or blue (up until the late 19th century where King Gojong proclaimed himself Emperor). This has to be taken into account as well.

Not even on days of coronation, or any other special ceremonies, were Joseon kings permitted to wear gold garments. This defines a significant difference between that of an Emperor and of a King. The fact that Wang-geon wore gold shows his status as the Emperor of Goryeo.

When Yi Seong-ye established Joseon, he wore blue.

This can also be seen on women's clothing. The Empress wore a garment with dragons embroidered on the sleeves. A queen would wear one with pheonixes as opposed to dragons to symbolize her status as a queen, and not as an empress. During the Goryeo Dynasty, the female counterpart of the male ruler wore dragons embroidered on her clothing, symbolizing her to be an Empress, and him to be an Emperor.

Traditional attire, especially of the court, is extremely important in reflecting the status of the people. Attire does not lie.

It all sounds very plausible. However, since Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, please provide a citation from a reputable historian. -- Visviva 15:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When are people going to stop citing the outdated view that the "Goryeo" appellation begins with Goguryeo (高句麗) and the Goryeo Dynasty (高麗)? It is unambiguously clear from Chinese records as early as the Han Dynasty that there existed a distinct race of people called Gāolí (高麗) in the northeastern coastal regions. The Chinese could not have repeatedly referred to the people of various ancient states and empires in what is now Manchuria and North Korea as "an offshoot of Gāolí" or "another kind of Gāolí" (高麗別種) if the name "Gāolí" had only come into existence as recently as the founding of Goguryeo or the commencement of the Goryeo Dynasty's reign over the Korean Peninsula. I find it very likely that the ancient name of the Gaoli race is etymologically cognate with Modern Korean "Gori" (고리) as in "Goris-jeok" (고릿적, "the era of the Gori"), which is a sort of metonymic expression for "ancient times" or "the old days," and Old Japanese "Kure" (呉、くれ), which referred to some nation or state on the continent that often interacted with the ancient Japanese. Personally, I believe the Gaoli/Goryeo/Gori/Kure and hence "Korea" name is of prehistoric antiquity, in which case it probably originally referred to a certain tribe that may have inhabited the land around the Bohai Sea, Korea Bay, and perhaps some other parts of the Yellow Sea coast since Paleolithic or Mesolithic times. Ebizur 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I Added the 1st source of history.

• The History of the Koryo Dynasty(高麗史, the 1st source written in Chinese, the file type is PDF.) Seoul National Univ.

The official history of Koryo is printed by woodblock in 1580.　

--Lulusuke 10:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Emepror of Goryeo

I could not find any primary source that the ruler of Goryeo was called as emperor or 皇. Originally, 皇 is not Korean king's name. It is chinese stuff. I wonder Korean just mimic the chinese system. As far as I know, only Balhae adopted the system of chinese rulers name. The main article may be wrong... What the Goryeo had powerful military power does not means that the ruler was called as an emperor. It is just the designation title. Can anybody show the source ??--Drpepper000 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Emperor of Goryeo

The thing is, it's very hard to find a reliable source for the official names of the Goryeo rulers. However, they DID address their rulers as 陛下, which is styled for an emperor. They also used 宗 for posthumous names, the exact way the Chinese rulers (Prior to Ming) did, AND had era names. This shows they were at the same level as the Chinese rulers, making the rulers of Goryeo emperors. So although there's no exact evidence, we can use evidence to base such a claim. Please also realize that Shilla began the adoption of Chinese titles & Chinese styled government. This was carried onto Goryeo, as titles had to be documented and Koreans at the time wrote in Chinese characters. It is without doubt that both states, Balhae and Goryeo, had a Chinese-styled government. Also, no one mentioned military strength as being a defining aspect of an empire; empires are defined politically, not militarily.

Not ONLY that, but the name of the capital was Gaegyeong (開京) the word 京 is only used for imperial capitals (All the time in Korean & most of the time in Chinese); capitals of kingdoms are usually named differently usually using 城 or 陽 (Such as with previous dynasties). The fact that Goryeo had multiple capitals also serves to justify its status as an empire; Pyeongyang was known during Goryeo as Seogyeong (西京) and Seoul as Namgyeong (南京) (Note that there was also a Donggyeong, but no Bukgyeong, as Gaegyeong took the place of it). Once again, one may use certain aspects of the era to decipher the nation's status, and it was indeed an empire.

Unfortunately, without a reliable source such speculation is original research. -- Visviva 08:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No secondary source says that Goryeo is empire. I think that the main article adopted the original research by Korean nationalists. Goryeo just mimicked the calling convention of China so that it looked like an empire. Goryeo do not differentiate the king and empire.

陛下 and 宗 wer also used in Joseon. But, Joseon is not empire. There was only one ruler, which is king. Again, this is only calling convention adopting the system of China. In order for Goryeo to be called Empire, the greastest rulers of empire used the posthumous names of 皇帝. But, no king used the name of 皇帝 in goryeo.

You said 京 is used for only empire. The capital city of Tang is 長安. 京 is not used for the capital city of Tang empire.

You can see the obvious difference between kingdom and empire if you compare the posthumous name of Korean Empire and goryeo --Hairwizard91 08:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the posthumerous name of Korea empire

Gojong of Korean empire --> 高宗統天隆運肇極敦倫正聖光義明功大德堯峻舜徽禹謨湯敬應命立紀至化神烈巍勳洪業啓基宣曆乾行坤定英毅弘休壽康文憲武章仁翼貞孝皇帝

Sunjong of Korean empire --> 純宗文溫武寧敦仁誠敬皇帝

This is Goryeo's posthumerous name.

Gwangjong of Goryeo --> 弘道宣烈平世大成大王

Jeongjong I of Goryeo --> 至德章敬正肅文明大王

You see the difference between empire and kingdom.--Hairwizard91 09:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what's being argued is the functioning of Goryeo as an empire. That's what it says in the article. On another note, the rulers of Joseon were addressed as Cheonha (I can't find the characters for it). Adding to that, no one said that 京 was the only option for an imperial capital name; however the capital city of the Tang Dynasty had the word "長" which means head. The capital of Shilla and Joseon ended with the characters 城. Now do you see the difference? The same goes for many other Chinese capitals that used the words 都. And during the reign of the Yongle Emperor of Ming, the capital was at a city called 京師.

the word "長" means head? You can not be more wrong. Can you explain the meaning of '長城'? Not evidence and no reason shows the capitcal of kingdom can not use '京'. The names of capiticals of many China dynasty did not use '京'. You should not explain Chinese word in such an simple way. Even the same character may have different pronuciations and meanings. I have seen a article at '東亞日報' . It said Manchu people are descendant of Sinla. One evidence of him is that '爱新觉罗', the surname of royal family of Qing Dynasty. It said it means '爱'(love) '新罗'. So funny! Right? '爱新觉罗' is just the spelling of the pronunciation. You know, Manchu people have their own language. Just like '华盛顿' is the spelling of the pronunciation of Washington.

And the posthumous names are definately questionable, as Gwangjong definately had 皇帝 in his posthumous name. There's simply no debate in at least this one area. As for the Jeongjong, I'm not 100% sure. Also keep in mind that the methods of the different (Chinese) dynasties vary when it comes to enshrinement. For example, the presence of temple names during the Tang Dynasty up until the early Ming Dynasty identified a emperors/sovreign rulers. That's why Goryeo rulers were robbed of their temple names during the Yuan dynasty and Shilla rulers were enshrined as "王" (as the states were tributary). However, during the late Ming & Qing, this was done away with.

---

>長 means head in the respect of head city or head person (in charge). Not the head on your neck... Example: the Chinese word for Principal: 校長. Literally means "head of school." Now don't you feel silly?

And your arguement is extremely flimsy. I understand the second half of what you said, but I do not recognize its relevance to this topic. What you're talking about is the use of Chinese characters by a foreign people (the Manchu). What I'm referring to is the way the Chinese people used their own language, not how the Manchus used it or how foreign words are pronounced using Chinese characters. Your arguement is incoherent and irrelevant.

I'm also not stating that 京 is the only word associated with imperial capitals; you just don't seem to understand that, do you? I'm saying it is a name that CANNOT be given to the capital city of a non-imperial government. And you're pretty off if you think 長城 has anything to do with this. 長 can be read two ways: zhang and chang. Chang means long, zhang, however, does not. Wow.

Once again! Even the same character may have different pronuciations and meanings. "長" has two pronuciations- 'Zhang' and 'Chang'. 'Zhang' sometimes really means 'head'. However, the pronuciation of '長安' is 'Chang An'. You see the difference?

I gave example because I thought they made the similar mistake! They both know some Chinese, or a little Chinese character(most Korean know some Chinese characters). But, the problem is they thought they are expert so that they explain Chinese by their own manner, by imagination.

Uh, right... But '長安' has two possible meanings, just because it's read "chang" in current day Chinese doesn't mean it was read the same in Chinese of years past. And please learn to speak better English before you submit articles/discuss articles on the English section of the site. You may confuse the readers, as I've had a hard time reading most of what you've written.

Thank you for your advice. But if I do not practise my english how can I improve it. If you had a hard time to read my sentences, just ignore them. It's not your duty to read them. Blaming my skill of Enligsh can not give any support your viewpoint.My advice to you is to learn Chinese well and not to guess the meaning of Chinese word you do not exactly. Do not give evidence even you own are not very sure whether it is true or not. As your method, I would be able to say '한강' has the meaning of 'River of Han Chinese' and '한국' has the relation with a ancient kindom of China '韓'. How wrong they are! Shame on you. The meaning of '長安' may be long peacefule (city).

You totally missed the point of this discussion. We are discussing whether or not Goryeo was an empire. And I am saying that Goryeo was not empire.

Moreover, dont interpret the Korean history using the method for Chiese history interpretation. Did Silla used 王 because of a tributal state, uh? You must learn about the Korean history if you want to saying such like that. You must read Offspring of heaven to know the reason why Korean state do use 王. It is translation of Korean word Imgeum into Chinese character.--Hairwizard91 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I will cite some sentence for you

"Korean kingdoms had never used an emperor(Huángdì, 皇帝) as the title of rulers because they thought that the highest rulers was Heaven, and all rulers must be a representative of Heaven. This concept of the Posterity of Heaven is somewhat different from the Chinese concept of the Son of Heaven or a Chinese emperor. It is believed that the Chinese emperor governs the Chinese as the son of Heaven. But, the Koreans believe that they themselves are the descendants of Heaven, the Heavenly God governs them by himself, and a king of a nation is nothing but the supervisor as a representative of Heaven."

---

You yourself are without the knowledge of something very crucial. Yes, 王 is read (using the Korean system) as "Imgeum Wang" (임금 왕) (the Hun and Eum system), but both the characters 皇 and 帝 are read with "Imgeum" as their Korean equivalents. 皇 is read as "Imgeum Hwang" (임금 황), and 帝 is read as "Imgeum Je" (임금 제). So you see, they do not translate to anything more than "Imgeum" or "sovreign". In Korean, the Chinese characters were each assigned two things: a meaning (hun 훈 訓) followed by the Korean-ized sound of the Chinese pronunciation (eum 음 音). Neither of the 訓 possess the Korean word for God in them. Korea (the entire peninsula) adopted Chinese government and institutions during the Shilla era (earliest was Baekje, but I want to emphasis the unified peninsula). Sino-Centrism dictates that this is why Korean rulers used 王, not because of their own beliefs but because of Chinese influence. That is why the 4th ruler, Gwangjong, of Goryeo declared it to be an empire, and I quote, "independent from any other countries" and himself to be an emperor.

At the SAME time, let's take a look at what happened during 大韓帝國. Gojong elavated himself to the status of Emperor. It is very well known that he did this to envoke nationalism and because the Jeong Dynasty (정,情) was weakened in the late 19th century. So according to you, Gojong just decided he was the Son of Heaven, when he was just a representative in the past? No, not at all.

---

Why dont you read this article firstly Offspring of heaven. Korean do have different system of calling title of rulers. You still interpret them in chinese ways and manners.

• 帝 - Korean dont use this character. So, there is no correct meaning of this. We only have Imgeum. So, I strongly encourage you to read Offspring of heaven.
• //Neither of the 訓 possess the Korean word for God in them// --> You are so funny. Korean word of God is "Ha-neul-nim" 하늘님. It is also connected to the article of Offspring of heaven. It is now called as Haeunim하느님, which is usually used in Christian even though it is originally designate the god of Korea. You can examine this name in the literature of Korean Missionary history.
• Later Silla era adopt the system because they use 王. Early Silla do no use the system of 王. You may know the calling system of silla such as Maripgan마립간, Nisageum니사금, Chachawong차차웅.
• Baekje does not use 王. But, Samguk Sagi use the 王 because the author's ignorant. One possible calling name of ruler of Baekje is "Oeraha.어라하" This still need research.
• Also, Kwangjong is not emperor. Posthumous name is "弘道宣烈平世大成大王"
• the Jeong Dynasty (정,情) was weakened in the late 19th century. --> What is this?? Jeong dynasty???
• Gojong called himself as emperor because there were many empires who attacked states. It has a historical background why Gojosong called himself as emperor. Calling emperor in Korea does not means the calling himself as the son of heaven. This is totally misunderstanding by the viewpoint of Chinese.
• Additionally, Every Korean think themselves as the son of heaven. This is called as Posterity of Heaven or Cheonson (천손, 天孫). It is not understood in Korea that only emperor is the son of heaven. You must know this firstly.
• You do interpret Korean history using the ways of Chinese history interpretation. It is a huge mistake. --Hairwizard91 17:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Why don't you get it through your head: that article is not reliable. It talks about Korean traditional FOLK MYTHS. NOT Korean political structure. You OBVIOUSLY did not read my response, or did not understand it at all.

• Read it again about the usage of the Chinese characters in Korea. THEY ARE READ WITH A DUAL READING SYSTEM. THE 訓 IS THE KOREAN NATIVE WORD, WHERE AS THE 音 IS THE SOUND THAT MATCHES CHINESE. READ MY STATEMENTS ABOUT IT. I'M SAYING THAT THE 訓 OF BOTH OF THOSE CHARACTERS (皇帝) IS "IMGEUM" AND NOT "HANEUNIM". MEANING THAT THOSE CHARACTERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HEAVEN, AND TO THE KOREANS THE 訓 OF 皇帝 IS EXACTLY THE SAME TO THAT OF THE CHARACTER 王. It symbolizes POLITICS, not FOLK MYTH & RELIGION (which was Buddhist in the COURT, which is where it's important. The Imperial Family WAS BUDDHIST/CONFUCIAN, NOT shamanistic. They did not worship Hwanin or Hwanung. Those figures became folk tales.)

We (KOREANS, as I am Korean) have the character 帝. Here is PROOF that it exists in the Korean language: http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/search/hanja/search.html?prop=hanja&p=%F0%A8&x=32&y=2 Take note of the hangeul, it says "임금 제". Would the dictionary lie? No, it would not. Only you would.

The corresponding word of 皇帝 can be Eoraha어라하, Maribgan마립간, etc.. 王 is just Kan간, Han한, etc. Even though the ruler is expressed in 王, it is sure that they are note read as wang왕 in ancient time.--Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm not discussing the corresponding words. I'm talking about the corresponding readings for the Hanja. Once again, READ THAT WHICH I'VE WRITTEN. The words you listed (Eoraha어라하, Maribgan마립간, etc.. ) are pre-Chinese government adoption. This means they were used BEFORE Korea began using the title 王 and before Korea adopted Chinese-styled government institutions.

• Later Shilla adopted the system BECAUSE THEY ADOPTED CHINESE CULTURE AND BECAME PART OF SINO-CENTRISM.

It is adopting the Chinese writing system because Idu, Hyangchal, etc had a difficulty to describe Korean language. Even though it is used as 王, there is no proof that it is pronounced as wang in ancient time. It is more reasonable to think that it is pronouced as Kan. Samguk Sagi is just translation of Korean language. Samguk Sagi is not representing the phonetic value of Korean calling syste. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Once again, you did not read anything I wrote, did you? The dual reading system and how Koreans use Chinese writing... Either you didnt read it, or you can't understand it.

• Gwangjong's posthumous name DID INCLUDE THE WORDS 皇帝. He is known for this in Korean history. http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B3%A0%EB%A0%A4_%EA%B4%91%EC%A2%85 Go read the posthumous name.

Check the Goryeosa (Records of Goryeo) for the posthumous name. Korean wiki has currently error. Check Goryeosa고려사 for yourself. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Jeong Dynasty = the Qing Dynasty. It's the way the character (WHICH IF YOU READ EVERYTHING I WROTE YOU WOULD KNOW) is read in Korean.

Exact pronouciation of Qing is Ch'ŏng as Korean. It is not Jeong. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::: No, it is not. The romanization you listed is from NORTH KOREAN MCCUNE REISCHAUER ROMANIZATION. In SOUTH KOREA they use the Revised Romanization. It is Jeong. Go read that article on wikipedia. Haha! It's really funny that you just did that. Look what you wrote before: can be Eoraha어라하, Maribgan마립간. You do realize that both of those words are romanized using the Revised Romanization. You don't even know the difference, do you? We don't write Seoul (the South Korean capital) as Sŏul. According to you saying that Jeong is incorrect and Ch'ŏng is the right way, then that would mean that Seoul is also incorrect and Sŏul is the right way. The McCune Reischauer is an out-dated system that only North Korea uses in its romanization. You need to also do more linguistics research.

• The words are SYNONYMOUS. That means that THEY HAVE THE SAME MEANING. The title change was not because "there were many empires who attacked states" (I can barely understand this phrase), it was meant to PUT GOJONG ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE CHINESE EMPEROR AND GIVE HIM THE SAME STATUS AND JOSEON A FULLY INDEPENDENT STATUS AS IT WAS A QING TRIBUTARY & VASSAL-STATE.

Yes. Gojong just used the 皇帝 because of politics. Why Joseon is vassal state. It is so absurd. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Joseon was a Qing vassal-state. It was subjugated by the Manchus and the King kowtowed to the Jeong/Qing Emperor annually. Read about it on wikipedia if need be. Not only this, but according to you the words 皇帝 are only used for the Cheonson (천손, 天孫). So Gojong can't use this even if it's just for politics, because like you said, Koreans do not believe in the Cheonson (천손, 天孫). You can't even keep a straight arguement.

• You DO interpret it that way because the institutions CHANGED FROM NATIVE KOREAN TO SINO-KOREAN. KOREA ADOPTED CHINESE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, AND THAT IS WHY THESE TITLES ARE SIGNIFICANT. The King of Joseon was a VASSAL OF THE QING DYNASTY BECAUSE IN CONFUCIAN ORDER THE EMPEROR IS ABOVE THE KING, AND BECAUSE KOREA WAS EXTREMELY CONFUCIAN AND CONSIDERED A CONFUCIAN BASED STATE, IT HOLDS TRUE. Korea was heavily influenced by China ESPECIALLY POLITICALLY.

Adopting the system means vassal??? It is so absurd. It is just using the words... It is so absurd to say that that adoping the calling convention become the vassal state. If so, Chinese are currently cultural vassal state of Korea Because China has currently eager to Korean drama. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You obviously do not understand anything I've said. It goes like this... Korean rulers were Kings. Korea adopted Confucian Doctrines from China which put China as the center of the world, and the Chinese Emperor the highest of all rulers. In Confucianism Doctrines, all other rulers in the world are subject to the Chinese Emperor. Korea acknowledged this and paid tribute except during the Goryeo era. That's how Confucianism works politically. You do not understand the arguement. It's not adopting culture that defines the vassal status. It is adopting the political institutions. How many times do I have to say this before you understand? The adoption of music and dance and such things has no relevance to the government, so your Korean Drama arguement is deemed useless, not justified and just plain wrong.

• Explain the prohibition of the Korean King of Joseon to wear gold. Also explain why dragons were not permitted to be present in the palaces of the Joseon Kings. BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPERIAL SYMBOLS. The title is a POLITICAL BOUNDRY, NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE. It may have STARTED religiously, but by the Taebong & Goryeo era it was definately political.

Haha. Dont think Korean culture like the Chinese culture. Why Korean ruler use the symbol of dragon? It is so absurd. It is so absurd that Joseon could not use dragon because Joseon is not empire. Who decide to use dragon if it is emperor. Only China use the dragon if the nation is emperor. Do Russia use Dragon when they are empire?? Haha Your statement is also absurd. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You are clearly misinformed about a lot of information. Korea adopted Chinese government and political institutions, Russia did not, so Russia has nothing to do with this. In Chinese government structure, the displaying of dragons in royal palaces is prohibitted as dragons are Imperial Symbols. This is a simple concept, I don't believe you are even challenging it. You are most definately wrong.

• Do not interpret KOREAN history when you know only what you read on wikipedia.

• Read the BOOK "A New History of KOREA" by Ki-Baik Lee and read page 105. There's a CONCRETE SOURCE IN PRINT (meaning it's from a BOOK not the unreliable internet).

What did he say. He is currently criticized as Japanese colonial historian. Read the "New Korean History" By Yoon Nae Hyun. --Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::: No, actually he is not being criticized as anything. He is a Korean nationalist if anything.

• As a matter of fact, you should read the ENTIRE BOOK.
• There's one extremely important aspect of everything in Korea: NEO-CONFUCIANISM. If you do not understand the politics of this, you cannot understand Goryeo or Joseon at all.

Maybe YOU should read more about Chinese history to understand the relationship between the Chinese emperor and other monarchs of neighboring states. It is important to understand the histories of BOTH CHINA (to some extent) AND KOREA to understand the history of Korea.

Dont think that the emperor system can be applied to the kingdom of Korea. You have a very huge mistakes. Do not apply the Chinese culture and political systems to Korean political system According to your statement, All nation or state that used "king" as a ruler must have been the vassal states of China. How much it is absurd statement. haha.--Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Again. Do not apply the Chinese history interpretation to Korean history. You have a big mistake--Hairwizard91 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are severely without a huge understanding of Korea and its history. I explained this higher up when I talked about Sino-Centrism.

Will the editor writing all this down please sign their name? use 4 tildes. This is a courtesy to other editors and its pretty rude to discuss without even showing who you are. Good friend100 20:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not registered.

• Based on the Above Statement written by Anonymous user, China is cultural vassal state of Korea, and all the states that used the title of king for rulers has been the vassal of China. It is nonsense and absurd. --Hairwizard91 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Will someone else with a good understanding of Korea and its history please come here and add to this discussion, as this person has no idea what he is talking about. This guy is pulling crap from all over the place and is clearly misinformed about Sino-Korean institutions. I'm a Korean, I'm not trying to distort history; I'm trying to tell the true story. This guy didn't even know the South Korean romanization system.

Are you Korean. Haha. I am so sure that you are not Korean. Because

1) Korean dont pronouce the Qing dynasty as Jeong(정,情) dynasty. Every Korean speak Ch'ǒng(This is the way of North Korean) or Cheong(This is the way of South Korean) dynasty(청, maybe 淸). You must not be a Korean because you do not know the correct Korean pronounciation of the last Chinese dynasty. Haha. Because you are not Korean, I just used the McCune-Reischauer system, which is thought to be more comprehensive romanization than the current Revised Romanization.

2) And If you were really Korean, You must have believed the concept about "Offspring of Heaven"(천손, 天孫). Every Korean have a mind about the "offspring of Heaven" But you do not have. You only think that Chinese emperor is the son of heaven. This thought is only from chinese. But, Korean think that they are all offspring of heaven. Jeong(정,情) is only for 초코파이.

3) You say Korean kingdom is the vassal state of China. NO Korean thinks that the Korean kingdom was the vassal state of China. Haha. Only Chinese think that Korean ancient kingdoms such as Goguryeo and Balhae were the vassal state of China because of "North East Chinese project". Eventually, China want the history of Goguryeo to make as the Chinese history. But, China shall not make it. --Hairwizard91 04:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that I am distorting the Korean history. I am just saying that Korean ancient kingdoms did not utilized the title of emperor. Most of Korean who has infant knowledge about history insisted that Goryeo was an empire and the ruler of Goryeo was an emperor. But, Korean king was not emperor, and they dont have to be an emperor. Do you know the etymology of Imgeum(임금, which means king or rulers)? If you know the original meaning of Imgeum, you cannnot say such like that. In addition, Korean ancient kingdoms are not vassal of Chinese kingdom against the "North East china project", which is very nonsense. If you are really Korean, do not think that Korean kingdoms were the vassal of china, and then cure the disease of emperor.

The title of Korean rulers was neither 王 nor 皇. The title of Korean rulers is Han(韓, 汗, 瀚 whatever they are expressed as Chinese script because it is only borrowing the character), or Gan or Kan (干). In the case of Baekje and Goguryeo, they have somewhat variation such as Ha, Hae and Gae. These are normal title of rulers. If there was supreme ruler or highest rulers, the noun qualifier is added such as Marib-gan(마립간) or Eora-ha(어라하). Marib mean the highest in ancient time. You may know the Maru(used in 고갯마루). Eora means the largest. The name of current Han river was Ari river. Eora has the same origin of the word with Ari. --Hairwizard91 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Please respond to the below statements as a whole and not by indenting and adding into my original post. Please post your response beneath it.

• We're discussing the functioning of Goryeo as an empire politically. Empire, in East Asia, means fully independent and sovreign from China, which Joseon was definately not, however, Goryeo was. Even if the monarch did not use the Chinese term for "Emperor," Goryeo was still a sovreign state (until Mongol occupation & subjugation) as it did not submit itself or submit tribute to China. The rulers were not limitted by the Chinese, like Joseon was in areas such as attire of the ruling family and prohibition of certain terms used in the Court. The English does not correlate. I am Korean, however I'm using an unbias point of view. I do believe, however, that the Goryeo rulers put themselves on the same level as the Chinese monarchs, and that the reason why the term "皇帝" was not used to denote them was a cultural barrier of the time, even though Gojong's move during the Korean Empire disproves that, the time period must also be taken into account. The Goryeo and Joseon eras were extremely different both culturally and politically. It is in my opinion that the Goryeo era is superior to the Joseon era both politically and culturally, but this has no relevance to this topic and is just something I wanted to state.

• I still stand by my original arguement, that by this time the significance of Hwanin and Hwanung had lost its importance in the Royal Court, and the Royal Family was Buddhist and Neo-Confucianist, and that Sino-Centrism dictated the titles of the rulers, not Korean traditional belief. However, I'd like a compromise.

• It should be mentioned in the article somewhere about the term "Emperor" not being equivolent to the term "皇帝" and the term "King" not be equivolent to the term "王". "王" should be explained as the generic title for the ruler of a country, and "皇帝" the title of the Chinese ruler specifically. Then just explain that for lack of a better term, the word "King" will still be used to denote the Goryeo monarch. At the same time, it should be made clearer that Goryeo functioned internally, using Court terminology and attire, in the same way China did. The monarchs wore gold, and the terminology in the Palace of Goryeo was equivolent to the terminology in the Imperial Song Palace. (This is not original research it is mentioned in "A New History of Korea"). It should also be stated that although a trade relationship existed, Goryeo was not tributary/subject to the Song Dynasty (like Joseon was to the Ming and Qing Dynasties). This is my principle arguement. Any person, whether he/she is Korean or not, must admit the tributary/vassal-state status of the Joseon Dynasty (this can be elaborated on/explained in an area outside of this topic). Pride and bias should have no part in history. We are not Japanese.

• The term "Supreme King" should also be changed. According to the wikipedia article you're using for reference, "Supreme King" would refer to "太王" used by Goguryeo. Goryeo used the words "大王" which would not translate that way. Instead, it would be King ______ the Great. Example: Taejo Daewang would be King Taejo the Great, not Great King Taejo. The 大 is often added to posthumous names to raise the status of the individual after death.

Response to your #3:

• Please understand what a vassal-state is. A vassal-state/tributary-state is a country that is tributary to another meaning it pays annual sums of wealth (silks, porcelain, animals or whatever it may be) to another country. The Chinese do not consider Goguryeo and Barhae vassal-states because of their location (Barhae was a tributary state, but Goguryeo was not). Vassal-states/tributary-states are called that because of their political relationships. It has nothing to do with the "Northeast Chinese Project." You're confusing two different things. What China is saying now is simply that Goguryeo (until the capital was moved to the area around present day Pyeongyang) is part of Chinese history just because Goguryeo territory (speicifically the old capital Kungnaeseong) is now part of modern-day China. The same goes for Barhae. They're not wrong; they're not arguing Goguryeo and Barhae were Chinese states, but just part of the history of China. Many people interpret this the wrong way, it just means that the countries, even though they were Korean, had an impact on Chinese culture and history as a whole. It's not an entirely negative thing.

--Justinpak

So does means Korea can claim Han Dynasty, Yuan Dynasty etc.. as Korean history since they ruled parts of today's Korean territory? China is not just claiming Goguryeo or Balhae as parts of Chinese history, they are claiming the whole of Goguryeo & Balhae, but sadly this claims are not accepted even at Chinese scholar standard.

--KoreanSentry

Response

I agree with your point except something.

• Fully indepedent kingdoms is not called empire. Independent state uses the term of State. In addition, the empire must have several independent states, and conquer several states to make their own control. So, the concept of king and empire should be differentiated because empire has controlled at the top of the states, and the ruler of each state is called king. In this context, Goryeo is not empire.
• And we must know why chinese uses the term of emperor. Chinese used two different terms for rulers 皇帝 and 王. So, they translate 皇帝 into an emperor, and 王 into a king. But, 皇帝 was not actually the topest rulers among the rulers of each states. It is very different concept of the current empire. They just translate into emperor and king. So, Chinese emperor has no relation with the current concept of empire. Instead, Korean kingdoms used 大王 and 太王 for the king who has much achievement. 大王 and 太王 can also be translated into emperor, but these two terms are not generally translated into an emperor. These can be supreme king or great king whatever. Moreover, it is much possibility that 太王 was not pronounced as Taewang in ancient time. the pronounication of Taewang had been widely used after Goryeo dyansty. So, it is possible to be pronouced as Eora(太)-ha(王), which is read using meaning of the character訓. So, 王 has nothing do to with the calling system of China.
• About North East Proejct. Yes, China insisted Goguryeo was their history because of the territory. But, this is not the all logic of the project. They also used to concept of 皇帝 and 王. As you know, 皇帝 controls 王 in Chinese history. So, they also apply the same theory to Korean history such thath Korean kingdoms were subjuated to Chinese kingdom because they used only the title of 王'. They also says about the tributal relationship. China usually says that Goguryeo and Balhae were the local government of China. You only know one theory of north east project. So, I was trying to explain that Korean kingdoms dont have to use the 皇帝 because 王 of Korean has the same power and level with 皇帝 of Chinese history. Again, Balhae and Goguryeo are neither Chinese history nor Chinese state because the history of Balhae and Goguryeo cannot be the Chinese history even though the territory of Gogurye and Balhae are currently the territory of China. China and US consider their history if the ancient states was located at the current their own territory. However, Korea consider their history if the people of ancient states are composed by Korean. This is cause of the conflict between China and Korea. You may not know this. I guess you have learned history in US not in Korea.--Hairwizard91 09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, King Taejo the Great. What is it? Taejo Daewang are all posthumous name. It is not true that only Dae is posthumous name. You missed this fact. So, Taejo Great King is correct translation. --Hairwizard91 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I still protest this as an inaccurate analysis. The significance of the Offspring of Heaven holds no ground here. You're comparing the stone-age Go-Joseon/Dangun era beliefs with that of the middle-age Goryeo era. The Goryeo Era has nothing to do with this concept (which can be regarded as Korean Shamanism). Goryeo was a Buddhist state with Confucian elements. Therefore your rational behind this is insignificant.

And I'd appreciate it if you did not go back and edit previous parts of the discussion to sneak in insults. The accuracey of this article should be disputed and noted at the top of the page of the article. Justinpak

---

Who is this

Will the editor writing all this stuff down in their argument identify themselves? It would be much better if we know who is fighting on each side.

I don't understand, what is the exact point of the discussion? Are you saying that Korea was a state under China during Goryeo because Goryeo only had "kings" not "emperors"? They are both basically the same thing. They represent the ruler of that country. I don't see any evidence how Goryeo was a state and made tributes to China. As I see it, this is simply a way to undermine Goryeo's position and make it look like it really was actually "Chinese and therefore Korea is Chinese".

And there doesn't seem to be an article of the "Northeast China" project in Wikipedia. If it is important there should be. It is interesting how China calls Manchuria "Northeast China". Good friend100 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont sweat. Its probably some guy from China who became tired of ridiculing korean arguments at the Goguryeo article so came to Goryeo. These days Chinese nationalists have nothing to do except ridiculing the minorities around them. I applaude you, citizens of the PRC for adopting imperialistic measures which you so despise.

request a move

I'm requesting a move back to Goryeo. Nobody calls this "kingdom of goryeo". Quite ridiculous. Good friend100 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I support your request. Stupid name. If it's confusing the readers because there were two states with the same name than maybe a disambiguation page is need. Kuebie 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To my thinking suit Goryeo Dynasty´s changed name. why only one Korean Dynasty is Joseon? Korea history 11:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. I did it because I thought Joseon and Goryeo should have a similar name.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 12:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Joseon should be "Joseon" or "Joseon Dynasty" because thats its name for many books, internet articles, etc. Nobody uses "Kingdom of Goryeo". "Goryeo" or "Goryeo Dynasty" is sufficient. Good friend100 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK for Goryeo Dynasty.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the name was very strange as well. It should be simply Goryeo, Joseon. These are more like Korea's names during different time periods, not really separate kingdoms. Dynasty is more of a Chinese style, I think. I also think the template at the upper right is a little strange too. The articles in the History of Korea template should have logically consistent names and layouts. Esroh 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

---> No, they actually ARE different kingdoms. They may be made up of the same ethnic group, the Koreans, but they are different countries with different governments and different ruling families and social structures. Dynasty is not the right word because the term refers to a ruling family. For example, Joseon was ruled by the Yi Dynasty, Goryeo was ruled by the Wang Dynasty and technically the "Choe Dynasty" (it's like the Tudor Dynasty in England). This is a difference that often gets forgotten. Goryeo is the name of the country. And "Dynasty" is not Chinese styled... Are the Tudors from China?

Goryeo was Dynasty, I don't think it was just Kingdom, it started as Empire then became Kingdom once it was forced to join the Yuan Empire. KoreanSentry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.9.34 (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mongol influence

Goryeo, though under strong Mongol influences, was not occupied by Mongols. Goryeo had a treaty with Mongols to become its tributary state, though under its tight (indirect) control until the end of Yuan.--207.112.42.174 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mongol had no interested in Korea, only wanted to keep Korea into own sphere. Just like the current US-Korea relation. During Yuan Dynasty, Koreans were second from their hierarchy class after Mongols. --Korsentry 02:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Mongol wanted to rule the whole universe. So do you mean that Goryeo was not on the earth in the middle ages. I know there are many Korean nationalist history books. Can we just keep this article close to the truth. Maybe in Korea, modern Korean historians conclude the Mongolian Empire had no interest in Korea (because it was poor you mean? don't think so). For the Mongols, the main reason was the country was less significant than China and Middle East. Most western historians (maybe rest of the world) consider Korea as part of the Mongol Dynasty.--Lauren68 (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Mongols certainly had an interest in the Korean Peninsula. But this did not mean they only wanted to rule places directly, but maintaining control over the native (e.g. Korean) ruling house or class sometimes work fine too. However, please do not try to treat WP talk page somehow like a forum, with factors of artificially dividing between views among different national groups, or as if you are trying to correct for "truth" in WP or so. Thanks. --173.206.170.138 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Goryeo was a vassal state who paid tributes and resources to their overlord. Tributary relation was well established between any Gret powers in China and Goryeo. Before Mongols, Goryeo paid tributes to the Jurchen Jin Dynasty in North China. Goryeo imitated Chinese government system. The Mongols influenced them in some ways. I am not dividing views. There was no Korea in the Middle Ages. Dont take it seriously. Most scholars know Goryeo was a client state of the Yuan. Why do you guys always want to argue?. --Lauren68 (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, what do you mean by "there was no Korea in the Middle Ages"? Goryeo and earlier ruling entities can certainly seen as Korean states or entities. Yes, Goryeo and other Korean dynasties paid tributes almost all the time in pre-modern period. But the Mongol case is the most special one. Besides demanding tributes etc, they actually tried to control the Goryeo ruling house, using a method no previous "Great powers" or ruling dynasties in China had done before. However, you were indeed trying to divide sharply between views, e.g. between the so-called "Korean modern histography" and "Orientalists" as had explicitly done in another page. I'm not arguing Goryeo was not a vassal or client state of the Yuan, but please don't sound as if you are a "messenger" of "most scholars", whereas other people here are insisting minority or non-scholarly views. Also, please don't add large chunk of quotes to the article, especially when trying to repeat them in multiple (or more than one) pages. When editing, try to focus on the contents of each page one by one (usually based on discussions on its associated talk page), instead of regarding a large amount of (or more than one) pages at once, or on its editors. Thanks. --173.206.170.138 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please always try to talk nicely as a Wikipedian. Try to point out issues (if any) directly (and politely) whenever possible. In any case, don't mimic others' (esp. "bad") behavior, especially when editing articles. Wikipedia usually works this way to get better and better. --Chinyin (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the invasion of Japan uses the wrong Kamikaze reference, it uses the WWII page, it should use the [Kamikaze (typhoon)] page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is correct?

There are two paragraphs concern to Wang Gon: 1st one in introduction says that he was son of a local lord, 2nd one "foundation" says he was from a merchant family. Was a merchant considered a lord at that time? Which one is correct? Vietbook (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wang Geon's father was a big merchant and also a lord. Asadal (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Koreans did not use the printing press while printing.

The articles talk about using moveable type "printing press", which is incorrect. The article should be changed to say just "printing". The printing press refers to a particular style of printing not practiced by the Koreans. Just as "woodblock printing" refers to a specific style of printing with specific features, so does the word "printing press". It would be incorrect to use the term "block printing" for printing done with moveable type, and it is just as equally incorrect to use the word

Among the feature the printing press has not used in the Korean printing were a mechanical screw press, metal moveable type made from a special "type metal" alloy that was developed specially for printing (Koreans used bronze for their metal type, which has very different composition and properties from type metal), a special "printers ink" that was different from the ink used in Korean printing, use of parchment and European paper which allowed printing on both sides of the page, to name some of the distinct features of the printing press from Korean printing.136.2.1.153 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) GB_

Style

Not being an expert on this topic, I'm not going to do this myself, but perhaps a native English speaker could give this a once over. There are several odd phrasings in this piece such as "Many burglars and outlaws bubbled ", I can guess at what this means, but a) it seems very specific to use "burglars" versus something like "The region had grown lawless" and b) the use of "bubbled" is very strange. "bubbled" in the context doesn't strike me as any kind of English idiom I can think of. Find an editor who speaks English as a first language and this article will improve considerably. It contains very interesting material and I appreciate your efforts (despite all the bickering in this discussion), but it reads like something I ran through Google Translate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.13.149 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some copy editing

It seems that this page could do with a little clean up. First off I would suggest removing the hangeul and hanja for the names of, say rulers, if they have their own page where that information could and should be read. It might also be mroe useful to include the years of their reign instead, for example King Soandso (r.XXX-XXX).Waygugin (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of the Goryeo within the Mongolian Empire

The status of the Goryeo should be changed to Client State because the Goryeo court provided not only financial and material resources (stationary, tribute etc) but also armed-men (lets say invasions of Japan, conquest of Song China, civil war of the Mongolian Empire and early phase of the red turban rebellion).--Lauren68 (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think people are blowing things out of proportion. I think people are blowing things out of proportion. I don’t think you’re 100 percent right. Chinese (sometimes the Mongolians) threats their foreign partners as the subordinate state, and there is no reason that Korea is only tribute vassal of China in Wikipedia.--219.248.253.226 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I added ref. to the infobox. Please do not remove the information. Oda Mari (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Even other 31 countries have been tributary stae of Mongol empire, it is quite wrong to only show it on Goryeo.

Except Goryeo, no other country's front page includes this fact. Since Goryeo achieved independence and started with indepence, the front page's 'tributary of mongol empire and yuan dynasty have to be changed or it have to be written in all other countries on that period too.≠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichrio Nazuki (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ichrio Nazuki was blocked indef. as a sock. Those who agree with the user, instead of removing the sourced material, please add the information to the other country articles. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Goryeo and Mongol

I found wrong and biasd information on Goryeo, a Korean dynasty, and corrected it.

1. The years that Goryeo was under the influences of Mongol are not correct. I corrected the years : (1270 ~ 1356).
2. Goryeo lasted about 500 years, and most of the time it remained as an independent dynasty. Although the Mongol tributary period should be treated as one of the most important historical events, it should not be treated as representing the whole period.

Please see here for more information. -- Asadal (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The years 1270-1356 is fine, which is what sources say such as "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112. Goryeo was a vassal of the Yuan dynasty during this time. For more details please see Korea under Yuan rule. --Cartakes (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Goryeo was an independent country

Goryeo dynasty was an independent country for almost 500 years. Goryeo was not a "tributary state of Song, Liao, Jin, the Mongol Empire, Yuan, and Ming." For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times and has never been conquered by Liao. Asadal (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"In 1018, the Khitan(=Liao) army invaded for the third time with 100,000 troops. In Heunghaejin stream, General Gang Gam-chan ordered the stream to be blocked until the Khitans began to cross it, and when the Khitans were mid-way across, he ordered that the dam be destroyed so that the water would drown much of the Khitan army. The damage was great, and General Gang led a massive attack that annihilated many of the Khitan army. Barely a few thousand of the Liao troops survived after the bitter defeat at Kwiju one year later." Asadal (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On the edit of the article at 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Asadal,

Please note that your comments do not justify whitewashing of the information supported by reliable sources. But setting it aside, I'll give my responses to your comments on this talk page.

"1. The years that Goryeo was under the influences of Mongol are not correct. I corrected the years : (1270 ~ 1356)."

At present, this violates WP:CITE, WP:VER, and WP:RS.

"2. Goryeo lasted about 500 years, and most of the time it remained as an independent dynasty. Although the Mongol tributary period should be treated as one of the most important historical events, it should not be treated as representing the whole period."

This also violates WP:CITE, WP:VER, and WP:RS. Please follow WP:No original research. Also, you seem to confuse two words, an "independent" dynasty and a non-"tributary". The information which is relevant here is whether WP:SOURCES describe Goryeo as a "tributary" or not.

"Please see here for more information."

This violates WP:CITE and WP:RS. In particular, please note that it violates WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

"Goryeo dynasty was an independent country for almost 500 years. Goryeo was not a "tributary state of Song, Liao, Jin, the Mongol Empire, Yuan, and Ming.""

Similarly, this is a personal opinion as long as WP:SOURCES are not provided. Please follow WP:No original research.

"For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times and has never been conquered by Liao.

"In 1018, the Khitan(=Liao) army invaded for the third time with 100,000 troops. In Heunghaejin stream, General Gang Gam-chan ordered the stream to be blocked until the Khitans began to cross it, and when the Khitans were mid-way across, he ordered that the dam be destroyed so that the water would drown much of the Khitan army. The damage was great, and General Gang led a massive attack that annihilated many of the Khitan army. Barely a few thousand of the Liao troops survived after the bitter defeat at Kwiju one year later.""

Let us divide your claim into two parts for ease of discussion: (i) "For example Goryeo defeated Liao 3 times" and (ii) "and [Goryeo] has never been conquered by Liao."

(i) Please remember that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose" (WP:WPNOTRS). So, this is an opinion not supported by WP:SOURCES again.

(ii) It is an opinion not supported by WP:SOURCES again (WP:WPNOTRS). Please follow WP:No original research.

By the way, Goryeo’s defeat(s) of Liao do(es) not indicate that Goryeo "has never been conquered by Liao". Is this logic OK? Also, is it okay that absence of conquest doesn't mean absence of tributary relationships (as exemplified by Koryeo's tributary relationship with Song)? Furthermore, how about Song and Jin?

Finally, it is important, so let me repeat the baseline: Your comments do not justify whitewashing of information supported by WP:RS. Please do not remove information supported by WP:RS easily.

I hope that my comments above don't sound too harsh to you. If they sound so, it is my fault.

Best regards, De 4 de 171 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first comment quoted above (which is reproduced below),

> "1. The years that Goryeo was under the influences of Mongol are not correct. I corrected the years : (1270 ~ 1356)."

I found relevant statements in The Cambridge History of China:

• [Koryŏ:] "Mongolian vassal state 1258" "Under Mongolian domination 1270"

(Source: Rossabi, Morris. (1994) "The reign of Khubilai khan." In Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907−1368, 414-489. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-24331-9. p. 483.)

So, as the year of the start of Goryeo's tributary status with respect to the Mongol Empire, 1270 is not appropriate. De 4 de 171 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Condensing the "status" section of the infobox

- Firstly, I linked the Imperial Chinese tributary system wikipedia page instead of the Tributary state wikipedia page as it provides a lot more insight into the tributary relationships specific to China.

- Secondly, the previous information detailed in the "status" section of the infobox contained so many details that it defeated the purpose of the infobox: to be concise, containing only the most important information. Such details are more useful elaborated within the body of the article

See Help:Infobox for details

- Lastly, the current label is consistent with the labels on the pages of other tributary states, making it easier for readers to recognize this common characteristic. If there are any digressions regarding my edits, please let me know.

BUjjsp (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I undid your edit on Joseon per consistency of the style. And what you did was change the style of this article and other articles. Please stop. Your edits are disruptive. Oda Mari (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

BUjjsp's edit on the infobox of Goryeo is concise and reasonable. I agree on the edit. However, Oda Mari's edit is so complicated and includes too trivial things. For example, the edit that Goryeo was the tributary state of Later Tang, Later Jin, Later Han, and Later Zhou is not worth mentioning in the infobox. The facts are so trivial and even in the Foreign Relations Section of Goryo, it is not mentioned yet. Asadal (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Asadal: Well put. I will expand on some issues that you brought up, in hopes that Oda Mari will see why this edit should be implemented.

@Oda Mari:

The status section label which I proposed, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" far better serves the purpose of the infobox for many reasons, especially in the case of Goryeo. I will address these reasons below.

- The current status label violates the conciseness guidelines set forth by Help:Infobox.

The guidelines presented state that the status SHOULD BE "Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts."

The status section should AVOID BEING "Lengthy. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body."

- The current status label currently includes information not directly pertinent to Goryeo, especially the dynasty names. Since the nature of the Imperial Chinese tributary system did not change between dynasties, inclusion of the dynasty names does not entail any information pertinent to the structure of Goryeo, especially Later Tang, Later Jin, Later Han, and Later Zhou. Consequently, due to the fact that MOS:INFOBOX requires that only KEY INFORMATION be included, the current status section violates this guideline.

From MOS:INFOBOX - "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

- The current status label is not specific in identifying the specific tributary relationship between Goryeo and Imperial China. It currently links to "Tributary State" which is vague and would be more effective if linked to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page, which is more specific.

- The NEW status label which I proposed solves all of these problems.

The use of the term "Member" and "Member state" is academically sourced, used interchangeably with "Tributary" and "Tributary State".

If you have any substantiated digressions with my edit, please don't hesitate to inform me.

If you don't respond to this, I believe it's fair to assume that you have no problems with the institution of this edit.

BUjjsp (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what the style is. There are other types of status and the style is "xx (state) of xx dynasty/specified country name". That's the way we describe the status at en:WP. You cannot change the style per consistency.

• Puppet state of the Empire of Japan Manchukuo
• Client / puppet state of the German Empire Kingdom of Poland (1916–18)
• Client state of the German Empire Kingdom of Lithuania (1918)
• Client state of Yugoslavia (1944–1948) People's Socialist Republic of Albania
• Vassal state of the Satsuma Domain (1609–1872) Ryukyu Kingdom
• Vassal state of the Empire of Japan (1872–1879) Ryukyu Kingdom
• Vassal state of the Ottoman Empire Eastern Hungarian Kingdom
• Autonomous vassal of the Ottoman Empire (under British occupation from 1882) Khedivate of Egypt
• Vassal of the Kingdom of France Duchy of Burgundy
• Vassal of Mercia (764–769, 785–796, 798–825) Vassal of Wessex (825–871) Kingdom of Kent
• Satellite state of the Soviet Union Second East Turkestan Republic
• Satellite state of the Soviet Union Tuvan People's Republic Oda Mari (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no source that justifies your claim. No guideline demands that the style "xx (state) of xx dynasty/specified country name" be used.

Editors of those pages used that style because in those cases, it DOES NOT violate any of the Infobox guidelines that I addressed earlier. In the examples you provided, each piece of information is directly pertinent the subject of the article.

However, in the case of Goryeo's status label, there are multiple violations, as evidenced through the guidelines of Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX. The current status label is not specific in naming the type of tributary relationship that existed and includes too much unnecessary information and clutter, which ultimately defeats the purpose of the infobox.

BUjjsp (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be requesting outside means of obtaining consensus. BUjjsp (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this. Oda Mari (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The source you provided merely lists the available fields that you can use in the status section of the infobox. Template:Infobox former country does not stipulate that your format be used. It states that by default if ONLY the "status" and "empire" fields are used, then it will appear in the following format: "status" of "empire". The reason the "status_text" field exists is to provide greater flexibility for status labels such as in the case of my edit: "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system".

Will you please address the fact that the current status label violates multiple guidelines set forth by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX instead of providing unrelated sources?

BUjjsp (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The template page says "Status describes the relationship between the political entity and other entities". "Imperial Chinese tributary system" is not a political entity. Oda Mari (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Noting Goryeo's inclusion into the Imperial Chinese tributary system DOES describe its relationship with another political entity, in this case, Imperial China. The template page DOES NOT say: use the format "xx state of xx dynasty". In fact, by including, "Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the label, my edit does a much better job in specifying Goryeo's relationship with Imperial China, as opposed to the current one.

Since you haven't commented otherwise, I believe it's safe to assume that we've reached an agreement that the current label violates guidelines from both Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX, and thus, it NEEDS to be changed. This is the major issue that you need to address. Please stop dodging it. BUjjsp (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this page and click the linked Category:Former countries in Chinese history. Both Imperial China and Imperial Chinese tributary system are not supported. No, I do not agree with your proposal at here as I did on the talk page of Joseon. I think there's no violation at all. Oda Mari (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note that according to your source, "tributary state" is not supported either. The list is incomplete. It is eurocentric and has yet to include relationships specific to Eastern Asia, such as the Imperial Chinese tributary system in this case. By your logic, the label in its current form is not supported either.

Quite frankly, it does not matter that you "think" that there's no violation. Prove it. There are multiple violations, each of which I've shown. Your case is completely unsubstantiated. BUjjsp (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is about what information should be included in the infobox. The current status label and the proposed status label are reproduced below for the convenience of the discussion.

Current: Tributary state[1][2][3][4] of Later Tang, Later Jin, Later Han, Later Zhou,[5] Song,[6] Liao,[7][8][9] Jin,[10][11] the Mongol Empire,[12][13] Yuan,[14] and Ming[15][16]

Proposed: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1]

New Proposal: Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system[1] Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)

23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese dynasties are categorized as former empires. See Category:Former empires. So the style of the current version is correct per Template:Infobox former country#Status as tributary state is categorized Category:States by power status along with client state, protectorate, puppet state, and vassal state. See also Template:Infobox former country/Categories and vassal state. Vassal state and tributary state are interchangeable. Oda Mari (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Goryeo is a historical Kingdom of Korea, please stop Sinocentrism. Sinocentrism is not what Wikipedia for. Oneslin (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For the Japanese editor, please read carefully Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects. Sinocentrism is giving unbalanced aspects to this article. It is a violation of Wiki principle.Oneslin (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you continue to ignore the most pertinent issue at hand - the fact that the current status label violates guidelines set forth by both Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX. Please review the several violations that I listed in my previous statements. Oneslin does have a point as well, the infobox contains too much information about Imperial China, most of which is not pertinent to the structure of Goryeo.

Also, there appears to be a misconception regarding the Template:Infobox former country/Categories source. If you read carefully, you'll see that the source's purpose is to list which values fit the into the default "status" and "empire" fields. The reason that the "status_text" field exists is to allow editors to create more specific status labels, such as "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". In other words, the source does not exclude other values, such as "Imperial Chinese tributary system" from being used. They just don't fit into the default format: "status(empire)". According to Template:Infobox former country#Status, there is nothing wrong with the proposed edit. BUjjsp (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed. An infobox is supposed to be concise. The current one is unreadable. Scolaire (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support neither proposed with modification - The current is organized illegibly and the proposed is oversimplified, and slightly incorrect. The current would be better if it were organized as it is on Ryukyu Kingdom; each entry having its own line and providing dates. The Mongol Empire (I'm not talking about the Yuan dynasty) shouldn't be considered part of the "Imperial Chinese tributary system".

@Oneslin: Oda Mari isn't pushing Sinocentrism. It doesn't matter that Goryeo was a "historical" Korean kingdom, the fact remains that it was a tributary of China for most of its existence.

EDIT: That user was indef blocked for "vandalism". It looks more like POV pushing.

@BUjjsp: "Too much information on Imperial China"; that's funny. I'm pretty sure that each dynasty is treated as a separate entity. And Mongolia isn't China, and shouldn't be labeled as such. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sturmgewehr88, I appreciate your concern regarding the article. However, if you read the reasons I listed above, inclusion of the dynasty names reveals nothing regarding the political structure of Goryeo or any of the tributary system members for that matter. Yes, they were separate entities, but in the interest of conciseness as well as the inclusion of only KEY INFORMATION relating to Goryeo, the relationship that Goryeo had with these dynasties can be summed up in a far more efficient manner, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system". This label collectively includes the relationships between tributary system members and the various Chinese dynasties. Consequently, I see no reason to include the individual dynasty names when the relationship can be explained in a concise, single label.

As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty). However, the period between which the Mongol Empire's relationship with Goryeo was short-lived, before the Yuan Dynasty took its place (1259-1271). Despite this, in the interest of obtaining consensus, I am willing to include, "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)" as part of the infobox stats label. BUjjsp (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great. So just to be sure, the new proposed status label is,

"Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system

Vassal state of the Mongol Empire (1259-1271)"

Please tell me if any editors involved have any digressions with this. BUjjsp (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed Chosen at random to answer RFC's. The current info box is a mess, it needs to be simplified. AlbinoFerret 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: and @AlbinoFerret:, please read Talk:Joseon#Classification of Joseon as a Tributary of China and Talk:Joseon#Discussion Regarding the Status Label of the Infobox first as the talk started there. I'll post what I have to say as soon as possible. Oda Mari (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to read Talk:Joseon#Discussion Regarding the Status Label of the Infobox, but I don't really see the point considering the points brought up on this page and that page are practically identical. The reason I moved the discussion here is because no one responded to my WP:3O on the Joseon page, likely because the discussion got way too long. You can also see that I brought up the same issue on the Ryukyu Kingdom page in the Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#Minor Edits in the Infobox section. BUjjsp (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed. Agree with Scolaire's comment. The current format is too complex, and unreadable. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not right that the description style should be changed just because the status section of this article looks a mess. See the status section of Ashikaga shogunate and Joseon. They are readable, but BUjjsp requested the same change at Talk:Joseon before this proposal. Goryeo was a tributary state of many countries and it is an exceptional case. The current proposal have two different style. If the style was changed, Ryukyu Kingdom would also have two different style of its status. The consistency of the style would be lost. IMHO, the issue here is not the readabily, but the matter of the consistency of the style/format. The change would affect a lot of articles. I'll ask for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries as the infobox is a part of the project. Oda Mari (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposed. The fact remains that this infobox is currently a mess and fails to meet the criteria set forth by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX, which every editor here except you has concurred with. This "style" argument that you keep bringing up is not cited anywhere in Wikipedia. It is your own personal, unsubstantiated opinion. And so what if the status labels in the other articles are changed? The same argument: "This style has been at EN:WP for years" that you bring up over and over again is irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia being a public encyclopedia is to constantly improve on its content where appropriate. BUjjsp (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as there is still dissent from one involved editor despite comments from other editors through the Rfc process, I move to end the Rfc and request formal mediation to resolve the issue at hand. If there is any digression with this, please comment below. BUjjsp (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how an RfC works. When you make a request for comments, you have to wait for the comments to come in. Then somebody closes it, there is a result, and that result is implemented. You don't just hop to the next process because things aren't happening fast enough for you. I put in a request for closure four days ago, on the basis that there had been no input for six days at that time. If you hadn't started playing around, it would in all probability have been closed by now. Because you tried to mark it "withdrawn", however, it has now been reopened. Just sit tight for a while, let more people comment if they wish, and if the discussion stops for several days again, you can make another request to close. You should not be moving to mediation until much further down the line. And you'd better hope that it doesn't come to that, because mediation takes a very long time indeed. And, by the way, I did not appreciate being named in your abortive request for mediation as a party to the dispute. I am not in a dispute with anybody. All I did was to !vote in this RfC, and do some housekeeping. Scolaire (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you and any other editors involved. The guidelines provided for 'requests for formal mediation' asked me to name any "editors who are involved". I never had to use the formal mediation process before, so I tried to follow the guidelines available to the best of my ability. My apologies again. BUjjsp (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll note that due to the backlog at ANRFC, it was unlikely this would have been closed before January 9th (30 days) anyways. RfCs are typically set to run for 30 days, and there are currently multiple discussions that are over 60 days waiting to be closed. If new comments seem to be lacking and you'd like to generate more discussion, you might consider listing the discussion on WP:CENT or posting a notice of the discussion to relevant WikiProjects and Village pumps. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support new proposal, with comma before "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes should be "short & straight to the point", which at the moment it's not so per above I have to support. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, infoboxes should be as concise as possible. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ref for status field

I removed the one remaining ref for the status of "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the infobox, because the proposal in the RfC only said "[1]", it did not specify what "[1]" was to represent. It needs to be agreed (a) whether a ref is required at all, and (b) if so, which. Note that there was never a proposal to have a ref for "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire". Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any response after four days, I take it that the answer to (a) is no, a ref is not required. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say, "Go for it!" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"As for Mongolia, it is common knowledge that it is not Chinese (meaning a Han Chinese dynasty)."

User:BUjjsp, is Liao dynasty Han Chinese? Or Jin dynasty (1115–1234)? Yuan dynasty? Neither are Later Tang, Later Jin (Five Dynasties) and Later Han (Five Dynasties). In other words, six out of the nine polities supposed covered by the 4-word label "Imperial Chinese tributary system", are in-fact non-Han-Chinese. This label is particularly problematic for the 2 centuries after 994, when Goryeo after the First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War started using Khitan Liao (and later, the Jurchen Jin) era names rather than the "Han Chinese" Song dynasty era names (though Goryeo used Song era names again between 1016 to 1022). In other words, for 220 years between 994 and 1224 Goryeo was making tributes to either the Khitans or the Jurchens rather than "Han Chinese". The current field is VERY MISLEADING. Either set it up like Ryukyu Kingdom, or delete the section altogether. Timmyshin (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The current label is not misleading at all. The dynasties you mentioned were not Han Chinese of course. However, these entities, like the Han Chinese dynasties, followed the model of the Imperial Chinese tributary system as a method of asserting their suzerainty over smaller states. If you were familiar with the definition of the Imperial Chinese tributary system, you'd know that being a 'Han Chinese' dynasty was not a prerequisite for assuming the role of power within the Imperial Chinese Tributary system. For example, the Manchurian Qing Dynasty was not a Han Chinese dynasty, yet indisputably, it continued the central role of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System until its demise in 1911. I hope that cleared up any misconceptions you may have previously held. BUjjsp (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, when the Mongols first conquered China, they didn't continue the tribute system. It wasn't until Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty that the tribute system resumed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Years as vassal state

I have noted that consensus on the format for the status text in the infobox in the section #RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?. However, that discussion did not actually discuss the years as vassal state at all. Rather, on a different section, i.e. #Goryeo and Mongol, it mentioned that the correct year is 1270-1350s. This is in fact true, and for more details on this period, please look at the Korea under Yuan rule article. The Zhengdong Branch Secretariat (征東等處行中書省) was established in Korea in the 1280s, and King Gongmin of Goryeo began to push the Mongol garrisons of the Yuan back in the 1350s. Both of these clearly suggest the years "1259-1271" as vassal state is wrong. Instead, "1270-1350s" is the correct span for the vassalage, as vassal state of the Yuan dynasty. --Cartakes (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cartakes: If so, I recommend changing the years to (1259-1356), and changing the label to say Vassal of the Mongol Empire to collectively describe Goryeo's semi-autonomous vassal status to the Mongol Empire (which includes the Yuan dynasty). Additionally, the vassal label should be made distinct from the "independent kingdom" label since Goryeo was not independent during the Mongol domination period. BUjjsp (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the said section (#Goryeo and Mongol), I think the actual Mongol domination in Goryeo only started after the enthronement of Kublai Khan in 1270 instead of early in 1259. For example, according to the book "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112, "From 1270 to 1356 Korea was under Mongol domination". Beginning with 1260 the Mongol Empire became divided or fractured into the Yuan dynasty and the western Mongol khanates, so it is difficult to talk about a single Mongol Empire after that. It was Yuan under the Kublaids who dealt with the Goryeo (Korea), that is why I prefer to say "Yuan dynasty". However, I think it is a good idea to change the label "independent kingdom" as you said, at least add the years when it was in fact an independent kingdom (i.e. 918-1270 and 1356-1392). Thanks for your suggestion. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For now, while I have read sources that suggest otherwise, I think it's best that we follow the source you provided and change the starting year to 1270. However, I do have a couple of suggestions: 1) I recommend changing the label to say "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" to make it clear that the Yuan dynasty was in fact controlled by the Mongols and to avoid confusing readers. 2) For the purpose of aesthetics, I recommend that the following infobox status label be used:

Independent kingdom
(918-1270, 1356-1392)
Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty
(1270-1356)
Member of the imperial Chinese tributary system

BUjjsp (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have changed it to "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" and add a new line between "Independent kingdom" and its years as you said. I did not force a second new line though because it would take a lot of lines and would thus look a little bad. Anyway, thanks for your input too. --Cartakes (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP Edits

To the editor(s) who is/are repeatedly changing the article's content without explanation, please explain the reasoning behind your edits. Considering that the article is about Goryeo, there no reason to change the pre-existing map to one that focuses on the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which is being persistently added without explanation. Moreover, I see no reason to repeatedly remove information that was decided by consensus on this talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Chinese editors sabotaging page

Chinese users such as Qiushufang and Esiymbro who are active on other Korea-related contents (Balhae, Buyeo, etc) are twisting Wiki regulations as an excuse for their own benefits. Wouldn't have said much if they were consistent with their demeanor but the audacity to request a strict 'No Primary Source Policy' and 'No Korean, Only English source' only on Korean kingdoms such as Goryeo, Goguryeo, Balhae and Buyeo is ridiculous. Hence they delete lengthy edits or undo them without a detailed explanation. Especially ones that sound 'sensitive' to Chinese state-led Historiographical perspectives. Fact is, if it wasn't for my edit using Korean sources, the detailed contents and accounts revolving the Goryeo-Jurchen Wars (1104-1109) which Anglophonie scholars don't even cover would have been left with a few sentences. Plus the pages for Chungryeol of Goryeo would have been left distorted as it previously said King Chungryeol of Goryeo 'favored' and 'requested' a Mongol Invasion over Japan when in reality he was against it.

Adding this discussion for others to take into account. Zessede (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)