![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Chinese Encyclopedia 360, Goguryo was not kinship to the rulers of the Goryeo Dynasty (The ruler of Goguryo had the surname Gao, while the ruler of Goryeo had the surname Wang.).
but,Chinese Encyclopedia 360 says that some of the refugees from Goguryo entered the Goryeo dynasty and integrated with its.[1]
1.As mentioned below, the Hongshan culture and other so called "Korean culture", but the Hongshan culture gene test results are N1, O2 (originally called O3), C, not the South Korean O1B2.However, the part of the N1 gene in the "Hongshan Culture" Wikipedia entry had been changed to read "N1 is a Korean gene" and later changed back by someone else,and correct. Then an enthusiastic German user changed O2 back to its old name (O3). [2] [1] Among them, a lot of Chinese and Mongols have N1, O2 (formerly known as O3), and C genes. Haplogroup N-M231
This just shows that before the Northeast Project,Korean people think Hongshan culture is Korean culture. Otherwise, how could they consider Hongshan culture as their own?They may not even know about the Liaohe region (Liaodong Peninsula) and the Longshan culture from the Yellow River region[3]
2.Moreover, the Northeast Project thought that the Goguryeo rulers had nothing to do with the Goryeo dynasty, but admitted that the Goguryeo were not Han and that the ethnic integration of the Goguryeo branches was related to Korea. It did not deny that the Koguryeo provided the genes for Korea[4] but the Northeast Project believed that it was a minority ethnic group in ancient China.There is no mention of Dangun in the Book of wei[5]([2] This is the directory of Book of Wei, click on the chapter title to read it)So, who are the thieves?Is it the author of Book of wei?Doesn't the entry of Dangun entry and story that Dangun history cited the book of Wei ?Excuse me, why is this?How does the Wei book not have this paragraph?The Koreans, however, claim that Dangun ruled Manchuria, but it has already been proved that Dangun was a fabricated figure,
3.In this article, it was claimed that China extended the Great Wall to Heilongjiang Province in 2012, But the Great WallinHeilongjiang is the Great Wall of Jin and Liao Dynasties,The Great Wall of the Jin Dynasty and the Great Wall of the Liao Dynasty were clearly identified in the 2008 Wikipedia entry on the Great Wall, And in the history of China, there are many dynasties built the Great Wall.The Chinese government is not on the Great Wall to extend, can click on the link to see the Great Wall in 2014 entries and compared 2008 entries, Please find the photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" in the entry of the Great Wall in 2008 and in the entry of the Great Wall in 2014 and compare them, 2008 Great wall entry and 2014 Great wall entry, both the Great Wall entries contain photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" which need to be looked up
2008 Great wall wikipedia entry[3] photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the fifth photo on the left of the article.
2014 Great wall wikipedia entry[4] photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the second photo on the left of the article.
Secondly, in the news of China Intranet in 2006, there was a mention of the Jin Dynasty Great Wall (Jin dynasty border trenches),Han Dynasty Great Wall was greatly damaged,2006 Chinese great wall new[5].And in a 2009 news report about it, it said that the early Great Wall (The Great Wall other than the Ming Wall) could not be repaired (because it was too damaged)2009 Chinese great wall New[6].According to the Book of Liao, [Liao tai zu] built the Liao dynasty Great Wall:《辽史》载:太祖二年冬十月“筑长城于镇东海口”[6]
This is just China and Japan found evidence that Korea stole history, South Korea dissatisfaction and rumour, warning South Koreans: do not think that after deleting your web page we can not find the original content, please remember there is a thing called the original content of the web page backup!
References
(Someone else): Only China claims Goguryeo originate from the Hongshan culture which is Western Manchuria. Japan, Korea, and most modern East Asian historians thinj that Goguryeo, Buyeo, Gojoseon, and the Yemaek people likely originate from Northern Manchuria or Southern Siberia. Hell we know the Ye maek even exist because of Chinese records. This is backed up by Ancient Chinese books recording the approximate location of each dynasty. And they knew Buyeo definetly came from the Northern parts of Manchuria not the Western. And genetic studies done by the Europeans (one specifically specializing in these types of genetics) also seem to think that Goguryeo came from Buyeo which came from the Ye Maek or the fragments of Gojoseon. Also what Koreans claim Hongshan as Korean? Far as I know they don't even know what Hongshan is since historically it's never involved them. They don't need to know Chinese history and it's ethnic groups so they don't. Far as I can see from your citations you don't show any definite proof that Goguryeo was the Hongshan people only what the Hongshan people are today not that Goguryeo came from that area. Literally everyone knows that Dangun isn't real he's mythological. That's like saying the Greek Gods were real obviously they're not. There might have been a Dangun like figure in Gojoseon but there was no Dangun himself. That's only something North Korea thinks.
I am not a Korean nationalist I am from North America. I like learning all of East Asia. I think China has an amazing history, is the reason for many of Japan and Korea's modern very well known attributes like their distinct yet familiar architecture and clothes. However Goguryeo is not one of those things. Goguryeo for the longest time including the Chinese has thought it to be Korean. Kublai Khan considered vassalizing Goryeo the same as Goguryeo, a Ming general was disappointed with Joseon considering to them they're Goguryeo's direct descendants, hell MAO ZEDONG thought the same. Turkiye does as well as Goguryeo and the ancient Turkic Khagnate had good relations until the Tang beat them up and sent them packing to Turkiye. However they still kept in contact with Later Silla, Goryeo, and Joseon considering them the same as Goguryeo.
There's even evidence that Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla shared the same language and their cultures were noted by the Chinese to be so similar they also called them Samhan later on since there wasn't really a need to differiate them if they're weren't dealing with them individually.
Your info you gave is very interesting. It's just not Goguryeo since the Hongshan and them to most historians outside of China are not the same. I say this in goodwill because I do respect China and its very rich history. But I also respect Korea and its rich (yet not well known) history.
As for sources they're all on this wikipedia I just don't know how to cite sources since I don't do stuff like editing or replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F825:7400:21FA:8090:BA43:B14A (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
A fine start, and a rather interesting and important topic. Though, I do think it should be fleshed out to better represent that this Korea/Goguryeo thing is only one aspect of the impact of the project. I think a longer, more thorough main section about the project should come before discussions of impact or controversy. right? (BTW, I recognize of course that this is a work in progress, and I don't mean to criticize that you have to get on it right now. Just, for later editors who come by and look to see what needs doing or whatever...) LordAmeth 11:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
can any knowledgeable people please revised this. this is sooooo subjective all sources led to shady korean article wrote by korean. suprising!!. all i know its always hard to pin point ancient ancient civilization because it's simply not korean or chinese yet! but the korean seems to completely dismiss it as anything else than korean which is false, biggoted, and ignorant. the chinese on the other hand is comprised of almost 57 ethnic groups, the han chinese itself are essentially mixed ethnic group that forget where they are from and just called them han — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1003:6D86:69FE:F7D9:FE6E:D213 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I think this article is wayyyyy... to subjective. Just take a look at the references: NOT A SINGLE CHINESE SOURCE. It seems that the author is refusing to use Chinese sources (deliberately or not, I do not know) to present only ONE SIDE of this extremely controversial topic. And I've never heard (I've been researching too) of any Northwest Project or Southwest Project being carried out anywhere...(notice the lack of reference?).
And about the use of the term Turkestan... This is a very sensitive issue, especially for Chinese. The name Xinjiang should be used instead of Turkestan because 1) it is recognized by individuals and governments world-wide to refer to northwest China, both geographically and politically, therefore should replace the less common term of Turkestan. And 2) East Turkestan Islamic Movement is a well-known terrorist/separatist movement responsible for many terrorist acts throughout Northwestern China, and their goal is to establish a so-called "East Turkestan Republic". To China/Chinese, using the term Turkestan to refer to Xinjiang is equivalent to supporting this succession movement and is comparable, if not more offensive than to call the Province of Quebec the Quebec Republic in Canada.
Finally, the link to turkestan and tibet is TOTALLY unecessary, what does it have to do with the Northeast Project (unless the "Northwest" and "Southwest" projects mentioned actually EXIST).
These are all sourced. Don't vandalize the article. Cydevil38 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Umm this article is supposed to have a background info because its supposed to explain to the reader what the Northeast Project is. Good friend100 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
how is the Goguryeo dispute not related to the Northeast Project? Also, isn't the Northeast Project all about Goguryeo?
The Korean and Chinese arguments section should definitely kept in this article. Isn't that what the Northeast Project is all about? challenging the history of Korea and challenging Goguryeo's conventional position?
It is not original research. Many of the points on each side has a source. If this article and the Goguryeo article is so POV, then add unbiased sources. Good friend100 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree. Goguryeo takes up the majority of what the Chinese historians are studying on. The PRC government has adopted a policy of "one country, one people" to assert claims over various ethnic groups living in China and they centered themselves as the center of the "one".
Also, most of the international community agrees that the PRC's claim on Goguryeo is an attempt on historical revisionism. Its not simply a project to study the history of northeastern China and its artifacts, etc. Good friend100 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Instead of deleting entire section without discussion, which is vandalism, maybe you should add more information about the Northeast project in general instead of deleting information about Goguryeo.
The information you have deleted has much sources that are from various sources and they are not POV. Also, you are wrong about the international community. How can what the international community be POV? It would be if it disagrees with China, but most of the sources agree about the information on Goguryeo.
You cannot simply delete information because you think its POV. Most of the points are sourced. Its vandalism and you will be warned.
If you can speak Chinese, then you have much more access to sources about the Northeast Project in Chinese sites. Or you can research and add more information to this article. Good friend100 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am not mediating, but I would like to ask both sides to refrain from using the word vandalism, as it is rather inappropriate because we are all here to improve the article. Although we disagree each other because of our own point of view, but we should recognize that nobody is truly wrong; we are all right in our own aspect, but we need to find the balance between them.
The statement of this topic's supposed irrelevance with the issues of Goguryeo is puzzling. The Northeast Project is a study of the general history of the region in the present day northeastern China [8], which includes Goguryeo. This should be a known fact and should not have any objections, and the coverage on the Goguryeo issues in the background section should not be grounded to deletion, but modification.
I'm ethnic Chinese, so I understand Assault11's point of view. Since the establishment of Yan State, the Han Chinese have influenced the region to a great extent, and since 1950, we tend to associate the region as "our" region. However, it should be noted that other races have influenced this region to a equal amount of extent, and in this case, the Chosons. Although the present day South Korea possess no territory in Manchuria, they are ethnic Chosons, so it should not be objected that the history of Goguryeo is part of their history also (and they still possess some parts of Goguryeo). (AQu01rius • Talk) 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I even added a source of Zhonghua Minzu. Good friend100 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It mentions it as the "one people, one country" policy, which is basically what the Zhonghua Minzu is. The information is relevant and I already said to add more information about the article as you like.
You are simply accusing historical revisionism, tibet, turkestan, etc to be POV. What is your reasoning for that? The claim on Goguryeo is historical revisionism, as seen by most of the international community. Good friend100 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The way I understand it, NE project is a simple effort to study history of what constitutes present-day NE China, and its people, broadly termed "Zhonghua Minzu", which encompass all Chinese citizens (inc. Korean Chinese), SO LONG AS they remain Chinese citizens. It's in fact the Koreans who took it in the wrong way. The fact that it's funded by the Chinese government means nothing. All research projects are funded by the government.
Goguryeo, along with a number of other states, has always been considered a tributary state by the Chinese emperors, no matter what dynasty we are referring to, and with good reason. Plus, a large part of Goguryeo does contribute to the genetic pool of modern Chinese NE. It's understandable why Koreans wants to deny some of the more embarrassing historical facts though (the same way everyone else does). 68.162.138.245 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Funny you bring that up. I hear it is quite popular for Chinese youths to claim Korean (Goguryeo)/northern heritage. Makes them seem more "exotic" to the locals I guess. Even the Chinese government aren't bold enough to claim Goguryeo lineage. Kuebie 06:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since PRC is trying to claim the entire cradle of Northern Asian civilization as Chinese civilization, PRC started this ridiculous project to aim to claim much NE Asian history as possible, in order to acheieve this China need to claim on ancient Korean past thus this controversial discussion came about. Even with world scholars condemnation, China still continue with this project however China too realize this is too much handle seem that they could become laughing stock of the century, China decided to hold on until they become superpower. Korsentry 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The current edit warring is inappropriate. I was tempted to block both Cydevil38 (talk · contribs) and Assault11 (talk · contribs). I won't do that at the moment, but I am protecting the article in the alternative. Please discuss your changes, and don't intentionally insert your POV that you know is disputed into the article. I'm going to probably unprotect tonight, to see if parties have sufficiently calmed down. Resumption of edit warring will draw 3RR blocks, and particularly since these parties have been guilty of doing this previously, they will be blocked a particularly long time if they resume the behavior. Please watch yourselves. (For reference for any admins who might take a look here -- for Cydevil38's former edit history, see Cydevil (talk · contribs).) --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nlu, if the mentioning of Tibet, "Turkestan," (I think you know quite well the reasons behind the use of this term), "Zhonghua Minzu," "pseudo-history" and "historical revisionism" is not POV, then I don't know what is. The complete neglect of Chinese sources is something to be taken account of as well, especially considering that this is a Chinese-themed article.
Secondly, if you look at one of the last revisions made before the lock, just about 3/4 of the entire page was copy/pasted from other articles with no explanation on what the Northeast Project is about.
Its interesting how Cydevil retorts my edits as "vandalism," considering that none of his "additions" have anything to do with the subject at hand. Its even funnier seeing how he assumes moral superiority by advocating his stance against "vandalism" and the supposed edits of "good faith." I'd take it that he wasn't expecting any opposition with his choice of words (e.g. Turkestan).
Oh, and just the other day, a friend of mine sent me a link to a website, here's an excerpt:
Someone just accused me as a sockpuppet of Nlu. I guess I've been making too many compromises? Anyways, Nlu is a miserable failure as an admin. He has only been exacerbating the problem, not improving it. By being CPOV himself, too much consideration is being given to the opinion of CPOV editors, even clearly disruptive ones such as Assault11. My opnion is that let them have their way. Let it blow up.
He found this through Google searching my Wikipedia username. And in case you're wondering Cydevil, allow me to make this clear for you: I don't know you and you sure as hell don't know who I am. Perhaps you need to learn to practice what you preach and assume good faith. In any case - IIRC - I have not violated the 3RR policy with my reverts, if there's any further problems, please let me know. Assault11 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is vandalism without general consensus and discussion at the talk page. You have no specific reason as to why the information should be deleted. You simply say that Goguryeo has nothing to do with the Northeast Project without any sources. There are sources that say how Chinese historians went about studying Goguryeo tombs and paintings, etc. Good friend100 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would it be better if we merge most of the information that talk about the Goguryeo Controversy, text book incidents and its history etc. to this page, and just briefly mention about it here in the Northeast Project page? I think it would satisfy both sides. (AQu01rius • Talk) 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
A few issues that need to be addressed:
1) This project applied Zhonghua Minzu, an ideology started in the 1980s, to ancient ethnic groups, states and history of the region of Manchuria and northern Korea.[1] Under the Zhonghua Minzu ideology, it is assumed that there was a greater Chinese state in the ancient past. Accordingly, any pre-modern people or states that occupied any part of what is now the People's Republic of China are defined as having been part of that greater Chinese state.
The source does not mention the term "Zhonghua Minzu" directly. Since the official NEP website does not mention anything about the application of Zhonghua Minzu, this is not treated as a fact.
2) Similar projects have been conducted on Tibet and Turkestan, which have been named Southwest Project and Northwest Project, respectively.
Source is in Korean, thus unverifiable. The use of the term "Turkestan" is highly controversial and POV, especially when this is coming from a Korean article trying to make a connection between this dispute and Tibet/Xinjiang (completely irrelevant topics).
3) Due to its claims on Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae, the project sparked disputes with Korea.
These are Korean accusations, not facts.
4) The PRC's revision of Goguryeo history, in an attempt to recharacterize it as a Chinese provincial state rather than an independent Korean kingdom, has received international criticism for making a flawed and politically motivated rewriting of history. Such criticisms came from numerous scholars from other countries such as the United States, Russia, Mongolia, and Australia,[5] including prominent Goguryeo experts such as Mark Byington of Harvard University Korea Institute,[6] and R. Sh. Djarylgashinova of Russian Academy of Science Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography.[7]
The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[8] He has expressed disagreement with the CASS institute, the PRC government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.
The section on criticism is redundant (see Goguryeo controversies), and is considered to be POV/Content forking WP:CFORK.
These were the reasons behind my recent edits on this article, if you have any further questions, please discuss.
P.S. I would assume that the Korean editors here have already reviewed various articles directly from the Northeast Project. It would be greatly appreciated if you could share some of these. Thanks. Assault11 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
References have been given, and Wikipedia allows verifiable non-English sources. Cydevil38 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
In keeping with the politically sensitive intellectual milieu of the time, Jin opens his work with the declaration that the history of the Northeast is nothing more than one part of the history of China (guoshi) (1:2A). He maintains that the basic element of history is the nationality (minzu) rather than the state (guojia), and he notes that a state may encompass multiple nationalities, while a single nationality may span multiple states. For Jin, the history of the Northeast is precisely the history of its nationalities. “The Northeast” is itself defined primarily in terms of its nationalities and secondarily in terms of the territories occupied by those nationalities. The territorial extent of the Northeast therefore shifted through time as the various nationalities expanded and contracted, and at times the Northeast included parts of the Korean peninsula. Throughout time the nationalities of the Northeast always represented an integral part of the greater Chinese nation (zhonghua minzu) (1:15B-25B). Jin conceived of the history of the Northeast as a complex and ever changing process defined by the movements of and competition among its various nationalities. He periodized the history of the Northeast into six phases on this basis, using both the relative strength and weakness of the Han presence as well as the changing permutations among the indigenous nationalities as the criteria for delimiting historical eras (1:25B-27B). From the referred source. Cydevil38 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have added a section on topic overview, retrieved from the official site in Chinese. Hopefully we can remove some unnecessary POV talk and Goguryo controversy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.252.13.93 (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I protected this article. Both involved parties ought to know by now that the edit warring won't help anything. CMummert · talk 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I added a request for a reference citation on the figures for funding. Also what is the source of the funding. The article seams to be saying that this Northeast Project is closely connected with the Chinese government and government policy, however, it rather seems to be just a collection of research papers published by one, albeit quite distinguished, college. Rincewind42 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Today I fixed two broken ref links on this article, however one other ref link appears to be broken and I am unable to source the new page for that content. See reference 6.『项目介绍 (Topic Overview)』(in Chinese). Centre of China's Borderland History and Geography Research, CASS. 2007-07-04. Retrieved 2009-07-28.
In addition, several references point to Korea or Chinese language websites without translation. As per WP:NONENG an English translation of the relevant section of the source should be included in the reference. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I suggest this page be merged into Goguryeo controversies. This article doesn't have much content on the Northeast Project itself - except for the "list of research topics", which indicates that the Project is much more than the article talks about. Some of the sources cited in this article don't even mention the Northeast Project, but rather just the Goguryeo controversies. Per #Funding, it seems that this article is a POV fork from Goguryeo controversies, created to suggest that the Chinese government endorses a particular view in the controversies, when this seems to be unclear, or even opposite to the truth (for example, China has agreed in 2004 to censor the view that Goguryeo was solely Chinese from its textbooks, in order to please South Korea's government). The actual content on the Northeast Project could fit into a section of the Goguryeo controversies article. Shrigley (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. Northeast Project is an important topic that is still discussed widely in both the academia and the media. Even in the past couple of days(Sept. 6th and 5th), there were numerous articles mentioning the word. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree. This page contains little info about the Northeast Project itself. The topic may be as a controversy in Korea, however it is not actually proven by the current article, that the Northeast Project even exists outside of the Korean media hype. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The article covers the background , contents and its ramifications, and possbility in the future current status of the project. This article has respectable counterparts in diffrrent languages, attesting to the validity of the topic and its significance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.216.50.137 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
This matter has been brought to attention in the Korean Wikiproject, and I ask other editors to cease and desist from vandalizing this article until proper discussions are conducted on this matter. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Despite the recent rewrite of the article, several issues remain.
In the opening paragraph it says "project launched by the Chinese government". We need a reference that this project was launched by the government and not lower down the chain of authority. We also need a citation that it was really conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Science. We need a citation for the funding given at 20-million-yuan (2.4 million US dollars) and the dates of 2002 and 2006. In addition notes [1] and notes [2] are duplicates and don't seem tell anything about the Northeast Project - only about the meaning of Zhonghua Minzu which I doubt actually needs a citation. The second half of the opening paragraph goes on to explain what Zhonghua Minzu means. It fails to say what the Northeast Project reported.
The who sections entitled, "Historical Revisionism" is opinion not fact. The two citations given do not back up the claims made about a large body of research. The term "These projects" is not defined. What projects, what research exactly. What did they publish. The line "Research in the Northeast Project has claimed Gojoseon, Bueyo, Goguryeo and Balhae as regional governments of the ancient Chinese empire." is without citation. Just what has the Northeast Project published. Links to papers in journals for example.
In the section "Reactions" the line, "The Northeast Project's historical revisionism on historical Korean kingdoms" is not neutral. Term "historical Korean kingdoms" is Korean ethnocentrism. Neutral dispassionate language must be used that respects the opinions of both Koreans and Chinese equally. The line, "many other countries including China." seems to make grand small points. Using the word "countries" and "including China" implies national consensus or government statements which is not shown in the citations. In particular citation [17] uses the words "A Chinese historian" not "China". Instead the wording could be similar to "...many non-Korean people including at least one Chinese historian..."
The line, "The Northeast Project has become a key terminology in South Korea to represent China's historical revisionism and political expansionism, which continues to be widely used well after the Northeast Project was officially concluded in 2007." is grammatically incorrect. In its current form it says that political expansionism continues to be used widely - which is clearly not what was meant. In addition it is opinion. Continues to be used how, where and by whome?
Finally, the section, "List of Research Topics" is referenced by note [18] but this link is broken. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It might be preferable, for the sake of WP:NPOV, to explain who calls this "revisionism" rather than just present the whole project as revisionist as if this were a pure fact. The Chinese source I've consulted actually accuse "a minority of Korean scholars" and the government of both Koreas of "historical revisionism" when they consider Bohai/Parhae and Koguryo/Gaogouli as part of Korean territory in ancient times. We need to explain this controversy. As things are right now, we mostly have Korean criticism of the project, without an explanation of the project from the Chinese side. We're facing some kind of double bind, here: either we use the NEP's own publications and risk falling into WP:OR, or we only use secondary sources, but we end up giving undue weight to one position because most secondary studies are critical and written by Koreans. Once again, any advice is welcome! Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have replaced sources where necessary(plenty of where they come from) to address issues on Byington's work. As for Background,
I hope this explains enough.
Actually, in the PRC-ROK diplomatic talks, China accused South Korea of provoking the controversy when SK scholars started irredentist probes into the "Gando dispute". This would sound like relevant information to include in the article. Could you find a source for this claim somewhere that links these matters to the NEP?
An important aspect of NPOV is putting radical and fringe theories rejected by the international academia aside, and giving weight to the mainstream perspective of the subject matter. I quite agree with that. This is why we wouldn't present the Northeast Project's claims as fact in the wiki on Goguryeo. But here, the article is about the NEP itself, so we need more statements about the NEP, and fewer about Koguryo and Parhae. And this is where we face a problem: if we use only secondary sources, the NEP has no voice in this matter.
...which is why all the relevant arguments need to go into the neutrally-framed "controversy" article and not onto an article dedicated to arguing that one side is "revisionist"I think this wiki on the NEP can legitimately exist, but I agree it shouldn't be set up as a refutation of the NEP.
Could I ask people who have access to the sources cited in the footnotes to indicate the exact page number for each piece of info that is referenced? Right now all we have is a range of pages. According to WP:page numbers, this is not specific enough.
Second issue: could someone add the Korean original to the translated article titles (those by Kim Ji Hoon, Seo Gilsu, Park Yangjin, and maybe more)? Otherwise there's no way to find these articles, even for people who read Korean!
Finally, could someone translate the title that is given only in Korean? My translation for『중국 동북공정에 앞서 '서남공정'은 어떻게』is『What was the “Southeast Project” that preceded the Chinese Northeast Project?』Is that correct? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Name of Korean articles are as follows:
One source cited in the lede says that the project's budget was 15 million yuan, or 2.4 million US dollars. This sounds like nothing for a project of this scope. An article titled "What China's Northeast Project Is All About" on the Chosun Ilbo's English-language website claims that the project cost "an astounding 20 billion yuan" (= 3.21 billion US dollars). Another article titled "China's ascendancy and the future of the Korean peninsula" (by Kim Taeho, in Korea in the New Asia: East Asian Integration and the China Factor, edited by Françoise Nicolas, Routledge, 2007), claims a budget of "three trillion Korean won" (= 2.83 billion US dollars). Unfortunately, neither article cites a source for this information. Anyway, if there are no agreed-upon budget figures, we should present the budget issue in a separate paragraph, probably in the section on "Organization." Madalibi (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, what is the Northeast Project? This is China’s enterprise to develop its northeast provinces, and the comprehensive project focusing on improving social overhead capital (SOC), and historiography is only part of it. However, the news media in Korea focused on this part, as if the entire project is about rewriting the history of Northeast Asia. They even mistook the enormous budget for the whole project as that of history writing. This is sheer nonsense. Apparently many Korean historians share this misinformation.[14]
The Center has a ridiculously large budget that covers costs for preserving relics and relocating residents.[15]
The Korean source I cited discusses the budget figure in some detail. Various figures were given, including the alleged 20 billion yuan budget given in a news paper article, but it was discarded due to insufficient evidence and the figure of 15 million yuan was chosen. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I managed to dig up a few more sources that might be useful on this article.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Laugh die me, in the northeast China claims in koguryo is an independent country, has nothing to do with Korean nationality and han nationality, the ruler of the second northeast before four county is han han, but the branch of China's acknowledgement of the koguryo is Korean ancestors, can check 360 wikipedia or baidu "northeast engineering", the second Gija is shang dynasty,If Gija is a part of Korea, then Han people are the ancestors of Koreans. Today Han people do not recognize Han's kinship with Korea at all.After the liaohe region, followed by South Korea early even South Korea people think hongshan culture is their, unfortunately the hongshan culture YDNA is N1 and O3, C, and south Korean people are of the opinion that liaohe bone carving is their, it's a pity that these bone carving earlier in the Yellow River, and the Yellow River and liaohe also has the longshan culture (bone carving inventor),In addition, the YDNA of Longshan culture is O3, which is the main gene of all the Han people (the Han people also have a small amount of O1, R, C, N1). However, R is the indigenous people of the Central Plains, and the Han people migrated from Shandong
Read this page while researching Balhae. Immediately checked the Talk, because of its obviously fake claims. I see it was removed many years ago. Who let it back?
Sources cited are ridiculous even in that they are Korean only. I checked one, #5, China’s Northeast Project: Defensive or Offensive Strategy? (p. 103).
The claims on page 103 of this "research" article are backed by nothing. Citations don't back them at all.
This page is little more than an attack on China by South Korean nationalists.
Suggest removal. I'm not biased, I'm Russian living on top of Balhae ruins in Russia, Chinese nationalism is not in my interests at all. 77.34.158.133 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The result of the move request was: Move the first one. (non-admin closure) History6042 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
– The article about the PRC's research project could simply be renamed "Northeast Project", but what about the other article about the Italian political party? Could that be renamed "Northeast Project (political party)"? Or should the PRC one also be renamed "Northeast Project (research project)" (or take its actual full name, Serial Research Project on the History and Current State of the Northeast Borderland)? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.