Talk:Balhae

Following Population History of Liaodong Needs to be Included

-Sloane's figure of 30 meng'an units.

Also try considering incorporating Henry Serruy's translation about Ming observance of Jianzhou and Maolien as descendants of Balhae Da family The populations in Liaodong were not necessarily sinicized until much later in the Ming

Not necessarily any insinuations of showing Balhae transformed into Jurchens The wars and campaigns between Mongolian Yuan remnants, Red Turbans, Jurchens, Koryo created lots of disruption, so that census figures were not able to reliably record populations of Liaodong until Ming and Joseon were established. Solid definitions of ethnicity were not there or imposed until much later through policies enacted during the Ming

It is likely the populations of Liaoyang during the Yuan were absorbed among later Mongols also, and not just Jurchens and Liaodong Chinese populations. Also the fact the Khitans were present there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Liao This is also important because it could mean that those in Liaoyang who did not feel any attachment to Yelu Liuge vacuated with Puxian Wannu to Eastern Xia

Also. There were contingents of Uriankha Mongols who were attached to Naghachu, that many present day Mongol communities in Liaoning can actually trace back to

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:OR of Sloane's content and addition of uncited and badly sourced (no page number) content does not fill me with confidence. And frankly much of the events you cite here post-Mongol Empire was part of the uncited material and only tangentially relevant to Balhae at best. Qiushufang (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Eventually if we have concrete information, data and argumentation backing Bohai assimilation into Jurchens pre-Ming, through scholarly, academic articles or books we can include them, including the Serruys passage.

I think Sloane left of at a important point that by Yuan - since the name "Bohai" disappeared, it shows less prominence as in terms of relating the term to a singular identity 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide more complete citations for content for it to be verifiable and adding material that is not backed by sources is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also no mention of disappearance of Bohai as a geographic term during the Jin. That is clearly a reference to Bohai county, Shandong in the next part of Sloane's article titled "The Disappearance of the Bohai Identity under the Mongol Order" and needs to be moved to the next section of the Wikipedia article 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

All these changes to Bohai identity in the Jin were not as abrupt, specific and confidently stated as conveyed in the Sloane article. The language and style of the Wkipedia subsection does not accurately reflect the author's intents and wishes 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also another interesting point is linguistics. If Jianzhou dialects and varieties of Jurchenic can be effectively be separated from more "northern" varieties. Jin dynasty Jurchen actually is a more complex and formal variant of Jurchen than Manchu. And using those benchmarks and standards, one can attempt linguistics works to effectively connect back to them 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please delete "During the Jin era, Balhae was no longer geographically identified with Liaodong.", as it is not verified within the article by Sloane. It should belong to the next subsection Mongol Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Without any sources, page numbers, or quotations it's impossible to verify whether any of what you have written is true. On what page does Sloane's article does mention Bohai county, Shandong and what relation does it have to the separation of Bohai from Liaodong, which is what the article claims? What relevance does Jurchen linguistics have on a page about Balhae? The article never makes the claim that the end of Balhae identity was abrupt but occurred over multiple generations. The article also never makes the claim that Balhae identity ended in the Jin dynasty. On p. 368: Due to the demographic predominance of the Bohai in Liaodong, the terms "Bohai" and "Liaodong" were sometimes used interchangeably. On p.388: Under the Jin a significant shift appears to have taken place regarding the Liaodong region: often referred to interchangeably with "Bohai" under the Liao, it had by the late twelfth century become dominated by other identities. So "Liaodong" and "Bohai" went from being almost interchangeable (one was an ethnicity and polity while the other a region) with each other to not during the later Jin period. I took this to mean the geographical linkage was broken but perhaps a better description would be a decline in association with one another. Qiushufang (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. All good 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:125 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Important changes

I've made some important changes to this article for more neutrality. I see Balhae as a transformative age when Koreans left Manchuria for good, but it is biased to believe that Koreans had no role in the formation of Balhae and its continued rule. I am the IP editor who made the recent changes. Please address any concerns to me. Thank you and God Bless. Signed, Taejina

Koreans were an ethnic minority in the south of the country. Like Mexicans in the US. But was the US founded by the Mexicans? Were the Mexicans the backbone of the US in the 1940s for example? TTACH (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not a fair comparsion at all, most outsider academics from say the West for example often characterize Balhae as a Goguryeoic-Mohe State or a Manchurian-Korean State, a lot of non-nationalistic academics and scholars from China, Russia, Korea and Japan also hold this view. The Goguryeoic and Mohe elements clearly worked together to help found the state, it says a lot that the founder was allegedly a Sumo Mohe who also allegedly was the son of a Goguryeo General, and that the state was multi-ethnic just proves this point.

To say it was just Korean or just Manchurian is applying modernity over a medieval state. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You probably belong to the Korean ultra-nationalists or are influenced by their propaganda. But not in Russia, not in China, where the main archaeological sites of this state are located, NONE of the scientists recognize these states as being to some extent Korean.

All scientific works indicate only that this is the first state of the ancestors of the Jurchens. As well as the presence of national minorities in it. And not only Korean - Koguryeo people, but also Mongolian - Khitans, Tungus - Evenks and Solones, and even Ainu and Japanese in Posyet Bay, as well as Fuyu (Hongshan) and Teli (unknown Paleo-Asians). The divergence between the Russians and the Chinese was only a different assessment of relations with Fuyu, Teli and Khitan. But it was decided in favor of the Russian theory of their only tributary dependence on the Bohai after finding three credential tags (paizi) from the Tang Empire. The Chinese said that they entered Bohai directly. They made a mistake and are gradually admitting it.

All the influence of the Koreans comes down to the fact that the Koreans lived on the territory of modern North Korea where the Southern Capital of this state was - one of the five. And yes, it was built by the Koreans, and the Koreans also built many fortifications in the south of Bohai against the Korean state of Silla.

The influence of even the Japanese was no less. As well as the influence of the Khitans. BUT 75% of the population and the ruling class of Bohai were Jurchen, and the downfall of the state was caused by an attempt by a Korean ethnic minority to seize power using the fact that Wang Ai's mother was Korean. This led to conflict first with the Mongols, then with Fuyu and Teli. As a result, the Jurchens also refused to fight under the leadership of the Korean commanders, who were appointed by Emperor Ai.

A completely different state is recognized as Korean, which used the name of this state after the fall of Bohai in 926. Late Bohai. - Its territory was limited solely to the places where the Koreans physically lived - Changbaishan and the territory of the DPRK, without North Hamgyon where the Jurchens lived and the lands of Silla. The joint work of Russian and North Korean scientists prove that there was a state that used the same hieroglyphs in the name from 927-1010. And the descendants of Emperor Ai ruled there, but the generals constantly seized power. It claimed all of Bohai, but these claims were never recognized by anyone, and as a result, it entered Goryeo as a vassal. But this is purely a state on the territory of the DPRK !!! . Well, and what do you call "Gando". This is not the state that is here in the article. This state was the state of the Jurchens.TTACH (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Accusing someone just for having an opposing opinion of being "Korean ultra-nationalists or influenced by their propaganda" is a personal attack and also just flat out wrong in this case. The Korean Nationalist position would likely advocate that Balhae was ruled solely by the Koreans or that it was even majority Korean in the most radical fringe wings, I am merely reiterating the points held by the majority of scholars in the West and elsewhere, that Balhae was a mixed Korean-Manchurian state with a diverse ethnic composition that is hard to lump into a single category, it should be pointed out that North Korea, which also has its share of Balhae sites, has taken the opposite approach and claimed it is purely Korean, which is also wrong.

The Russian position is that Balhae had a 1/5 population of Goguryeoic-Koreans, whereas the Korean position is that it was 2/5. Having even 20% of a population be a part of a group would by many standards lead to its recognition as a leading minority group in any country for its composition. Regardless, that still points to a significant ethnic composition and if anything adds to the credence that Balhae was a multi-ethnic/cultural society. The fact that a significant portion of the ruling class did flee to Goryeo later including the last Crown Prince (estimated between 100,000 to 200,000 by most accurate estimates from Pamela Crossley, Alexander Kim, etc) also suggests that the state was very multi-ethnic and had both Koreans and Mohe/Jurchens ruling the state. And Later Balhae/Jeongan if anything adds support to that point, that the state splintered into both Jurchen parts (that later lead to the rise of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty) and the Korean parts (that first arose as Later Balhae/Jeongan, which later was assimilated into Goryeo). It's entirely possible for states to have a senior-junior ruling partnership, whether it be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Norman England, etc, for multiple ethnic groups.

I don't think anyone claims that Balhae was a vassal of Goryeo, or the same with Later Balhae/Jeongan, and this is not about territorial claims over Gando. The vast majority of Koreans have no interest in revanchism and neither Korean state has any desire for territorial expansion.

I do find your statements fascinating on Wang Ai, and I was familiar with the topic of Later Balhae/Jeongan, if you have any academic articles on that conducted by the Russian-North Korean academics please post them and I would be interested in reading them, as I have read a few English translated works done by Russian academia, mostly from Alexander Kim but I would be open to reading others if just for the sake of more knowledge. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, not 1/5. And this is not a position, but real scientific research on the territories and population density there. Less than 20% is significant. - Approximately 10% -12%, since there were also Tongliao Khitans, Evenks, Solons, Japanese, Ainu, Chinese, Fuyu and Teli (in addition to the vassal dependence of these peoples from Bohai.), they lived compactly. An analogue of the Bukhara Emirate, or Tatars in the Russian Empire. But it is difficult to call the Russian Empire an Uzbek-Russian state or a Tatar-Russian state. This is a multinational state based on the Russian people. It was founded by the Russians. Alexander Kim is a teacher of Korean at FENU, and not an authority in Russian science. He has his own pro-South Korean stance. In Russia, unlike South Korea, it is possible to have a position that is contrary to the scientific mainstream. and by the way, Alexander Kim is the Primorsky State Agricultural Academy.That is, he is a purely conventional historian. [1] Here they describe the DPRK's ideas about Bohai. Everything is simple there - the ruling elite are Koreans. But even they do not claim that the population is Koreans. Moreover, the DPRK does not recognize that Heishui Mohe were actually Mohe. This is part of the theory from 1992 that Goguryeo was the large as it is drawn in South Korea, and subordinated all Mohe, and since Heishui Mohe did not enter Goguryeo, they were not real Mohe. To be clear, until 1992, when Goguryeo in the DPRK more corresponded to the borders of North Korea. And there were fewer in China. And of course it is not on the territory of Russia, not then, not now. For in the DPRK, Kraskino has been known since 1966, and there it is in textbooks as in the reality of Bohai. But Bohai itself is a state led by the Korean people. In 1992, South Korean Goguryeo maps began to be accepted in the DPRK. Although Silla remained a "small state of Traitors to the Nation, Chinese puppets".

And the story of Ai has nothing to do with the DPRK. They call him Mar Wang. And they draw him a whole genealogy of descendants. They don't have Lee Sun-sin as a hero. But they have Hero Kang Gam Chan. Defeated the Khitans in 1019, Unifier of Korea and he is a descendant of Mar Wang. And his son in 1039 raised the Heungyo rebellion. TTACH (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Kang Gam Chan in South Korea you called he Gang Gam-chan. According to the DPRK, he died and was born in Pyongyang. I was at his grave. And according to your version, he was born in Seoul (although Seoul did not exist then.) . nothing is as unpredictable as Korean versions of history. TTACH (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and I don't think either of us should use blanket terms saying that the positions of Russia or Korea represent either you or me. For example, Russian Wikipedia directly contradicts your position, Russian Wikipedia states the following when I ran it through English Translation.

"The national composition differed greatly depending on the region. In the southern regions in the area of ​​​​the southern capital - presumably Puncheon (DPRK) - lived mainly Goguryeo with a small number of Sillas, who for some reason left Silla. The Koguryeo people also dominated the entire territory of Bohai, now part of the DPRK, and in the mountainous regions of Jilin (China). With only about 1.3 million people or 18%, they were the largest minority with active influence on Bohai's government policy and technology. In the rest of the country, in addition to Tongliao, the Mohe  , the people of the Tungus-Manchu group, prevailed, numbering 4 million people, or a little more than 60% of the population."

[2] (Russian Wikipedia: Бохай)

So the article from the Russian Wikipedia says it is 18% which is much larger than the 10-12% you proposed (and a bit lower but around the ballpark of what numbers I said Russian scholars stated) and also stated they were the largest active minority in Balhae's Gov policy and technology.

Please do not conflate Korean Nationalists or the position of the ROK and DPRK with my positions, I do not agree with the Nationalist position, I believe as mentioned before that Balhae was a multi-ethnic state with the Mohe (Ancestors of the Jurchens) and Goguryeoic (Ancestors of Northern Koreans/Koreans) ruling the state together rather than believing it was purely a "Korean" or "Jurchen" state. Also while I disagree with the DPRK position, their position is arguably the one most lacking in the Balhae article. The Chinese and South Korean positions are pretty throughly written, the Russian and Japanese positions might need more work but the North Korean position regardless of what substance it may or may not provide doesn't have much content and arguably should be represented eventually.

I disagree with the assertions on Alexander Kim, who has provided excellent articles on the topic of Balhae and also has actually worked a lot on dispelling nationalistic Chinese and Korean narratives in his articles. Also Crossley and other Western historians also largely do cite the 100k-200k numbers as well, with Crossley on the lower end, and some others on the middle or higher ends. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia rules. In addition, there is a Q-bit administrator on the Russian-language Wikipedia who banned me from the Russian-language Wikipedia for pointing out with reference to a scientific article that Hwandan Gogi is a falsification of 1979 and is promoted by the Korean ultra-nationalist sect Cheungsando. And it was a work with a citation of the VAK. But this administrator is a radical believer that the Hwandan Gogi is a historical document [3] . TTACH (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet the Wikipedia itself is backed by sources, and also accusing the Russian language Wikipedian admins for being "Korean ultranationalists" is very much a slanderous position as you have continued to use personal attacks against me and now you are promoting it to others. Also please stop citing this document which neither I nor Wikipedia as a website have taken for accuracy, as it is clearly mentioned on its page that it is likely a forgery. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The population of 4 million or the ones that Crossley recently formulated could be extreme compared to the conventional "few hundreds of thousands" of households from Tang sources. Skeptic717 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is evidence of a distinct "Fuyu" ethnic group and a "Tieli" group separate from Tungusic Mohe-Jurchen groups and their separate linguistic identities being determined?

Also where are concrete historical records for this Wang Ai / "Mar Wang" existing or evidence of Jeongan or Later Pohai being predominantly Koguryo in ethnicity?

Also how can Khitans, Northern Tungusic / Tungus including groups such as Solon, Ainu or Paleo-Siberians have a de jure status of direct subjects of the realm as opposed to being mere neighboring satellite tributaries, that had more of a trade dependency on the Pohai centers?

The problem does not seem to be centered on distinctions between Koguryo and Mohe, but on the unique characteristics and qualities of the Mohe themselves. Mohe are not exactly identical to Jurchens and included a broad range of smaller groups including the Heishui, which is not to be directly equated with Jurchens according to many scholars on the subject. Some Mohe could have fallen under more Koguryo influence throughout the ages, while others lacked much foreign influence, while some could even be influenced by Tang, as some Sumo Mohe were deported near Tang population centers.

Also there does not seem to be historical sources that mention migration from Jeongan and Later Pohai directly to states within the Korean peninsula / Koryo. There are more concrete sources that mention relationships between this region and the Eastern Capital / Liaoyang of the Liao Dynasty

One of the leading archaeologists of the subject Olga Dyakova shows that Koguryo remnants or refugees played occupational roles as craftsmen, engineers or construction workers primarily in her excavational work and research all from the Primorsky Territory (51st Meeting, 2008: “The Role of Koguryo Residents in Pohai State“). And, how they would most likely be assimilated in the Tungusic populations here as residing in the urban centers scattered throughout the region. This shows that the Koguryo contingent in Pohai would most likely be urbanized, or at the core centers of agricultural / agrarian components of the kingdom, since the distinction in the population between those who employed agrarian ways of life vs hunter-gathering and pastoral is an important topic in studies on Pohai and later on in the greater region. Skeptic717 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting points you raise, for the "Also there does not seem to be historical sources that mention migration from Jeongan and Later Pohai directly to states within the Korean peninsula / Koryo." The primary source/record for the history of Goryeo, the Goryeosa, mentions that in 979 AD that several tens of thousands of Balhae/Goguryeo refugees fled into Goryeo.[4] Historians note it was the largest exodus of Balhae people into Goryeo since the 936 AD exodus that the Balhae Crown Prince had led. I think Crossley's research isn't completely accurate tho because this topic is obscure it's not that well studied in the West, but Crossley is wrong because she says migration never happened on a mass scale "Balhae refugees only arrived in groups of a few hundred to a few thousand" but tens of thousands of immigrants coming twice (936, 979) does indicate it had spikes of large-scale immigration.

Some of the points you raised I can't answer because TTACH (who is banned because they were using alternate accounts which had been banned) raised them, but they are good points. A lot of research indicates the Mohe elements of Balhae were much more rural and to the east (where present day Chinese Manchuria and Russian Primorsky Krai), whereas the Goguryeo elements of Balhae were more urban and towards the south (where southern Chinese Manchuria and northern Korea are). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, the 979 AD migration was from Jeongan/Later Balhae into Goryeo Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hyeonjong of Goryeo ko:귀주 대첩 - This was the battle for the annexation of Later Bohai, which the Liao empire did not recognize. But she was forced to admit after the defeat. Well, in the DPRK, this is considered as the reunification of the Nation. And Hyeonjong is a Korean Hero. By the way, you shoot a lot of dramas on this topic, but you bypass it? Why ? In the north, I saw a performance on this subject. TTACH (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add it is a logical fallacy to retroactively "claim" an ethnic group from the past or that belongs to the past at a certain point, within nation-based historiography. Just because one or the other culture became "tinged" by Chinese or Koreanic or Korean-ish culture or has a strong or feint resemblance to aboriginal cultures that dwelt in the region does not mean they can be essentialized or periodized to fit or become one under a category. This should be apparent in practice throughout historical and prehistoric Eurasia Skeptic717 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Balhae people considered themselves different from the Koreans and akin to the Jurchens which in fact the mainstream Balhae populace was of Mohe Origins

The sudden impulse of Mohe and the spread of Mohe culture according to many Russian archaeologists is connected with the Xianbei due to lifestyles surrounding horses. Also genetic studies show that the Mohe may have been related to modern populations in Inner Mongolia like Mongola. They had nothing to do with Koreans, Koguryo or their ancestors who come from an entirely different genetic stock.

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.

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.

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.

The Korean Samguk yusa said Dae Joyeong was Mohe people.

The Goryeosa said in 918 the people residing in Pyongyang were barbarians and not Koreans. The Goryeo said in 993 the people between Liaoyang and Pyongyang were Jurchens.

Western historians have said Balhae was founded by a Mohe family, of "non-Korean ethnic origins".

References

Sources

@Zessede: 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)

Ultranationalist claims? What an excuse to delete sourced materials. If were to talk about bias, nothing can par with Chinese state media that are aligned with the projects going North South East and West. By the way, just because you can't read 'Korean' doesn't mean it's unverifiable when in fact Korean academia has been conducting studies on Balhae closer than ever. Not to mention that the CCP bans all Korean entry to local Balhae sites and only permits Chinese entry. What a laugh. Zessede (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

I looked at the history of edits - the Korean ultra-nationalists fought against Russian scientists here and in the end the administration took the side of the Korean ultra-nationalists and dozens of Russian scientific sources were deleted, and those involved in the conflict were blocked. Although there was also a ten-thousander (the one who made more than 10 thousand edits) from Russia. So the problem of justification of territorial claims through the falsification of history is obviously relevant for the region. Since the scientific school is huge, the oldest one in the region is completely categorically ignored. For comparison, Bohai has been studied in Russia for 130 years. In Japan, 118 years. In Korea, 70 years, but from the position of the ultra-nationalist social Darwinist book Doksa Sillon. And in China, only 50 years. But the oldest in the region are ignored very rudely, and everything is reduced to a dispute between Korea and China, where Korea is "a priori right" and China "falsifies everything." Despite the fact that it was in South Korea that this state never existed, but 90% of its archaeological objects are in China. TTACH (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

Her paper has only but one contribution from a Korean scholar, Im Sang son. Not to mention the ratio of Korea-based researches and sources that focus light on Balhae throughout her works. And it's pretty obvious she's a specialist in Northern Asian + Chinese history rather than Korean. The fact she's criticized by Chinese conservatives is irrelevant. How about giving an idea of what you think about Chinese state policies on histories and cultures of other countries? I bet you probably think Tibet and Uighur is genuinely Chinese lol. Your way of changing the names of Balhae individuals into Pinyin is ridiculous considering the fact that Han Chinese folks started to populate Liaodong and Manchuria after the Qing Dynasty. Zessede (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zessede: 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)

Korean state owned site? Korean nationalist what? Please. Don't associate the CCP with the Korean government which is a free democracy. Korea is a country where government intervention on humanities and academia are highly problematic, offensive, and sensitive, unlike China. The Northeast History Foundation was a move to counter political maneuvers in academia by Japan and China. And the focus is to gather evidence amongst existing historical records, not twist them like your government (CCP) does. By the way, the site may be government-affiliated, but the source itself is from the 『고려사절요』권1, 태조신성대왕 을유 8년 12월 (Goryeosa-Jeolyo, Book 1n Taejo, Year Eulyu, August), a primary source. Since you mention it, the CCP has long been utilizing digital-based manpower such as the Wumao in a grand scale for the sake of fabricating history in favor of state ideology and state-led ultranationalism. From Hanbok to Aodai, Kimchi to Hanfu Revitalization Movement. Zessede (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Even with the legitimate sources for even the individuals Esymbrio just undoes everything without a detailed explanation. I wonder why? Are the texts too much of an obstacle for you that might disprove China's claim on Balhae as part of the Northeast Project? These guys are ridiculous. Not to mention they come to sabotage other pages of Korean dynasties like Goryeo and Goguryeo. Zessede (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please then, explain why the contents on the Balhae folks of Jin Dynasty are uncited yet undeleted unlike mine that were cited albeit being Korean sources? Zessede (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Balhae culture

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."

1. Nowhere is "coming of age cermonies, marriages, funerals and memorial rites" mentioned in the book.
2. 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) :: It is interesting that many Russians were banned here for indications of this fact several years ago. And the one who banned today in the administration of Wikipedia.TTACH (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)