![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea....."
Gee. where is KOREA at that time? This is a question of who is *supposed* to inherit the GaoGouLi legacy - a matter traditional view, nothing to do with old/new historical evidence.
-2/3 of the GaoGouLi territory (at its peak time) are in China today. -No evidence shown more GaoGouLi people migrate into XinLuo or BaiJi than to Tang. -No evidence shown GaoGouLi language has any relationship with Korean language today (btw. Do -Korean even have a unified written language before 19th century anyway?)
BTW. Korean scholar's wishful thinking and fabrication do not count. Please.
Is GaoGouLi Korean? I don't think so. Is GaoGouLi Chinese, hard to say. Chinese is unlike Korean, we are the result of 5000 year of assimilation of many many races/nationalities. It is more of a cultural identity than a racial one. In that sense, I can's even see lots of indigenous invention by looking at Korean's "traditions". Your names are Chinese, your ettiquette are Chinese, and boy, even your dress is somewhat a variation of Chinese dress.
...Let alone GaoGouLi, which disapeared 1400 years ago, destroyed by a much advanced civilization - Tang.
Darkstyx 20:55, 03 January 2007 (UTC)
Dulylomo 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The person up there who believes that 한국 and the Chinese for Han is same, you could not be more wrong. The characters are distinctly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.14.31.210 ( talk) Don't be so confident. Do you know Warring States Period of China? There are 7 Kingdoms, one of which is '韓國'. I know korea school teach some knowledge of history of China. You should know this.
Indeed, 韩国 was one of the seven kingdoms during the Warring States. It was also the first to be beaten by 秦始皇. This 韩国 has nothing to do with 大韩民国. And, 韩 is different from 汉. The former refers to Koreans, the latter refers to Chinese. Erik-the-red
In my opinion, the fact china claims Koguryo as part of their history right now is due to PRC is based on the PRC's political and cultural policy. Right now, many Koreans see that Koguryo isn't chinese because they aren't "ethnically Han Chinese". Yet, sad to say, but the fact "Han equals Chinese" theory is totally messed up when the Manchurians took over; to make the many different race of people live in the country harmonously, the PRC took the approach of being Chinese as the collective term of the many nations that resided in China geographically. And Yes, this is why many Chinese thinks of "Manchurians", "Tibetians", "Mongolians", "Hmong" and so forth as being "Chinese" also. This topic is really hard to discuss since it really have no definite answer, it's like asking what is American, do you consider the "Sioux" indians as part of American History eventhough their foundations have nothing by most part due with the foundations with the United States of America. My explainations are kinda messy, i hope people get what i mean. At a result, i make sense that Goguryo to be part of China History but i think a note should be made they are not "Han Chinese" in which many see the Chinese culture as. Kai.Standard
Relax there, what i am trying to say is that the Koreans and Chinese see Goguryo differently. In my opinion, Chinese see Goguryo as part of their country because GEOGRAPHICALLY where Goguryo lies thousand years ago is part of their country now. What is the claim of Korea being descented from Goguryo, because Goguryo is geographically where Korea is located now, culturally it is influenced today's Korea? (elaborate if u wish, cuz i noe i miss alot) Aguring today's Koreans are genetically descented from Goguryo is not well supported since the country is destroyed over 1000 years ago and its descendents can spread everywhere in this many years. I heard from my friends that Jurchens (Manchurians) are descented from Goguryo and aint them "Chinese" now?
You stated, "Goguryo was NEVER seen as being part of Chinese history until this very recent, artificial, nationalistic PRC campaign and isn't reflective of historical reality"
Recent or not I aint so sure and i can care less since it is only RECENTlY that China become multiracial country that is not just for the HANS. NATIONALISTC, yay u r right. ARTIFICIAL, the whole Goguryo thing is artificial...can you give "empirical" evidence that Goguryo is Korean or is Chinese? Goguryo is a country that existed during the Three kingdoms and is destroyed over a thousand years ago, and I am sure they haven't left any things saying "OUR DESCENDENTS ARE KOREANS" OR "CHINESE". We can agrue for eternity and never find an answer and this forum is a diseaster, many are simply posting nationalistic views against each another just find something that can make both parties happy and call "PEACE".
Yeah you're right. Han chovenism defined Chinese identity for most of Chinese history. The Wall wasn't built to keep out fellow "Chinese" let me remind you. Manchus were despised for being foreign and the Manchus adopted Han Chinese more than Manchu-fying Han China. THere was no common "Chinese" ethnic identity but a diversity of ethnic identities that had their place in a Han patriarchy.
It's only after the PRC came into existence that ethnic minorities within the current Chinese border started to become sinofied. I mean that's the real motivation behind this Northeast propaganda stuff and not any real academic exploration of Goguryo. Plus, there's the obvious possibility of NK imploding and these theories would provide some sort of basis for intervention.
As for your request for empirical evidence, you can't get more empirical than pointing out the fact that Goguryo was considered Korean by Chinese and Koreans for literally thousands of years. Both Chinese and Korean historical records(culturally always mutually respected) reflect this. That's just historical reality. Unlike old defunct kingdoms in Europe or your comparison of Sioux being AMerican, Goguryo was seen as a predecessor to Korean civilization by both CHina and Korea for a long, long time and worked itself into the Korean cultural, ethnic identity during that whole time.
Practically, Goguryo words persisted into early Chosun and it's widely believed that Japanese is related to Goguryo linguistically. I personally think this bears out in a weird way because when Japanese people try to speak Korean it sounds eerily similar to NK dialects. There's also bunch of folk customs that has roots in Goguryo culture. But I think most of Korean links with Goguryo is historical and the cultural identity that comes from that. Melonbarmonster 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no way in hell Korea or Koreans were ever Chinese, Nor my own Mongolians anyone else outside of China that they wish to claim.
Folks, you are not going to persuade the other side by edit warring. Please refrain from doing so and discuss your points here. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in China. In 2006, a senior scholar of Peking University, one of the most prestigious universities in the People's Republic of China, affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections. [1] He has expressed disagreements with the CASS institute, the Chinese government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.
I have provided the source, in English, which can be verified by all readers. His revert was sheerly based on his NPOV. Please revert his edit by adding that passage again, as it's important to make it known to readers that there are scholars in China who reject the CASS's claims.
"Nationalism is a POV bias." Look in the mirror, I'd say. Again, please discuss logically. Don't throw nationalist epithets around. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, I fully support having the Chinese history template on both Gaogouli and Bohai. Reason being is that they have much to do with Chinese history. Take for example, most of Gaogouli's descendants today are Han Chinese (690,000 households were incorporated into Imperial Tang) and Bohai was predominantly ethnic Mohe, who are more or less related to other Tungusic tribes (e.g. Heishui Mohe, ancestors of the NuZhen tribes) of Northeast China. Not to mention all original sources that document these kingdoms were in fact, Chinese.
The reason why Gaogouli and Bohai are not in the Chinese history template is because they did not receive/were not in contention for the Mandate of Heaven. Nevertheless, they are still part of Chinese history - in the same manner the ancient kingdoms of NanZhao and DaLi are part of Chinese history.
Hope this cleared up some misunderstandings regarding my edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
After Goguryeo's fall most were assimilated into Silla or Balhae, which claimed itself as the successor to Goguryeo. Your claim that 690,000 were assimilated into China is horribly inaccurate. Good friend100 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As it seems, Assault11 here ran out of any substansive refuations to my arguments, and any further discussion will only lead to bigotry on his part. Nlu, if you believe there are any remaining points from Assault11 that still holds any substansive value, please let me know. I will provide refutations accordingly. Otherwise, I believe it has been proven that this particular individual, Assault11, holds very extremist POV and his edits should be regarded as vandalism. Cydevil 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Wikipedia should be coherent with neutral sources of authority, notably other encyclopedias. The Chinese government's politically motivated rewritings of history is not reflected in any of those sources, and it is generally ignored outside of China. Thus, political revisionism of the Chinese government should be strictly limited to the Modern Politics section. Cydevil 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If it means that much to you, move the article Three Kingdoms of Korea to Two Kingdoms of Korea. There is a reason why that time period is called the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nlu, please delete the History of China template both on this article and the Balhae article. The template doesn't even include Goguryeo or Balhae. Good friend100 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no disagreement on whether Goguryeo is part of of Korean history. THe Korean history template is not controversial. The Chinese history template is highly controversial and is THE POINT of disagreement here. Chinese history template should be left out until the dispute can be resolved. Especially since the claim is being made in part of the recent Chinese government supported and funded NOrtheast Project that's rejected by even Chinese academics. Melonbarmonster 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
no, don't. Since Goguryo played an important part in the fall of Sui and the rise of Tang, it would be an honor for Goguryo to be an article of Chinese history. Goguryo is a Korean state! Odst 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your deletions. Those arguements exist and are worth mentioning unless you're denying the existence of these arguements.melonbarmonster 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
CronusXT, you are making some ridiculas updates, whether Goguryeo belongs to Korean will not be proved by deleting everything China related, we must list facts. that is what wiki is about. I am ashamed that CronusXT is Korean. Another Korean nationalist.-- KoreaisGreatestCountry 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
However, that doesn't mean you can simply remove entire sections without discussion. Good friend100 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This passage, used in Zizhi Tongjian (see zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201) as well, is as below: 許敬宗等奏請復常,曰:「彗見東北,高麗將滅之兆也。」上曰:「朕之不德,謫見於天,豈可歸咎小夷!且高麗百姓,亦朕之百姓也。」 translated as: Officer Xu said to the emperor:"The comet appeared in the north-east, it is the sign that Goguryeo will fall." Gaozong said,"It is the god blaming my misbehavior, how can we blame on the minor people. meanwhile, Goguryeo people is also my subject。" It proved that Tang refer Goguryeo as a rebelled state.-- 207.168.191.2 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Goguryo was a Tang vassal. That's why he said it, or maybe because of China's "mandate of heaven" philosophy. Odst 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
--
Yeahsoo
18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Chinese name of Goguryeo should also be included, someone tell me why it should be deleted?-- KoreaisGreatestCountry 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks, calm down and take a time out. This is not productive. Based on past experience, I don't expect much productive discussion to come out of this, but at least give at least some respect to WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, OK? Meanwhile, I am going to look at the history and I am ready to impose 3RR blocks this time to anyone who has violated it. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your decision of the block. Good friend100 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a RfC on Korea history ( talk · contribs)'s behavior. Any interested parties who are interested in certifying/commenting the matter may do so. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Basicly,I cann't find the reasonable pretext to not include the Goguryeo in Chinese history.Just take a small experiment.There are 3 country,one is China,one is X,one is Korea.China and Korea want to destroy the country X,so they formed a sino-korean allianze to fight againt X.Later the X was destroyed,and China got the 2 thirds of X's territories,and Korea got 1 third.Now,the Korea says that Because I got the 1/3 of X,I should got the 2/3 also,in my opinion,it is a bold and shameless request to betray the alliance.Obviously that,X is Goguryeo,China got legitimate reason to incorporate it in Chinese history if the Korea incorportate it in Korean History.-- Ksyrie 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated before, this argument is useless until we get neutral, sensical, consistent definitions of what is "Chinese" and what is "Korean." -- Nlu ( talk) 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You know the Poland is a country of liguistic and cultural relation with the Russia (they are all slav),and relation between Germany and Poland are much more distant.See here History of Poland (1795–1918),the german and russian want to share this poor country and they devided the country.Ok,that's all.The Poland were devided,russian are reasonable to ask the other parts of Poland? Non,it is out of reason.-- Ksyrie 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As noted on top of this talk page, a request for mediation as been filed. All parties are encouraged to agree to the mediation (and if you are not a listed party but wants to be involved, please add yourself), as we have to resolve this dispute somehow. If you do not agree, the mediation request will not be accepted, and we're back to square one. Please consider it. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bohai state was a state in the rein of the Tang Dynasty. The Gao family in the state was the second largest one after the royal family. Many Gao family members were officials in the Tang government. [7] this is real direct Goguryeo king family "GAO", the guy name: Gao Zhen" on his tomb, it carved as: “唐开府仪同三司工部尚书特进右金吾卫大将军安东都护郯国公上柱国高公墓志序”有云: 大历八年夏五月廿有七日,右金吾卫大将军安东都护公毙于洛阳教业里之私第,春秋七十三。前年四月十二日,郯国夫人真定侯氏先毙于博陵郡,……礼也。公讳震,字某渤海人。祖藏,开府仪同三司工部尚书朝鲜郡王柳城郡开国公;祢讳连,云麾将军、右豹韬大将军安东都护。公迺扶余贵种,......见周绍良编《唐代墓志汇编》大历075条. It said he is from Balhae渤海. He become 安东都护, this is the lead officer in Balhae. this book published in 1930,by A Qing dynasty scholar. -- Yeahsoo 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
the Pohai state's royal family did not belong to the Goguryeo royal family. The founder of Pohai was Dae Jo young, son of the General Dae guljungsang. The Pohai royal family's name is Dae, and The Goguryo royal family"s name is Go. The Protectorate General position was given to former King Bojang, Goguryeo's last king. he was exiled to a remote area in Tang before Bohai was formed. my point is, that Gao zhen was not in relation to pohai. Odst 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The descendants of Goguryeo are of nowadays Han Chinese, Khitan, Manchu,of course nowadays Korean.the majority of descendant of Goguryeo live in nowadays China not in Korea,So how can Korean embezzle the whole nation?No matter from the view of primogeniture or from the view of numbers of descendants,China are the in first place to legitimately inherit the most part of Goguryeo.The Chinese had already accepted the somehow relationship between Goguryeo and Korea.Don't be too greedy.-- Ksyrie 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd translate this as:
Cydevil, the problem with the Northeast Project's leaders is that they, too, are intellectually dishonest in that they fail to acknowledge the Korean nature of the state at all. However, once the Korean nature of the state is acknowledged, the question becomes, "Was Goguryeo also 'Chinese' under a logical and consistent definition of 'Chinese' commensurate with the definition of 'Korean' used to characterize Goguryeo as a Korean state?" That Goguryeo was Korean does not mean that it was not also Chinese; it might be, or it might not be, depending on the definition. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question, relying instead only on how the Northeast Project had infuriated the Korean people. Whether it does or not, and whether the Northeast Project was wrong-spirited or not, is irrelevant to the question. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure that the Poles and the Lithuanians will dispute as much as to whether Vilnius is Polish or Lithuanian. That doesn't mean that the just because a characterization of Vilnius as either Polish or Lithuanian would infuriate the other side, that the question should be avoided. WP:NPOV is the guiding principle here, and you have continuously avoided addressing it.
I also find it distressing that you have, without any evidence, asserted that I have "follow[ed] the same political bias of the Chinese government by attempting to define history by territorial borders of today's nation-states." I have not made up my mind as to whether Goguryeo can/should be characterized as "Chinese" in addition to "Korean" or not (although I have made up my mind that it was, in fact, "Korean"). You don't know what's in my mind. Don't presume to know it and don't presume to use it as an ad hominem attack -- a non-answer -- to the question I posed. Answer it honestly. Certainly, I do not, and have never considered Rouran or Dzungaria "Chinese" even though their territories are within modern Chinese borders. But Goguryeo is different, and you know it; its cultures were much closer to Han Chinese culture than Rouran or Dzungaria's was. That doesn't make it non-Korean (and as I've said, I'm convinced that a recharacterization of Goguryeo as non-Korean is intellectually dishonest). I also pose this question: by the definition you obviously implicitly used to define Goguryeo as Korean, was Gaya Confederacy Korean? If so, what's the evidence you use to reach that conclusion? Don't rely on a "defin[ition of] history by territorial borders of today's nation-states[,]" as you've already rejrected that. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Gaya Confederacy, why don't you go look it up yourself. Maybe you can make Wikpedia the only "encyclopedia" where it was "Japanese", considering there are Japanese extremists who claim that Gaya Confederacy was a Japnaese colony. Cydevil 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
“Any effort by an outside power, such as China, to deny that Koguryo is part of Korean history is bound to be seen as a denial of Korean nationhood, as an act of aggression that threatens the very existence of Korea as a human collectivity.”- John B. Duncan, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles Cydevil 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How twisted can you get? Goguryeo cannot be compared with Baekje or Silla? It is obvious that Baekje and Silla are Korean, at least Chinese historians can agree with that. It cannot be compared? So Goguryeo isn't Korean and its culture is not similiar to Korea? Your choice of words makes to seem like you agree that Goguryeo is Korean, but your not.
Why would they call it the Three Kingdoms of Korea? If Goguryeo is so much different from the rest of Korea and more like "Chinese" then move the Three Kingdoms of Korea to something like Two Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I've made my arguments as to why an absolute denial of a potential Chinese character of the Goguryeo state is not NPOV. What does this mean as we try to resolve the dispute over this article? My proposal is:
In addition, as far as the formatting of the article is concerned:
Please comment specifically on each aspect of this. Please, to the extent that you can, avoid ad hominems and accusations. Let's see if we can reach a consensus. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The article as it is right now is fine as it is in following NPOV standards. Chinese claims are put into proper context in the Northeast Project article. I propose that we leave a short summary under Modern Politics, and relocate all the Chinese controversy over to that article. Cydevil 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Manchuria is not part of Korean history? I don't think the length of time that China controlled Manchuria makes Manchuria "Chinese" and therefore everything that comes from Manchuria is Chinese.
And Goguryeo wasn't a weakling tributary state that bowed itself down to China. If it did, then Chinese dynasties wouldn't have had their obsession of destroying Goguryeo, rather they would have treated it like a "child" and exploit more of Goguryeo's resources. You need to remember Goguryeo's power in east Asia and its influence over the rise and fall of several Chinese dynasties. Good friend100 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably one of the most extreme Korean Nationalists around here, yet the overall immaturity of the arguments here are laughable. Due to the fact that I'm sick, here's a summary of my thoughts:
1. What most non-Northeast Asians do not get is that over here, we equalize history with a right. In other words, if a certain piece of land was historically in a nation's forefather's hands, the nation believes it has a right to it.
2. What most people don't get about China's Northeast Project is that the project tries to view the history of Manchuria in a Sinocentristic way. No, I have no trouble with China viewing Manchuria as a part of its history, but the current problem is that the PC government is trying to assimulate the piece of land as an eternal Chinese history, when in fact the only time the central China Proper (not meant to mean that the Han Chinese are restricted to the south part) government got complete control over Manchuria was after 1945. Before that, Manchuria was ruled by the natives (mainly the Tungusic peoples), with short bursts of instable stabs into it by the Han Chinese.
Sorry if this sounds crazy at places, I'm not in a good condition. I'll try to add the problems witht the Korean side on this later on. -
General Tiger
Explain further. Negate those people ("men" is attack on feminism), and what happens?
Furthermore, how do you answer General Tiger's comment that North East Project is CPOV to begin with? It doesn't fit with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. ( Wikimachine 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
First, I would like to admit some true points in Chinese's opinion.
1. The most part of Goguryeo is now included in PRC. 2. Goguryeo was defeated by allied forces of Tang and Shilla. 3. After that, many ancient countries which occupied Goguryeo's land, also occupied most part of modern China.
However, There are several pitfalls.
1. Now, many Koreans are living there, actually they are one of the biggest minorities in PRC. - Their language is not Mandarin or anything related to Chinese but Korean itself. - They lived there before collapsing of the last Manchurian Empire - Qing.
2. What is the difference between people in mordern China(PRC) and the ancient people occupied current territories of PRC? - There are many minorities in PRC. - Of course, they are the part of PRC and the people are also the part of PRC. - However, they are different people in major chinese - different language, culture and history.
In my view, if Chinese consider the Goguryeo's history as an ancient Korean country whose territory is now included in PRC. Then, there is no problem. Why are they afraid of admitting 'it was ancient Korean country.' ? And the biggest concern of Northeast Project by PRC is that they just try to find the similarities to Chinese culture. If PRC admit the fact - the culture of Manchuria and Goguryeo has been different from Chinese and has almost never effected on the culture of Chinese, then this controversy is almost vague.
I would like to challenge the notion of 'descendant'. How do you know it? just because now just PRC are occupying the land? If you know some basic facts on genetics, then Chinese can't assert those kind of absurd and naive argument.Genetically, the gene of chinese are very different from the Manchurian, Mongolian and even if Korean.
Perhaps the government of PRC recognize many Korean still live there and they are not Chinese but Korean. Also many Manchurian and Mongolian has lived there for a long time than Chinese. Thus, I think the government of PRC are afraid of their identities. Since Mongol still exists and Korea still does. And many Korean in Manchuria now starts to move South Korea in order to find decent jobs and opportunities to share the wealth of South Korea.
I admit officially they are citizens of PRC but it doesn't mean they are Chinese. They are different races from Chinese and they have their own culture, history and language. It doesn't mean their culture, language and history is just a variant of chinese culture.
What if most part of Goguryeo is now in the People's Republic of China? IT's like this. Alexander's Empire should be regarded as Iranian because most of Alexander's Empire rested on Persia, even though Alexander was from Macedon. At the same time, Iranians hate Alexander the Great. Hmmm. Sounds like a same old movie that we're watching right now. ( Wikimachine 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL-- Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So. What's your point? Native Americans are Native Americans, even though they are assimilated into the US. Koreans are Koreans, whether or not a foreign power conquers them. ( Wikimachine 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) I'm actually very shocked by your post, Ksyrie. So it's true. Lots of CPOV's here. I didn't notice. ( Wikimachine 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, apparently you're not aware that more Americans have German ancestry than British ancestry. In any case, even if that's not the case, your analogy is only apt if the "Chinese side" is claiming that Goguryeo was Han. There is a difference between being Han and being Chinese. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Koguryo, the largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea....."
Gee. where is KOREA at that time? This is a question of who is *supposed* to inherit the GaoGouLi legacy - a matter traditional view, nothing to do with old/new historical evidence.
-2/3 of the GaoGouLi territory (at its peak time) are in China today. -No evidence shown more GaoGouLi people migrate into XinLuo or BaiJi than to Tang. -No evidence shown GaoGouLi language has any relationship with Korean language today (btw. Do -Korean even have a unified written language before 19th century anyway?)
BTW. Korean scholar's wishful thinking and fabrication do not count. Please.
Is GaoGouLi Korean? I don't think so. Is GaoGouLi Chinese, hard to say. Chinese is unlike Korean, we are the result of 5000 year of assimilation of many many races/nationalities. It is more of a cultural identity than a racial one. In that sense, I can's even see lots of indigenous invention by looking at Korean's "traditions". Your names are Chinese, your ettiquette are Chinese, and boy, even your dress is somewhat a variation of Chinese dress.
...Let alone GaoGouLi, which disapeared 1400 years ago, destroyed by a much advanced civilization - Tang.
Darkstyx 20:55, 03 January 2007 (UTC)
Dulylomo 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The person up there who believes that 한국 and the Chinese for Han is same, you could not be more wrong. The characters are distinctly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.14.31.210 ( talk) Don't be so confident. Do you know Warring States Period of China? There are 7 Kingdoms, one of which is '韓國'. I know korea school teach some knowledge of history of China. You should know this.
Indeed, 韩国 was one of the seven kingdoms during the Warring States. It was also the first to be beaten by 秦始皇. This 韩国 has nothing to do with 大韩民国. And, 韩 is different from 汉. The former refers to Koreans, the latter refers to Chinese. Erik-the-red
In my opinion, the fact china claims Koguryo as part of their history right now is due to PRC is based on the PRC's political and cultural policy. Right now, many Koreans see that Koguryo isn't chinese because they aren't "ethnically Han Chinese". Yet, sad to say, but the fact "Han equals Chinese" theory is totally messed up when the Manchurians took over; to make the many different race of people live in the country harmonously, the PRC took the approach of being Chinese as the collective term of the many nations that resided in China geographically. And Yes, this is why many Chinese thinks of "Manchurians", "Tibetians", "Mongolians", "Hmong" and so forth as being "Chinese" also. This topic is really hard to discuss since it really have no definite answer, it's like asking what is American, do you consider the "Sioux" indians as part of American History eventhough their foundations have nothing by most part due with the foundations with the United States of America. My explainations are kinda messy, i hope people get what i mean. At a result, i make sense that Goguryo to be part of China History but i think a note should be made they are not "Han Chinese" in which many see the Chinese culture as. Kai.Standard
Relax there, what i am trying to say is that the Koreans and Chinese see Goguryo differently. In my opinion, Chinese see Goguryo as part of their country because GEOGRAPHICALLY where Goguryo lies thousand years ago is part of their country now. What is the claim of Korea being descented from Goguryo, because Goguryo is geographically where Korea is located now, culturally it is influenced today's Korea? (elaborate if u wish, cuz i noe i miss alot) Aguring today's Koreans are genetically descented from Goguryo is not well supported since the country is destroyed over 1000 years ago and its descendents can spread everywhere in this many years. I heard from my friends that Jurchens (Manchurians) are descented from Goguryo and aint them "Chinese" now?
You stated, "Goguryo was NEVER seen as being part of Chinese history until this very recent, artificial, nationalistic PRC campaign and isn't reflective of historical reality"
Recent or not I aint so sure and i can care less since it is only RECENTlY that China become multiracial country that is not just for the HANS. NATIONALISTC, yay u r right. ARTIFICIAL, the whole Goguryo thing is artificial...can you give "empirical" evidence that Goguryo is Korean or is Chinese? Goguryo is a country that existed during the Three kingdoms and is destroyed over a thousand years ago, and I am sure they haven't left any things saying "OUR DESCENDENTS ARE KOREANS" OR "CHINESE". We can agrue for eternity and never find an answer and this forum is a diseaster, many are simply posting nationalistic views against each another just find something that can make both parties happy and call "PEACE".
Yeah you're right. Han chovenism defined Chinese identity for most of Chinese history. The Wall wasn't built to keep out fellow "Chinese" let me remind you. Manchus were despised for being foreign and the Manchus adopted Han Chinese more than Manchu-fying Han China. THere was no common "Chinese" ethnic identity but a diversity of ethnic identities that had their place in a Han patriarchy.
It's only after the PRC came into existence that ethnic minorities within the current Chinese border started to become sinofied. I mean that's the real motivation behind this Northeast propaganda stuff and not any real academic exploration of Goguryo. Plus, there's the obvious possibility of NK imploding and these theories would provide some sort of basis for intervention.
As for your request for empirical evidence, you can't get more empirical than pointing out the fact that Goguryo was considered Korean by Chinese and Koreans for literally thousands of years. Both Chinese and Korean historical records(culturally always mutually respected) reflect this. That's just historical reality. Unlike old defunct kingdoms in Europe or your comparison of Sioux being AMerican, Goguryo was seen as a predecessor to Korean civilization by both CHina and Korea for a long, long time and worked itself into the Korean cultural, ethnic identity during that whole time.
Practically, Goguryo words persisted into early Chosun and it's widely believed that Japanese is related to Goguryo linguistically. I personally think this bears out in a weird way because when Japanese people try to speak Korean it sounds eerily similar to NK dialects. There's also bunch of folk customs that has roots in Goguryo culture. But I think most of Korean links with Goguryo is historical and the cultural identity that comes from that. Melonbarmonster 23:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no way in hell Korea or Koreans were ever Chinese, Nor my own Mongolians anyone else outside of China that they wish to claim.
Folks, you are not going to persuade the other side by edit warring. Please refrain from doing so and discuss your points here. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in China. In 2006, a senior scholar of Peking University, one of the most prestigious universities in the People's Republic of China, affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections. [1] He has expressed disagreements with the CASS institute, the Chinese government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.
I have provided the source, in English, which can be verified by all readers. His revert was sheerly based on his NPOV. Please revert his edit by adding that passage again, as it's important to make it known to readers that there are scholars in China who reject the CASS's claims.
"Nationalism is a POV bias." Look in the mirror, I'd say. Again, please discuss logically. Don't throw nationalist epithets around. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, I fully support having the Chinese history template on both Gaogouli and Bohai. Reason being is that they have much to do with Chinese history. Take for example, most of Gaogouli's descendants today are Han Chinese (690,000 households were incorporated into Imperial Tang) and Bohai was predominantly ethnic Mohe, who are more or less related to other Tungusic tribes (e.g. Heishui Mohe, ancestors of the NuZhen tribes) of Northeast China. Not to mention all original sources that document these kingdoms were in fact, Chinese.
The reason why Gaogouli and Bohai are not in the Chinese history template is because they did not receive/were not in contention for the Mandate of Heaven. Nevertheless, they are still part of Chinese history - in the same manner the ancient kingdoms of NanZhao and DaLi are part of Chinese history.
Hope this cleared up some misunderstandings regarding my edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assault11 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
After Goguryeo's fall most were assimilated into Silla or Balhae, which claimed itself as the successor to Goguryeo. Your claim that 690,000 were assimilated into China is horribly inaccurate. Good friend100 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As it seems, Assault11 here ran out of any substansive refuations to my arguments, and any further discussion will only lead to bigotry on his part. Nlu, if you believe there are any remaining points from Assault11 that still holds any substansive value, please let me know. I will provide refutations accordingly. Otherwise, I believe it has been proven that this particular individual, Assault11, holds very extremist POV and his edits should be regarded as vandalism. Cydevil 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Wikipedia should be coherent with neutral sources of authority, notably other encyclopedias. The Chinese government's politically motivated rewritings of history is not reflected in any of those sources, and it is generally ignored outside of China. Thus, political revisionism of the Chinese government should be strictly limited to the Modern Politics section. Cydevil 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If it means that much to you, move the article Three Kingdoms of Korea to Two Kingdoms of Korea. There is a reason why that time period is called the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Nlu, please delete the History of China template both on this article and the Balhae article. The template doesn't even include Goguryeo or Balhae. Good friend100 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no disagreement on whether Goguryeo is part of of Korean history. THe Korean history template is not controversial. The Chinese history template is highly controversial and is THE POINT of disagreement here. Chinese history template should be left out until the dispute can be resolved. Especially since the claim is being made in part of the recent Chinese government supported and funded NOrtheast Project that's rejected by even Chinese academics. Melonbarmonster 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
no, don't. Since Goguryo played an important part in the fall of Sui and the rise of Tang, it would be an honor for Goguryo to be an article of Chinese history. Goguryo is a Korean state! Odst 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your deletions. Those arguements exist and are worth mentioning unless you're denying the existence of these arguements.melonbarmonster 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
CronusXT, you are making some ridiculas updates, whether Goguryeo belongs to Korean will not be proved by deleting everything China related, we must list facts. that is what wiki is about. I am ashamed that CronusXT is Korean. Another Korean nationalist.-- KoreaisGreatestCountry 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
However, that doesn't mean you can simply remove entire sections without discussion. Good friend100 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This passage, used in Zizhi Tongjian (see zh:s:資治通鑑/卷201) as well, is as below: 許敬宗等奏請復常,曰:「彗見東北,高麗將滅之兆也。」上曰:「朕之不德,謫見於天,豈可歸咎小夷!且高麗百姓,亦朕之百姓也。」 translated as: Officer Xu said to the emperor:"The comet appeared in the north-east, it is the sign that Goguryeo will fall." Gaozong said,"It is the god blaming my misbehavior, how can we blame on the minor people. meanwhile, Goguryeo people is also my subject。" It proved that Tang refer Goguryeo as a rebelled state.-- 207.168.191.2 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Goguryo was a Tang vassal. That's why he said it, or maybe because of China's "mandate of heaven" philosophy. Odst 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
--
Yeahsoo
18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Chinese name of Goguryeo should also be included, someone tell me why it should be deleted?-- KoreaisGreatestCountry 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Folks, calm down and take a time out. This is not productive. Based on past experience, I don't expect much productive discussion to come out of this, but at least give at least some respect to WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, OK? Meanwhile, I am going to look at the history and I am ready to impose 3RR blocks this time to anyone who has violated it. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your decision of the block. Good friend100 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a RfC on Korea history ( talk · contribs)'s behavior. Any interested parties who are interested in certifying/commenting the matter may do so. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Basicly,I cann't find the reasonable pretext to not include the Goguryeo in Chinese history.Just take a small experiment.There are 3 country,one is China,one is X,one is Korea.China and Korea want to destroy the country X,so they formed a sino-korean allianze to fight againt X.Later the X was destroyed,and China got the 2 thirds of X's territories,and Korea got 1 third.Now,the Korea says that Because I got the 1/3 of X,I should got the 2/3 also,in my opinion,it is a bold and shameless request to betray the alliance.Obviously that,X is Goguryeo,China got legitimate reason to incorporate it in Chinese history if the Korea incorportate it in Korean History.-- Ksyrie 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated before, this argument is useless until we get neutral, sensical, consistent definitions of what is "Chinese" and what is "Korean." -- Nlu ( talk) 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You know the Poland is a country of liguistic and cultural relation with the Russia (they are all slav),and relation between Germany and Poland are much more distant.See here History of Poland (1795–1918),the german and russian want to share this poor country and they devided the country.Ok,that's all.The Poland were devided,russian are reasonable to ask the other parts of Poland? Non,it is out of reason.-- Ksyrie 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As noted on top of this talk page, a request for mediation as been filed. All parties are encouraged to agree to the mediation (and if you are not a listed party but wants to be involved, please add yourself), as we have to resolve this dispute somehow. If you do not agree, the mediation request will not be accepted, and we're back to square one. Please consider it. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bohai state was a state in the rein of the Tang Dynasty. The Gao family in the state was the second largest one after the royal family. Many Gao family members were officials in the Tang government. [7] this is real direct Goguryeo king family "GAO", the guy name: Gao Zhen" on his tomb, it carved as: “唐开府仪同三司工部尚书特进右金吾卫大将军安东都护郯国公上柱国高公墓志序”有云: 大历八年夏五月廿有七日,右金吾卫大将军安东都护公毙于洛阳教业里之私第,春秋七十三。前年四月十二日,郯国夫人真定侯氏先毙于博陵郡,……礼也。公讳震,字某渤海人。祖藏,开府仪同三司工部尚书朝鲜郡王柳城郡开国公;祢讳连,云麾将军、右豹韬大将军安东都护。公迺扶余贵种,......见周绍良编《唐代墓志汇编》大历075条. It said he is from Balhae渤海. He become 安东都护, this is the lead officer in Balhae. this book published in 1930,by A Qing dynasty scholar. -- Yeahsoo 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
the Pohai state's royal family did not belong to the Goguryeo royal family. The founder of Pohai was Dae Jo young, son of the General Dae guljungsang. The Pohai royal family's name is Dae, and The Goguryo royal family"s name is Go. The Protectorate General position was given to former King Bojang, Goguryeo's last king. he was exiled to a remote area in Tang before Bohai was formed. my point is, that Gao zhen was not in relation to pohai. Odst 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The descendants of Goguryeo are of nowadays Han Chinese, Khitan, Manchu,of course nowadays Korean.the majority of descendant of Goguryeo live in nowadays China not in Korea,So how can Korean embezzle the whole nation?No matter from the view of primogeniture or from the view of numbers of descendants,China are the in first place to legitimately inherit the most part of Goguryeo.The Chinese had already accepted the somehow relationship between Goguryeo and Korea.Don't be too greedy.-- Ksyrie 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd translate this as:
Cydevil, the problem with the Northeast Project's leaders is that they, too, are intellectually dishonest in that they fail to acknowledge the Korean nature of the state at all. However, once the Korean nature of the state is acknowledged, the question becomes, "Was Goguryeo also 'Chinese' under a logical and consistent definition of 'Chinese' commensurate with the definition of 'Korean' used to characterize Goguryeo as a Korean state?" That Goguryeo was Korean does not mean that it was not also Chinese; it might be, or it might not be, depending on the definition. You have repeatedly avoided answering this question, relying instead only on how the Northeast Project had infuriated the Korean people. Whether it does or not, and whether the Northeast Project was wrong-spirited or not, is irrelevant to the question. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure that the Poles and the Lithuanians will dispute as much as to whether Vilnius is Polish or Lithuanian. That doesn't mean that the just because a characterization of Vilnius as either Polish or Lithuanian would infuriate the other side, that the question should be avoided. WP:NPOV is the guiding principle here, and you have continuously avoided addressing it.
I also find it distressing that you have, without any evidence, asserted that I have "follow[ed] the same political bias of the Chinese government by attempting to define history by territorial borders of today's nation-states." I have not made up my mind as to whether Goguryeo can/should be characterized as "Chinese" in addition to "Korean" or not (although I have made up my mind that it was, in fact, "Korean"). You don't know what's in my mind. Don't presume to know it and don't presume to use it as an ad hominem attack -- a non-answer -- to the question I posed. Answer it honestly. Certainly, I do not, and have never considered Rouran or Dzungaria "Chinese" even though their territories are within modern Chinese borders. But Goguryeo is different, and you know it; its cultures were much closer to Han Chinese culture than Rouran or Dzungaria's was. That doesn't make it non-Korean (and as I've said, I'm convinced that a recharacterization of Goguryeo as non-Korean is intellectually dishonest). I also pose this question: by the definition you obviously implicitly used to define Goguryeo as Korean, was Gaya Confederacy Korean? If so, what's the evidence you use to reach that conclusion? Don't rely on a "defin[ition of] history by territorial borders of today's nation-states[,]" as you've already rejrected that. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Gaya Confederacy, why don't you go look it up yourself. Maybe you can make Wikpedia the only "encyclopedia" where it was "Japanese", considering there are Japanese extremists who claim that Gaya Confederacy was a Japnaese colony. Cydevil 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
“Any effort by an outside power, such as China, to deny that Koguryo is part of Korean history is bound to be seen as a denial of Korean nationhood, as an act of aggression that threatens the very existence of Korea as a human collectivity.”- John B. Duncan, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles Cydevil 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How twisted can you get? Goguryeo cannot be compared with Baekje or Silla? It is obvious that Baekje and Silla are Korean, at least Chinese historians can agree with that. It cannot be compared? So Goguryeo isn't Korean and its culture is not similiar to Korea? Your choice of words makes to seem like you agree that Goguryeo is Korean, but your not.
Why would they call it the Three Kingdoms of Korea? If Goguryeo is so much different from the rest of Korea and more like "Chinese" then move the Three Kingdoms of Korea to something like Two Kingdoms of Korea. Good friend100 13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I've made my arguments as to why an absolute denial of a potential Chinese character of the Goguryeo state is not NPOV. What does this mean as we try to resolve the dispute over this article? My proposal is:
In addition, as far as the formatting of the article is concerned:
Please comment specifically on each aspect of this. Please, to the extent that you can, avoid ad hominems and accusations. Let's see if we can reach a consensus. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The article as it is right now is fine as it is in following NPOV standards. Chinese claims are put into proper context in the Northeast Project article. I propose that we leave a short summary under Modern Politics, and relocate all the Chinese controversy over to that article. Cydevil 09:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Manchuria is not part of Korean history? I don't think the length of time that China controlled Manchuria makes Manchuria "Chinese" and therefore everything that comes from Manchuria is Chinese.
And Goguryeo wasn't a weakling tributary state that bowed itself down to China. If it did, then Chinese dynasties wouldn't have had their obsession of destroying Goguryeo, rather they would have treated it like a "child" and exploit more of Goguryeo's resources. You need to remember Goguryeo's power in east Asia and its influence over the rise and fall of several Chinese dynasties. Good friend100 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably one of the most extreme Korean Nationalists around here, yet the overall immaturity of the arguments here are laughable. Due to the fact that I'm sick, here's a summary of my thoughts:
1. What most non-Northeast Asians do not get is that over here, we equalize history with a right. In other words, if a certain piece of land was historically in a nation's forefather's hands, the nation believes it has a right to it.
2. What most people don't get about China's Northeast Project is that the project tries to view the history of Manchuria in a Sinocentristic way. No, I have no trouble with China viewing Manchuria as a part of its history, but the current problem is that the PC government is trying to assimulate the piece of land as an eternal Chinese history, when in fact the only time the central China Proper (not meant to mean that the Han Chinese are restricted to the south part) government got complete control over Manchuria was after 1945. Before that, Manchuria was ruled by the natives (mainly the Tungusic peoples), with short bursts of instable stabs into it by the Han Chinese.
Sorry if this sounds crazy at places, I'm not in a good condition. I'll try to add the problems witht the Korean side on this later on. -
General Tiger
Explain further. Negate those people ("men" is attack on feminism), and what happens?
Furthermore, how do you answer General Tiger's comment that North East Project is CPOV to begin with? It doesn't fit with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. ( Wikimachine 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
First, I would like to admit some true points in Chinese's opinion.
1. The most part of Goguryeo is now included in PRC. 2. Goguryeo was defeated by allied forces of Tang and Shilla. 3. After that, many ancient countries which occupied Goguryeo's land, also occupied most part of modern China.
However, There are several pitfalls.
1. Now, many Koreans are living there, actually they are one of the biggest minorities in PRC. - Their language is not Mandarin or anything related to Chinese but Korean itself. - They lived there before collapsing of the last Manchurian Empire - Qing.
2. What is the difference between people in mordern China(PRC) and the ancient people occupied current territories of PRC? - There are many minorities in PRC. - Of course, they are the part of PRC and the people are also the part of PRC. - However, they are different people in major chinese - different language, culture and history.
In my view, if Chinese consider the Goguryeo's history as an ancient Korean country whose territory is now included in PRC. Then, there is no problem. Why are they afraid of admitting 'it was ancient Korean country.' ? And the biggest concern of Northeast Project by PRC is that they just try to find the similarities to Chinese culture. If PRC admit the fact - the culture of Manchuria and Goguryeo has been different from Chinese and has almost never effected on the culture of Chinese, then this controversy is almost vague.
I would like to challenge the notion of 'descendant'. How do you know it? just because now just PRC are occupying the land? If you know some basic facts on genetics, then Chinese can't assert those kind of absurd and naive argument.Genetically, the gene of chinese are very different from the Manchurian, Mongolian and even if Korean.
Perhaps the government of PRC recognize many Korean still live there and they are not Chinese but Korean. Also many Manchurian and Mongolian has lived there for a long time than Chinese. Thus, I think the government of PRC are afraid of their identities. Since Mongol still exists and Korea still does. And many Korean in Manchuria now starts to move South Korea in order to find decent jobs and opportunities to share the wealth of South Korea.
I admit officially they are citizens of PRC but it doesn't mean they are Chinese. They are different races from Chinese and they have their own culture, history and language. It doesn't mean their culture, language and history is just a variant of chinese culture.
What if most part of Goguryeo is now in the People's Republic of China? IT's like this. Alexander's Empire should be regarded as Iranian because most of Alexander's Empire rested on Persia, even though Alexander was from Macedon. At the same time, Iranians hate Alexander the Great. Hmmm. Sounds like a same old movie that we're watching right now. ( Wikimachine 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL-- Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So. What's your point? Native Americans are Native Americans, even though they are assimilated into the US. Koreans are Koreans, whether or not a foreign power conquers them. ( Wikimachine 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)) I'm actually very shocked by your post, Ksyrie. So it's true. Lots of CPOV's here. I didn't notice. ( Wikimachine 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, apparently you're not aware that more Americans have German ancestry than British ancestry. In any case, even if that's not the case, your analogy is only apt if the "Chinese side" is claiming that Goguryeo was Han. There is a difference between being Han and being Chinese. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)