Talk:Balhae

message: If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources.
Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, now verify this please, first of all: "However these speculations are highly unattested and vague on part from Crossley as her works primarily revolves around Chinese sources and the works of China-based, Japan-based scholars.[69]" You put a citation there, so where in the source does it say that? She is in fact heavily criticized by the more conservative historians in China because of her new history approach. Your claim is ridiculous to anyone who has the most basic idea of who Crossley is. Esiymbro (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:OR. Zessede has a habit of relying on Korean language sources as well. This is not wrong by itself but the links sometimes link to Korean state affiliated organizations like National Institute of Korean History: http://contents.history.go.kr/front/hm/view.do?treeId=010401&tabId=01&levelId=hm_045_0020, which is source for thousands of households from Balhae entering Goryeo. What's odd is that Crossley's source does not refute this, only that it occurred in small groups rather than a mass exodus and that it did not exceed 100,000. However Zessede is bent on deprecating Crossley's source without justification. As someone who constantly accuses others of nationalist ties, Zessede has no problem using similar nationalist sources, primary sources, and Korean only sources when convenient. I don't see what the CCP has to do with anything here since Crossley is not associated with the CCP nor is the source in Chinese. Zessede has also removed maintenance tags without fixing their problems like like missing page numbers. Qiushufang (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Please stop with all the nationalistic attacks. It does not help anyone even if the other side or others are doing it and makes the situation worse. The matter is for the use of verifiable sources. Non-English sources are allowed on ENG wiki per WP:NOENG but English sources are preferred, and on articles where subjects are of a controversial nature such as this that would be preferred. When I edited this article I kept my sources mainly to English ones as a result. Using Korean or Chinese only sources, especially primary per WP:RSPRIMARY, does not help anyone here. You are also in danger of violating WP:3RR so please stop edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Primary sources are not supposed to be used as the main source on wiki articles nor could I find an author for the article on the website. You seem to be under the impression that primary sources are superior here but they are not. English sources are also preferred when the sources are of equal reliability. Given that one is published under a national historical organization constituting one of the primary viewpoints in the article and the other is not, at the very least they would be of equal standing if we're being generous. I also encourage you to stop making nationalist attacks once again. Qiushufang (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Which part of the section on the Jin dynasty are you speaking of that is uncited? Qiushufang (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: In a newly added section, it was mentioned that "according to the Old Book of Tang, the customs of Balhae such as coming of age cermonies, marriages, funerals and memorial rites, were the same of Goguryeo."
I cannot access the Korean publication cited but the OBT itself is accessible. In fact, this is the original quote:
風俗瑟高麗及契丹同，頗有文字及書記。
"The customs and habits were the same as in Goryeo and Khitan. It had its script, books and documents."
#Nowhere is "coming of age cermonies, marriages, funerals and memorial rites" mentioned in the book.
#More importantly, either the pubication or the editor omitted "Khitan" from the quote. In my opinion this defeats all the credibility of this statement. How could the customs of Goryeo (either Goguryeo or the later Goryeo) be similar to those of the nomadic Khitans? 
Esiymbro (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional note on Goguryeo succession: the title "Prince of Kyeru Commandery" was granted by the Tang to Balhae princes, not kings. For kings the title was always "Prince of Bohai Commandery" or "King of Bohai". Another title to kings is "Governor of Huhan Prefecture" which signified a degree of subordinacy to the Tang. For balance, either we leave both Kyeru and Huhan out (as the article stands now), or we give at least equivalent WP:Weight to Huhan which was by any account more significant to both the Tang and Balhae. Esiymbro (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Esiymbro, I think that is a reasonable point and thank you for pointing this out. I did not know about the latter, for now I agree with you then that we can keep the status quo of leaving both Kyeru and Huhan out, but perhaps then we can add these onto the Balhae Controversies section as this is perhaps a good way to highlight the complex multiethnic nature of Balhae, which clearly had Korean, Mohe and Chinese influences and hertiage. Thank you for pointing out, as for the first point let me look more into it. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balhae culture