Talk:Gaogouli County

Gaogouli County is not Xuantu Commandery

Gaogouli County is not Xuantu Commandery. Even after the government of Xuantu Commandery moved to Gaogouli County, the Gaogouli County still existed. Just like the capital of China moved from Nanjing city to Beijing city, there is still a Beijing city. Gaogouli County is one of the counties that governed by Xuantu Commandery. --Dicting (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability, I believe it's better to elaborate on the prefectures of Xuantu Commandery in the article on Xuantu Commandery. There's plenty of room there. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely an independent article. Is your Korean city Jinhae part of your South Gyeongsang Province? Do you believe it's better to elaborate on your South Gyeongsang Province? Isn't there plenty of room? How absurd with ill motivation you Korean is! -Dicting (talk)

The difference is in notability. Gaogouli Prefecture is a short-lived entity that perished two millennia ago, and reliable sources on this entity are very limited. Why create an independent article when there is more than enough room on Xuantu Commandery, which itself has potential for merging with Four Commanderies of Han? And please refrain from making ad hominem attacks. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the notability of your places such as Jinhae and South Gyeongsang Province. Gaogouli County is much larger than your South Gyeongsang Province, even your Jinhae which is part South Gyeongsang Province has an article, why Gaogouli County should not have an article? The administration of Gaogouli State was assigned to Gaogouli County by Han Dynasty, even Gaogouli State has an article, why Gaogouli County which governed Gaogouli State should not have an article? -Dicting (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not the issue here. It's WP:Notability. Unlike Jinhae, which is a city in the world today, Gaogouli County, a short-lived prefecture that perished two millennia ago, is a subject of much lesser significance that is rarely covered in reliable sources. There is already an article on Xuantu Commandery that covers the administrative entity of the region, and there's plenty of room there for further elaboration of its prefectures. Cydevil38 (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, Koreans please stop obliterating the article: Gaogouli County was once part of Xuantu Commandery, and once part of Liaodong Commandery

Gaogouli County is not Xuantu Commandery. It was once part of Xuantu Commandery, and once part of Liaodong Commandery, etc. -Dicting (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans, I think your screwy value orientation on history and bad motivations have made you lose consciences so that you can not accept truth and true history, and attempt to obliterate such an article. This is my true thought about you Koreans. -Dicting (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Korean tells the lie that Gaogouli County did not exsit?

Why the Korean who previously edited the article tells the lie that Gaogouli County did not exsit? -Dicting (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's trying to lie here. You can go work on Xuantu Commandery if you wish. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you Korean say the Reliable source is very limited?

Are such book like 漢書, 後漢書, 通典, 三國志 not Reliable? limited? Without such books, even you Korea would have no history of the time. -Dicting (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a source that reflects current scholarly consensus or at least written by someone who has expertise in the subject without too much bias. There are sources in English that talk about Xuantu Commandery and Gaogouli Prefecture, and they're quite different from what you've written in this aritcle and Xuantu Commandery. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources of sources in English you referred to? If no those Chinese history books recording the history, how can the sources in English know the history? Where does the original information come from? -Dicting (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. Experts, such as historians, analyze the original information to produce reliable information that can be used at Wikipedia. What I'm asking for is this kind of reliable information, preferrably in English. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more references there are, the better the article will be. But all should keep in mind: be objective, respect history. History is history. Do not utilize history for any disgusting intentions, For instance, suppose, Korean say Gaogouli is the ancestry of today's Korean and claim the greatest domain of Gaogouli is the past territory of Korea, or China say Gaogouli and Four Commanderies of Han was part of Han Dynasty, and claim that north and middle parts of Korea Peninsula should be part of China. The fact is that north and middle parts of Korea peninsula was part of China long long ago, during perionds in Han Dynasty, Tang Dynasty, etc, but not part of China for the past several hundred years (Although there was tributary relationships during Joseon kingdom about 100 years ago). And Gaogouli people has relationships with many minorities in northeastern China, including Joseon people, and maybe some of them became Han Chinese. -Dicting (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are objective and respect history, we will be easiest and pleasant to talk history, and be open to face any history materials. -Dicting (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want here is reliable sources, preferrably in English. Also, I'd prefer not to get Goguryeo controversy involved here. That said, I'll rewrite the article based on reliable sources. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Koreas: could you please give your reason, or firstly discuss here

Suggestions for Cydevil38, and other Koreas, if you want to make an important deletion, or want to make an important change, could you please give your reason, or firstly discuss here? -Dicting (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are simple: WP:Verifiability, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Cydevil38 says. Kuebie (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one ref map from textbook. Evawen (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]