Talk:Balhae/Archive 1

message: "King Kyong" came from a misintepretation of Dongguk Saryak 東國史略:
:至景哀王時契丹攻滅之以爲東丹國
景哀王 doesn't mean King Ae and King Kyong but King Aekyong of Silla. This mistake first appeared on Gaikoshiko in 1910. It was corrected by Jin Yufu. As far as I know, almost all documents except for some Korean ones avoid using this wrong title today. --Nanshu 02:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyong Wang

message: On the genealogy of the royal family, Korean scholars as always start their arguments with the conclusion: Da Zuorong was Korean! This is based on the assumption that Goguryeo was a Korean state, but it's not the topic here.
To support their claim, they pick up 舊唐書. It says: "渤海靺鞨大祚榮者, 本高麗別種也." Maybe this suffices for them. They don't pay careful attention to the phrases: 渤海靺鞨大祚榮 and 高麗別種. They don't wonder why it don't use a more common sentence, say, "渤海靺鞨大祚榮, 高麗人."
新唐書 says, "渤海, 本粟末靺鞨附高麗者, 姓大氏." This is an unfavorable statement for them, so they try to negate 新唐書. They claim that 新唐書 fabricated the statement and they speculate on the reasons.
Hey, get rid of any preconceived ideas! Analyze historical sources objectively. Then you would notice that 舊唐書 doesn't necessarily contradict with 新唐書. 新唐書 is right and you can see why the original author of 舊唐書 selected the word 別種. --Nanshu 02:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us hear your seemingly weird interpretation of Xintangshu. --Nanshu 13:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genealogy of the royal family

message: It would be great if someone could merge the two tables such as in the article on Koguryŏ/Gaogouli. And there is no need to have both Pinyin with tones and Pinyin without tones, the latter should be deleted. Babelfisch 08:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the CJK name table, haven't they merged? --Puzzlet Chung 15:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge tables 

message: Why exactly was this article moved to Balhae?  Bohai is the more commonly used name.  You can argue that this is a result of extant research being more Sino-centric, but the reason behind such bias is not something we adjudicate here.  It should be moved back to Bohai IMHO.
Mgmei 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is bohai really more common? it's hard to tell from google, because bohai is also the name of the bay/sea/gulf, & there are so many permutations of spelling, both bohai & balhae. but i did find these sources for the kingdom being korean:
* britannica  
* encyc. world hist (bartleby.com)  
* columbia encyc. (infoplease.com) 
* u.s. lib of congress  
* met museum  
* misc    Appleby 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case, I stand corrected.  Foot firmly in mouth although it seems there is more legitimate debate over Bohai's role in Chinese history than the whole Goguryeo "controversy" concocted by China :-) Mgmei 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this moved? 

message: How should we handle a Russian name in Bohai langbox? As I explained above, A Russian name is the transliteration of modern Chinese. And the Great Soviet Encyclopedia suggests they use Chinese romanization when translating from Russian. So a Russian name is a "Chinese" name in one sense. We can include it in langbox as a spelling of the Chinese name or as the separate entry, "Russian name." In either case, a Russian name should be put next to a Chinese name for users' better understanding, I think.
The following tables are based on Template:Chinesename koreanname. I think candidate B is better (not strong opinion). Any comment?
Bohai (A)            	Bohai (A)
Chinese name         	Chinese name
Traditional Chinese: 	渤海
Simplified Chinese:  	渤海
Hanyu Pinyin:        	Bóhǎi
Wade-Giles:          	Po-hai
Russian Cyrillic:    	Бохай
Korean name          	Korean name
Hangul:              	발해
Hanja:               	渤海
Revised Romanization:	Balhae or Barhae
McCune-Reischauer:   	Parhae
Bohai (B)            	Bohai (B)
Chinese name         	Chinese name
Traditional Chinese: 	渤海
Simplified Chinese:  	渤海
Hanyu Pinyin:        	Bóhǎi
Wade-Giles:          	Po-hai
Russian name         	Russian name
Cyrillic:            	Бохай
Transliteration:     	Bokhay
Korean name          	Korean name
Hangul:              	발해
Hanja:               	渤海
Revised Romanization:	Balhae or Barhae
McCune-Reischauer:   	Parhae
--Nanshu 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the RR rules does it say that  can be romanised to rh?—Wikipeditor 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? I'm discussing Russian names now. All I know about the RR is that it is so great that users need to learn Korean phonology to pronounce it correctly. If my memory is correct, Sewing discussed this issue somewhere. --Nanshu 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda irrelevant here, didn't see any major English publications or encyclopedias that even used or mentioned Russian romanization (or Russian influence and relatedness to Balhae kingdom in general). The infobox is fine as it is right now, Korean name + Chinese name. Fitting for Russian wikipedia perhaps? Deiaemeth 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian names in langbox

message: #Do not put :Category:History of Manchuria and/or :Category:History of Korea on every Bohai-related article. They are already at :Category:Bohai (Balhae).
#Some articles were cut-and-paste moved. Proper pages should be restored.
--Nanshu 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notices

message: The Korean is demanding to adopt Daum as a source. 
How is proof that the source is correct done?　--Kamosuke 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daum link is actually of Korean Britannica Encyclopedia. If you want to refute the credibility of Encyclopædia Britannica (which I don't suggest you attempt), I suggest you take it up at the discussion page there. Deiaemeth 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, why is Britannica of Hangul necessary?　--Kamosuke 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full details of English Britannica is only available to people with special access (i.e, you have to purchase a special account). Also, Korean Britannica has more information dealing with subjects related to Korea. Deiaemeth 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  obviously Oyo321 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean's Adoption standard in source 

message: Firstly, both the Korean and Chinese names are given in the intro because this is standard practice. The Korean name is already given precedence, in that it is both the name of the article and the name presented first.
Next, please do not rename Bohai Prefecture, which is in Hebei province, not even close to Manchuria.
Finally, there is no such thing as the "Littoral Province". The region is called Primorsky Krai. Nor is it in Siberia -- it is in the Russian Far East.
-- ran (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the article. It has improved a lot. But I would like to ask why the Chinese names are given first at the section of Balhae kings. Balhae, technically isn't Korea, but their ancestors were Korean and their government was founded by Koreans. I think we need to state the Korean name of the kings first, or drop the Chinese names. Good friend100 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Balhae/Bohai are neither Korean nor Chinese.  To say that it is one or the other is politically motivated.  Having said that, it is OK to have both Chinese and Korean romanizations.  Preference to Chinese romanizations is due to the primary texts of the times using Chinese characters.--Endroit 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by Breathejustice 

message: I disagree with the Chinese names of Balhae kings. To make it even more misleading, the words are also writtin in English, making it misleading that "Balhae is Chinese".
I propose that the Korean name, hanja, and English translation first, since dropping the Chinese names is not possible. 71.155.194.101 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply bizarre.  The kings back then did not use "Korean" -- since the script did not exist then.  --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, the user User:71.155.194.101|71.155.194.101 is me, I forgot to log in. Good friend100 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Balhae was neither Chinese nor Korean, I don't see what makes one superior to the other.  -- Visviva 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Balhae is technically a descendent of Goguryeo. I'm just suprised at the fact how some editors treat this article as if it was "Chinese" and "Chinese history". I think that is a nasty attitude. Good friend100 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object to Chinese King