Talk:Balhae

Archived

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant

We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN Violation

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

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

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

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

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

I'll replace it with the modified version that says "Balhae's territory at its greatest extent". Cydevil38 00:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! ㅋ ㅋ Mumun 無文 11:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohe vs Malgal

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

I support this name change. Not only have Koreans been calling the people once up North "Malgaljok" (말갈족/靺鞨族) for centuries, they are closely related to the development of Parhae than to some other obscure Chinese polities. Undoubtly under the sphere of Korean history so the respective name should be used. Kuebie (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mohe, Malgal, and 靺鞨 mean the same thing, but the Wikipedia article name is under Mohe. That is why "Mohe" is used here. You can't just change it because it's called "Malgal" in Korea. If you wish to change the article name in the English Wikipedia, you should follow the procedure at WP:RM.--Endroit (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Malgal is more correct way to describe them, even Mohe or Malgal themselves called Malgal rather than Mohe.

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

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

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

Yalu vs. Amrok

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

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

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

Why isn't this article at "Bohai"?

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

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

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

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

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

The capital of Bohai is located in modern (and traditional) Chinese territory. Its founder was Mohe - and even if that is disputed, what is the evidence that he is Korean in the modern sense of the word?

The nation, as far as it can be determined, wrote its own records in Chinese, not ancient Korean (if such a thing exists).

Appletrees - what is CPOV, and can you point out what you are referring to at ume instead of making wild and blanket accusations?

You say Bohai is "located on the Korean peninsula" - it is not. It ruled from what is today China, a portion of its territory being in what is today Korea. By your argument, China is also Korean because various Chinese dynasties ruled territories which are today a part of Korea. It is a flawed argument.

You say Bohai is regarded as a "Korean kingdom". I haven't seen such an argument except in sources of Korean origin.

Kuebie, I don't understand what you are saying. What evidence do you have that the Mohe "backstabbed Goguryo"? What evidence do you have, in fact, that Goguryo is "Korean" in the modern sense? And I do not understand what you are saying when you say the Mohe are the direct descendants of the Manchus at all. The Manchus arose several centuries after, they cannot be the ancestors of the Mohe.

Can one of you present a coherent list of the arguments for why this article is at a Korean pronunciation of the Chinese name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is what you're holding now.

I wrote the past tense, not present as writing "was" located on the Korean peninsula. So please carefully distinguish other people's comment. I also haven't heard such claim except you bringing up here. Perhaps what you need the most is logical argument here. The mention of the ume is actually not a sole opinion and your argument was shown and pointed out as such by some people. --Appletrees (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still no or very little evidence to support Balhae was exclusively Mohe people, today there are no or very little Mohe people in current location of past Balhae boarders, certainly China can not claim it as their as Mohe aren't Chinese, after the Qing Empire resign, most of Mohe were pushed off and evntually destroyed by Russian expansion at far Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.

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

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

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

Balhae is Korean

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

First, let's see the facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, most of details surrounding Balhae royal family and it's ruling clans are actually from Korean source plus book of Tang dynasty and no Chinese were involved in creation of Balhae while Balhae allowed many ex-Korean people to settled into their kingdom and furthermore many artefacts from Balhae's archaeological sites clearly shows strong Korean influences and Both North & South Korean scholars and academics does claim Balhae as part of Korea's North & South States history. --Korsentry

The Identity of Mohe people

MOHE WERE MANCHURIANS. IN WHICH KOREANS ABSORB INTO BALHAE KINGDOM.

A question that was never raised here was the exact identity of Mohe people, namely Sumo Mohe of which Dae Jo Yong supposedly belonged to.

Recall that Dae Jo Yong returned to present day Tonghua, Jilin and not to Pyongyang(Koguryo capital) after escaping from his Khitan captivity. So we can assume that Tonghua is Dae Jo Young's ancestral native homeland, where he or his father was born and grew up in before joining the Koguryo army(Dae Jo Yong's father as recorded was a Koguryo army general at the time of Koguryo's fall)

So exactly what used to be at Tonghua? Fuyu(aka Buyeo). In other word, Sumo Mohe are remnants of Fuyu/Buyeo kingdom that collapsed and was absorbed by Koguryo in 494 AD. But ethnically speaking, Koguryo people themselves are ethnic Fuyu/Buyeo people who spoke the same language and shared same customs as Fuyus(Koguryo people were not called Koguryos, they were called Fuyus in history books), who are now known as Sumo Mohes around the time of Dae Jo Yong.

Now it makes perfect sense why the remnants of Koguryo people were willing to follow the leadership of Dae Jo Young, they were one and the same ethnically, sort of like the relationship between present day Germans and Austrians(Different country, but ethnically the same)!!! This much is stated in Bohai's diplomatic document to Japan in 727 AD, which stated that "Bohai recovered most of Koguryo's territory and follows the customs of Fuyu"... Bohai kingdom followed the customs of Fuyu because Sumo Mohe are the remnants of Fuyu.

back from 22:05, 26 June 2009 for 24 hours, ip and my accounts only edited twice. is that no biased to use ancient Asian kingdom, but not to use Chinese or korean kingdom? Gzhao (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! So now Malgal are of Buyeo origin? Make up your mind people! This is the exact reason why the Chinese nationalists have zero credibility whatsoever. You people make up your own history (as evident in this original research bs) and then decide to reside in that made-up fantasy. Don't 'assume' anything.

Wonder why the Khitan adopted Goguryeo's administrative system? Because they were under the dominion of Goguryeo. They lived in it. Same with the Malgal, and a bunch of other insignificant tribes. Malgal are in no way shape or form related to Buyeo. They were a nomadic people, back when Koreans were building city-states. Different names, language, culture, heck they were even used as slaves in Balhae and Goguryeo. There are only two significant events the Malgal have shown up in history; changing of alligiances to the Tang from Goguryeo and the aid of Balhae (in which the Malgal followers were awarded with titles). Akkies (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Malgal or Mohe people were not Buyeo tribe, Buyeo already died out and became part of Goguryeo and Baekje by the time Malgal rise in the north, and even during height of Malgal history, they tends to follow ancient Korean customs.--Korsentry 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

You wish you can claim Altaic as Chinese. The Khitans considered Balhae (well knowing it was found by a Goguryeo general) as the same people. By genetic evidence, the Balhae, Khitans, Mongols and Koreans share the Northern Asian DNA originating from the Altai Mountains/Siberia. Even if you were to claim Mohe as Chinese, that entire area was Northern Asian ruled to begin with. Nomadic Tribes, different from settled Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryunbaik (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) .--K-Sentry (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally wrong. Read it: Haplogroup O-M175. The Japanese, Chinese and Korean peoples have same origin. The only difference is they hate each other: The Japanese people hate the Koreans and Chinese, Chines hate both of them, the Koreans hate both of them. Dersere (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Textual References to Support Bohai as a Mohe Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

勑持节宣劳靺羯使鸿胪卿崔忻井两口永为记验开元二年五月十八日

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

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

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

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

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

金之始祖讳函普，初从高丽来，年已六十余矣。

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

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

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

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

通典云。渤海。本栗未靺鞨。至其酋柞榮立國。自號震旦。

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

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

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

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

渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。

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

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

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

I guess the major problem with categorizing Balhae, an ancient kingdom, using (relatively) modern ethnopolitical/ethnocultural definitions has greatly to do with the kingdom's own self-identification, which is compounded by the fact that the country didn't survive to the modern era. There is no doubt (since there are records of this) that Balhae considered itself a successor state to Goguryeo (but that alone is not enough to consider Balhae a Korean state per se, despite the fact that Goguryeo was). In contrast, some contemporary records (of those times) seem to indicate that if one were to make a distinction, the majority ethnicity of the people of Balhae, to include much of its ruling class and many of its rulers, was not identical to that of the kingdoms to its south (e.g. Silla and Goryeo), which we call Korean today; indeed, we do not even know how strongly the people of Balhae actually self-identified to any ethnicity or culture, since the only descriptions of this population in ethnic terms come from sources outside of Balhae itself (which thus lend themselves to potential suspicion of politically-motivated tampering). It doesn't help that after the fall of Balhae, the Mohe/Malgal (the suspected but not confirmed majority ethnicity of Balhae) disappear almost entirely from the historical record. Most people think that the Jurchen (and thus by extension the Manchu) are descended from the Mohe/Malgal and other tribes in the Greater Manchuria area that was ruled by Goguryeo and subsequently Balhae, but there simply isn't enough evidence to confirm this.

Goryeo and Goguryeo are not the same. Every instance in which you referred to "Goryeo," I believe you meant to say "Goguryeo," but the sources you cite do say (in Chinese) "Goryeo," which did not exist until a few centuries after Goguryeo. As such, it is unclear what those sources are actually saying - are they saying that Dae Jo-yeong came from Goguryeo proper or from the ethnicity of the kingdom of Goryeo (i.e. that he was Korean)? And are they saying that the people of Goryeo are also the same ethnicity of the people of Goguryeo?

The Balhae/Bohai as an ethnic group is really a reasonable but ultimately made-up conjecture. The Jinshi, which you cite, says that the Sumo Mohe (which we think are an ethnic group) became the Bohai/Balhae (which we know is the name of a country, not necessarily an ethnicity) after the fall of Goguryeo. We cannot assume that the Jinshi means that Sumo Mohe ethnicity -> Balhae ethnicity, because the "Balhae ethnicity" also includes people of the nation of Balhae who were definitely not of Sumo Mohe ethnicity. Putting the people of Balhae under a single ethnic group is like putting all American citizens into an American ethnic group, especially because the Mohe were a distinct ethnic group within Goguryeo and could not possibly have become part of a new ethnic group or turned into another ethnic group in such a short time. The Jinshi as a source is not particularly reliable as a record on Balhae, Goguryeo, Silla, or Baekje, because it was written several hundred years after the fall of Balhae and the disappearance of the Mohe/Malgal from the historical record (it was compiled in 1345, about 100 years after the Samguk Yusa was written and 200 years after the Samguk Sagi was written). It makes the claim that the Jurchen/Jin are descended from the people of Balhae, but all it does is record the saying of a historical figure whose understanding of this relationship is unclear (is he citing stories he heard as a child? tribal mythology? currently-undiscovered written records?) and whose motivation in saying this is unknown.

You say the Samguk Yusa claims that the people of Balhae were a single ethnic group that came directly from the Sumo Mohe, but all that the Samguk Yusa is doing in that citation is quoting another source. Indeed, for all we know, that line might actually mean that the Samguk Yusa is only citing points of view other than its own. As for the subsequent line about ancient Silla records, all the Samguk Yusa says there is that Silla records indicate that Balhae was a kingdom (not a people/ethnic group), and that Dae Jo-yeong was a general from Goguryeo. The part about Balhae being a division of the Malgal and a distinction within a class is the quoted perspective (not in the Silla records, and, the way it is written, not necessarily the perspective of the Samguk Yusa) and is not only unclear (a country as a distinction within a class of people makes no sense, and we know the Mohe/Malgal to be an ethnic group, not a class definition like upper, middle, and low class) but has no recorded support in the historical record elsewhere.

As for the inscription on the Honglujing Stele, that doesn't really mean much by itself; all it means is that there was a special imperial envoy to the people/ethnic group known as the Mohe. There is no mention of Balhae (or mention of the special imperial envoy being sent to "us," i.e. the court of Balhae) at all in that inscription. We have no way of knowing why the envoy was named that way. Perhaps the Tang imperial government did not know the official name of the country and simply assumed it to be a country of the majority population (which were the Mohe/Malgal)? Of course, in so doing, this was probably interpreted by the people of Balhae as recognition of their independence as opposed to a recognition of a divorce from their origins in Goguryeo. In addition, just because Balhae was a majority Mohe/Malgal nation does not necessarily make it a Mohe/Malgal kingdom per se' - we don't know their self-identification (because their supposed ethnic identification comes from outside sources), but we do know that they (at least at the time of the Honglujing Stele) and their parents were citizens of the former kingdom of Goguryeo, that they used governmental and social institutions directly derived from Goguryeo, that their culture, art and religion were the same as those in Goguryeo, and that they called themselves Goguryeo in official international communications. What do we call such people? People of Goguryeo who just happened to start a new kingdom when the old one fell. On top of that, when Balhae fell to the Khitans/Liao, its royal family fled to Goryeo, not to anywhere else, and was incorporated into Goryeo/Korean society; indeed, the main branch was incorporated into the Goryeo royal family. Even if the people of Balhae were a distinct ethnic group, they identified more with "Korean" culture, religious philosophies, and institutions and could therefore be considered "Korean," just as American citizens are often considered as Americans first and any other ethnic/cultural identity second, especially if those citizens identify strongly with American culture and institutions. The same example could be made with the People's Republic of China, which acknowledges the representation of many ethnicities among its citizens within a single nation.

As for the Jin Dynasty, maybe we should consider it a Korean dynasty. But by the time the Jurchen/Jin came to power, it is clear that culturally and politically they were distinct from what we consider "Korean" identity, and so, even though the clan progenitor came from Korea (which some historians believe to be tribal mythology, not literal truth), his descendants were far enough removed from this identity such that they could no longer be considered "Korean." As far as we can tell, the Jin Dynasty identified with Chinese culture and used Chinese institutions. Balhae, on the other hand, was built directly upon the foundations of Goguryeo, a Korean kingdom, called itself Goguryeo, and had a population that identified strongly with "Korean" culture and institutions, and later integrated into Goryeo when its kingdom fell.

Ecthelion83 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What's more, short-lived successor states and Khitan resistance/Balhae restoration movements that arose in the former lands of Balhae following occupation by the Khitan were, as far as we can tell, distinctly Korean and not anything else.Ecthelion83 (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

In Russian

This country called Бохай, i.e. "Bohay". Name "Пархэ" is unknown. Look in russian wiki, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.156.3 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no Manchus existed back then. Again, who were Manchus? well they're newly formed ethnicity of Koreans, Jurchens and Khitans.--KSentry(talk) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry bud but I said, "Manchu-Tungustic". Not Manchu alone meaning Manchurian. Listen, debating about topics are okay but don't get snarky with it. All I said was I was contesting just using the Korean name and not the Chinese name. I feel that it's not correct just to show one sided article and pretty much support Korean claim that Bohai/Balhae is strictly Korean. It wasn't. It was a multi-racial country which was not exactly Korean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.211.229 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead

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

The lead should reflect the body of the article, and the article makes it explicit that Balhae/Bohai was a multi-ethnic kingdom. It's worth noting that the term "Northeast China" only constitutes "inner Manchuria", and is anachronistic if used to describe Manchuria before 1949. The historical term "Manchuria" includes the portion of Manchuria that is presently part of China, and "outer Manchuria", which is now controlled by Russia, and is a more accurate reflection of the area occupied by Balhae/Bohai. I'm not aware of any evidence that "Balhae" is used more commonly in international publications than "Bohai", or even "Paekche".Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This "inner Manchuria"/"outer Manchuria" distinction is one very likely created by Wikipedians and not used anywhere else. (See this discussion.) I disagree with you about the use of "Manchuria" before 1949, but since it's not very relevant to this article, we can have that conversation later at Talk:Manchuria with sources. In the lead paragraph listing the territory that this northeast Asian kingdom controlled, "Manchuria" is placed side by side with "Primorsky Krai". The latter name should be a signal that we are using present-day toponyms as a reference. Shrigley (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the expression “Korean” in the lead had been linked to the page Koreans, an ethnic group of East Asia, but I recently changed the link to the article Korea, which is an East Asian civilization. Consequently, your concern has been resolved shortly ago. Jagello (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Removing sourced content

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

Requested move

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

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

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

• Google Book

"Balhae" Kingdom 435

"Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 2,410

"Balhae Kingdom" 99

"Bohai Kingdom" -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 345

• Google Scholar

"Balhae" Kingdom 63

"Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 969

"Balhae Kingdom" 9

"Bohai Kingdom" -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay" 94

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, Bohai is primarily used as a geographical term to refer to a Chinese bay or sea. Furthermore, Bohai possesses many alternate meanings like Bohai university, Bohai Bay and Bohai industries etc. Please take a look at Bohai (disambiguation). To the contrary, Balhae does not have any alternate meanings. So it is not necessary to type "Balhae state" to get the search results on Balhae. As for the english spelling of the ancient kingdom, the pages of renowned English encyclopedias and other publications show that the romanization from Korean is how this kingdom is known in english: Britannica [1] Encyc World History Columbia Encyc US Lib of Congress Met Museum [2] [3]. But, on the pages titled "Bohai" say the primary meaning of bohai is Bohai Sea: Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam Webster Online, and American Heritage Dictionary. Jagello (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Bohai" is more commonly used in the scholarly literature for the kingdom than "Balhae" is. References to the bay and sea were clearly excised from the search results, and both "kingdom" and "state" appended to make things clear. We could do some kind of disambiguation like "Bohai Kingdom" if the sea is more well-known than the historical entity. Also, Jagello's links favor "Parhae", not "Balhae". Shrigley (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. According to the above-linked results, Google Book and Scholar have clearly failed to excise Bohai, a Chinese geographic term from the search results of "Bohai" Kingdom -"Bohai Sea" -"Bohai Bay": For exemple, Bohai Gulf, Gulf of Bohai, Sea of Bohai, Bay of Bohai, Bohai area, Bohai commandary, Bohai University, Bohai Basin etc. Based on the English usage of Bohai, which predominantly refer to the Chinese sea and its coastal and adjacent areas, there is no reason to rename this article from Balhae to Bohai. For reference, Parhae is the most commonly used name for the kingdom in the academic publications in English than Balhae or Bohai. Jagello (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jagello Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article should be moved to Parhae, per Britannica, Columbia, JoongAng Ilbo, and Yi Ki-baek's A new history of Korea. Kauffner (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Recent edit war

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

I'm not concerned about the reference to Balhae being a Korean kingdom in the lead: that probably got deleted by accident or out of hand, and I think that you can feel comfortable restoring that reference. I am mostly concerned about the removal of sourced data without discussion, under the rationale that it should be removed because it represents a "nationalist Chinese POV". I think this is contradictory to WP:UNDUE.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realized other content had also been removed. I shall restore the fact that it was a Korean kingdom as that is not an issue Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

About a claim in the Book of Tang

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

• Old Book of Tang (ch. 199B [199下], p. 5360 of the standard Zhonghua shuju edition): 渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也。高麗既滅，祚榮率家屬徙居營州。萬歲通天年，契丹李盡忠反叛，祚榮與靺鞨乞四比羽各領亡命東奔，保阻以自固。盡忠既死，則天命右玉鈐衛大將軍李楷固率兵討其餘黨，先破斬乞四比羽，又度天門嶺以迫祚榮。祚榮合高麗、靺鞨之眾以拒楷固，王師大敗，楷固脫身而還。屬契丹及奚盡降突厥，道路阻絕，則天不能討，祚榮遂率其眾東保桂婁之故地，據東牟山，築城以居之。

祚榮驍勇善用兵，靺鞨之眾及高麗餘燼，稍稍歸之。聖曆中，自立為振國王，遣使通于突厥。其地在營州之東二千里，南與新羅相接。越憙靺鞨東北至黑水靺鞨，地方二千里，編戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬人。風俗與高麗及契丹同，頗有文字及書記。中宗即位，遣侍御史張行岌往招慰之。祚榮遣子入侍，將加冊立，會契丹與突厥連歲寇邊，使命不達。睿宗先天二年，遣郎將崔訢往冊拜祚榮為左驍衞員外大將軍、渤海郡王，仍以其所統為忽汗州，加授忽汗州都督，自是每歲遣使朝貢。

開元七年，祚榮死，玄宗遣使弔祭，乃冊立其嫡子桂婁郡王大武藝襲父為左驍衛大將軍、渤海郡王、忽汗州都督。

• New Book of Tang (ch. 219, pp. 6179-80 of the standard edition): 渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率眾保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河為境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之。

萬歲通天中，契丹盡忠殺營州都督趙翽反，有舍利乞乞仲象者，與靺鞨酋乞四比羽及高麗餘種東走，度遼水，保太白山之東北，阻奧婁河，樹壁自固。武后封乞四比羽為許國公，乞乞仲象為震國公，赦其罪。比羽不受命，后詔玉鈐衞大將軍李楷固、中郎將索仇擊斬之。是時仲象已死，其子祚榮引殘痍遁去，楷固窮躡，度天門嶺，祚榮因高麗、靺鞨兵拒楷固，楷固敗還。於是契丹附突厥，王師道絕，不克討。祚榮即幷比羽之眾，恃荒遠，乃建國，自號震國王，遣使交突厥，地方五千里，戶十餘萬，勝兵數萬，頗知書契，盡得扶餘、沃沮、弁韓、朝鮮海北諸國。中宗時，使侍御史張行岌招慰，祚榮遣子入侍。睿宗先天中，遣使拜 祚榮為左驍衞大將軍、渤海郡王，以所統為忽汗州，領忽汗州都督，自是始去靺鞨號，專稱渤海。

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

Regarding the term '別種'

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

<舊唐書>

高麗(Goguryeo)者出者夫餘(Buyeo)地別種也

日本(Japan)國者倭(Wa)國之別種也

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

<新五代史>

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

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

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

This entire exchange falls under WP:NOR. Keep in mind that Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources in cases where there is controversy over the interpretation of primary sources. The Talk page is not a forum for original research.Lathdrinor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, controversy over the interpretation of primary sources is due to a modern geopolitical issue rather than an academic disputes. I think Madalibi's translation is quite reasonable. Jagello (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR again. The criteria for inclusion is not your opinion, but the availability of citable, scholarly, peer reviewed sources. Your position that Dae Jung Sang 'could not have been of Mohe origin' on the basis of your own reading of Chinese texts contradicts sources cited in this very article and thus violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The opposite view - that Dae Jung Sang was of Korean origin - is already mentioned and cited. It's not your place to censor the other side. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 13th century census of China by the Mongols

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

The passage you deleted was not under the section on disputes and was not used to make the argument you ascribed to it. Do not simply remove descriptive information based on whether they support your POV. Reverted.Lathdrinor (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The text contains, along with the quotation from a primary source, original synthesis which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.Jagello (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the original synthesis. It is now only a statement about the Mongol census. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Balhae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• 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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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