This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and contribute to the
discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Why did you call my name in the front of
Orthodoxy (a Korean native speaker I believe) ? This kind of unnecessary name reference is rude and shows that you have trouble in mind. And where does this RFC on "Goguryeo is Chinese" stuff come from? Who told you that you can put a modern label on a controversial historical entity? --
Jiejunkong06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe there was no RfC which covered Guknae Seong/Guonei City. Which RfC are you talking about? I know that the RfM for Goguryeo never went as far as discussing city names north of the
Yalu River.--
Endroit20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Guknae Seong? Shouldn't it be "Gungnae-seong" or "Gungnaeseong"?
According to South Korea's revised romanization rule, it must be one of Gungnae Seong, Gungnae-seong, or Gungnaeseong. (I know, I hate how it looks, but a rule is a rule...) As for me, I prefer it in all one single word. See, for example,
Wiryeseong.
Well, if anybody wants to pursue a pinyin name, I don't want to make a fight... (I don't like it, and I think it's strange to use pinyin name for a country which Chinese people considered alien for millenia, but I hate naming wars even more.) But if we are to use a Korean name, at least let's get it right.
Yongjik04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)reply
(cur | prev) 03:16, 16 June 2017 Zanhe (talk | contribs) m . . (2,438 bytes) (0) . . (Zanhe moved page Talk:Gungnae City to Talk:Guonei City: Official name as inscribed on UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites, also per move discussion for Wandu vs. Hwando) (undo | thank)
Requested move 13 December 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Guonei →
Gungnae – Here, I will demonstrate through Google Books search and Google Scholars search that Gungnae and Kungnae, the Korean terms, not Guonei, the Chinese term, are the commonly used term in reliable sources, thereby justifying this move.
Google Books search, Gungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 110 results
[1]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Gungnae" -wikipedia, 20 results
[2]
Google Books search, Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 1490 results
[3]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Kungnae" -wikipedia, 31 results
[4]
Google Books search, Guonei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 447 results
[5]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Guonei" -wikipedia, 25 results
[6]
The Korean term, Gungnae, results in 130 hits. Kungnae, an alternative romanization of the same Korean term, results in 1,521 hits. By comparison, the Chinese term, Guonei, results in 472 hits, which is outnumbered by Kungnae by 1,049 hits. Here, Kungnae is clearly the most commonly used name. However, according to Korean naming convention, Gungnae should be used. Since Gungnae is clearly a historical term, its use should be limited to historical uses. The Chinese term "Guonei" can be used for modern Chinese sites and places.
Sacker23 (
talk) 13:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.Steel1943 (
talk) 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.Paine Ellsworthput'r there09:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, revert June move - the UNESCO list obviously have the Chinese pronunciation as the site is now in China. But history books have the Korean pronunciation.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
1. This issue was settled a decade ago with near unanimous support for using Chinese spelling for sites in China (see
Talk:Wandu#Requested move).
2.
WP:NEUTRAL: given the
Goguryeo controversies and numerous past discussions on
Talk:Goguryeo, the neutral consensus solution is to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, and Korean spelling for those in North Korea, which is the approach taken by
UNESCO.
3. The proposer's common name claim does not hold water. He uses multiple variant spellings for Korean, but only one variant for Chinese. If you add more Chinese variants, you'd get 7,000 results for
Kuo-nei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli OR Kao-kou-li -wikipedia, for example.
Comment Please provide a link where a consensus was reached at
Talk:Goguryeo to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, or to accept UNESCO names.
The consensus was reached
here: Endroit proposed that "following WP:NPOV guidelines, Goguryeo (Koguryo) cities north of the Yalu River should use Chinese transliteration, and south, Korean". It received unanimous support save for one (now blocked) user. -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That is not
Talk:Goguryeo.
Goguryeo uses Korean terms, such as Gungnae and Hwando. The requested move on
Talk:Wandu was based on misinformation, that UNESCO is neutral. I have presented evidence here that UNESCO is not neutral, and also new evidence that use of the term Guonei violates
WP:NCGN rule of using common names.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
This is getting ridiculous. Now you're squabbling over where consensus was reached? Well, if you insist on
Talk:Goguryeo, note that
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll unanimously supports using both Korean and Chinese for that article. However, there are a bunch of dedicated POV pushers who keep violating the consensus and edit warring, which is why the article is now locked. And accusing UNESCO as being non-neutral only proves your own bias. -
Zanhe (
talk)
04:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't leave out what the poll was about.
Zanhe conveniently left out what the poll was actually about.
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Infobox_name_straw_poll The poll was about names in Goguryeo's infobox, not the names of historic cities of Goguryeo. And UNESCO is indeed not very neutral, because of the nomination and registration process, where the host country makes the nomination report. I have presented evidence in this discussion, China's nomination report of this UNESCO site, which is full of Chinese bias. Also, this is an example of UNESCO using the Korean term Gungnae, just showing how inconsistent UNESCO can be depending on which country makes the nomination report.
Sacker23 (
talk)
09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
For a new user, you're really good at Wikilawyering. First you argue about the venue where the neutrality consensus was reached, now you argue over the letter of another consensus, and then you keep insisting UNESCO is biased. Yes, the
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll consensus is about the infobox, but the
Talk:Wandu#Requested_move consensus is specifically about article names such as this. And the spirit of both consensuses is clear: Wikipedia is not a place to push one's bias, and will take a strictly neutral stand in controversial issues such as this. And your endless
tendentious arguments clearly prove that your sole purpose here to push your POV. -
Zanhe (
talk)
05:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
At present, 18 tumuli/tumuli groups located in 12 different countries have been designated as World Heritage Sites. However, it is difficult to observe, amongst these examples, the degree of clustered distribution that characterizes the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli. One World Heritage Site that demonstrates a similar degree of tomb clustering is the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom, located in Ji’an, China. However, in the case of this site, which comprises several tomb clusters, the outstanding feature is each individual tomb, rather than the clustered group. In addition, the area in which the tomb clusters are distributed also contains non-burial architecture, such as the site of Gungnae Fortress. Therefore, unlike in the case of the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli, it is not clearly evident whether the area in which the tomb clusters were located was regarded as a sacred place or the place of the afterlife.
[7]Sacker23 (
talk)
09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you citing this South Korean report to muddy the waters? Don't you even know the difference between an approved World Heritage Site such as Guonei/Wandu vs. a tentative site like the one above? UNESCO explicitly disclaims "the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by the States Parties" on their
Tentative Lists page, and your quote above reflects solely the position of the South Korean government. -
Zanhe (
talk)
05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Zanhe's search, which yields 552 hits, not 7000 hits, is invalid as it uses a hyphen, which results in an inflated number of hits. Without a hyphen, using Kuonei, search result yields 97 hits.
[8] Using a hyphen on Kungnae, as Kung-nae, results in 2,380 hits.
[9] Therefore,
Zanhe's argument is based on a technical glitch and evidences still show that the Korean term Kungnae is the most common name.
Sacker23 (
talk)
01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
There was no technical glitch. Google books does return 7,000+ results on my computer, and it's well known that Google returns vary widely depending on one's location. That further shows that your original argument for common name based on the difference of a few dozen results is untenable. Also, the hyphen is required for the older
Wade-Giles standard of Chinese romanization, which is why I used it. That's not the case for Korean romanizations. -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nonetheless, using a hyphen inflates results, as I have demonstrated with Kung-nae. If you check the search term I have used, search results on Kuonei without the hyphen still yields results with reliable sources using Kuo-nei. Also, you can actually check the results of the term Kuo-nei, you can see that it yields hits like "Kuo" and "rennei," which proves hyphenated terms yields non-relevant hits.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
These are some example of results from
Zanhe's search using hyphens, with hits in bold.
Two Ch'in Administrators do likewise: Ho-nei and Li-yang # *# (Honan, NW of Chun hsien).” 355. ll Chtin commissions Mu-jung K'o to attack Tuan Lung #4. #, *7 at Kuang-ku } R (Shantung, 8 li NW of I-tu hsien). 355. 12 The King of Koguryo Chao 4| (Ku-kuo-yüan wang) l6. Ho-nei and Li-yang
Kobun school, 215 Koguryo, 14, 20 Kojimachiku, Nagatacho, 118 Kojong, 143, 288 nl61 Komatsu Kiyokado, 291 n83 Komura Jutaro, 197; early career of, 227-228; as Charge d' Affaires in Peking legation, 228 Konoe Atsumaro, 101, ... 207 Kuan-ti temple, 117 Kuang fang-yen kuan, 96 Kuang-hsii, Emperor, 82, 210 Kumsong, 72 Kung, Prince, 76, 80-81; understanding of international law, 67 Kung Chao-yuan, 65, 275 n31 Kuo Sung-t'ao
Several references in the stele inscription indicate that the patron, General Hsiin, was originally from either Paekche or Koguryo.7 The inscription states that he was of Korean ... T'ang, fighting barbarians and pacifying the land. Also, it may be noted that the writer of the General Hsiin stele inscription, Kuo Ch'ien- kuang, seems to be well versed not only in Buddhist doctrine but also in the Chinese classics, considering the references in the inscription to the Tso chuan and other texts.
The legend of the King Tung-ming, the founder of Fu-yu-kuo. Memoirs of the Research Department of Toyo Bunko 10: ... Koguryo instruments in Tomb no. 1 at Ch'ang-ch'uan, Manchuria. Musica Asiatica 6: ... Reflections of the fall of Silla. Korea Journal 15.5: 54-62. Volkov, S.V. 1987. Chinovnichestvo i aristokratiia v rannei istorii Korei.
Kim Pusik k'o-sheng chii Koguryo chan'ol yuch'wi ... Kuang-hsin IsRifi Kuang-hua jtft Kuei-lin tl;:l4- Kuei-te £j7 fg K'un-Iii ch'eng kung k'ung-lu Kung-shui Kung-sun Tu kung-te-shih-ssu K'ung Yen-chou kuo chu kuo-hsiang Kuo-hsin shih
This proves exactly my point, that complex Google searches that you presented are not reliable evidence because they can be easily manipulated. Let's look at your Google Books search for Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia with 1490 results
[10]. Of the "1490 results", click on page 6 and almost none of the results are about Guonei/Kungnae, and after page 10 every single page is empty. So the "1490 results" are in reality no more than 50. -
Zanhe (
talk)
06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Same restrictions apply to all searches. This still does not change the fact that Kungnae is the most common name used in reliable sources.
Sacker23 (
talk)
00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose this. The issue is the same, which is that these articles do not use the common name and UNESCO is not neutral, but the presented evidences on common names are not identical.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Moved to Kungnaesong or Gungnaeseong; Korean and Chinese name of this region is include word "城" (Seong or Sŏng in Korean language), like Gungnaeseong in
RR or Kungnaesŏng (or Kungnaesong in North Korea) in
MR (국내성,
國內城; lit. Castle in the country). --
Garam (
talk)
04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Gungnae is the correct term. Zanhe has been spotted in many Sinocentrism-related articles. The individual is continueously changing all the names of the sites that does not use Mandarin into Mandarin names. This is completely incorrect in every level.
Wandrative (
talk)
05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and contribute to the
discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Why did you call my name in the front of
Orthodoxy (a Korean native speaker I believe) ? This kind of unnecessary name reference is rude and shows that you have trouble in mind. And where does this RFC on "Goguryeo is Chinese" stuff come from? Who told you that you can put a modern label on a controversial historical entity? --
Jiejunkong06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe there was no RfC which covered Guknae Seong/Guonei City. Which RfC are you talking about? I know that the RfM for Goguryeo never went as far as discussing city names north of the
Yalu River.--
Endroit20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Guknae Seong? Shouldn't it be "Gungnae-seong" or "Gungnaeseong"?
According to South Korea's revised romanization rule, it must be one of Gungnae Seong, Gungnae-seong, or Gungnaeseong. (I know, I hate how it looks, but a rule is a rule...) As for me, I prefer it in all one single word. See, for example,
Wiryeseong.
Well, if anybody wants to pursue a pinyin name, I don't want to make a fight... (I don't like it, and I think it's strange to use pinyin name for a country which Chinese people considered alien for millenia, but I hate naming wars even more.) But if we are to use a Korean name, at least let's get it right.
Yongjik04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)reply
(cur | prev) 03:16, 16 June 2017 Zanhe (talk | contribs) m . . (2,438 bytes) (0) . . (Zanhe moved page Talk:Gungnae City to Talk:Guonei City: Official name as inscribed on UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites, also per move discussion for Wandu vs. Hwando) (undo | thank)
Requested move 13 December 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Guonei →
Gungnae – Here, I will demonstrate through Google Books search and Google Scholars search that Gungnae and Kungnae, the Korean terms, not Guonei, the Chinese term, are the commonly used term in reliable sources, thereby justifying this move.
Google Books search, Gungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 110 results
[1]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Gungnae" -wikipedia, 20 results
[2]
Google Books search, Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 1490 results
[3]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Kungnae" -wikipedia, 31 results
[4]
Google Books search, Guonei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia, 447 results
[5]
Google Scholars search, Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli "Guonei" -wikipedia, 25 results
[6]
The Korean term, Gungnae, results in 130 hits. Kungnae, an alternative romanization of the same Korean term, results in 1,521 hits. By comparison, the Chinese term, Guonei, results in 472 hits, which is outnumbered by Kungnae by 1,049 hits. Here, Kungnae is clearly the most commonly used name. However, according to Korean naming convention, Gungnae should be used. Since Gungnae is clearly a historical term, its use should be limited to historical uses. The Chinese term "Guonei" can be used for modern Chinese sites and places.
Sacker23 (
talk) 13:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.Steel1943 (
talk) 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisted.Paine Ellsworthput'r there09:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support, revert June move - the UNESCO list obviously have the Chinese pronunciation as the site is now in China. But history books have the Korean pronunciation.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
1. This issue was settled a decade ago with near unanimous support for using Chinese spelling for sites in China (see
Talk:Wandu#Requested move).
2.
WP:NEUTRAL: given the
Goguryeo controversies and numerous past discussions on
Talk:Goguryeo, the neutral consensus solution is to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, and Korean spelling for those in North Korea, which is the approach taken by
UNESCO.
3. The proposer's common name claim does not hold water. He uses multiple variant spellings for Korean, but only one variant for Chinese. If you add more Chinese variants, you'd get 7,000 results for
Kuo-nei Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli OR Kao-kou-li -wikipedia, for example.
Comment Please provide a link where a consensus was reached at
Talk:Goguryeo to use Chinese spelling for Goguryeo sites in China, or to accept UNESCO names.
The consensus was reached
here: Endroit proposed that "following WP:NPOV guidelines, Goguryeo (Koguryo) cities north of the Yalu River should use Chinese transliteration, and south, Korean". It received unanimous support save for one (now blocked) user. -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That is not
Talk:Goguryeo.
Goguryeo uses Korean terms, such as Gungnae and Hwando. The requested move on
Talk:Wandu was based on misinformation, that UNESCO is neutral. I have presented evidence here that UNESCO is not neutral, and also new evidence that use of the term Guonei violates
WP:NCGN rule of using common names.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
This is getting ridiculous. Now you're squabbling over where consensus was reached? Well, if you insist on
Talk:Goguryeo, note that
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll unanimously supports using both Korean and Chinese for that article. However, there are a bunch of dedicated POV pushers who keep violating the consensus and edit warring, which is why the article is now locked. And accusing UNESCO as being non-neutral only proves your own bias. -
Zanhe (
talk)
04:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't leave out what the poll was about.
Zanhe conveniently left out what the poll was actually about.
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Infobox_name_straw_poll The poll was about names in Goguryeo's infobox, not the names of historic cities of Goguryeo. And UNESCO is indeed not very neutral, because of the nomination and registration process, where the host country makes the nomination report. I have presented evidence in this discussion, China's nomination report of this UNESCO site, which is full of Chinese bias. Also, this is an example of UNESCO using the Korean term Gungnae, just showing how inconsistent UNESCO can be depending on which country makes the nomination report.
Sacker23 (
talk)
09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
For a new user, you're really good at Wikilawyering. First you argue about the venue where the neutrality consensus was reached, now you argue over the letter of another consensus, and then you keep insisting UNESCO is biased. Yes, the
Talk:Goguryeo/ArchivedPolls#Poll consensus is about the infobox, but the
Talk:Wandu#Requested_move consensus is specifically about article names such as this. And the spirit of both consensuses is clear: Wikipedia is not a place to push one's bias, and will take a strictly neutral stand in controversial issues such as this. And your endless
tendentious arguments clearly prove that your sole purpose here to push your POV. -
Zanhe (
talk)
05:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
At present, 18 tumuli/tumuli groups located in 12 different countries have been designated as World Heritage Sites. However, it is difficult to observe, amongst these examples, the degree of clustered distribution that characterizes the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli. One World Heritage Site that demonstrates a similar degree of tomb clustering is the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom, located in Ji’an, China. However, in the case of this site, which comprises several tomb clusters, the outstanding feature is each individual tomb, rather than the clustered group. In addition, the area in which the tomb clusters are distributed also contains non-burial architecture, such as the site of Gungnae Fortress. Therefore, unlike in the case of the Goryeong Jisandong Tumuli, it is not clearly evident whether the area in which the tomb clusters were located was regarded as a sacred place or the place of the afterlife.
[7]Sacker23 (
talk)
09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you citing this South Korean report to muddy the waters? Don't you even know the difference between an approved World Heritage Site such as Guonei/Wandu vs. a tentative site like the one above? UNESCO explicitly disclaims "the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information or documentation provided by the States Parties" on their
Tentative Lists page, and your quote above reflects solely the position of the South Korean government. -
Zanhe (
talk)
05:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Zanhe's search, which yields 552 hits, not 7000 hits, is invalid as it uses a hyphen, which results in an inflated number of hits. Without a hyphen, using Kuonei, search result yields 97 hits.
[8] Using a hyphen on Kungnae, as Kung-nae, results in 2,380 hits.
[9] Therefore,
Zanhe's argument is based on a technical glitch and evidences still show that the Korean term Kungnae is the most common name.
Sacker23 (
talk)
01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
There was no technical glitch. Google books does return 7,000+ results on my computer, and it's well known that Google returns vary widely depending on one's location. That further shows that your original argument for common name based on the difference of a few dozen results is untenable. Also, the hyphen is required for the older
Wade-Giles standard of Chinese romanization, which is why I used it. That's not the case for Korean romanizations. -
Zanhe (
talk)
02:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nonetheless, using a hyphen inflates results, as I have demonstrated with Kung-nae. If you check the search term I have used, search results on Kuonei without the hyphen still yields results with reliable sources using Kuo-nei. Also, you can actually check the results of the term Kuo-nei, you can see that it yields hits like "Kuo" and "rennei," which proves hyphenated terms yields non-relevant hits.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
These are some example of results from
Zanhe's search using hyphens, with hits in bold.
Two Ch'in Administrators do likewise: Ho-nei and Li-yang # *# (Honan, NW of Chun hsien).” 355. ll Chtin commissions Mu-jung K'o to attack Tuan Lung #4. #, *7 at Kuang-ku } R (Shantung, 8 li NW of I-tu hsien). 355. 12 The King of Koguryo Chao 4| (Ku-kuo-yüan wang) l6. Ho-nei and Li-yang
Kobun school, 215 Koguryo, 14, 20 Kojimachiku, Nagatacho, 118 Kojong, 143, 288 nl61 Komatsu Kiyokado, 291 n83 Komura Jutaro, 197; early career of, 227-228; as Charge d' Affaires in Peking legation, 228 Konoe Atsumaro, 101, ... 207 Kuan-ti temple, 117 Kuang fang-yen kuan, 96 Kuang-hsii, Emperor, 82, 210 Kumsong, 72 Kung, Prince, 76, 80-81; understanding of international law, 67 Kung Chao-yuan, 65, 275 n31 Kuo Sung-t'ao
Several references in the stele inscription indicate that the patron, General Hsiin, was originally from either Paekche or Koguryo.7 The inscription states that he was of Korean ... T'ang, fighting barbarians and pacifying the land. Also, it may be noted that the writer of the General Hsiin stele inscription, Kuo Ch'ien- kuang, seems to be well versed not only in Buddhist doctrine but also in the Chinese classics, considering the references in the inscription to the Tso chuan and other texts.
The legend of the King Tung-ming, the founder of Fu-yu-kuo. Memoirs of the Research Department of Toyo Bunko 10: ... Koguryo instruments in Tomb no. 1 at Ch'ang-ch'uan, Manchuria. Musica Asiatica 6: ... Reflections of the fall of Silla. Korea Journal 15.5: 54-62. Volkov, S.V. 1987. Chinovnichestvo i aristokratiia v rannei istorii Korei.
Kim Pusik k'o-sheng chii Koguryo chan'ol yuch'wi ... Kuang-hsin IsRifi Kuang-hua jtft Kuei-lin tl;:l4- Kuei-te £j7 fg K'un-Iii ch'eng kung k'ung-lu Kung-shui Kung-sun Tu kung-te-shih-ssu K'ung Yen-chou kuo chu kuo-hsiang Kuo-hsin shih
This proves exactly my point, that complex Google searches that you presented are not reliable evidence because they can be easily manipulated. Let's look at your Google Books search for Kungnae Goguryeo OR Koguryo OR Gaogouli -wikipedia with 1490 results
[10]. Of the "1490 results", click on page 6 and almost none of the results are about Guonei/Kungnae, and after page 10 every single page is empty. So the "1490 results" are in reality no more than 50. -
Zanhe (
talk)
06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Same restrictions apply to all searches. This still does not change the fact that Kungnae is the most common name used in reliable sources.
Sacker23 (
talk)
00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose this. The issue is the same, which is that these articles do not use the common name and UNESCO is not neutral, but the presented evidences on common names are not identical.
Sacker23 (
talk)
03:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Moved to Kungnaesong or Gungnaeseong; Korean and Chinese name of this region is include word "城" (Seong or Sŏng in Korean language), like Gungnaeseong in
RR or Kungnaesŏng (or Kungnaesong in North Korea) in
MR (국내성,
國內城; lit. Castle in the country). --
Garam (
talk)
04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Gungnae is the correct term. Zanhe has been spotted in many Sinocentrism-related articles. The individual is continueously changing all the names of the sites that does not use Mandarin into Mandarin names. This is completely incorrect in every level.
Wandrative (
talk)
05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.