Talk:Balhae/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

goodfriend you idiot

Could somebody put the image of balhae in the information box at the top? I don't know how to do it. Thanks a bunch. Good friend100 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; required some editing to {{Koreanname Chinesename}}, which didn't have the image option before. Now it does. :-) Although actually I wouldn't mind having another image there... Cheers, -- Visviva 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BALHAE KOREAN? NOT KOREAN?

Niu, what are you saying is that Chinese scholars are accurate about Chinese history?? Chinese historians or China never practice " censorship"?? or China isn't Communist state???? Whats your point? That Korean historical information is all wrong??? China never built "Great Wall" to separate between Chinese territory and Manchurian territory???? Its not Semi- political or historical or even Semi-Racist. I'm just justifying and sick and tired of "Corrupt" Chinese historians trying to justify and change Korean history based on Corrupt Chinese political view. Lets not debate " narrow" topic. Lets discuss about much more wider topic Why? is China trying to change Korean history???. The reason is its China " Political and Economical" interest. Just accept the fact. PLEASE!!! ENOUGH WITH SEMI-THIS GARBAGE.


China is still " Communist" country. What it means is that China practices " Censorship" so the people aren't getting real History. In which in future it can lead serious problem between Korea and China. In past years Chinese Historians aren't providing real facts and real information about Korguryo and Balhae Kingdoms. These two Kingdoms had vast territory and it was behind " Great Wall China" which it means it didn't belong to China or Chinese. But instead it belonged to Koreans. Chinese historians are nervouse about " Greater Korea Syndrom, as we call it " G.K.S Syndrome. Its Korean westernized syndrome that 1.2 billion Chinese are afraid. The reason is simple, Korean culture aren't scary to average " Joe" Chinese. Why?? Koreans never invaded China in 20th century. The Greater Korea Syndrome, is Manchuria did belonged to Koreans and Manchuria belonged to Korean history. The Chinese are afraid of " Korean influence in Manchuria" or "Korean influence in China ( Chinese youth). Korea always has been " Lip and teeth" to China. If lip don't protect the teeth. Then China can always crack. Learning or Studying Chinese history. Yes, it can. China is vulnerable to foreign influence. Once Chinese get the taste of Korean culture or westernized Korean culture. Like eating Kimchee, it can't be stopped. That is what they are afraid of. Regarding to " Balhae and Korguryo" Kingdom. Thier both belong to Korea. Yes, Manchuria belongs to Korea. Like I said. Great Wall that divides Manchuria and China. That always has been Chinese history, other side of Great Wall China never cared because it wasn't part of China. It was part of Korea/ Koreans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teacherjjlee (talk • contribs). 

In any case, I agree with teacherjjlee remark, you cannot manipulate and distort history by using Political and Economical reasons. I agree with him 100 percent.


Someone takes the "Korean" out from before "Balhae" and someone else puts it back. Balhae is an extremely important part of Korean history, but to call it "Korean" is anachronistic and appears to violate the NPOV Doc Rock 03:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was doing several things ar one time and changed that by mistake. -- General Tiger

Phew! I was afraid that we were falling into one of those wrestling pits where we could lose sight of the big picture. Glad to be wrong! Doc Rock 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

need to rewrite the the ethnic background of Balhai

I have noticed that Korean insead of Goguryeo and Mohe were considered as the natives in this country.While Mohe later became Jurchen,which became Manchu.So It means we should rewrite it as Korean and Manchu?--Ksyrie 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what kinds of ethnic people lived in Balhae, although I have read that the government was ruled by "Koreans" (Goguryeo remnents) while the people were both Goguryeo people, Chinese people, and Manchus. Good friend100 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ksyrie. Or, if you prefer it, I think "proto-Koreans" and "proto-Manchus" is also a good way to put it, unless you just want to keep it simple. I think it's also a good idea to add "multiethnic" as an adjective. Cydevil 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

LAME An entry from Balhae appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia

It's gone. I can't find it. 155.97.195.124 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Someone

Balhae Korean?

Don't rewrite history. Its historically proven fact. Balhae Kingdom is Korean territory. Balhae Kingdom history comes after fall of Korguryo Kingdom.

Yes, Balhae is Korean kingdom.

Manchuria and Korean peninsula always had deep cultural and historical kinship. Ko-chosun, Korguryo, Balhae, Koryo, Chosun kingdom. All those kingdoms has close connection with Manchuria because Manchuria always had been part of Korea and Korean history.

Manchuria had been closely related to Korean history but we can not consider that region as part of Korea.Whlee 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Its historical fact between two Northeastern part region. Manchuria like Tibet, was never part of China historically and culturally.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teacherjjlee (talk).

Manchuria: History and Culture always had been isolated one for China. Reason is Chinese separated what is Chinese territory and what is independent Manchuria by building " GREAT WALL". So Chinese can't really say too much about Manchuria whereas Korean history and Culture is directly link with Manchuria. It was cradle of Korean civilization and birth of Korean Kingdom. ( Ko-Chosun, Korguryo, Palhai, Koryo) all of these Korean Kingdom has close kinship with Manchuria. Simply cannot deny historical and geographical location of the country and culture.

Concerning Manchuria case, I'm agree with you it belongs to China since 1860 but before it didn't belong before (see China Proper article): After the Primorsky Krai area (滨海州) was ceded to Russia in 1860 Treaty of Peking (北京條約), the Manchu/Qing government began to open the area up to migration, which quickly resulted in Han Chinese becoming the dominant ethnic group in the region at the dawn of the twentieth century.Whlee 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think people disagree on whether Balhae is Chinese or Korean, so I don't know why this page is classified under Korean History and written in a pro-korea tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk).

According tomy point of view concerning Balhae Kingdom. It would be very difficult to defend Korean claims on Balhae Kingdom, because :

  • it can be considered as a multi-ethnical nation like Goguryeo was. No written records from Balhae itself survived.
  • Balhae Kingdom was strongly influenced by Chinese Tang dynasty more than Silla was.
  • Unlike Goguryeo, Balhae rarely fought Chinese (only in the beginning under Mu Wang) but sought to expand its hegemony over the Mohe in Manchuria [under Mun Wang (737 - 793) and Seon Wang (818-830)]. Balhae policy was more friendship than Gorguryeo's one were previously.

Although the statements i mentionned above, Balhae belongs to Korean History because :

  • The extreme southern part of Balhae Namhae Prefecture (남해부) and part of the Yongwon Prefecture (용원부) the present-day South and North Hamgyong Province respectively
  • Silla and Balhae fought each other on the beginning of the 8th century and then remained indifferents themselves.
  • After the fall of Balhae (in 926), Goryeo instead of Silla welcome Balhae peoples for an asile first. and in addition to that Goryeo was not able to reconquer southern Balhae territory (Hamgyong Province) which were left and settled by Jurchen, we can also remark that Goryeo Cheonlijangseong built between 1033 and 1044, which serve as a border between Goryeo-Khitan Liao and Jurchens, ran from the mouth of the Yalu River at Uiju to around Hamheung.

Conclusion : Balhae is less "Korean" than Gogouryeo was and should have to be considered as an independent state. Whlee 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on the encyclopedias in the External Links section. Balhae is under Korean history topics. Likewise, the Korean history template belongs in this article. The introduction is pretty clear about the character of the state, being a union of Korean and Malgal people, with Goguryeo ruling class. And yes, the other encyclopedias call Goguryeo "Korean." No need for personal opinions or original research. Etimesoy 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your links classifiy Balhae under Korean History doesn't mean it has anything to do with Korea. I also have tons of links classifying Balhae under Chinese History. I think it's really irresponsible to classify this article under Korean History. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Show me your tons of links then. Thanks to you, you motivate me to learn Chinese.

== Balhae has always has been part of Korean peninsula. Historical and cultural ties are deep between Manchuria and Korean peninsula. Its a Historical fact.

I suggest moving this article out of Korean History. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear Wikipedia user 155.97.195.124, instead of removing relevant external Links, bring also relevant from Chinese sources (or elsewhere) as a proof and i advice you to adopt a neutral point of view policy and consider Balhae as a Manhurian Kindom at least and recognize that this kingdom also belong to Korean history. RegardsWhlee 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you put it under "Korean History" only.
Really?!!!? Have a look below then Mr Chinese nationalist : Category History of China, History of Russia, History of Mandchuria...Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But there is only a "History of Korea" template ON THIS PAGE and no one can be redirected to Chinese/Russian History from this page. Besides, I don't think Personal Attack is APPROPRIATE.
It's also part of Chinese / Russian History.
I know that's why i didn't touch it.Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the whole article reads like an introduction to a Korean country?
You are a little bit right... People have forgotten to add the existence of Andong Protectorate in the southern part of Manchuria we should have to add some words concerning that point.Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's you who don't have a NPOV, not me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Really??? so why have YOU decided to remove some external links ONCE again.
Morality : It is very easy to damage/destroying an article by various means (vandalism, propaganda etc...) than bringing relevant information.
Conclusion : I'm much NEUTRAL than YOU. I will restore them. Imagine that i spent several weeks to found those links painfully... Therefore if you want to be more NPOV then i recommend you to find relevant source/references describing Balhae/Bohai instead of deleting the previous one (like you do several times before). Add them to that article and we will discuss about that latter here OK ? We are not here to fight each other but we should rather use that space to find a compromise and to share our knowledge on Wikipedia. Zaijian. Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted those external links in Korean because this is Wiki English. Mr.Korean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


To show that Balhae should not be a part of Korean history, please provide sources as numerous, reputable, independent, and prominent as these. These sources, which describe Balhae in their Korean history sections, are not blogs or individual writers, but the best tertiary sources that show the expert consensus, just like Wikipedia should be:

  • Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
  • Stearns, Peter N. (ed.). Encyclopedia of World History (6th ed.). The Houghton Mifflin Company/Bartleby.com. the state of Parhae (or Bohai in Chinese)
  • Columbia Encyclopedia
  • U.S. Library of Congress: Country Studies
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art Etimesoy 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in English, not Korean.

I deleted those external links in Korean because this is Wiki English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.101.96.171 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Protection

Please stop the edit warring. Now. As I believing Assault11 (talk · contribs) to be the "more guilty" party in this (that doesn't mean that the others are not guilty parties), I've reverted to the version that he/she disfavors; that is, however, not an endorsement of that version. Please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I believe a History of China template on right side should be included, although I am not sure what the edit war is about. No matter how disputed it is, it certainly play important role in Chinese history, as a local kingdom or not. As you can see, the Chinese characters on the steel showed in the article, somehow no Korean words?--Yeahsoo 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, "Korean words" wouldn't be there since the current form of Korean writing system would not be around for more than another thousand years. Without arguing one way or another as to whether the {{History of China}} template should be included, it should be noted that the template contains no link to Bohai/Balhae. --Nlu (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You might got some points on the templates, if include all the minor local tribe or kingdom in Chinese history, the template might need several pages.

But I think maybe it is time to add some important minor kingdoms now, and then we should add it with no technical excuse.--Yeahsoo 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Yeahsoo is as guilty of edit warring as much as his views are NPOV. I suggest reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&oldid=110478125 before all this ruckus started. He may discuss his views in the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs).

Yeahsoo has an extremely POV attitude. I have reverted at least twice his edits which included labeling of "Korean nationalists". Good friend100 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, you are obviously siding with Yeahsoo, or you wouldn't have put protection on this article without correcting "Korean nationalists" in the first sentence of the article. REMOVE IT. Good friend100 15:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, pardon me, but protecting the wrong version doesn't mean I'm siding with him/her. I'll remove that sentence as vandalism, but watch your attitude. --Nlu (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Balhae (698 - 926) was claimed by Koreans is not NPOV either. Why don't you instead warn the vandalizer(s) instead of protecting the entire article? I think it would be easier to fix the problem by stopping the source of the problem. Good friend100 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your proposed language? In any case, the article was protected because of edit war, not of vandalism. As I said, please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Should be protected for both. "Claimed by Koreans" is vandalism and so is what user Yeahsoo is doing. I am not engaging in an edit war, simply reverting POV edits. Good friend100 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Claimed by Koreans" is not a clear case of vandalism, even if you disagree with it, and even if it is wrong. Also, "simply reverting POV edits" can definitely be edit warring. Even being in the right, if such a right can be established, doesn't mean that reverting is the correct approach, or that it's "not edit warring." Also, if you can step outside yourself for a moment, consider the "assume good faith" policy, and recognize that the person who disagrees with you can be just as convinced that he/she is "right," and therefore justified.zadignose 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not siding with anyone, ok? Balhae is part of China or Korean, chech the category. it even have a history of Russia.

Why say I am "Korean nationalists", that is funny. I just add a Chinese history template together with Korean history tab. I agree that maybe Balhae should add into the template. I do not see the guilty there.--Yeahsoo 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So reverting vandalism is not the right thing to do? Do you think I should erase everything about China in this article and make it entirely Korean POV. Then I guess you can't revert what I did because its "edit warring".
A chinese POV wrote "claimed by Koreans", definitely POV. I could write "claimed by the Chinese" and maybe it wouldnt be a clear case of vandalism like you said.
Almost jaw-dropping, how rv Chinese POV edits are not really vandalism and promotes edit warring while Korean POV edits are immediately erased without much attention. Good friend100 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been filed with regard to this article and Goguryeo. As Goguryeo is the "higher volume" article, the RfC discussion has been directed to Talk:Goguryeo. Please discuss there. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

delete

Please delete "was claimed by Koreans" in the first sentence of this article. It seems you are taking advantage of the situation and keeping it in a POV manner. "Balhae was claimed by Koreans" is POV and grammatically wrong. Even if it should be there it should be called "Balhae is claimed by Koreans". Anyways, delete it because its POV. Good friend100 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, there is a typo in the lead; "was can ancient kingdom" should be "was an ancient kingdom". --Kusunose 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No one but you can edit this article. Its very annoying requesting an edit instead of correcting the problem by yourself. Good friend100 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently protected so I can't fix it. --Kusunose 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am referring to Nlu who has made the situation extremely hard. I do not understand how there is a serious edit war going on. It is simply a couple POV vandalizers that can be easily blocked and/or warned to fix the problem going on in this article. Good friend100 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Balhae "Gao" family

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.[1]--Yeahsoo 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're (or rather, that rather brief article) was mixing up the Gaos. There were many Gaos in Tang government who had nothing to do with Bohai/Balhae. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I know you would say so, but 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 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one. That's not "many." --Nlu (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo

Nlu, please revert what you deleted on the article. Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo.

  • From korea.net ( Yeah, korea.net. That explains something.), it says that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo [2]
  • From Britannica, it says that it was considered a successor to Goguryeo [3]

Good friend100 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is only because they wanted to pretend they were the successor of a powerful nation that had defeated the Tang army several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Why don't those pro-korea guys cite the original ancient Asian documents instead of repeating the junks of those "Mr.Know All" in U.K ?

Deiaemeth's comment below explains your question. Good friend100 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Balhae get the name from Tang

Balhae established by Mohe people, at first it called "Zhen". Tang granted the title "Bohai Junwang", that is the origin of Balhae.[4]--Yeahsoo 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources as numerous, reputable, independent, and prominent as these. These sources, which describe Balhae in their Korean history sections, are not blogs or individual writers or Korean-produced, but they are the best neutral tertiary sources that show the expert consensus, just like Wikipedia should:
Those "encyclopedias" are written by the American/British who are pro-korea because they were on the side of South Korea in the Korea War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I really don't understand why those koreans trust contemporary interpretation of Asian history by westerners rather than the original documents written houndreds of years ago. The authors of those encyclopedias never really understand Asian history/cultures.
If you don't think those encyclopedias are not reliable sources because the authors they "never realy understand Asian history/cultures" and "favor South Korea because of the Korean War", please take that discussion up to the respective pages - Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not original interpretation of ancient texts which every editor seem to have different intrepretation of. Deiaemeth 07:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove all the Korean in this article before the dispute is resolved

It looks like to me that the current block of editing is in favor of the Korean view of Balhae history. Please delete the "Korean History" template and all the pro-korean text in this article before the dispute is resolved. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

      • Yes, Balhae is always a vassal in China, "Korean History" should not include it, although Chinese history template did not include Balhae, but that is bacause it is too manny vassals to be included, and Korean History template is simple, but it should not include Chinese vassal.--Yeahsoo 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the title of your subheading, I don't understand why the Korean history template should be removed. A link can always be placed in the Chinese history template, there always is room. A history template is placed to show how the kingdom was part of the country's history. You can at least agree that Balhae is part of Korean history. Good friend100 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree Balhae is related with Korean history, for the same reason,Chinese history template should be included, as it is also in history of China category, even the template does not have balhae link. if include all minor gov in the template, there will be more than one thousand links, geez. Maybe it is good to make a template for Chinese history eastnorth area so less content shall be included--Yeahsoo 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just have a question. Why are Chinese people claiming that Goguryeo and Balhae is theirs so suddenly? It may seem racist to the Chinese, but I just do not understand why u guys were quite for a looooong time, and then suddenly bursting out to take Goguryeo and Balhae. I apologize for my unneutrality and incoviniance. Je comprende pas! Le Coree a Goguyei et Balhaie quod le shine mal.Orthodxy 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Power of state-controlled media! Merumerume 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree!!!!


I lived in the united states for the past 7 years, what are u talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Remider:Chinese name should be above Korean name here

I hereby paste the Admin comment as a reminder, the below is from Talk:Goguryeo:--Yeahsoo 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "I think a compromise needs to be first reached on Goguryeo. The Balhae issue is a separate one and needs to be dealt with separately. (But yes, I do think that the Chinese name should be above the Korean in that article -- but again, that's something to be discussed later -- but I'd also be advocating adding the Russian name.) If there is no way to reach a compromise here as to Goguryeo, it bodes poorly for the hopes of doing so eventually universality.

I oppose "Northeast Area of China" (or any variation thereof) as cumbersome and historically problematic -- because what constitutes the "Northeast Area" of China was constantly shifting throughout history. It is for the same reason why I felt it was boneheaded for the Republic of China authorities to refer to the Indochina Peninsula -- as problematic as that name itself was -- as the "Central-Southern Peninsula" (中南半島) -- not only did it show disrespect to the people of the region but, even when that problem was ignored, it was not historically accurate. I can be convinced, otherwise, though, if there are good reasons, and I don't see any right now. Again, "Manchuria" was coined by Hong Taiji, not the Japanese. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"

Admins are not the absolute voice in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant

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)

WP:NCGN Violation

There are numerous violations of WP:NCGN in this article. WP:NCGN states that 'When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it'. Manchuria is an archaic names which describes the modern geographic region of NE China in the period from 1635 to 1945. In the modern context, that name is called NE China, and should be used instead of Manchuria. Using Manchuria to describe the region out of its relevant historical period of 1635 to 1945 is therefore a violation of WP:NCGN. Will the editors here please correct the violations.
Wiki Pokemon 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Map caption: 'Balhae territory at the height of properity'

THAT MAP IS NEEDED BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT TAKE OUT PICTURS AND INFORMATION REGARDING TO THIS TOPIC.

What is 'properity'? Mumun 無文 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Prosperity probably. I guess the map needs some rework. Cydevil38 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll replace it with the modified version that says "Balhae's territory at its greatest extent". Cydevil38 00:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! ㅋ ㅋ Mumun 無文 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived

1) Add Back Previous Map ( Red/ Green) Balhae Map. Much more precise map. Please add back the area. Everyone has the right to know about Korean Kingdoms. DO NOT ERASE OR TAKE OUT PICTURE AND INFORMATION. KEEP THE INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED.



PLEASE ADD THE MAP!!! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BEAUTIFUL MAP OF BALHAE!!! UPDATE AND MAP IS NEEDED. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanstudy1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the map??? Please add the map. Deeply appreciated. MAP IS NEEDED!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherjj1 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now archived this page since it was almost 230 kb long and Wikipedia guideline suggest archiving pages larger than 32 KB. Deiaemeth 08:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've archived material prior to April of this year. zadignose 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't this article at "Bohai"?

The founders were Mohe, not Korean. The only historical records - whether of Chinese or native origin - are written in classical Chinese. It seems a stretch to me to say that "the founder, though Mohe, served the Goguryo, and the Goguryo are sort of Korean, kind of, and so therefore the Bohai must be Korean".

Is NASA a Nazi German institution because Werner von Braun previously served the German Nazi regime? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your example is seriously flawed because the founder's origin from Malgal is not a hard fact. Just like NASA, located in the US and serves the states, Balhae was located on the Korean peninsula and has been regarded as one of the kingdoms of Korea by scholars. The state consisted of Koreans and Malgal people too. Besides, if your logic were so right, British people have become French or Danish or German because their country was ruled by several kings from such the foreign countries? Please refrain yourself from pushing CPOV here again like you did on ume article. --Appletrees (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Parhae founded by Malgals? Since when? Don't tell me you actually think the Malgals, who backstabbed Koguryo, are the direct decendents of the Manchus ...and that somehow makes them Chinese enough that this article should be moved to the god awful sounding "Bohai."

Please take your fantasies elsewhere. Kuebie (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The capital of Bohai is located in modern (and traditional) Chinese territory. Its founder was Mohe - and even if that is disputed, what is the evidence that he is Korean in the modern sense of the word?
The nation, as far as it can be determined, wrote its own records in Chinese, not ancient Korean (if such a thing exists).
Appletrees - what is CPOV, and can you point out what you are referring to at ume instead of making wild and blanket accusations?
You say Bohai is "located on the Korean peninsula" - it is not. It ruled from what is today China, a portion of its territory being in what is today Korea. By your argument, China is also Korean because various Chinese dynasties ruled territories which are today a part of Korea. It is a flawed argument.
You say Bohai is regarded as a "Korean kingdom". I haven't seen such an argument except in sources of Korean origin.
Kuebie, I don't understand what you are saying. What evidence do you have that the Mohe "backstabbed Goguryo"? What evidence do you have, in fact, that Goguryo is "Korean" in the modern sense? And I do not understand what you are saying when you say the Mohe are the direct descendants of the Manchus at all. The Manchus arose several centuries after, they cannot be the ancestors of the Mohe.
Can one of you present a coherent list of the arguments for why this article is at a Korean pronunciation of the Chinese name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is what you're holding now.
I wrote the past tense, not present as writing "was" located on the Korean peninsula. So please carefully distinguish other people's comment. I also haven't heard such claim except you bringing up here. Perhaps what you need the most is logical argument here. The mention of the ume is actually not a sole opinion and your argument was shown and pointed out as such by some people. --Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are still no or very little evidence to support Balhae was exclusively Mohe people, today there are no or very little Mohe people in current location of past Balhae boarders, certainly China can not claim it as their as Mohe aren't Chinese, after the Qing Empire resign, most of Mohe were pushed off and evntually destroyed by Russian expansion at far Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.

If you study Balhae's artifacts and relics it carries strong Goguryeo influence because of high class people in Balhae was Goguryeo ethnicity, not a single Chinese ethnics were living within Balhae's territory. Balhae should be put under Korean history because of founding factions were survival of Goguryeo & Baekje not Mohe or Chinese. Mohe were just another ethnicity that lived under Balhae's dominion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Balhae is a shared history between what's today's Korea and Chinese Republic. It's a history of Manchuria, and of neither nations. Therefore the article shouldn't be biased towards either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huang Tai Ji (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when, how about inviting Russia into sharing Balhae's history as well then? Russia confirmed it was part of Proto-Korean speaking cultural history, even Japan, EC members and America confirmed it should be part of ancient Korean history. Case over, Chinese have nothing do with Balhae culture or its people.--Korsentry 05:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)


Yalu vs. Amrok

I've changed hearts and eyes considered only the land south of the Yalu as their .. to hearts and eyes considered only the land south of the Amrok... This is because the original was written by a Korean author and not a Chinese person. Koreans don't call the river Yalu; that's a Chinese name. We call it the Amrok. I just wanted to be very clear on this because some people think that the river Yalu is called Yalu by everyone around the world; sorry, that isn't the case. Idoversuperego (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Amrok is actually more native name of that river, Yalu is name that used later times, only by the Chinese.

Either way Yalu is the international used name now. Amrok would be used only by Koreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.40.35 (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mohe vs Malgal

In its current form the article uses both "Mohe" and "Malgal" for the same entity. I would prefer "Malgal" as that more closely approximates the pronounciation of the Chinese character-phoneticization of the time of the article. Comments? Doc Rock (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this name change. Not only have Koreans been calling the people once up North "Malgaljok" (말갈족/靺鞨族) for centuries, they are closely related to the development of Parhae than to some other obscure Chinese polities. Undoubtly under the sphere of Korean history so the respective name should be used. Kuebie (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Mohe, Malgal, and 靺鞨 mean the same thing, but the Wikipedia article name is under Mohe. That is why "Mohe" is used here. You can't just change it because it's called "Malgal" in Korea. If you wish to change the article name in the English Wikipedia, you should follow the procedure at WP:RM.--Endroit (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Malgal is more correct way to describe them, even Mohe or Malgal themselves called Malgal rather than Mohe.

It should be the majority of historical sources about the Mohe/Malgal are in Chinese, and they largely did not live in what is now Korea. I do not believe that using "Malgal" here or in the Mohe article is appropriate. It is sufficient to note the different pronunciation in the languages and move on. --Nlu (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Then use the proper Jurchen word for replacement of Mohe, Mohe doesn't sound anything like local to real Jurchen people; it's Chinese therefore require replacement. Mohe or malgal wasn't even Chinese begin with. Korsentry 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohe/Malgal were Tungustic people and came from the same language branch (Manchu or Southern Branch) as the Jurchen. They WERE Chinese to begin with, first envoy to Chinese rulers in 1100 BC during the reign of King Wu Wang of Zhou Dynasty. Karolus 2009/12/29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.182.16 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

I don't have any great interest in this article, but can we agree not to delete sourced information just because it doesn't fit our POV? Deleting sourced information that you associate with a nationalist Chinese perspective (because that information contradicts your nationalist Korean perspective) is against the guidelines expressed at WP:UNDUE.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Balhae → Bohai – Bohai is the most common English name per WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Google Book
"Balhae" Kingdom 435
"Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 2,410
"Balhae Kingdom" 99
"Bohai Kingdom" -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 345
  • Google Scholar
"Balhae" Kingdom 63
"Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 969
"Balhae Kingdom" 9
"Bohai Kingdom" -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 94
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, Bohai is primarily used as a geographical term to refer to a Chinese bay or sea. Furthermore, Bohai possesses many alternate meanings like Bohai university, Bohai Bay and Bohai industries etc. Please take a look at Bohai (disambiguation). To the contrary, Balhae does not have any alternate meanings. So it is not necessary to type "Balhae state" to get the search results on Balhae. As for the english spelling of the ancient kingdom, the pages of renowned English encyclopedias and other publications show that the romanization from Korean is how this kingdom is known in english: Britannica [6] Encyc World History Columbia Encyc US Lib of Congress Met Museum [7] [8]. But, on the pages titled "Bohai" say the primary meaning of bohai is Bohai Sea: Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam Webster Online, and American Heritage Dictionary. Jagello (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. "Bohai" is more commonly used in the scholarly literature for the kingdom than "Balhae" is. References to the bay and sea were clearly excised from the search results, and both "kingdom" and "state" appended to make things clear. We could do some kind of disambiguation like "Bohai Kingdom" if the sea is more well-known than the historical entity. Also, Jagello's links favor "Parhae", not "Balhae". Shrigley (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. According to the above-linked results, Google Book and Scholar have clearly failed to excise Bohai, a Chinese geographic term from the search results of "Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay": For exemple, Bohai Gulf, Gulf of Bohai, Sea of Bohai, Bay of Bohai, Bohai area, Bohai commandary, Bohai University, Bohai Basin etc. Based on the English usage of Bohai, which predominantly refer to the Chinese sea and its coastal and adjacent areas, there is no reason to rename this article from Balhae to Bohai. For reference, Parhae is the most commonly used name for the kingdom in the academic publications in English than Balhae or Bohai. Jagello (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit war

Over this being a Korean kingdom? As it was one of those from the three kingdoms period what exactly is wrong with saying it was a Korean kingdom? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the reference to Balhae being a Korean kingdom in the lead: that probably got deleted by accident or out of hand, and I think that you can feel comfortable restoring that reference. I am mostly concerned about the removal of sourced data without discussion, under the rationale that it should be removed because it represents a "nationalist Chinese POV". I think this is contradictory to WP:UNDUE.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not realized other content had also been removed. I shall restore the fact that it was a Korean kingdom as that is not an issue Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Balhae (698 – 926) (Hangul:발해, Korean pronunciation: [paɾɦɛ], Bohai [渤海] in Chinese, Бохай or Пархэ in Russian) was a Chinese kingdom"

??? that is outright bizarre. whatever disputes you are having about whether Bargae was Korean or Tungusic/proto-Jurchen (probably the best way to describe it), how on earth can you come up with the fantasy that it was Chinese? that is misleading in the worst way.

Walt 45805 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 13th century census of China by the Mongols

The Mongols called Southern Han Chinese Nanren(南人), who lived in what had been Southern Song(1127–1279) China, and considered them distinct from Northern Han Chinese, Hanren(漢人). Surely, this do not necessarily suggests that Southern Han Chinese distinguished themselves from Northern Han Chinese. The 13th century census of Northern China by the Mongols distinguished Balhae from other ethnic groups such as Goryeo, Khitan and Jurchen. Considering the example above, this cannot be an valid argument to suggest that the Balhae people distinguished themselves from Goryeo and Jurchen(Mohe).Jagello (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The passage you deleted was not under the section on disputes and was not used to make the argument you ascribed to it. Do not simply remove descriptive information based on whether they support your POV. Reverted.Lathdrinor (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The text contains, along with the quotation from a primary source, original synthesis which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.Jagello (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the original synthesis. It is now only a statement about the Mongol census. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

About a claim in the Book of Tang

The first section says this: "In the New Book of Tang, it was recorded that the founder of Balhae, Dae Joyeong (大祚榮) was a former Goguryeo general." I did an electronic search of both the Old Book of Tang and the New Book of Tang, but found no mention that Dae Joyeong was a former Goguryeo general. Here's what the two books say:

  • Old Book of Tang (ch. 199B [199下], p. 5360 of the standard Zhonghua shuju edition): 渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。高麗既滅，祚榮率家屬徙居營州。萬歲通天年，契丹李盡忠反叛，祚榮與靺鞨乞四比羽各領亡命東奔，保阻以自固。盡忠既死，則天命右玉鈐衛大將軍李楷固率兵討其餘黨，先破斬乞四比羽，又度天門嶺以迫祚榮。祚榮合高麗、靺鞨之眾以拒楷固，王師大敗，楷固脫身而還。屬契丹及奚盡降突厥，道路阻絕，則天不能討，祚榮遂率其眾東保桂婁之故地，據東牟山，築城以居之。
祚榮驍勇善用兵，靺鞨之眾及高麗餘燼，稍稍歸之。聖曆中，自立為振國王，遣使通于突厥。其地在營州之東二千里，南與新羅相接。越憙靺鞨東北至黑水靺鞨，地方二千里，編戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬人。風俗與高麗及契丹同，頗有文字及書記。中宗即位，遣侍御史張行岌往招慰之。祚榮遣子入侍，將加冊立，會契丹與突厥連歲寇邊，使命不達。睿宗先天二年，遣郎將崔訢往冊拜祚榮為左驍衞員外大將軍、渤海郡王，仍以其所統為忽汗州，加授忽汗州都督，自是每歲遣使朝貢。
開元七年，祚榮死，玄宗遣使弔祭，乃冊立其嫡子桂婁郡王大武藝襲父為左驍衛大將軍、渤海郡王、忽汗州都督。
  • New Book of Tang (ch. 219, pp. 6179-80 of the standard edition): 渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率眾保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河為境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之。
萬歲通天中，契丹盡忠殺營州都督趙翽反，有舍利乞乞仲象者，與靺鞨酋乞四比羽及高麗餘種東走，度遼水，保太白山之東北，阻奧婁河，樹壁自固。武后封乞四比羽為許國公，乞乞仲象為震國公，赦其罪。比羽不受命，后詔玉鈐衞大將軍李楷固、中郎將索仇擊斬之。是時仲象已死，其子祚榮引殘痍遁去，楷固窮躡，度天門嶺，祚榮因高麗、靺鞨兵拒楷固，楷固敗還。於是契丹附突厥，王師道絕，不克討。祚榮即幷比羽之眾，恃荒遠，乃建國，自號震國王，遣使交突厥，地方五千里，戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬，頗知書契，盡得扶餘、沃沮、弁韓、朝鮮海北諸國。中宗時，使侍御史張行岌招慰，祚榮遣子入侍。睿宗先天中，遣使拜 祚榮為左驍衞大將軍、渤海郡王，以所統為忽汗州，領忽汗州都督，自是始去靺鞨號，專稱渤海。

To summarize, Old Book of Tang says that upon the fall of Goguryeo, Dae Joyeong led his family to Yingzhou (高麗既滅，祚榮率家屬徙居營州) and that he was a good military leader (祚榮驍勇善用兵), whereas New Book of Tang says nothing at all about Dae's position in Goguryeo. Interestingly, Old Book of Tang claims that Dae was originally a member of a branch of the Goguryeo royal family (渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也), but New Book of Tang doesn't repeat this claim. Anyway, unless I missed something, I think I've shown that the two Books of Tang do not call Dae Joyeong a former Goguryeo general, so I think we should delete that sentence from our wiki. Comments? Madalibi (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the term '別種'

The term or expression 別種, was used in old Chinese texts tracing the origins(族源) of foreign nations or tribes as below:

<舊唐書>

高麗(Goguryeo)者出者夫餘(Buyeo)地別種也

日本(Japan)國者倭(Wa)國之別種也

別種, literally meaning ‘an offshoot nation or tribe’, which had been parted from the origin nation.

<新五代史>

武后時契丹攻北邊高麗(Goguryeo)別種大乞乞仲象與靺鞨(Mohe)酋長乞四比羽走遼東分王高麗故地

The above passage strongly indicates that Dae Jung sang and Qisi biyu had different ethnic backround. Therefore this clearly excludes a possibility that Dae Jung sang could have been of Mohe origin. As for Dae Jung sang, who was not a nation but a person, it would be better from its context to translate 別種 to ‘a member of a branch of ..’ as Madalibi translated it above.

Logically, '高麗別種' should mean 'originally branched from the Goguryeo.' or, as Madalibi translated it 'originally branched from the Goguryeo royal family'. Jagello (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This entire exchange falls under WP:NOR. Keep in mind that Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources in cases where there is controversy over the interpretation of primary sources. The Talk page is not a forum for original research.Lathdrinor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
In this case, controversy over the interpretation of primary sources is due to a modern geopolitical issue rather than an academic disputes. I think Madalibi's translation is quite reasonable. Jagello (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:NOR again. The criteria for inclusion is not your opinion, but the availability of citable, scholarly, peer reviewed sources. Your position that Dae Jung Sang 'could not have been of Mohe origin' on the basis of your own reading of Chinese texts contradicts sources cited in this very article and thus violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The opposite view - that Dae Jung Sang was of Korean origin - is already mentioned and cited. It's not your place to censor the other side. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead

Regarding this revert, it's not reasonable to suppress the ethnic origins controversy of Balhae/Bohai in the lead, because a substantial portion of the article is dedicated to covering it. As for the argument that the Tang Dynasty was multiethnic, that's true. On Wikipedia, the Tang is not described as a "Han Chinese empire" but rather as an empire that ruled China. User:Jagello and others' favored lead for this article anachronistically describes Balhae as an ethnic Korean empire; not as one that ruled parts of the Korean peninsula and northeast China, and whose rulers came from both. Shrigley (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the body of the article, and the article makes it explicit that Balhae/Bohai was a multi-ethnic kingdom. It's worth noting that the term "Northeast China" only constitutes "inner Manchuria", and is anachronistic if used to describe Manchuria before 1949. The historical term "Manchuria" includes the portion of Manchuria that is presently part of China, and "outer Manchuria", which is now controlled by Russia, and is a more accurate reflection of the area occupied by Balhae/Bohai. I'm not aware of any evidence that "Balhae" is used more commonly in international publications than "Bohai", or even "Paekche".Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This "inner Manchuria"/"outer Manchuria" distinction is one very likely created by Wikipedians and not used anywhere else. (See this discussion.) I disagree with you about the use of "Manchuria" before 1949, but since it's not very relevant to this article, we can have that conversation later at Talk:Manchuria with sources. In the lead paragraph listing the territory that this northeast Asian kingdom controlled, "Manchuria" is placed side by side with "Primorsky Krai". The latter name should be a signal that we are using present-day toponyms as a reference. Shrigley (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually the expression “Korean” in the lead had been linked to the page Koreans, an ethnic group of East Asia, but I recently changed the link to the article Korea, which is an East Asian civilization. Consequently, your concern has been resolved shortly ago. Jagello (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I added Bohai Kingdom in list of Tungusic states: Tungusic_peoples#List_of_Tungusic_states Dersere (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to change the titles: Balhae Rulers should be "Emperors" and Balhae should be an empire not a kingdom.

The very definition of an empire is having multiple ethnicity in a country. In balhae, there were multiple races ruled by one such as the mohe and koreans. Also, Balhae is one of the list of all empires that have existed.[1] Therefore, Balhae should be an empire not a kingdom. As a result, only emperors rules empires. Kings dont rule empires they rule kingdoms. So, the rulers should be emperors as well.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Balhae can be considered BOTH as an empire AND a kingdom by definition. However, we generally follow what English-language sources say in English Wikipedia. For example, both the book "Korean History in Maps" (Page 62) and the book "Things Newcomers Need to Know to Live in Korea" (Page 16) refer to Balhae as the "Balhae kingdom". --Cartakes (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes but those books are heavily influenced by the chinese and japanese government. Those sources are not directly from korean historical documents that claims themselves emperors and empire. It is because the chinese and japanese influenced our history during the colonial period that the western or english users also adapted their sources which claims balhae to be a mere kingdom. This is because the traitors that sold our country to japan are still in rule today as presidents and other positions. Therefore, the south korean government teaches a japanese influenced history today which is why english users think balhae as a kingdom. In North Korea however, they got rid of all the traitors and teaches accurate history. I wanted to reveal this truth by changing the imperial rank. North korea uses empire and emperor for balhae. I hope you would understand and allow me to change it.Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can see what you mean. However, according to the Wikipedia policy we simply follow the common English-language usages in English Wikipedia. We must follow the Wiki policy in Wikipedia. If you are interested, you can request the English-language book writers/publishers to use "empire" instead of "kingdom" for Balhae. However, unless (and until) "empire" becomes more common than "kingdom" for Balhae in English sources, we still need to follow the common name policy in Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me where and how i could submit a request to the English-language book writers/publishers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this will be completely outside the scope of Wikipedia, so I can't directly answer you about this. You need to find a way yourself. However, I need to remind you that I am not saying whether your opinions are right or wrong. The authors/publishers will probably be able to judge them by themselves. --Cartakes (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Im really sorry if im taking up your time but could you tell me examples of the authors and publishers so i can research their work and contact them? I would appreciate it if you would....Stevenloveswaffles15 (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

One way I can think of is to search for Google Books and find such authors or publishers. But again, I am not saying your view is right or wrong, or whether you should actually try to do this. --Cartakes (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Balhae. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Balhae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Balhae controversies split

This split is justified as there are notability and neutrality issues with the Politicization section. Koraskadi (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits on Mohe

Whether Dae Joyeong was a Mohe is controversial. There are three different theories to his ethnic background. The only consistent fact is that he was a Goguryeo general, and it is best to leave at it that and mention his ethnic status elsewhere in more detail.

The two paragraphs below are exclusively based on primary sources and therefore cannot be used without expert interpretation.

  • The Chinese Tongdian and Korean Samguk sagi said that Balhae's origin was of the Sumo Mohe people and its leader Dae Joyeong founded the state using a Mohe name Zhendan 震旦, and later abolished the Mohe title and changed the name to Balhae.[17] The Japanese Ruijū Kokushi said that when Dae Joyeong established Balhae, it was entirely made out of Mohe tribes, the majority of the population was Mohe and the original natives were rare.[18] The Chinese Old Book of Tang said Dae Joyeong was a different kind of "Gogoryeoan" from normal Goguryeo people. The Chinese New Book of Tang says that Dae Joyeong was a Sumo Mohe.[19] The Korean Samguk yusa said Dae Joyeong was Sumo Mohe.[20]
  • The Goryeosa said in 918 the people residing in Pyongyang were barbarians and not Koreans.[21] The Goryeo said in 993 the people between Liaoyang and Pyongyang were Jurchens.[22]

The paragraph below has five citations.

  • Western historians have said Balhae was founded by a Mohe family,[23][24][25] of "non-Korean ethnic origins".[26][27]

These five citations actually come from three sources, and authors of those sources do not represent the Western academics. Please bring this controversy to Balhae controversies. Koraskadi (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether Dae Joyeong was a Goguryeo general is controversial.

The two paragraphs below are exclusively based on primary sources and therefore cannot be used without expert interpretation.

  • when the first king, former Goguryeo general[2][3]
  • Dae Jung-sang, a former Goguryeo official[17][18]--133.137.53.77 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that case, both should be left out until someone can come with reliable sources. Koraskadi (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Balhae is Korean

BALHAE IS KOREAN KINGDOM. KINGDOM WAS ESTABLISH BY KORGURYO KING. PLUS KOREANS ABSORBED MANCHURIANS AND MONGOLS.

First, let's see the facts.

Which racial and ethnic category do Mohe(Malgal) fall into?? Simply, the first Korean Unification came under Gwanggaeto the Great, by his standards, who he considered one people, one blood. Gwanggaeto the Great, as a Goguryeo leader, united his Goguryeo with the Mohe, Malgal, Shilla and Baekje as "One People." With so many walls that he had captured and conquered within these peoples regions, he obviously did not go past the "Great Wall of China."

Second, what is Great Wall of China?? Today and by historical definition, a wall or a fence is set to distinguish itself or themselves from their neighbors. The Great Wall, that stretched so far East and West on Northern part of China, and also by historical records of Sui Dynasty, considered the GokTurks and Goguryeo people as "Northern Barbarians." Thus, the ancient Chinese clearly seperated themselves from the Northern people.

Third, what was beyond the Great Wall of China?? Beyond the Great Wall of China, there was initially GokTurks and Goguryeo to the North and Shilla and Baekje to the East. All three kingdoms, Goguryeo, Shilla and Baekje used Chinese Characters even though they were ethnically Korean. Then, why do the Chinese historians claim that only Goguryeo(that had the strongest millitary power of the three) is their history? Why not the other two? Old Japanese(Yamato Civilization) mostly consisted of Kanji(Chinese Characters) as well before Hiragana was made, yet, the Chinese historians do not apply their same theory into claiming that all these Kingdoms were infact, Chinese.

Fourth, what is happening elsewhere?? On Youtube and other web sources, many CCP (Chinese Communist Party) members are blatantly posting up distorted scientific facts about Korean DNA. In every world encyclopedia it clearly says Koreans are under the Altaic group. Both DNA testing lead by Han Jun Jin and by Taiwanese DNA testing, it is clear that Koreans are of the Altai Mountains/Siberia origin, yet, many distorted videos are all over Youtube and many distorted links lurk the internet, claiming that Koreans are South Asian. If China rightfully claims that Goguryeo and Balhae history is Chinese, why make these distortion on scientific facts as well, very obviously and blatantly.

Fifth, tackling the tradition of the Altaic people. Turks, Mongols, Mohe(Malgal), Khitans, Balhae, Goguryeo, Goryeo and Shilla people were Cavalry Archers. Unique warfare to the categorized and defined as Altaic people. Traditional, horse riders that used bow and arrows in battles. These groups are defined as Nomadic and Tribal compared to the Chinese, who were settled.

Sixth, traditions, folklores, myths and cultures passed down to which modern day people? Food tradition, for example "Bean Paste(DwenJang)" was a unique emergency food source for the Goguryeo and Balhae people. "Wrestling(Shi-Reum)" is passed down to Koreans from Goguryeo and Balhae times, and a similiar culture is shared with Mongols as well. Not in China. Also, tales about the achievements of the great generals, great kings, religious practices, etc. were passed down to Koreans, not the Chinese. For example, the story of "Ondal the Fool."

Seventh, I can go on with this all day. Instead of making just simple and nonsensical claims, please bring forth the evidence that Balhae and Goguryeo is Chinese history. Stop repeating the same things over and over, like "Goguryeo and Balhae wrote Chinese Characters" because all three ancient Koreans kingdoms did, so did Japan. Do not try to settle us down by saying Balhae history belongs to both Korea and China. Here is a great example, The Ottoman Empire stretched far into Northern Africa and Eastern Europe, and because these conquered territories are now Greece, Balkans, Egypt, etc. This does not mean Ottoman history is Greek or Balkan, the glory is given to the Ottoman Turks. It is the same with Napolean. Napolean conquered many neighboring European nations, this does not mean the neighboring nations can claim the greatness of Napoloean, the glory belongs to France. Thank you.

Ryunbaik (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong! Koreans are majority O3a and O2 haplotypes, which are most commonly found in northern China. The Mongol haplotype of C appears among 15% of Korean men, and Q, the tungusic marker appears even less. You cannot make up DNA. Most Korean men, over 50% are descended from the same stock as southeast Asians and Han Chinese. Very few (less than a quarter) are of northern steppe stock. -Krusader6 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Greal Wall began construction in very early times and does not limit Chinese settlements beyond the wall. Settlements including Lo-lang (CHN) / Nangnang (KOR) reaching into the pennisula.

You will have to explain (5) - since when was Korea a major "Cavalry Archers" force instead of a "settled" civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.40.35 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Bohai and Silla were enemy states for almost 300 years. They send envoys to both Tang China's Central Government and Japan, Bohai trying to ally with Japan to counter Silla, and Silla trying to ally with Tang Central Government to ease the pressure from Bohai and the Northern Chinese's military governors in Hebei, Inner Mongolia and Liaoning. It is all part of highly complicated political games that lasted until the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, when the Mongols ruled all of East Asia. Koreans should started to love Silla, as Hanguk really started from Silla, and nothing else. Karolus 2009/12/29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.182.16 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no recorded of wars between Balhae and Silla. You're forgetting Goryeo ended Silla from Korea. Goryeo claimed all of Goguryeo as it's foundation.--Korsentry 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

"Korean" ethnicity today are people of Korean peninsula who speak Korean, and have immediate ancestors from Joseon dynasty. You can claim Goguryeo and Balhae as Korean all day long, but if the majority of them did not move south and join goryeo to become the ancestors of modern Korea, then they are not Korean. Through Samguksagi we already know that goguryeo spoke a different language from Silla. And the language of Silla is what became modern Korean. Very few Goguryeo and Balhae people surrendered to Silla and Goryeo. The majority of Goguryeo people, including the Royals and the aristocrats were taken captive to Yunnan. This is established fact. The majority of Balhae people were enslaved and absorbed by the Liaos, and then the Jurchens of Jin. By the way, Samguksagi does not claim Balhae as of Korean stock, and omits its history within its texts. And this work was written only a century after the fall of Balhae. For Koreans to insist on Balhae being Korean, when they possess no historical records from Balhae is logically unsupportable. Sure, certain Joseon scholars wrote about it 800 years after the fact. But truth remains, very few Koreans today are descended from Balhae people. Just look at how many have the last name "Tae." Insisting on this because one derives most of his historical education from watching K-drama such as Dae JoYoung is not scholarship. Krusader6 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, most of details surrounding Balhae royal family and it's ruling clans are actually from Korean source plus book of Tang dynasty and no Chinese were involved in creation of Balhae while Balhae allowed many ex-Korean people to settled into their kingdom and furthermore many artefacts from Balhae's archaeological sites clearly shows strong Korean influences and Both North & South Korean scholars and academics does claim Balhae as part of Korea's North & South States history. --Korsentry — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to cover all the subjects to verify your claim that Goguryeo and Balhae have no relevance to modern Koreans at all, then you'll have to bring recent updates with strong fundamentals that can be reliable. Your historical ideologies exactly coincide with that of the scholars affiliated with China's government-funded Northeast Project, when history should be a non-governmental field guaranteed of independence and objectivity. If we start with genetics, recent updates and papers covering the affiliation of the Rama-dong tombs and its genetic affinity were proposed by the Chinese anthropologists from Jilin University, one of the best in China, led by Professor/Dr. Zhu-Hong. The tombs were in fact those of the Buyeo people whom the Goguryeo, Baekje, and ultimately Balhae folks is said to have descended from. From the constructing methods to the curves of the tomb, they found out that it was not a Xianbei tomb but an original Buyeo tomb of those who were forced to live inland of Xianbei territory. Additional researches led by Jilin University confirmed that these Buyeo folks and modern Koreans almost had an identical match in terms of genetic composition and specifics as well. To add more, artifacts and tombs found in South Korea's Kimhae county were identical to that of the Buyeo Tombs of Rama-dong. You've once asserted that modern Koreans descend from Shilla, but in fact Shilla had a smaller population than that of Baekje and Goguryeo. It was still the same even after they subdued the Gaya confederacy after a series of invasions during the time of Beophung of Shilla. Plus, never forget that Shilla lost a good portion of its population due to the two-front war fought against Baekje and Goguryeo during the period from Jinpyeong of Shilla to Munmu of Shilla. Korea's research team of Chung-Ang univerity also clarified that modern Koreans (South) are mostly related to the Baekje folks from the Chungcheong province (忠淸道). Along the same lines, evidence regarding the linguistic similarities between the would-be Goguryeo language and Shilla language is repetitive throughout historical textbooks. Ancient Chinese history books 後漢書, 梁書, 南史, 偉略, 遼史 all indicate that the people of Goguryeo, Baekje, Shilla shared the same mindset(ideologies), lifestyles(Clothing and Food), and ultimately, language. Goguryeo and Baekje folks didn't have any problem communicating with one another. Concurrently, Shilla envoys needed the translation of Baekje officials to communicate with their Chinese counterparts for diplomacy and trade. If we move on to the North-South State Period consisted of Balhae and Shilla, it was the Shilla folks known as 新羅語學 that were in charge of the Balhae emissaries for direct translation with the officials of Heian Japan. There are also records in the Japanese historical record 靑華天皇紀錄 872年 5月27日 where Japanese officials who were skilled in the Korean language did not know how to differentiate a Balhae and Shilla man as they spoke the same language. So there were many cases where Shilla swindlers cladded themselves as Balhae traders to smuggle goods and supplies. "We already know that Goguryeo and Shilla spoke different languages." I don't know where this is coming from (Chinese government?), but you need to know that both Korean and Chinese sources state that the Three Kingdoms places its root in the ancient Korean kingdom of Gojoseon. The scripts written on Goguryeans' tombed found across North Korea and China indicate that these ancient Koreans viewed themselves as "Yodong(遼東)Joseon folks(朝鮮人)" or "Joseon(朝鮮)Samhan folks(三韓人)", while the Shilleans themselves originate from the six villages of Gojoseon folks as well. Goguryeo and Balhae were undoubtly Korean states as they've viewed themselves as part of the Samhansphere or the Joseon-kin. They spoke the same languages and shared the same customs with their southern counterparts of Baekje, Shilla, and Gaya. Plus, many of the people of Goguryeo may have been dispersed, but a great portion of them have been absorbed into the fold of Korean territories of Balhae and Shilla, as long with their cultural-historical-ethnical legacy. It wasn't the "majority" that were relocated to China after the fall but a "portion" as many were left to stay in the lands of the once-been kingdom. These people would later on conjoin with their kin that escaped Yeongju by sizeable amounts after the Battle of Dongmosan. After the fall of Balhae, the a great portion of the Balhae populace seeked refuge in Goryeo, which was a good thing for Goryeo but an unfortune for their counterparts that remained to conduct revival movements. Meanwhile, the nation "Later Goguryeo" itself initially started as a state consisted of Goguryeo refugees that held substantial powers over the northern territories of Shilla across Hansanju. Also known as the "Local Rulers of Paeseo (浿西豪族)", they were led by a descendant of a Goguryeo Noble family who would later be known as Wanggeon of Goryeo, the founder of the nation "Korea". Wanggeon not only united his Goguryeo kin inside Shilla, but also outside of Shilla by accepting the ongoing mass influx of Balhae refugees, many of them consisting of elites (royals, nobles, landlords, generals, etc). He also permitted the ancestral rites of Balhae as a symbolization to ensure that the essence of Balhae lives on in Korea by giving power to the once-royals of Balhae. Taejo Wanggeon also bestowed the name 계(係) to the Balhae crown prince Dae Gwang Hyeon so that he would continue his line and the legacy of Balhae inside his new home. Goryeo back then was infuriated about the Khitans for what they did to their "brother nation" and would so on send envoys to Later Zhou to formulate a plan to rescue the Balhae king captured in Liaoyang. What's funny is that you seem to calculate the number of Goguryeoic-Balhae people that came to Korea by simply counting the number of Koreans with the surname 'Tae(태)' and 'Dae(대)' when in fact they were of royalty running few from the start. What about the Kohs, Yangs, Jangs, Ohs, Wangs, Lees, Kangs, Yoons, and so forth? The surnames you see in Korea, 90% of them aren't even genuine as people "bought" names to fancy for themselves after the advent of the Korean Empire in 1897. "You can claim Goguryeo and Balhae as Korean all day long, but if the majority of them did not move south and join goryeo to become the ancestors of modern Korea, then they are not Korean"? Um, excuse me? The main race of Goguryeo and Balhae which were the Maek(貊) folks were the original founders of Gojoseon as well and lived in the Korean peninsula way long before. Plus, as aforementioned, Goguryeo and Balhae was literally succeeded by its kin both ethnically and culturally. If the majority did not move south and become the ancesors of modern Korea, then they are not Korean?". What kind of an historical point of view is that? That's like saying for example "since many were Americans forced to relocate to Canada, Americans are no longer Americans and America is no longer part of American history(?)". Doesn't make sense at all doesn't it? If it was only you, I'd laugh off but since they're are a lot of misinformed history nerds, I take time to write this down. Not to mention that both Goguryeo and Balhae's Korean populace lived en masse within the Korean peninsula. The southern regions of Goguryeo captured by Shilla were especially futile lands where the population was concentrated. Plus, the massive Goguryeo revival movement in which many Goguryeans took part would seek refuge in Shilla as well. You keep on saying that Shilla is the ancestor of the modern day Koreans but Shilla itself was a kingdom founded and consisted of dispersed groups all around. The foundation underlying being the Koreans from the Proto-Korean Kingdom of Gojoseon. Oh, and yes, Koreans may have settled upon the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, they were originally half-nomads that were skilled in the arts of cavalry. Archery as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastasianhistory (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the map added to the politicization section.

This is an atlas of Tallesman. It was compiled on the basis of data from Russian archaeologists. Their 70 years of work on which hundreds of works were published.

Korean and Chinese nationalists ignore the fact of existence, or diminish the significance of the Yilou tribal union. Cross it out of the history and the borders that are drawn on the Chinese map, which is here in the title, why they coincide with the borders of the Primorsky Krai in 1943. Which until 1943 never existed. And they were conducted arbitrarily without historical justification.

There is no error in the map. The Sea of Japan during the existence of Bohai was called the Sea of Bohai.

Hatchiko (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are quite absurd in a number of ways. Parhae is an older Korean romanization of the same word used for Balhae, which uses the newer Korean romanization. There is a widely established historical consensus that Balhae was established by Goguryeo refugees and the Mohe people. To go into further detail, South Koreans view that Balhae consisted of a Korean(Goguryeo) aristocracy ruling over the majority Mohe. Conflict between these two ethnic classes is viewed as the primary reason why Balhae fell. This is pretty much what you present as the alternative non-Korean viewpoint that Balhae consisted of a Korean nobility and a Mohe majority. Also, lets not forget that Balhae thought of itself as the successor to Goguryeo, and even presented itself as Goryeo(later name for Goguryeo, which would also be adopted by a later Korean kingdom, Goryeo) to Japan in diplomatic exchanges. The connection between Goguryeo and Balhae is undeniable, although this doesn't mean Balhae was 100% Goguryeo. If you think the Yilou people were also a significant part of this multi-ethnic state, then please provide sources, in English, then maybe we can add it to the existing material. Koraskadi (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No, it is not - you are distorting the data. Korean name of state is not the main and generally accepted. So in Russia and in China the Korean name is not used. It was also not used in the language of this state which was not Korean. A completely different language. And I cited a reference to the sources that shed the language scientifically - based on the discovered epigraphic monuments.

And if Balhae is a name imposed by the South Koreans on the English-speaking world. And it is generally accepted in English and for this reason (frequent citations) this word can be used as an English name and not romanization.

That point to the incorrectness of the name which is outdated Korean Romanization, I have rights.

In addition, I have the opportunity to specify the points of view of ALL scientific schools and not only the South Korean. This article is not about how the South Korean government looks at this state.Hatchiko (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I need not repeat that your edits are absurd and biased. Your interpretation of the Russian sources is also at question. Published English articles by Russian scholars I have provided in Balhae controversies talk section seem to conflict with your view. Therefore, I request that you provide a Russian-English translation in the talk page before you use a Russian source before making edits that challenge current consensus. Koraskadi (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You distort sources. And you make an unjustified accusation. http://ihaefe.org/files/publications/full/Bohai.pdf for example, this job has an English introductory word. cite "The monograph is devoted to the first Tungus-Manchu state Bohai (698–926), situated in the territory of the Russian Primorye, North East China and North East of Korea. In the work there analyzed history of Bohai since its beginning, the process of forming and the ages of its development till downfall, and histori-cal fates of Bohai residents. Much attention is paid to ethnic problems and ethnic genesis of Bohai residents." http://congress.aks.ac.kr/korean/files/2_1358412425.pdf cite "The state of Bohai (698-926 AD) was polyethnic. In addition to the core ethnic group of Sumo Mohe, Bohai citizenship included the Paleoasians, Koguryo, Chinese, and more. Particularly large influx of the Koguryo people took place after the downfall of Koguryo state. The Jurzhen, especially those from northeastern part of the Korean peninsula, were another group who kept friendly ties with the mediaeval Korean tribes. However, scarcity of written sources prevents a full reconstruction of the mediaeval history in the Far East to be made. To overcome this obstacle we need archaeological data containing evidences of cultural, political, and military contacts among the mediaeval Tungus-Manchurians and Koguryos." This is literally what I say in the edits I made. This is an example of the most compromising statements for so much that it published the government of South Korea. Even there are no such statements about which you speak. Moreover, Wikipedia does not prohibit giving references in other languages. Since now there is Google Translate, anyone can translate them and make sure that I provide reliable information. You violated the rules of the project by your accusation.And in the link that I submitted along the eastern borders, not only is the text. But also a video message talking about this. And GPS mark of the object.

You are violating the rules of Wikikpedia engaging in vandalism, deleting all edits that do not correspond to your political views, leaving only your opinion that tells the real picture. A complaint was sent to the administration.Hatchiko (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me show you why your edits are absurd and biased. In a Wikipedia article, NPOV should be upheld and only unbiased perspectives should be provided. If you think biased perspectives of "South Korea", "China" or "Russia" should be presented separately, do so at Balhae controversies. That's what that article is for. In this article, NPOV material should be presented. And now, to start with the issue of NPOV material, you keep insisting that the original material is a biased South Korean perspective. Yet, many of the sources are from Western scholars, many of which you delete from the article in your edits. Also, their perspective do not necessarily conflict with what you present as the Russian perspective. The kingdom was established by Goguryeo refugees and the Mohe people. It does make the point that the Mohe people, the Tungusic people you speak of, were significantly involved in the establishment of Balhae. So this brings up the issue of the involvement of the Goguryeo refugees in establishing Balhae. Can you deny that Goguryeo refugees had a significant part in the establishment of Balhae? Can you deny that Goguryeo refugees were a significant part of Balhae? Do Russians scholars deny that? And speaking of Russian scholars, they are not independent from political bias either - since the times of USSR, they focused on the role of the Tungusic people in Balhae, because the indigenous Tungusic people of the Russian Far East represent their sovereign stake in the region. I'm not saying the works of Russian scholars should be discounted, but only that they should not be taken in blindly without the issue of NPOV in mind. Since 2000s, Korean scholars and Russian scholars have been closely cooperating with each other in the research of Balhae. The author of the articles you brought up, Olga Diakova, received much acclaim from Korean scholars for her work on Balhae in a Korean academic conference. Herself, in fact, also acknowledged the role of Goguryeo people in Balhae, which you insist on denying. Russia's Russian Academy of Sciences and South Korea's Northeast Asia History Foundation have been conducting joint archaeological excavations in the Russian Far East for almost a decade now.

Overall, I think Russian sources do not conflict with most of the original material, except the issue of whether Goguryeo refugees formed the ruling echelon of Balhae society. That, I think, can be worked out and presented in a NPOV manner. Koraskadi (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Opinions of the project participants are not weighty because they violate the rule Wikipedia:No original research. Hatchiko clearly showed that you are prone to breaking this rule. And quoted quotes that literally show that you defend a distorted position. I am a Russian speaker and I can confirm that he provided reliable links. I know him personally, he is work an Institute of Asian and African Countries. And now he is very angry on the Koreans. Congratulations - at a pace you will achieve that everyone will hate you and the consequences for your economy. Since I know him, then I guarantee you that soon a number of critical articles will appear in the Russian media about the propaganda of Korean Nazism and the claims of South Korea and Russian territory. Did you achieve this? Korean ethnic nationalism this is a very real phenomenon and the question of the state of Bohai is one of the cornerstones of this phenomenon, supported at the state level. I am not a historian, I am a system administrator. But even now I know in detail about your nationalist terms, the rewriting of history for the legalization of territorial claims to China and Russia, as well as the territory of Tsushima to Japan. And if China simply creates islands in the Pacific Ocean and therefore neighbors are not angry. So you make plans on the territory of the states proper. Are you confident in your abilities? In vain. With regards to the article Balhae Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that, in the event of a conflict of views and the impossibility of consensus in the article, all equally valid points of view are indicated WP:BALASP This should be respected WP:BESTSOURCES. According to this, for each item, all three main scientific schools should be represented without the prevalence of the opinion of any of the schools. Surely must be presented sources for each item causing questions. Sources must fully comply with the rule Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Not allowed original research. When writing a text, the rule WP:IMPARTIAL should be observed. Naturally, writing an article based only on the South Korean position and ignoring or belittling the importance of the position of China and Russia and their scientific schools is not permissible. No manipulation is allowed in order to present China with a data-distorting party. China's northeast project is just a project to research existing artifacts. Since the state of Bohai was located in the territory of predominantly China, it is obvious that they had to study it and not rely on the fiction of South Korea which does not have a single object of this state. Since this state is not located in South Korea. This is understandable even to me. And since I was told from Russian and Chinese science only two discrepancies - China believes that the one whom they sent to pacify the Khitan became the ruler of Bohai, and Russia (the country in whose territory there are also objects of this state, unlike South Korea which does not have them) that this Chinese envoy became the governor of Tongliao - part of the Bohai. The second divergence is the eastern boundary. Everything . Both countries owning 80% of the territory of this state came to the same conclusions. Why is the opinion of the country where 0% of the territory of this state is more important than their opinion? Obviously it is insignificant. Since science requires an object to study. In South Korea, this object - their fantasies. And China and Russia specific archaeological sites.
I left Wikipedia because I think that Wikipedia as a project has died. The administration does not control the execution of project rules. And in the articles of bacchanalia of all kinds of madmen, propagandists, Nazis and conspiracy therapists. The best solution for wikipedia is to turn off all servers and remove all trash. Well for countries to block this disinformation tool in general. And the founder is put in prison for life. Because Wikipedia creates a dangerous sensation of "what you can believe." Although full of those that are the result of manipulation and distortion of reality.Gnomsovet (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, talk about escalating things out of proportion. I have absolutely zero concern over the negative consequences. Korean Nazism? South Korean territorial claims on Russian territory? The former USSR carved out a territory in Manchuria just so that it can maintain direct land access to the Korean peninsula. I doubt that will change, nor will this amount to any South Korean claims on Russian territory. Neither will it deter the ongoing cooperation between Korean and Russian researchers on the study of Balhae. As to NPOV, this article should not reflect biased positions of any particular schools, South Korea, China or Russia. Many of the sources cited in the original material are from the West, which your friend Hatchiko has been accusing of being a South Korean bias and deleting. If you want the South Korean position on this, I can go on a full-blown biased editing based on South Korean works in the South Korean language like Hatchiko. But that certainly is not the solution to this issue. You exclusively subscribe to the idea that history can only belong to those who hold current territory. This is a widely criticized point of view. Balhae itself declared itself as the successor state of Goguryeo, and Goryeo, another successor state to Goguryeo and the state that truly unified Korea, not only absorbed Balhae territory, but also a significant number of its people. Goryeo had a particular kinship to Balhae, which led to wide acceptance of Balhae refugees and its hostile relations with the Khitans. I'm not saying Balhae is exclusively Korean, but at least that Korea partly shares this legacy. I subscribe to the perspective that Balhae was a multi-ethnic state that consisted of significant Mohe populations, a non-Koreanic people. This is all already explained sufficiently in the original material. The only contention, as it would seem, is the role of the Goguryeo refugees in Balhae's political structure. The Russian view seems to differ from the Korean view that upper echelones of Balhae's political structure did not entirely consist of Goguryeo's refugees and employeed significant numbers of local chieftains of various ethnicities. Koraskadi (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, that's what I said - you're an ordinary Korean Nazi. You do demagogy. I described the rules. According to these rules and need to write. And yes - science requires an object to study. Only in Wikipedia give such a say as you are the Nazis. In scientific journals you do not belong. If there is no object then this is not science. Yes, archaeological sites are located in China and Russia, not South Korea. And yes in these countries there are huge schools for studying them. And it is obvious that the one who has the objects to study and studies from 80 years with a huge scientific school is more reliable and its opinion is more weighty than the one who does not have the objects of study. But it has its own point of view. Science is based on empirical knowledge. All your participation is what we are letting your students help us to dig. There is no cooperation. And that's all. Naturally, our research results are much more weighty than your inventions. You do not have sufficient basis to refute the research of our scientists. Western scientists, moreover, have no object to study and cite from secondary sources. No where in the West there is no full-fledged scientific school with dozens of archaeological objects in both Russia and China. Therefore, yes - just like that. The one who owns the object of research and studies it for decades is more weighty than the one whose "science" is built on the Nazi book of 1908. Which besides the theory that you promote, wrote about the need for "Purity of Blood." Korean ethnic nationalism Doksa Sillon. Gnomsovet (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Russian scholars also touch on the question of Balhae origins the nature of Balhae history. Many works express the most common opinion that the Malgal people founded the Balhae state with participation by some people from the former Goryeo state. After the collapse of Balhae, the Kitan transferred the Balhae people to North China and Inner Mongolia; the Balhae people fled to the Goryeo state and became part of Jurchen tribes. Balhae history belongs to the history of East Asia and the history of states which now divide the ancient lands of Balhae – China, Korea and Russia. Professor E. V. Shavkunov rejected both the Chinese conception of Balhae as a simple local administration of the Tang dynasty, and the popular Korean view of Balhae as the exclusive domain of Korean history (Shavkunov 1992; Shavkunov 1993). At the same time, based on archaeological data he pointed out that Balhae played an extremely important role in the history of Korea (Shavkunov 1997a). However, some recent Russian specialists in Korean studies include Balhae as a part of Korean history in their works (Tolstokulakov 2002: 66-67).

From Balhae Studies in Russia, Alexander Ivliev, Archaeology and Ethnography of Peoples of the Far East, Russian Academy of Sciences.[9]

Korean and Western scholars have plenty of materials to work with, including historical records. Archaeological evidence is also made available through academic channels, and like I said previously Russians cooperate with South Korean scholars closely in the study of Balhae, including joint archaeological excavations. And I'm not even going to entertain your personal insults, calling me a Korean Nazi. If you persist in doing so, I'll alert the administrators. Koraskadi (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • And what is the attitude to the South Korean Nazi myths. Does Bohai's dependence on China be rejected in Russia? Yes, the theory of the creation of this state by Koreans and their dominance in the state is also rejected but also rejected. This is the state of the Tungus first and foremost. And not at all the way you describe your Nazi theories. Talk:Balhae controversies and here 05:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC) you were already caught lying and trying to manipulate you pretended not to see this and keep trying. Gnomsovet (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this article; just use the talk-page to hash out what you want to do, and some more eyes would do the article good. Lectonar (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 February 2019

The second sentence in the lead section should include the word "the" between "from" and "fallen" so that it reads: "Balhae was established by refugees from the fallen Korean kingdom of Goguryeo..." Thank you! ebbillings (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a mechanical change to the grammar and not related to any content dispute. Along these lines, I also believe the comma after "Goguryeo" in that sentence should not be there. Are there any objections to this change? —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No objections from me. Koraskadi (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

archaeological studies

According to archaeological studies, the Bohai Sea territories exist only in Heilongjiang and Jilin in northeastern China (without Liaoning), the Primorsky Krai in Russia and the northeastern part of North Korea. So it does not include the entire Manchuria（Northeast China and Приамурье）See related content https://catalog.lib.kyushu-u.ac.jp/opac_download_md/1150/KJ00000699920-00001.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchuhu (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically you're talking about, but if it's regarding this edit[10], at that time Balhae held control over the Liadong peninsula, which means it held control over what is now most of Manchuria, not just the northeastern part of it. Koraskadi (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edits where the following reasons were given, for every edits I made. Please make some kind of refutation and provide a valid explanation instead of reverting them without any given reason.

  • [11] Disambiguation of Bohai Sea is unnecessary. Search on Bohai already leads to a disambiguation page.
  • [12] Common term is Manchuria, not Northeast China.
  • [13] A note about where archaeological sites were located is not necessary, although I wouldn't opposed to using something along that line as a cited source. And even in your note, archaeological sites were found in the Russian Far East, and therefoer Russian Far East should also be included in the territories of Balhae. And I organized the order of regions by alphabetical order.
  • [14] This can be easily mistaken by common readers as the ancient Zhou dynasty. Changing it to Tang Dynasty as it can be considered a very brief temporary regime that ruled over what is Tang Dynasty, and after which Tang Dynasty continued. Chinese added to provided better context for readers.
  • [15] Alphabetical order of the neighboring countries.
  • [16] Parhae is an alternative romanization of Balahe. Sources not necessary for alternative names of Balhae. Cyrllic name not needed in the English article, unless you believe Korean and Chinese script of the name should be added.
  • [17] The infobox is a summary of what is in the article, and the article explains Balhae used both languages, not just the Tungusic language.
  • [18] It's unlikely Shinto was practiced in Balhae. Buddhism was obviously practiced in Balhae according to the source's title. As for other religions, please provide the text and translation.
  • [19] China's control over the region was brief and temporary, resulting from a military invasion. It cannot be said that Balhae was a successor state to China nor can China be considered a precedent state of Balhae. This is also the case of Later Silla, where the Tang Dynasty held onto former territories of Baekje and parts of Goguryeo for a brief period until its defeat by Silla.
  • [20] Zizhi Tongjian is not a reliable source that can be cited directly in Wikipedia. It's not that I oppose the material, it's just the source. A reliable source is already cited so it's totally unnecessary.
  • [21] This is the academic consensus on Balhae in Russia, as explained by a Russain Balhae expert. The source is in English, anyone can check it if in doubt. Consensus of Japanese historians can be added should a reliable source explaining academic consensus in Japan on Balhae can be provided.
  • [22] As explained in the source. It says Chinese scholars argue that Balhae was a provincial state of the Chinese empire.
  • [23] Fallen as in "fallen Korean kingdom" is a better description, rather than "former Korean kingdom".
  • [24] That Balhae and Goryeo were both founded by Goguryeo descendants and their claim of succession to Goguryeo provide an important context to the openness of Goryeo to Balhae refugees.
  • [25] [26] You deleted sourced material without any given reason. I found reliable sources where the 470,000 figure is based on and I will provide a better context(Paektu eruption) for this once editing is possible.
  • [27] Deleting material based on a non-reliable source. History of Liao is a primary source and cannot be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia.
  • [28] I just reorganized the material so it is more understandable. The other view that Goguryeo descendants did not have political dominance and all the associated details are still there.

Now, before you revert these edits, please provide some valid explanation so some consensus can be made. Koraskadi (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You have provided links very indirectly related to the subject matter.

These links in no way disprove the inevitability of the fact that the point of view of all three sides was presented in the article - since there is no neutral point of view at all.

It so happened that issues related to this state are very painful for your country - South Korea. However, the position of those countries that have, unlike your country, archaeological sites of this culture and dozens of years of scientific work - not your claims that "they falsify everything," but scientific work. It’s extremely important and even more significant than the position of your country - despite the money that it invests in propaganda in the English-speaking world. 185.17.129.116 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

attention

Balhae is just an ordinary multi-ethnic ancient country, not affiliated with any ancient regime of China, North Korea or Russia. Many studies in Russia and Japan have shown this. I gave reference materials but were strongly biased. Korean users have been mistakenly deleted, Russian experts’ comments have been misrepresented, and the Lenin’s online library’s vast amount of information has been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchuhu (talk • contribs) 05:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is just a blanket statement and addresses none of the valid explanations I have given for my edits. Just how am I "misrepresenting" Russian experts, and how am I ignoring "Lenin's online library"? You even keep deleting the fact that Balhae held territory in now what is the Russian Far East. I cited an English source, written by a Russian Balhae expert from the Russian Academy of Sciences, detailing the state of scholarly consensus on Balhae in Russia, yet you just delete them. I have a feeling you are randomly adding Russian and Japanese sources to push your point of view on controversial subjects, so it would be much appreciated if you provide English translations of the relevant material here on contended issues. Koraskadi (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not so - you have deleted almost all the data confirmed by links to scientific articles in Russia and China. You play Do Not Hear. Answering not to the question posed to you - or the opponent’s statement, but simply taking the conversation aside. This is a propaganda trick and nothing more.185.17.129.116 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Currently standing controversy

Balhae is a historical heritage belonging to many countries. Korean user Koraskadi always deletes references from other countries. Imagine balhae belongs to them only in Korea

This is getting absurd. User:Anchuhu keeps removing well reasoned edits without any valid explanation, and accuses me of deleting references from other countries. Here are disputed edits that User:Anchuhu keeps reverting, and my explanation for these edits:

  • Names in the lead - I am not removing Bohai as an alternative name. I am grouping Balhae and Parhae together because they are both Korean romanizations, along with its Korean hangul and hanja scripts. Hanja script is identical to the Chinese characters used for the Chinese term Bohai. I am not removing the term Bohai as an alternative name. If you think this is a common name problem that pertains to the main title of the article, then file for a request for move.
  • Wu Zetian's Zhou dynasty - Zhou dynasty itself is a very confusing name, as its counterpart, the ancient Zhou dynasty, is much more prominent and the Zhou dynasty used in this article is a very short-lived dynasty that falls within the general era of China's Tang Dynasty. If this short-lived dynasty cannot be considered an interim period of the Tang Dynasty general, then the term China is second best choice.
  • Languages - In the language section, it is consistently stated that both Tungusic and Goguryeo languages were spoken in Balhae. So it is reasonable to say spoken languages of Balhae were Tungusic and Goguryeo languages in the infobox, rather than having the Tungusic language alone.

User:Anchuhu, please address these issues before you revert my edits again. Koraskadi (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You do this using the support of an administration that is extremely Russophobic. The history of edits shows that it blocked users who made substantiated edits subject to scientific data - which refute the position of South Korea - your country. Which intensively conducts a proganda among the English-speaking world. Instead of real scientific research. Largely because this state was not located on the territory of South Korea and you do not have material to study.185.17.129.116 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is the article protected with the vandalized lead? "also known from South Korean from transcriptions from korean language" — 2dk (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there wide consensus that this sequence of edits undermines the quality of the article? Because the article is fully protected, I do not want to change it without a clear indication of agreement. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it significantly degrades article's quality, and this kind of division in perspectives can be presented at Balhae controversies. This article should maintain NPOV, and if there are conflicting views between Korean, Chinese and Russian sources, then use a neutral one, like the ones from the West. Koraskadi (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • And this version of the article is completely compromised. All positions are more or less equal. This option does not suit only adherents Korean ethnic nationalism. Because they want only their opinion to be presented here. And China is represented as a "vile counterfeiter." And Russia in general does not represented - "foreigners temporarily occupying the primordial Korean lands”. It is generally surprising to me that they are still being allowed to archaeological excavations at us - in China in 1994 they were expelled for distorting the interpretation of the results. Also, they need to be expelled - let them sit in South Korea and drawing maps to the Urals like this one. Great Korean Reich - Pure Blood Korean. In general, Wikipedia is a cesspool. Once in her for years hang an article expressing the opinion of the Nazis Gnomsovet (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely no notion in this article that Russians are "foreigners temporarily occupying the primordial Korean lands”. Koraskadi (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You just showed it in your next comment - Korean Nazi. Gnomsovet (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite this being completely irrelevant to the topic of Balhae, but just to make my political position clear, I support Russian control over the Russian Far East and its land border with Korea. I believe this is to be the strategic interest of both Koreas and a united Korea. So please cease and desist on accusing me of making irredentist claims on Russian territory through this article. Koraskadi (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
In your country, it is considered normal to attack the US ambassador only because of racial hatred of his Japanese mother. Despite the fact that the ancestors of Harris were the founders of the United States and participated in the war for US independence. And Harris himself admiral of the Amerikan Navy 40 years devotedly serving the United States. But on the Korean Internet, the flood of hatred and insult towards him on a racial basis is simply overwhelming. So the UN has repeatedly stated that in your country there are huge problems with racism and xenophobia. In addition, the #nonojapan movement completely repeats the boycott of the Jews in the Nazi Reich - as did the racial attacks on ethnic Japanese in Korea.
So the words about Korean Nazism are not unfounded.185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

About a claim in the Book of Tang

The first section says this: "In the New Book of Tang, it was recorded that the founder of Balhae, Dae Joyeong (大祚榮) was a former Goguryeo general." I did an electronic search of both the Old Book of Tang and the New Book of Tang, but found no mention that Dae Joyeong was a former Goguryeo general. Here's what the two books say:

  • Old Book of Tang (ch. 199B [199下], p. 5360 of the standard Zhonghua shuju edition): 渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。高麗既滅，祚榮率家屬徙居營州。萬歲通天年，契丹李盡忠反叛，祚榮與靺鞨乞四比羽各領亡命東奔，保阻以自固。盡忠既死，則天命右玉鈐衛大將軍李楷固率兵討其餘黨，先破斬乞四比羽，又度天門嶺以迫祚榮。祚榮合高麗、靺鞨之眾以拒楷固，王師大敗，楷固脫身而還。屬契丹及奚盡降突厥，道路阻絕，則天不能討，祚榮遂率其眾東保桂婁之故地，據東牟山，築城以居之。
祚榮驍勇善用兵，靺鞨之眾及高麗餘燼，稍稍歸之。聖曆中，自立為振國王，遣使通于突厥。其地在營州之東二千里，南與新羅相接。越憙靺鞨東北至黑水靺鞨，地方二千里，編戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬人。風俗與高麗及契丹同，頗有文字及書記。中宗即位，遣侍御史張行岌往招慰之。祚榮遣子入侍，將加冊立，會契丹與突厥連歲寇邊，使命不達。睿宗先天二年，遣郎將崔訢往冊拜祚榮為左驍衞員外大將軍、渤海郡王，仍以其所統為忽汗州，加授忽汗州都督，自是每歲遣使朝貢。
開元七年，祚榮死，玄宗遣使弔祭，乃冊立其嫡子桂婁郡王大武藝襲父為左驍衛大將軍、渤海郡王、忽汗州都督。
  • New Book of Tang (ch. 219, pp. 6179-80 of the standard edition): 渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率眾保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河為境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之。
萬歲通天中，契丹盡忠殺營州都督趙翽反，有舍利乞乞仲象者，與靺鞨酋乞四比羽及高麗餘種東走，度遼水，保太白山之東北，阻奧婁河，樹壁自固。武后封乞四比羽為許國公，乞乞仲象為震國公，赦其罪。比羽不受命，后詔玉鈐衞大將軍李楷固、中郎將索仇擊斬之。是時仲象已死，其子祚榮引殘痍遁去，楷固窮躡，度天門嶺，祚榮因高麗、靺鞨兵拒楷固，楷固敗還。於是契丹附突厥，王師道絕，不克討。祚榮即幷比羽之眾，恃荒遠，乃建國，自號震國王，遣使交突厥，地方五千里，戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬，頗知書契，盡得扶餘、沃沮、弁韓、朝鮮海北諸國。中宗時，使侍御史張行岌招慰，祚榮遣子入侍。睿宗先天中，遣使拜 祚榮為左驍衞大將軍、渤海郡王，以所統為忽汗州，領忽汗州都督，自是始去靺鞨號，專稱渤海。

To summarize, Old Book of Tang says that upon the fall of Goguryeo, Dae Joyeong led his family to Yingzhou (高麗既滅，祚榮率家屬徙居營州) and that he was a good military leader (祚榮驍勇善用兵), whereas New Book of Tang says nothing at all about Dae's position in Goguryeo. Interestingly, Old Book of Tang claims that Dae was originally a member of a branch of the Goguryeo royal family (渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也), but New Book of Tang doesn't repeat this claim. Anyway, unless I missed something, I think I've shown that the two Books of Tang do not call Dae Joyeong a former Goguryeo general, so I think we should delete that sentence from our wiki. Comments? Madalibi (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • This text is enough to call into question and add additional information about the fact that according to other data this is not so. However, it is not enough to remove the statement if it is supported by references to istoniki. There is no source. There is every reason to delete if now on the discussion page it will not be proved by references to scientific works, and not to original research what the phenomenon was. If this is displayed in the article as the position of only South Korean scientists, then only references to them are sufficient. In this case, the information provided is sufficient to make a remark “although this is not the case in the original.” If the situation comes to a controversial, then this information should be entered into the position of Chinese scientists.
This question is not raised in the Russian historiography of classical Bohai-studies. At least I did not find such a search. including on electronic versions of books. And consequently it was not widely discussed anywhere. It simply says that it was founded by a native of Sumo Mohe. And whether he served to whom before this is not known. Well, logically, since the fall of Goguryeo, 698-668 has passed - 30 years. All the Goguryou generals had died by then. This is not the 21st century with medicine, few survived to 50. A general in 20-25 years ... plus he did not die right away, he reigned until 719 and was not an old man at all. So here the falsification is visible even so.Gnomsovet (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Two old historical records: Old records of Silla 新羅古記(Silla gogi), Rhymed Chronicles of Sovereigns 帝王韻紀(Jewang ungi) and Britannica as well call Dae Joyeong a former Goguryeo general. Jagello (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
In the region, it is customary to justify their claims on the lands of neighbors through the creation of history. The Samguk Sagi cannot serve as a source since it was written 300 years after the fall of this state. 新羅古記(Silla gogi) This is a quotation from the Samguk Sagi. 帝王韻紀(Jewang ungi generally literary work of the 13th century. This is how to study the history of the 15th century from a feature film or drama.
In Britannica, not all articles are well developed - in addition, you should look at the Wikipedia rules regarding Britannica.
None of the modern records of this state confirm the words of Korean writers of the 12th-13th centuries. On the contrary, Chinese sources refute the theory of "koguryeo general." And Chinese sources were written just in time for the existence of this state and not after more than 500 years with an unclear purpose. 185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Records on Dae Joyeong and Dae Jungsang aren't consistent and they are confusing. Britannica does say Dae Joyeong was a former Goguryeo general, but I don't know where they got that from. Records aren't even consistent on whether it was Dae Joyeong or his father Dae Jungsang that led the initial rebellion against the Tang. Korean sources also point to these inconsistencies in their explanation of Dae Joyeong and Dae Jungsang. They do point to Wudai Huiyao as a source of interest, saying its material may be based on Balhae Gukgi, a record written by a Chinese envoy to Balhae, and thus may best reflect the Balhae point of view. Historical Records of the Five Dynasties also makes mention of Dae Joyeong. Another interesting, and also somewhat funny, record is Gounjip by Shilla's Choe Chiwon. Being a real hater of Balhae, he makes a mockery of Balhae's origin, but it's an account of Balhae's origin nonetheless.

  • Gounjip 臣某言。臣得當番宿衛院狀報。去乾寧四年七月。渤海賀正王子大封裔進狀。請許渤海居新羅之上。伏奉勑旨。國名先後。比不引強弱而稱。朝制等威。今豈以盛衰而改。宜仍舊貫。準此宣示者。綸飛漢詔。繩擧周班。積薪之愁歎旣銷。集木之憂兢轉竊。惟天照瞻。a001_156d何地容身。中謝。 臣聞禮貴不忘其本。是戒浮虛。書稱克愼厥猷。惟防僭越。苟不循其涯分。乃自掇其悔尤。臣謹按渤海之源流也。句驪未滅之時。本爲疣贅部落。靺羯之屬。寔繁有徒。是名栗末小蕃。嘗逐句驪內徙。其首領乞四羽及大祚榮等。至武后臨朝之際。自營州作孼而逃。輒據荒丘。始稱振國。時有句驪遺燼。勿吉雜流。梟音則嘯聚白山。鴟義則喧張黑水。始與契丹濟惡。旋於突厥通謀。萬里耨苗。累拒渡遼之轍。十年食葚。晩陳降漢之旗。初建邑居。來憑隣援。其酋長大祚榮。始受臣藩第五品大阿餐之秩。後至先天a001_157a二年。方受大朝寵命。封爲渤海郡王。邇來漸見倖恩。遽聞抗禮臣藩。絳，灌同列。所不忍言。廉，藺用和。以爲前誡。而渤海汰之沙礫。區以雲泥。莫愼守中。惟圖犯上。恥爲牛後。覬作龍頭。妄有陳論。初無畏忌。豈拘儀於隔座。寔昧禮於降階。伏惟陛下居高劼毖。視遠孔昭。念臣蕃之驥或羸而可稱。牛雖瘠而非怯。察彼虜之鷹飽腹而高颺。鼠有體而恣貪。永許同事梯航。不令倒置冠屨。聞魯府之仍舊。驗周命之惟新。抑且名位不同。等衰斯在。臣國受秦官極品。彼蕃假周禮夏卿。而乃近至先朝。驟霑優寵。戎狄不可厭也。堯舜其a001_157b猶病諸。遂攀滕國之爭。自取葛王之誚。向非皇帝陛下英襟獨斷。神筆橫批。則必槿花鄕廉讓自沈。楛矢國毒痡愈盛。今者遠綏南越。漢文之深意融春。罷省東曹。魏祖之嘉言同曉。自此八裔絶躁求之望。萬邦無妄動之徒。確守城規。靜銷紛競。臣伏限統戎海徼。不獲奔詣天朝。

As for Silla gogi, I'm afraid it's lost. As for Jewang ungi, I can't find its source content. Overall, I think we do need a neutral secondary source on the sequence of events that occurred on Balhae's founding and not rely on our own interpretations of primary sources. Any suggestions for such secondary sources are welcome. Koraskadi (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to correct your opinion. The book Old records of Silla(Silla gogi) itself is lost, but some texts of this record survived in Samguksagi and Samgukyusa. This is what Samgukyusa cited from the Old records of Silla:
新羅古記云 高麗舊將祚榮姓大氏 聚殘兵 立國 於大伯山南 國號渤海
The corresponding text from the Rhymed Chronicles of Sovereigns is as below:
前麗舊將大祚榮得據太白山南城於周則天天元 甲申開國乃以渤海名 Jagello (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the term '別種'

The term or expression 別種, was used in old Chinese texts tracing the origins(族源) of foreign nations or tribes as below:

<舊唐書>

高麗(Goguryeo)者出者夫餘(Buyeo)地別種也

日本(Japan)國者倭(Wa)國之別種也

別種, literally meaning ‘an offshoot nation or tribe’, which had been parted from the origin nation.

<新五代史>

武后時契丹攻北邊高麗(Goguryeo)別種大乞乞仲象與靺鞨(Mohe)酋長乞四比羽走遼東分王高麗故地

The above passage strongly indicates that Dae Jung sang and Qisi biyu had different ethnic backround. Therefore this clearly excludes a possibility that Dae Jung sang could have been of Mohe origin. As for Dae Jung sang, who was not a nation but a person, it would be better from its context to translate 別種 to ‘a member of a branch of ..’ as Madalibi translated it above.

Logically, '高麗別種' should mean 'originally branched from the Goguryeo.' or, as Madalibi translated it 'originally branched from the Goguryeo royal family'. Jagello (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not strange that Balhae officially referred to itself as Goguryeo. The disputed characterization or politicization of Balhae is due to modern geopolitical issues or political gains rather than pure academic matters. On the contrary, the fact referring to itself as Goguryeo or Buyeo by Balhae is free from modern nationalistic interpretations. Jagello (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:No original research You break the rule. Wikipedia is no place for original research. Since I for example cannot check your scientific degree and work. In addition, since I am not an expert in the field of study, I cannot enter into a discussion with you. I can not notice the distortion or special selection of material and ignoring all other material. That is why there are Wikipedia requirements for the presence of non-interpretable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Scientific and weighty. The text you cited is not as such because it is just a set of characters that does not know with what certainty of the quoted and it is not known what other sources say. This text may not be original or refuted by the source. The source can be only scientific work based on primary sources and in which the primary source is analyzed. Because any historical document must be read and interpreted by a specialist. Which first determines its authenticity. Then he defines the era of his writing and who exactly the author is and with what his views were - then he compares all the sources - first of all archaeological, and writes a scientific work. Which published in a scientific journal. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the format - there are just many things that are not possible - for example, control of the manuscript. Therefore, the rules of the project and require reliable sources and not the original research where there may be distortions. Gnomsovet (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It is suggested that research results outside China and South Korea should be used, especially in Russia and Japan. Scholars in China and South Korea have been geopolitically influenced and distorted in studying the political and cultural aspects of the Balhae, while Russian and Japanese scholars are able to Access to many archaeological sites, but more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchuhu (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, your reasonable offer was rejected. This says a lot about the Wikipedia administration. And the project as a whole. 185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Names of capitals

Forgive my ignorance, but why are the capitals listed as "Upper", "East" "Central", etc. instead of their actual names? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not clear what language to call them - the state is very conflicting. Since the Koreans build their claims on these lands on the basis of it - despite the fact that it is not a Korean state and has nothing to do with Korea - it does not have anything other than what occupied a part of North Korea. Ethnically, this is the Tungus-Manchurian state. However, the Koreans are investing a lot of money in propaganda that this is supposedly a Korean state. The Chinese names do not fit either - because, in an effort to fend off Korean claims, the Chinese went in exactly the same way and began to prove that this is a Chinese state - although it has nothing to do with the Chinese except that it was partly located on the territory of China. There are Russians and Japanese - who also have 25% of the territory of this state under control and in study - but the Koreans reject their position even more vehemently because of Korean racism towards the Japanese and Russians.
As a result, the article cannot be of good quality until all three positions are presented equally. As the Russian users tried to do - but they were always blocked for always for this attempt. Due to Russophobia Wikipedia administration. At the same time, the state of the Russian Federation did not use its administrative resource on Wikipedia because for him this is an unimportant topic.
In the end, this is perhaps the most controversial Wikipedia article - more than a conflict in Georgia or Ukraine, for example.185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Textual References to Support Bohai as a Mohe Kingdom

I do not believe Bohai should be called a "Korean kingdom", and I thought I would mention a few primary sources related to this argument. I list below some classical references from Chinese and Korean sources that hold Bohai to be a Mohe country, and the Mohe to be related to the Jurchens (and therefore Tungusic). I have used Chinese transcriptions when my sources come from texts written in China, and Korean transcriptions when the texts were written in Korea.


At the very beginning of the Jinshi (金史), it says that the Bohai were the descendants of the Sumo tribe of Mohe (who were descendants of the Wuji):


粟末靺鞨始附高丽，姓大氏。 李绩破高丽，粟末靺鞨保东牟山。后为渤海，称王，传十余世。

"The Sumo Mohe began to ally themselves with Goryeo, and took the surname Da. Li Ji overthrew Goryeo, and the Sumo Mohe held out at Dongmou mountain. Afterwards they became Bohai, were given the title of "Prince", and lasted for ten generations."


The oldest inscription from Bohai is the Honglujing Stele, and it reads as follows, indicating that the Tang official delegated to Bohai was called the "special imperial envoy to the Mohe":


勑持节宣劳靺羯使鸿胪卿崔忻井两口永为记验开元二年五月十八日

"By imperial edict, Minister of Vassal Affairs Cuixin, the special imperial envoy to the Mohe, [drills] two wells to forever commemorate this event, on the eighteenth day of the fifth month of the second year of Kaiyuan (714)"


The Jinshi also holds the Mohe to be the ancestors of the Jurchens, for which reason the founder of the Jurchen Jin dynasty promulgated an edict reaffirming the affinity between the Bohai and the Jurchens:


及太祖败辽兵于境上，获耶律谢十，乃使梁福、斡荅刺招谕渤海人曰：“女直、渤海本同一家。”盖其初皆勿吉之七部也。

"When the Taizu defeated the Liao army on his borders, and captured Yelü Xieshi, he then caused Liang Fu and Wo Daci to promulgate an edict to the Bohai saying: "The Jurchens and Bohai are originally one single family." Because they were all originally from the seven tribes of the Wuji."


There is no reason to doubt that Da Zuorong (大祚榮) came from Goguryeo. But then so did the founding ancestor of the Jurchen Jin dynasty. From the Jinshi, again:


金之始祖讳函普，初从高丽来，年已六十余矣。

"The founding ancestor of the Jin was named Hanpu. He originally came from Goryeo, when he was already sixty years old."


We do not call the Jin dynasty a "Korean dynasty", even though its founding ancestor came from Goryeo. So why should we call Bohai a "Korean kingdom"?

--68.49.1.69 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I've done some digging around in Korean historical texts, and I have found the following in Samguk Yusa (三國遺事), which further holds that the Bohai are just a branch of the Mohe:


通典云。渤海。本栗未靺鞨。至其酋柞榮立國。自號震旦。

"According to the Tongdian, Balhae was originally the Songmal Malgal [=Sumo Mohe]. Then one of their chieftains, Joyeong, established a country. He himself called it Jindan." (Note that 栗未 is a scribal error for 粟末. Also note that 其酋, in this context, can only mean that Zuorong was a chieftain of the Songmal Malgal.)


又新羅古記云。高麗舊將柞榮。姓大氏。聚殘兵。立國於大伯山南。國號渤海。按上諸文。渤海乃靺鞨之別種。但開合不同而已。

"Again, the ancient records of Silla say, a former general of Goryeo, Joyeong, surnamed Dae, raised an army and established a country to the south of Daemat mountain. The country was called Balhae. According to all of the above sources, Balhae therefore was a division of the Malgal. It is merely a distinction within a class."


In addition, I have found the following in the Old Book of Tang, which uses the term Bohai-Mohe (also used in Samguk Sagi) to refer to Da Zuorong, while in the same breath saying he was from a division (別種) of Goryeo:


渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。

"Da Zuorong of the Bohai-Mohe, was originally [from] a division of Goryeo."


In short, every ancient text I have found supports the conclusion that Bohai was a Mohe state, and Da Zuorong was a Mohe person from Goryeo. This includes the ancient Korean sources I have consulted, and several others I haven't bothered to include because they are repetitious. I think the argument for removing the word "Korean" from the opening sentence of this article is very strong.

--68.49.1.69 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess the major problem with categorizing Balhae, an ancient kingdom, using (relatively) modern ethnopolitical/ethnocultural definitions has greatly to do with the kingdom's own self-identification, which is compounded by the fact that the country didn't survive to the modern era. There is no doubt (since there are records of this) that Balhae considered itself a successor state to Goguryeo (but that alone is not enough to consider Balhae a Korean state per se, despite the fact that Goguryeo was). In contrast, some contemporary records (of those times) seem to indicate that if one were to make a distinction, the majority ethnicity of the people of Balhae, to include much of its ruling class and many of its rulers, was not identical to that of the kingdoms to its south (e.g. Silla and Goryeo), which we call Korean today; indeed, we do not even know how strongly the people of Balhae actually self-identified to any ethnicity or culture, since the only descriptions of this population in ethnic terms come from sources outside of Balhae itself (which thus lend themselves to potential suspicion of politically-motivated tampering). It doesn't help that after the fall of Balhae, the Mohe/Malgal (the suspected but not confirmed majority ethnicity of Balhae) disappear almost entirely from the historical record. Most people think that the Jurchen (and thus by extension the Manchu) are descended from the Mohe/Malgal and other tribes in the Greater Manchuria area that was ruled by Goguryeo and subsequently Balhae, but there simply isn't enough evidence to confirm this.
Goryeo and Goguryeo are not the same. Every instance in which you referred to "Goryeo," I believe you meant to say "Goguryeo," but the sources you cite do say (in Chinese) "Goryeo," which did not exist until a few centuries after Goguryeo. As such, it is unclear what those sources are actually saying - are they saying that Dae Jo-yeong came from Goguryeo proper or from the ethnicity of the kingdom of Goryeo (i.e. that he was Korean)? And are they saying that the people of Goryeo are also the same ethnicity of the people of Goguryeo?
The Balhae/Bohai as an ethnic group is really a reasonable but ultimately made-up conjecture. The Jinshi, which you cite, says that the Sumo Mohe (which we think are an ethnic group) became the Bohai/Balhae (which we know is the name of a country, not necessarily an ethnicity) after the fall of Goguryeo. We cannot assume that the Jinshi means that Sumo Mohe ethnicity -> Balhae ethnicity, because the "Balhae ethnicity" also includes people of the nation of Balhae who were definitely not of Sumo Mohe ethnicity. Putting the people of Balhae under a single ethnic group is like putting all American citizens into an American ethnic group, especially because the Mohe were a distinct ethnic group within Goguryeo and could not possibly have become part of a new ethnic group or turned into another ethnic group in such a short time. The Jinshi as a source is not particularly reliable as a record on Balhae, Goguryeo, Silla, or Baekje, because it was written several hundred years after the fall of Balhae and the disappearance of the Mohe/Malgal from the historical record (it was compiled in 1345, about 100 years after the Samguk Yusa was written and 200 years after the Samguk Sagi was written). It makes the claim that the Jurchen/Jin are descended from the people of Balhae, but all it does is record the saying of a historical figure whose understanding of this relationship is unclear (is he citing stories he heard as a child? tribal mythology? currently-undiscovered written records?) and whose motivation in saying this is unknown.
You say the Samguk Yusa claims that the people of Balhae were a single ethnic group that came directly from the Sumo Mohe, but all that the Samguk Yusa is doing in that citation is quoting another source. Indeed, for all we know, that line might actually mean that the Samguk Yusa is only citing points of view other than its own. As for the subsequent line about ancient Silla records, all the Samguk Yusa says there is that Silla records indicate that Balhae was a kingdom (not a people/ethnic group), and that Dae Jo-yeong was a general from Goguryeo. The part about Balhae being a division of the Malgal and a distinction within a class is the quoted perspective (not in the Silla records, and, the way it is written, not necessarily the perspective of the Samguk Yusa) and is not only unclear (a country as a distinction within a class of people makes no sense, and we know the Mohe/Malgal to be an ethnic group, not a class definition like upper, middle, and low class) but has no recorded support in the historical record elsewhere.
As for the inscription on the Honglujing Stele, that doesn't really mean much by itself; all it means is that there was a special imperial envoy to the people/ethnic group known as the Mohe. There is no mention of Balhae (or mention of the special imperial envoy being sent to "us," i.e. the court of Balhae) at all in that inscription. We have no way of knowing why the envoy was named that way. Perhaps the Tang imperial government did not know the official name of the country and simply assumed it to be a country of the majority population (which were the Mohe/Malgal)? Of course, in so doing, this was probably interpreted by the people of Balhae as recognition of their independence as opposed to a recognition of a divorce from their origins in Goguryeo. In addition, just because Balhae was a majority Mohe/Malgal nation does not necessarily make it a Mohe/Malgal kingdom per se' - we don't know their self-identification (because their supposed ethnic identification comes from outside sources), but we do know that they (at least at the time of the Honglujing Stele) and their parents were citizens of the former kingdom of Goguryeo, that they used governmental and social institutions directly derived from Goguryeo, that their culture, art and religion were the same as those in Goguryeo, and that they called themselves Goguryeo in official international communications. What do we call such people? People of Goguryeo who just happened to start a new kingdom when the old one fell. On top of that, when Balhae fell to the Khitans/Liao, its royal family fled to Goryeo, not to anywhere else, and was incorporated into Goryeo/Korean society; indeed, the main branch was incorporated into the Goryeo royal family. Even if the people of Balhae were a distinct ethnic group, they identified more with "Korean" culture, religious philosophies, and institutions and could therefore be considered "Korean," just as American citizens are often considered as Americans first and any other ethnic/cultural identity second, especially if those citizens identify strongly with American culture and institutions. The same example could be made with the People's Republic of China, which acknowledges the representation of many ethnicities among its citizens within a single nation.
As for the Jin Dynasty, maybe we should consider it a Korean dynasty. But by the time the Jurchen/Jin came to power, it is clear that culturally and politically they were distinct from what we consider "Korean" identity, and so, even though the clan progenitor came from Korea (which some historians believe to be tribal mythology, not literal truth), his descendants were far enough removed from this identity such that they could no longer be considered "Korean." As far as we can tell, the Jin Dynasty identified with Chinese culture and used Chinese institutions. Balhae, on the other hand, was built directly upon the foundations of Goguryeo, a Korean kingdom, called itself Goguryeo, and had a population that identified strongly with "Korean" culture and institutions, and later integrated into Goryeo when its kingdom fell.
Ecthelion83 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What's more, short-lived successor states and Khitan resistance/Balhae restoration movements that arose in the former lands of Balhae following occupation by the Khitan were, as far as we can tell, distinctly Korean and not anything else.Ecthelion83 (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason Balhae is considered a "Korean" kingdom is mainly because modern Korean historiography requires that it be so. As mentioned in the article, the writer of Samguk Sagi did not consider Balhae to be part of the "Korean" historical tradition, and neither Silla nor Goryeo historians wrote a history of Balhae. But later Joseon writers, like Yu Deuk-gong, added it back in reaction to the political circumstances of the time, and modern Korean historians have largely followed these Joseon writers. Of course, this historical tradition is not followed in some other countries, such as China and Russia, and so Wikipedia has become the battleground between different POVs.

These arguments are, however, tautological. Historians largely recognize the anachronistic fallacies involved in assigning modern ethnic and political labels to historical states, but the ideology of the contemporary nation-state requires reaching back to a primordial "ethnic past." Balhae's label is thus a matter of political ideology, and disagreements over political ideology lead to nothing more than edit wars. For this reason, I see little hope for a future resolution - it's an agree to disagree situation that favors the last to edit. I'd suggest saving the effort, except I suspect those involved in this ideological back-and-forth are already committed to having the last edit. Carry on, I guess. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After 9 years I confirm. The article was never brought back to normal. Largely because of the Russophobic position of the Wikipedia administration. All those who made corrections with scientific sources from Russia and China were blocked forever. And Koreans, taking advantage of the patronage of the administration, continue to spoil the article as they please.185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balhae/Archive_2&oldid=1134823558"