Talk:Balhae/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Done; required some editing to , 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)
thread_title:  goodfriend you idiot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: BALHAE KOREAN? NOT KOREAN?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  need to rewrite the the ethnic background of Balhai

message: An entry from Balhae appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.	
It's gone. I can't find it. 155.97.195.124 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LAME 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in English, not Korean. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This article is currently protected so I can't fix it. --Kusunose 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete 

message: 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.--Yeahsoo 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: That's one.  That's not "many."  --Nlu (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Balhae "Gao" family

message: 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 
*From Britannica, it says that it was considered a successor to Goguryeo  
Good friend100 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo 

message: I hereby paste the Admin comment as a reminder, the below is from  Talk:Goguryeo:--Yeahsoo 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are not the absolute voice in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remider:Chinese name should be above Korean name here

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:NCGN Violation

message: 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)
replies: text: Prosperity probably. I guess the map needs some rework. Cydevil38 22:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll replace it with the modified version that says "Balhae's territory at its greatest extent". Cydevil38 00:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! ㅋ ㅋ Mumun 無文 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map caption: 'Balhae territory at the height of properity'

message: 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)
thread_title: Archived

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Yalu vs. Amrok

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Mohe vs Malgal

message: 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)
thread_title: Removing sourced content

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the original synthesis. It is now only a statement about the Mongol census. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 13th century census of China by the Mongols 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About a claim in the ''Book of Tang'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the term '別種' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnicity in the lead 

message: 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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Balhae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060109040246/http://www.jref.com:80/culture/nara_period_era.shtml to http://www.jref.com/culture/nara_period_era.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626104047/http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/his/acij.asp?pgcode=040201 to http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/his/acij.asp?pgcode=040201
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808055223/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/12/120_127479.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/12/120_127479.html
*Added  tag to http://review.aks.ac.kr/AttachedFiles/05-Song%20Ki-ho.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922172614/http://enc.daum.net/dic100/viewContents.do?&m=all&articleID=b09b0194b to http://enc.daum.net/dic100/viewContents.do?&m=all&articleID=b09b0194b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits on Mohe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Balhae is Korean

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of the map added to the politicization section. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No objections from me. Koraskadi (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Done —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 February 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  archaeological studies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  attention 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Currently standing controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Regarding the term '別種'