Jump to content

Talk:Balhae/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Untitled

The complete official name of Bohai's 3rd king, Wen Wang, is mentioned in the tombstone inscription of the Mausoleum of Princess Zhenxiao, which reads Great King Daxing Baoli Xiaoganjinlunshengfa (大興寶曆孝感金輪聖法大王). The first two characters may not be a part of the official name proper, because it is the era name that Wen Wang used twice. The next two may not be either, since they mean "Treasured Calendar". The last four characters, Jinlunshengfa, meaning "Golden Wheel and Holy Law", sounds Buddhist. Are the Bohainese royalties Buddhists? If so, we could add that to the article.

But this complete name does not have any character for "Wen" (文) at all. So maybe this is not the full version of the posthumous name? Maybe this is something else, a Buddhist honorary title used on the tombstone of his daughter to bless her on her way to the Western Paradise?

--Menchi 04:23 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Kyong Wang

"King Kyong" came from a misintepretation of Dongguk Saryak 東國史略:

至景哀王時契丹攻滅之以爲東丹國

景哀王 doesn't mean King Ae and King Kyong but King Aekyong of Silla. This mistake first appeared on Gaikoshiko in 1910. It was corrected by Jin Yufu. As far as I know, almost all documents except for some Korean ones avoid using this wrong title today. --Nanshu 02:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Which Korean documents, if you would please?

I don't believe you speak a word of Korean.


Nanshu: for all your Japanese-supremacy (which can be kinda cute sometimes), this is a little far-fetched. Don't just dump a whole bunch of characters and argue your point. You have such vague sources and yet make such sweeping generalizations about Korean and Chinese points of view it's sad.

I'll say it again: it's sad.

Genealogy of the royal family

On the genealogy of the royal family, Korean scholars as always start their arguments with the conclusion: Da Zuorong was Korean! This is based on the assumption that Goguryeo was a Korean state, but it's not the topic here.

To support their claim, they pick up 舊唐書. It says: "渤海靺鞨大祚榮者, 本高麗別種也." Maybe this suffices for them. They don't pay careful attention to the phrases: 渤海靺鞨大祚榮 and 高麗別種. They don't wonder why it don't use a more common sentence, say, "渤海靺鞨大祚榮, 高麗人."

新唐書 says, "渤海, 本粟末靺鞨附高麗者, 姓大氏." This is an unfavorable statement for them, so they try to negate 新唐書. They claim that 新唐書 fabricated the statement and they speculate on the reasons.

Hey, get rid of any preconceived ideas! Analyze historical sources objectively. Then you would notice that 舊唐書 doesn't necessarily contradict with 新唐書. 新唐書 is right and you can see why the original author of 舊唐書 selected the word 別種. --Nanshu 02:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Where are you getting this from? I hope you're not getting this from some bogus Imperial-Japanese anti-Korean, anti-Chinese website of yours.

Besides, may i ask if you're an expert in interpreting ancient Chinese manuscripts for their original subtleties?


Malgal, or "Mohe," refers to people outside of cities in Northern Korea and Manchuria, regardless of ethnic group or tribe; needless to say, the term can refer to a Goguryeo Korean villager or a Sukshin(肅愼) herder. However, it does not refer to a Chinese han, because they were not present in Manchuria during this time period. In relationship to the New Tang Records, Dae Joyeong is stated as a Malgal man with connections to the Goguryeo kingdom; additionally, the Old Tang Records state that Dae Joyeong is of the Goguryeo kind. This means that Dae Joyeong, the founder of the Balhae Dynasty, is Korean --or at least of the ethnic stock which created the Koreans we know to-day. Even if this conclusion is false, it does not make Dae-Joyeong ethnic Han Chinese.--Solert 5:30, 18 Feb 2005 (EST)

The Malgal tribes were allies of Goguryo(고구려). Dae Geol Jungsang(대걸중상) was a general of Goguryo before it fell, and this can be seen in most accurate records. That probably means that he lived in Goguryo. The fact that the Tang recorded in their little books that Dae Joyeong was a Malgal cant exactly be trusted. Why? The Tang probably did not have any reason to write down anything good about a person from Goguryo. Would the USA historians write that Saddam Hussein was a genius?? or Osama Bin Laden was a savior?? HELL NO! so y would anyone assume that what the Tang wrote down is true at all?? The Tang were stuck-up, arrogant and extremely proud ppl dat thought dat they were the center of the universe jus like their equally proud and arrogant ancestors. AND that any nation beyond their borders or walls were barbarians. The historians probably werent even sure themselves. They just saw him as an inferior barbarian. Just another one of dem Dongyi. Dats jus me thinkin. There is one thing dat i agree wit da Tang about. Dae Joyeong was certainly from Goguryo. BUT i dont believe dat he was a malgal. If solid evidence ever pops up, then i'll believe it. and there probably is a 50-50 chance that he was of the Malgal. nobody knows. U can definately cross out Han Chinese. i dont think any fancy, proud Chinese guy woulda had da balls to cross da "Wall of Non barbarianism." Honestly... Does anyone else think dat?? I'm a Bak. i kno for a fact dat i'm Korean. It realli hurts me sometimes to read dis stuff. There's always one Jack ass in every one of these discussions dat r too proud to see da truth. Too proud to realize dat da Korean ppl should not b fucked with. anybody agree? ---Joe Park 10:40, 29 July 2006 (EST)

Huh? I agree that Mohe did not refer to a single (ethnic) group but was a collective term for several tribes in Manchuria. But I don't think Mohe included Goguryeo people. Can you bring from historical sources any examples of Mohe referring to Goguryeo people? And no one claims he was Chinese. --Nanshu 14:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nanshu, your interpretation of the chinese characters in these old records is based on modern defintions, you cannot conclude many things you have said. If you did read your Old Tang and New Tang records well, you would realise that the Old Tang Record focuses on the ethnicity of the royal family of Kingdoms --when it states them-- and that the New Tang Record focuses on the ethnicity of the people of the Kingdom. Don't make me pull out the 松漠記聞(Songmakgimun) as what it says about the ethnic lineage of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Bezant

Let us hear your seemingly weird interpretation of Xintangshu. --Nanshu 13:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Funny, that, Nanshu. Comming from you!


Okay, first of all, most Korean scholars do not dismiss what the new Tang Records say.

Hey! That's not what I asked you to answer. I asked you how to interpret "渤海, 本粟末靺鞨附高麗者, 姓大氏."? My humble translation is "[The] Bohai [royal family] is originally the Sumo Mohe who has been under Goryeo [Goguryeo], and is surnamed Da." In Classical Chinese (or pre-modern) usage, a state is often synonymous with its monarch. --Nanshu 15:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation is: "The Balhae royal family is from Sokmalmalgal (which is an area, not a tribe) {Quoting the 東亞漢韓大辭典, p. 1163: " [粟末 속말] . . . 2) 部落 이름. 靺鞨七部의 하나. 옛날 松花江 유역에 살던 粟靺靺鞨의 部落. 후에 勃海國을 세움.] This source, at least, appears to assert that the Sokmalmalgal are a tribe, one of seven tribes of the Malgal who lived along the Sungari River and were involved in the foundation of the Kingdom of Parhae.}--Doc Rock 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) was from the realm of Goguryeo and surnamed Dae." One should note that the New Tang Records classify royal families geographically and the Old Tang Records classify the royal families by the culture of the royal family; so, in this case you are the one ignoring the Old Tang Records and what it has to say. Also, the "Dae" family clan only exists Korea. The family clan can be traced back to last Balhae king. And no my interpretation is not "seemingly weird," you are just too biased and arrogant. I've never seen you discuss in the Diaoyu islands discussion --perhaps you believe these islands are historically and fundamentally Japanese? Oh, and furthermore, you've seemed to "shut up" after you've been corrected rather harshly on every discussion.--Zippie

Wat da fuck is Bohai?? Its Balhae or Parhae u motha fucka... damn.. who da hell is dat fag dat keep callin it Bohai? y da fuck did dem Chinese mofos take Korean empires and give dem some fucked up names like dis?? 아이씨.. 그 노모 짱개 새끼들. 짱개든 쪽발이든... 다 똑같헤. 에이.. 짱개 시발놈들!


Don't listen to Nanshu. He's not really Chinese. He's a Japanese nationalist and he gets his stuff from a website titled "Korea, the Preposterous World." If you don't believe me, see his edits on "Name of Korea" article, and visit user link:user:Nanshu and visit his website: http://www.geocities.com/neue_strassenbahn/index.html

참나원.. 그럼 저 왜 놈이 헛 소리하고 앉아있는단 말야?? 개 새끼..

Merge tables

It would be great if someone could merge the two tables such as in the article on Koguryŏ/Gaogouli. And there is no need to have both Pinyin with tones and Pinyin without tones, the latter should be deleted. Babelfisch 08:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about the CJK name table, haven't they merged? --Puzzlet Chung 15:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've merged the two tables now. I'm not sure what romanisation was used originally, but there were some obvious mistakes. I have changed everything to McCune-Reischauer (since this is the only romanisation that I'm familiar with), but always spelled ㄹ as r in syllable-initial position. I've also removed the links that don't lead anywhere. Pages on individual rulers should also be linked correctly with theRulers of Korea. Babelfisch 06:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

korean v. chinese, again

Balhae was a Korean kingdom whose culture and political structure was transplanted from a Goguryeo. The founder and ruling structure considered their culture korean, any question about additional ethnic makeup of Balhae is specious. Tungusic and other elements that were absorbed into Balhae as a result of expansion is analagous to immigration in modern US. A thousand years from now, it would be ridiculous to argue that the United States was an Asian nation due to its ethic makeup and culture having Chinese, Indian and Latin elements. If this was a Chinese language Wiki that would be one thing, but referring to this article as covering "Bohai" would be innappropriate as Balhae is identified as successor to Goguryeo in basically every Korean history text in the US, including Eckert's "Modren History of Korea" and Wagner's "Korea Old and New" and clearly refer to these people as Korean. I know I'm not sourceable, but for the sake of just plain common sense, note that when I was taking East Asian history classes in college Balhae was presented without reservation as a Korean state as much as Shilla or Joseon. I'm a little surprised by the controversy here on this board since even notable China scholars like Peter Bol considered Balhae as Korea a non issue. I realize that the discussion here is probably a reaction to elements from China but keep in mind that this is an English language Wiki. Classification of articles really needs to be on the standards of conventional Western scholarship. -K


there's no reason to do original research of historical texts here, wikipedia is a collection of facts from reputable publications. unless someone can cite a more authoritative publication, britannica says:

Parhae: State established in the 8th century AD in northern Manchuria and northern Korea. Chinese Pohai. Founded by a former Korean general, Tae Cho-yang, it was considered a successor state to Koguryo, which had occupied much of the same territory before its conquest by Silla in 668. Like Silla, Parhae was a tributary state of Tang-dynasty China. It traded with the nomadic tribes of the north and with China and Japan. Parhae was conquered in 926 by the Khitan tribes almost 20 years after their creation of the Liao dynasty on China's northern borders.[1]
I am not involved in editing this article, but citing historical texts is not "original research." --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:No original research:

Original research in this context means untested theories: data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication, or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

We report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate.

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

What counts as a reputable publication?

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

From Jim Wales memo : An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history

Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages.

--end quotes from WP:NOR-- Appleby 17:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How does that change things? Using an ancient interpretation doesn't make it a new interpretation. --Nlu (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, even shorter: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..." Appleby 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That applies to citing primary materials to back up their interpretation of events. Your interpretation appears to include simply relating the events as interpreted by the primary materials, which is different. An example that I'd think of is:
Shi Ji claimed that the Xiongnu were descended from Xia Dynasty. (Not original research, in my opinion)
The Xiongnu were descended from Xia Dynasty. (citation to Shi Ji) (Original research, under this definition; I have some quibbles with Jimbo's definition in this regard, but this is how his definition should be interpreted.)
Note how he also was discourging "Wikipedias [from] produc[ing] novel narratives." Further, he started off with, "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish." This appears to imply that if the theory is not novel, then it's not covered by WP:NOR. --Nlu (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

i have no problem with the statement "x claims y" when y is verifiable. but when a wikipedian cites to primary source document x hundreds or thousands of years old in a different language, it is likely to be subject to an "interpretation" rather than a direct translation. so in actuality, "x claims y" turns out to be wikipedian z interpreting x as claiming y^1, because y cannot be accurately, directly translated into modern english without some interpretive gloss. to avoid this whole mess, i think jimbo is saying that when an article says "x claims y," it should be based on "reputable publisher or scholar z interprets x as claiming y^2," in general, but especially in controversial interpretations. Appleby 19:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

Could we have a colored (coloured or however Brits spell it) map to show where this kingdom was?

Why was this moved?

Why exactly was this article moved to Balhae? Bohai is the more commonly used name. You can argue that this is a result of extant research being more Sino-centric, but the reason behind such bias is not something we adjudicate here. It should be moved back to Bohai IMHO. Mgmei 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

BOY!! SHUT YO CHINESE MOUTH UP!! BOHAI MUH ASS, U LIL PENIS!! Sino-centric yo momma.. 이 짱개 새끼가 장난하나? Balhae was merely a tributary state of Tang. NOT a part of Tang. yo gov't has no rite to change other nations' historical names into their own. lil dick-suckas been suckin fo too long.

is bohai really more common? it's hard to tell from google, because bohai is also the name of the bay/sea/gulf, & there are so many permutations of spelling, both bohai & balhae. but i did find these sources for the kingdom being korean:

Thank u Appleby.. i agree wit u all da way. Balhae was definately Korean. A HUGE piece of evidence is da fact dat da only ppl wit da Clan name of Dae or Tae live in Korea. And another thing. If Balhae was truly CHinese, then y did Taejo Wang-Gon of Goryeo accept the survivors of Balhae into his own kingdom?? Wang-Gon accepted them cuz they also had the blood of Goguryo flowin thru their veins. ya heard?

Yes, as Appleby stated, "Bohai" is NOT a commonly used name for Kingdom of Balhae. Bohai is more commonly referred "Bohai Sea" or variation on Korean name "Balhae". Many other encyclopedic websites and encyclopedias, including AsianInfo.org, Classroom of the Future, Reference.com, Columbia Encyclopedia, Britannica Encyclopedia, Answers.com, and countless more uses the name "Balhae" (or variations thereof) and lists Bohai as the Chinese variation of the name or Bohai Sea. Also, Balhae is featured prominently in "History of Korea" category and article. Deiaemeth 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


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

Proposed move (back)

  • Scope: Bohai-related articles (and by extension Fuyu, Yilou, Wuje and Mohe)
  • Suggestions:
    1. use Hanyu Pinyin for article titles and contents
      1. use personal names (instead of posthumous names) for article titles of Bohai kings
    2. use langbox that lists Chinese reading first and Korean reading next (and Russian Cyrillic letters if you wish).
  1. Just a reminder to those who are unfamiliar with Bohai. All the primary sources of Bohai were written in Classical Chinese (maybe some Japanese sources were partly written in kana, but I'm not sure). The research on Bohai is a combination of the analysis of Classical Chinese documents and archaeological achievements from China (Manchuria) and Russia (Primorye). Classical Chinese is composed of Chinese characters and how to read Chinese characters is left to readers. Chinese use Mandarin reading (Bohai), or readings in Cantonese and other dialects. Koreans use Modern Korean reading (Parhae) and Japanese use Japanese reading (Bokkai). Note that none of them are the pronunciation by the Bohai people. I guess the Bohai reading was close to Middle Chinese, but it is not clear due to lack of linguistic sources. So both Pinyin and Korean transcriptions are just symbols used for the sake of convenience.
  2. Appleby seems a worshipper of Britannica, but actually, Britannica and other English sources are not authoritative for this field because, as far as I know, there is no comprehensive work on Bohai in English. For example, look at "Central Asiatic Journal." It covers Turkestan, Mongolia and Tibet but deals with Manchuria only after the Manchus appeared in history. As for German, Bohai: Geschichte und Kultur eines mandschurisch-koreanischen Königreiches der Tang-Zeit by Johannes Reckel (1995) seemingly offers in-depth information, but no good English book is known. The poor quality of Britannica's article, which looks like having been written a century ago, demonstrates it.
  3. So examine what are really authoritative and we will see Chinese reading is much commoner.
    1. China. Let us examine Chinese papers first. Whether you like it or not, you have to check Chinese reports if you are interested in Bohai archaeology. They are almost always written in Chinese but prominent journals provide English titles, and sometimes English abstracts. I checked them and found out that they always use Chinese romanization (e.g. Li Jiancai 李健才, Remarks on the Original Capital of Bohai 渤海初期都城考, Northern Cultural Relics 北方文物 No. 3 2002).
    2. Russia. I admit I don't understand Russian but I can read Cyrillic alphabet since I'm learning Mongolian. As far as I know (I checked references in Chinese and Japanese papers), Russians always use a Mandarin-based Cyrillic spelling system. And the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" uses "Pohai" too. I guess that the original Russian article was Бохай and that the English version adopted Wade-Giles according to its transliteration policy: "proper names so familiar in English that to transliterate them otherwise would mislead the user."
    3. Japan. Although no portion of Bohai's territory belongs to Japan today, Japan did pioneer works for research on Bohai and still make considerable contribution. And Japanese sources such as Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀, Shoku Nihon Koki 続日本後紀 and Ruiju Kokushi 類聚国史 are absolutely essential. So I examined English titles of Japanese papers. Journals for overall history including "Shigaku=Zasshi" 史学雑誌 and "Shien" 史淵 use Chinese romanization (Bohai or P'o-hai). One exception is "The Toyo Gakuho" (東洋学報), which used Palhae. As for journals for Korean history, "Chosen Gakuho" 朝鮮学報 (Journal of the Academic Association of Koreanology in Japan) and "Chosen Bunka Kenkyu" 朝鮮文化研究 (Korean Culture) also use "Bohai", and "Nenpo Chosengaku" 年報朝鮮学 (Annual Review of Korean Studies) uses Chinese romanization first (Bohai/Parhae). Only "Chosenshi Kenkyukai Ronbunshu" 朝鮮史研究会論文集 (Bulletin of Society for Study in Korean History) uses Korean romanization (Parhae or Palhae). As for archaeology, Tamura Koichi 田村晃一's "Higashi Ajia no tojo to Bokkai" gives the English title, "The capital castles of East Asia and Bohai".
    4. I can conclude that researchers except for Koreans and their sympathizers use Chinese romanization.
  4. A large portion of Bohai's territory belongs to the People's Republic of China today, including four of the five capitals. The name of Bohai originated in "Prince/King of the Bohai commandery" 渤海郡王, the title given by Tang China to the founder Da Zuorong. The Bohai commandery was set up in a coastal area of Hebei Province during the Han Dynasty and thus shares the root with Bohai Bay and Bohai Sea.
  5. For article titles of Bohai kings, we should use personal names instead of posthumous names. Only nine of the 15 kings had posthumous names known today. Although monarchs usually called by posthumous name by the subject, we cannot follow this practice because, unfortunately, Bohai people did not leave their own records except for some epitaphs.

--Nanshu 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC), revised Nanshu 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen of Japanese research, it seems to be correct. Sources like this one [12] tend to give Chinese romanizations in the name. This probably because Japanese researchers largely don't regard it as a Korean state. --Yuje 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm just not sure why we need to do this convoluted analysis and original research of foreign language sources, when wikipedia is an english language encyclopedia and its policy is to use common english names and to rely on reputable unbiased sources. i think the citations i linked to above show that balhae is the common english spelling in english reference works, because they discuss balhae as a part of korean history. (early japanese historical terms are not romanized from chinese even when source texts are in chinese). everything else seems either inconsistent with wp policy or pales in comparison to the weight of authority. Appleby 17:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, but exactly which of your reference sources states Balhae as a Korean state? None of your source say so, they all merely say that it was founded by a former Koguryo general. And those same sources you cited call it a multi-ethnic state with Tungusic populations, yet you deleted all my mentions of it by me and user:Kamosuke despite this being from the very same sources you quoted. For example, when the very same Britannica was cited as the source for its mixed ethnic composition, you deleted it without explanation. [13]
Frankly, I think you haven't been a very honest editor. First of all there's just the plain silly and non-factual edits. [14] Jurchens and Manchus are Evenks now? [15] Tang merely called Bohai a prefecture when in name and fact it was an actual Tang Dynasty prefecture which existed prior to the kingdom which then named itself after it? [16] And then there this edit stating "While "Mohe" is a tribe, it is unclear whether "Sumo Mohe" refers to ethnicity or geography", which is in fact an original research translation done by a non-Chinese speaker on the talk page, and despite the fact that all mentioned sources, including yours, state otherwise. Of the references to Japanese views, none of the actually reference any Japanese sources, but rather, a Korean one and a non-academic language page run by non-Japanese. According to actual Japanese historical records, it seemed to have regarded Balhae as a vassal state and accepted tribute from the kingdom. [17]
Then there's mass deletion of sources, and those western sources that did get kept not supporting the argument of it being a Korean kingdom are somehow reclassified as Chinese sources.[18]. When presenting sources showing western scholars considering the founder's ethnicity in dispute, you deleted all the sources and replaced it with a sentence that says "but some Chinese scholars dispute this."[19]
Anyway, I'm seeing some interesting parallels over at Talk:Wiman of Gojoseon.
  • Balhae consisted of (supposed) Koreans ruling over a mostly non-Korean population, therefore it's an exclusively Korean state.
  • Wiman Joseon consisted of non-Koreans ruling over a mostly (supposed) Korean population, therefore it's an exclusively Korean state.
  • The majority of Wiman Joseon's territory falls mostly within the borders of modern-day Korea, therefore it's exclusively Korean history.
  • The majority of Balhae's territory falls mostly outside of the borders of modern-day Korea, therefore it too is exclusively Korean history.
In addition, I'm also seeing the following:
  • Using the fact that one romanization is more popular than the other as actual justification for deletions of Chinese names despite their usage in most well-known academic sources. [20].
  • Of course, when a non-Korean (and internationally accepted name) is more popular, you revert the removal of the Korean one [Sea of Japan].
  • And in articles like Yalu River, no subsequent deletions of the almost unknown Korean names despite similar removals of Chinese names in other similar articles.
Am I the only one seeing biased and ethnocentric editting here?--Yuje 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiman may have been a general under a dynasty of China, but he was of the Ye-Maek, AKA Dongyi. Da only reason King Jun of Gojoseon accepted Wiman and his followers was because they were of the same race or whatever u would call dat. Gojoseon was of Ye-Maek, and so was Wiman. Its jus like Yi Ja-Chun, the father of Yi Songgye. Yi Ja-Chun was a general under the Yuan, but he was ethnically Korean. wat now, BITCH!


Sadly, I have yet to see a prominent english encyclopedia that uses the name Bohai instead of Balhae (or variations thereof). Only Chinese sources use the nomenclature "Bohai" instead of "Balhae", and prominent English encyclopedias (see the sources on the article) use the name "Balhae" (or Romanized variations thereof, including Parhae, Barhae, etc.). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Deiaemeth 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think bringing up webpages is not original research but surveying academic papers is. The two are the same except that the latter is much more reliable.

Anyway, what I want to tell you is: How can we make a right decision without realising the current situation of research. There is severe information gap between us and we have to fill it first. You may not know, but the historical frameworks of Bohai different among countries were spotlighted in 1980s and even became a subject of research. See

  1. I Sŏng-si 李成市, Bokkai-shi kenkyu ni okeru kokka to minzoku 渤海史研究における国家と民族, Chosenshi Kenkyukai Ronbunshu 朝鮮史研究会論文集, No.25, 1988.
  2. Furuhata Toru 古畑徹, Examination into the Historical Framework of Bo-hai (渤海)'s History in the Postwar Japan: Approach from History of Historical Science 戦後日本における渤海史の歴史枠組みに関する史学史的考察, The Tōhoku-Daigaku-Tōyoshi-Ronshū 東北大学東洋史論集, Vol.9, 2003.
  3. and other papers.

The recently published, book Sakayori Masashi 酒寄雅志's "Bokkai to kodai no Nihon" 渤海と古代の日本 (2001) also discusses the frameworks in its introductory chapter. --Nanshu 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Great sources, I think more fitting for [though] Deiaemeth 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:UE: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
  • WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."
  • See English reference works cited above and in the article. Appleby 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew you would say so, and that's why I explained the reason webpages you listed were unreliable. --Nanshu 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Applyby only parrots his words. No further debate is expected. Time for vote? --Nanshu 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian names in langbox

How should we handle a Russian name in Bohai langbox? As I explained above, A Russian name is the transliteration of modern Chinese. And the Great Soviet Encyclopedia suggests they use Chinese romanization when translating from Russian. So a Russian name is a "Chinese" name in one sense. We can include it in langbox as a spelling of the Chinese name or as the separate entry, "Russian name." In either case, a Russian name should be put next to a Chinese name for users' better understanding, I think.

The following tables are based on Template:Chinesename koreanname. I think candidate B is better (not strong opinion). Any comment?

Bohai (A)
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese: 渤海
Simplified Chinese: 渤海
Hanyu Pinyin: Bóhǎi
Wade-Giles: Po-hai
Russian Cyrillic: Бохай
Korean name
Hangul: 발해
Hanja: 渤海
Revised Romanization: Balhae or Barhae
McCune-Reischauer: Parhae
Bohai (B)
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese: 渤海
Simplified Chinese: 渤海
Hanyu Pinyin: Bóhǎi
Wade-Giles: Po-hai
Russian name
Cyrillic: Бохай
Transliteration: Bokhay
Korean name
Hangul: 발해
Hanja: 渤海
Revised Romanization: Balhae or Barhae
McCune-Reischauer: Parhae


--Nanshu 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where in the RR rules does it say that -ㄹㅎ- can be romanised to rh?—Wikipeditor 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? I'm discussing Russian names now. All I know about the RR is that it is so great that users need to learn Korean phonology to pronounce it correctly. If my memory is correct, Sewing discussed this issue somewhere. --Nanshu 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Kinda irrelevant here, didn't see any major English publications or encyclopedias that even used or mentioned Russian romanization (or Russian influence and relatedness to Balhae kingdom in general). The infobox is fine as it is right now, Korean name + Chinese name. Fitting for Russian wikipedia perhaps? Deiaemeth 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Notices

  1. Do not put Category:History of Manchuria and/or Category:History of Korea on every Bohai-related article. They are already at Category:Bohai (Balhae).
  2. Some articles were cut-and-paste moved. Proper pages should be restored.

--Nanshu 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Balhae (or Bohai in Chinese) was a Korean kingdom

If the article itself acknowledges that the ethnic makeup of the kingdom was in dispute, that Da Zuorong (Dae Joyeong) was a 高麗別種, a description that's open to interpretation, that the culture has Goguryeo, Tungusic and Chinese elements, that the controversy is being used by contemporary groups as justification for territorial aspirations, why then does the article start out so blatantly in the POV that Balhae was a Korean kingdom?

maybe cuz Balhae WAS indeed a Korean empire.. y r u wastin muh time wit such dumb-ass remarks, Mr. smart-ass? Balhae was and still is remembered today as a Korean empire. damn Chinese ppl r tryin to take Goguryo from us too. fukin 짱개s b hatin on us Koreans jus cuz we were powerful enough to control Manchuria centuries earlier than they were ever able to. they jus dont wanna admit dat da Korean nation was powerful during one time, and dat Manchuria rightfully belongs to Korea!! HIS NAME IS DAE JOYEONG.. NOT ZUORONG.. WTF!

Of all the controversial articles I've tiptoed through, from Tibet to Taiwan to even China, this is the most astonishing that I've seen yet. In those articles, we've always concentrated on giving an intro that is as broad and neutral as possible; then we spend a long time describing exactly how the dispute arises and what the arguments are. After all, Wikipedia's standards demand such careful treatment. So what happened to Wikipedia's NPOV standards here? Perhaps I should go back to Tibet and insert in the intro, that "Tibet is an independent country"? Or I should go back to Taiwan and rename it: "Formosa (or "Taiwan" in Chinese) is an independent Taiwanese island nation"? I would get reverted immediately. And yet here at Balhae, the Korean interpretation is holy writ, and the Chinese and Russian interpretations are hidden somewhere in the body text?

Please... if you value the standards of Wikipedia, then don't ruin Wikipedia yourself by writing articles with such a blatant POV slant. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then write articles that adhere to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and impartiality. -- ran (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. npov is achieved by reflecting reputable independent sources. just because there is a dispute doesn't mean every pov gets equal space or weight. in this case, all major english reference works are in agreement that the name is balhae or parhae (different romanization systems for the korean pronunciation). none give the chinese romanization as the main name. there is no recognized controversy in major reference works as to whether balhae is a part of korean history or chinese history. the article should reflect that consensus, while giving due consideration to the minority view and current political controversy. just in case you missed these:
You haven't answered any of the the objections I brought up above. Exactly which of these sources says it was a Korean kingdom? Why the ethnocentric treatment of history? If it's completely irrelevent to Chinese history, why is it that each of your quoted sources gives mentions the Chinese connection and Chinese name as well (but not say the Japanese or Tibetan one)? I suppose by the standards you believe Wikipedia follows, I'd be justified going through Yalu River, Changbai Mountains, Tumen River, Thousand Character Classic, Lelang, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and so on, and systematically deleting the Korean names in them all because they're less common? After all, the name East Sea is only used by Koreans, and adding in that small minority view arguably gives it a lot of undue weight compared to international usage. And I would add that even among Korean scholars, the opinion of it as a Korean kingdom isn't unanimous, both historically and in present-day. For example, a book called The History of Northeast Asia was published by a Korean scholar, in which the author explicitly rejects categorizing it as Korean history and states his views that the kingdom should be treated as a Northeast Asian cultural entity in its own right.Yuje 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Chinese history is not completely irrelenvant: Appleby never deleted the Chinese variant of the name from the article itself, and the article makes lengthy mention of position of Chinese historians on the kingdom. But most (if not all) western and English-termed publications refer it to as "Balhae", so that nomenclature is used. Deiaemeth 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I warned Applyby at Talk:Wei Man, "Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of Korean history," but he still collects only webpages in Korean context. Hopeless. --Nanshu 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I would call * britannica [31] [32]

Appleby: When you make the statement that "Bohai was Korean", what exactly are you attempting to say? That Bohai "belongs" to Korea? How does this "belonging" work, exactly: how do the modern governments of North and South Korea "own" a kingdom that existed a thousand years ago?

I think by "Balhae is Korean" - it means A) Balhae was founded by Dae Joyeong, a general who is believed to be of Goguryeo descent, and Goguryeo is identified as a part of Korean history. B) Most western publications identify Balhae as part of Korean history.
Firstly, Dae Joyeung is identified to be 高麗別種, which is open to interpretation. Why is it 高麗別種 and not say 高麗人? Secondly, just because Dae Joyeung was possibly of Goguryeo descent does not mean that a state that he founded, a state that then managed to last for another 300 years, ruled over a mishmash of ethnicities over a vast area, stayed independent from both Tang and Silla, ended up being conquered by the Khitans, etc. was therefore "Korean". This would be like saying that the modern United States is "English" because the earliest arrivals and founders were generally English. (At least the United States still speaks English: did Bohai, or for that matter, Goguryeo, speak Korean?) As far as Western publications go, they identify Bohai as a state that existed in Manchuria and northern Korea, which is factually correct. As for whether Bohai is "Korean", since this is a relatively meaningless statement that implies some sort of retroactive ownership of a kingdom 1,000 years ago by an ethnicity today, I'm not surprised that they don't generally make this blanket statement. -- ran (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact was that its elite were from Goguryeo or related to Goguryeo, that its people were a mingling of Goguryeo and Tungusic elements, that it was heavily influenced by China. (I should also add that Goguryeo wasn't even Korean-speaking.) After Bohai was conquered, its people were probably absorbed by the surrounding Khitan, Jurchen, and Korean peoples, and their descendents can probably be found across Mongolia, northern China, Manchuria, and Korea today. So why exactly does Korea have the exclusive right to claim Bohai as a part of "their" history? How do the modern Korean people "own" another state and people that existed 1,000 years ago and whose descendents are probably now scattered across all of northeastern Asia? -- ran (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is becoming more of a personal attack on Appleby. Appleby cited major English references sources with proper citations, and the articles identified Balhae with Korean history. As per precedented set by such pages as Jurchen and Sea of Japan (East Sea), the most common English name for the article, was used first for both the article and infobox. I see user:Ran and user:Yuje's concerns lie most with the article's content, and I think the issue can be solved without personal attacks. I would say the Political interpretation part is NPOV, because it makes a fair mention of all the positions regarding Balhae history. The history itself is pretty NPOV too. I see user:Ran's concerns lies with the introduction. The wording can be changed something more neutral. Deiaemeth 00:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the introduction should be changed. Bohai was a political entity that existed over a thousand years ago in Inner and Outer Manchuria and northern Korea. It is connected - by blood and by culture - to all of the ethnicities that have passed through the area since, including Khitans, Jurchens, Koreans, Mongols, Han Chinese, etc. To say that it is a "Korean kingdom" from the outset is absurd. -- ran (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this could be worked out. I was sad to see many personal attacks on user:Appleby; he made great contributions to many Korea-related pages (not just History of Korea related pages) and he isn't a "POV slated editor". He was also accused of edits he have never done (ex. He never deleted Chinese name off the infobox). As the article suggests, the ruling class of Balhae was of Goguryeo ethnicity, but the ethnic composition of its people may have been more varied. Balhae wasn't a kingdom consting purely of ethnic Koreans, but it certainly is more commonly associated with Korean history (as per cited sources). Although the ethnic composition of Balhae may have been varied, it should be taken into account that the ruling class of Balhae were of Goguryeo descent, which is largely identified as a Korean kingdom, and western publications generally characterize Balhae as part of Korean history. But nevertheless, presence of other ethnic groups in Balhae, such as Jurchens and later Khitans should not be ignored. Deiaemeth 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I planned to tackle this problem after the romanization issue would be solved. So I only discuss a basic policy for now. "A Korean state", "an ethnic minority local government of Tang China", "the first class society by ethnic groups in Russian Far East" .. confine all these stuffs into the "Characterization and political interpretation" section and use terms that appear in historical sources as far as possible. --Nanshu 10:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Among my above-explained suggestions, the only point that met opposition from some is the default romanization. So I'd like to poll this. --Nanshu 10:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Use Hanyu Pinyin as the default romanization for Bohai-related articles.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Noted. The poll isn't to establish the final decision over an issue, but to gauge opinion and establish concensus. --Yuje 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, possibly also use multiple romanizations as necessary for NPOV purposes, but I am not at all comfortable with attempts to portray this as exclusively a Korean state. Several sources keep on getting parroted out, but my questions on where they state it was Korean (above) have been completely evaded, as have been other raised objections. Also, the information fromm those sources seem to have been cherry-picked to suit an NPOV. As also noted above, additions from those very same sources have been reverted when it didn't suit the "Balhae as a Korean kingdom" POV. --Yuje 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"Balhae as a Korean kingdom" is more of a content dispute; this poll is about Romanization of Balhae. In English sources, and all the sources, regardless of their contents, made exclusive or major uses of Balhae (or variations thereof) over Bohai (or variations thereof). I see your beef is with the contents of the article, and I think that could be discussed seperately and adjustments to the articles can be made. Also, if you note that "Balhae" is Korean POV, why is "Bohai", which has almost zero usage in major English encyclopedias and publications (after all, this is English encyclopedia), is NPOV? Wouldn't they be Chinese POV? Multiple Romanization is also an option, but under Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers, and most prominent and influential English publications uses the term "Balhae" over "Bohai", and that is a undisputable fact. The sources user:Nanshu listed are Japanese, Chinese and Russian sources. Deiaemeth 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I also supported the use of multiple romanizations. It's not immediately clear which name for the kingdom is more common, since the Chinese name is also the name of the sea. But for the monarchs as such, the Chinese romanizations are definitely more common. You and Appleby have been deleting Chinese names from the list to support the POV that it's been solely a Korean state.
I don't know why you accuse me of "Deleting" Chinese names from the articles, but Chinese names are still in articles such as Dae Joyeong.
Anyway, at issue is the default romanization method for names in the article. Let's do a comparison of them, shall we?
By the way, correct Korean romanization is Dae Joyeong, not Dae Joyoung. Also try Tae Joyeong. Even by your simple way of google searches, Da Zuorong (-wikipedia) [41] 401 Hits, and Dae Joyeong (-wikipedia) [42] 408 hits. interesting? Deiaemeth 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The dominance of the Korean romanization is nowhere near solid, much less dominant, so I continue to support a return to the NPOV format of the previous version of the article. --Yuje 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Erm, google searches aren't the most effective way to determine the commonness in English, and it was basis of your argument for "commonness" in English. I just proved you wrong by showing how unreliable google searches are. I don't know why you argue "Bohai" is the NPOV format, seeing as how all major English encyclopedia + publications use Korean romanization (and variatns thereof) over Bohai. Well, again, that's your opinion, so I won't haggle you for it. But if you want to support that "bohai" is the NPOV naming for it, I think presenting valid NPOV English-based major publications and encyclopedias as sources are in order. I mean, user:Nanshu claims that the NPOV english sources were writtin in "Korean context" and user:Endroit "Korea-POV" (U.S Library of Congress = vehicle for North Korean propaganda ??), but the only ENglish sources that present Chinese romanization as the default one are... Chinese websites! www.china.org, the most NPOV source in the world. Deiaemeth 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the searches that show up on first pages include [43] (completely irrelevant) [44] (Completely irrelevant page on Da Vinci project that gives link to a wikipedia copy+paste article below) [45] (cool, a forum post) [46] (The first page that shows up is a cut+paste article from Wikipedia!, I guess -wikipedia isn't as effective as many thought) [47] (Another cut+paste article from Wikipedia) [48] (features Korean romanization as the prominent one) [49] (another wikipedia cut+paste article). [50] (WOW, anothe wikipedia+cut paste article)

See how google search is a very inffective determinant for gauging "Commonness" in English? These searches proves nothing except that lots of pages copy+pasted old versions of Wikipedia articles to supplement their pages. Deiaemeth 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing - [51], see how first 20 pages are ALL wikipedia cut+paste articles, even with -wikipedia. A very effective determinant. Deiaemeth 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty silly. For example, google search done one Da Zuorong reveals about 500 searches -wikipedia. Let us compare the sources such as [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] as most popular searches. Note that they are all websites maintained by Chinese people or Chinese gov't in the case. The only one article that wasn't a Chinese source was www.about.com, and that article was copy+paste from www.China.org (official Chinese gov't website). Contrary to this, Korean romanization, Dae Joyeong (and variations thereof, including Tae Joyeong), are all used in NPOV, English-based sources cited in the article itself (Lib of Congress, Jesuit Wheeling University, Various encyclopedias) The google search done here reveals nothing but that Chinese-based sources use Chinese Romanization, but it is still clear that NPOV, prominent and major English sources use Korean romanization when referring to the monarchs (such as Dae Joyeong); I have yet to see a prominent NPOV English publiation + encyclopedia that utilize Chinese romanization for the monarchs. This goes further than just a simple google sarch. As you see here. Deiaemeth 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The encyclopedia cites are largely a difference in manual of style, not a reflection of actual usage. For example, in its Korean romanizations, it prefers the McCune-Reischauer romanizations, while you seem to be advocating the South Korean romanizations, so I fail to see how it supports your argument. In its Chinese related articles, it prefers as its article names the Wade-Giles system, whereas it's trivial to show that Pinyin is overwhelmingly dominant. And as Wikipedia itself states, encylopedias are neither primary nor secondary sources, but tertiary sources.--Yuje 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother going on because the proportion of wikipedia mirrors keeps increasing with the obscurity of the monarch, but it's pretty clear the the Chinese romanization is predominately the most popular one. In fact, the monarch names themselves originate from this page [57], and the Korean names came after some editor ran the Chinese characters through a machine translator.
I don't know where you are getting this "machine translator" thing from, but let us compare direct machine translation from www.worldlingo.com of the Chinese.[[58] for Traditional Chinese. Try converting the table to Korean in the translator; you get utter nonsense that does not make any sense. The names used for the monarch table is not "machine translation" as you boldly claim, but actual names used by Korean sources and English publications (such as Dae Joyeong). Deiaemeth 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It's quite obvious from looking at the addition [59] that the table was just cut-and-pasted from the Chinese one, and the Chinese characters just run through an electronic dictionary. For example, the Chinese table incorrectly lists the fifth monarch as (Da Huaxing|大華興 da4 hua1 xing1), where it should actually be 華璵 in Chinese. (The current Korean list uses 華與, which I don't know if is correct in Korean context or another typo). But as you can see in the copy-and-pasted Korean table, it repeats the exact same mistake as the Chinese table in using (Dae Hua Heung|대화흥|大華興). This wouldn't have happened unless some sloppy person simply just ran each Chinese character through an electronic translator to get the Korean pronunciations. --Yuje 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[60] [61]. The name table has since been moved to List of Korean monarchs for the purpose of deleting the Chinese names, that's why the monarchs for Goguryeo and Balhae are the only ones listed on that page with name tables, albeit with the Chinese names deleted.

And as user:nanshu proposed, this was for Balhae-related articles, not just the this particular page. Deiaemeth tried to move Mausoleum of Princess Zhenxiao to Mausoleum of Princess Jeong-Hyo,
and as per your request, I moved the page back. But however, this is not caes for Balhae and its monarchs (only related page so far except the mausoleum); the prevalence of romanization goes further than just simple google searches, and I would like to see NPOV major English publications , organizations and encyclopedias that predominantly feature Chinese romanization over Korean ones. Deiaemeth 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

despite this name having only 3 hits on Google (see talk page there). In the case of Mohe and Malgal, both of them mean other things in other languages, so I searched by "Mohe Manchuria" and "Malgal Manchuria".

Try typing -wikipedia at the end of your search.. the results are fascinating. Go on, try it! Deiaemeth 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Substitute in words like "Balhae", "Parhae", "Korea", etc, in place of Manchuria, and the results are similar.
Similarly, for the default romanizations of the names of the capitals, the Chinese romanizations are preferred by academia. The primary research being done on this subject seems to be by Japanese researchers, who seem to prefer the Chinese romanizations when writing in English.
It is your POV that primary research done on Balhae is by Japanese researchers, as there has been Korean books predating to Joseon Dynasty that dealt with subjects regarding Balhae. I could just easily argue that Korean researchers are the leaders in the field and present Korean sources and Romanizations. And your claim that academia prefers Chinese romanization has no support in major English publications and encyclopedias. If you also think that we should use Chinese romanization becaues Japanese researchers tend to do so when presenting their findings in English, I think you've mistaken here for [62]. Just comparing simple google search number in disregard of their contents and sources quite does not establish NPOV and consensus, as suggested by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (read my post on Wikipedia guidelines regarding consensus, sources, polls, etc. below) Deiaemeth 06:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[63] [64]

A google search confirms this:
Also, even if you search "-subject name-" -wikipedia, still many pages that show up are pages that actually copy+pasted order versions of wikipedia articles and unrelated articles. See; second page that shows up for search on "Da Wuyi" - [65] (A forum post) , [66] ( A project on rockets named "Da Vinci" ). You'll see that just simply comparing numbers of google searches in terms of commoness in English is a very ineffective determinant - completely irrelevant articles, copy+paste stuff from wikipedia, forum posts, etc. ; comparing NPOV and major English citations, sources, encyclopedias and publications are much more effective. Deiaemeth 06:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you sort VANK as Korean propaganda; following your reasoning, I would see you would also term Amnesty International's e-mail sending policy for releasing of political prisoners as propaganda? Sorting VANK as "propaganda ministry" is Japanese POV, as many issues they touch upon is controversial and can be viewed in various perspective. Calling VANK as an organization that tries to inform people of absolute truth would also be Korean POV. The supermajority of prominent English sources used Korean romanization before the formation of VANKS and its cyber activitism which came recently on 2002 (VANK was formed on 1999 but did not engage in cyber activities since internet wasn't as prominently distributed back then)]. I would call the real "propaganda" and "terrorists" are some 2ch users, as they engage in various hacking activities against Korean websites including VANK and websites on the Liancourt Rocks disputes. Also, the North Korean propaganda website you mentioned exclusively uses "Balhae" over "bohai" (or variations thereof). I see this poll is about Romanization of Balhae, and your source just enhances that most English publications uses exclusive or major usage of term "Balhae" (or variations thereof) then "Bohai". Also, I agree that North Korean historians tend to distort some historical facts to make their historical standing seem vastly superb, and that is greatly damaging for the South Korean historians. North Koreans largely identify Goguryeo and Balhae as forerunner of North Korea and directly links with their community ideology, Juche. This is very regrettable, as history of Balhae also has great importance on Korean history as a whole (not just North Korea) and various ethnic groups of Manchuria. However, North Korean propaganda plays no role in major and prominent English sources using Balhae as main romanizations for Balhae and its related articles. Thus it is vastly irrelevant to Romanization of the article itself. But I found the article very interesting, and I think the North Korean linkage of Balhae + Goguryeo and their Juche ideology at least deserves a mention in the political interpretation part of the article. Deiaemeth 03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It's called Balhae in the context of North Korean propaganda.--Endroit 08:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read the article over, and I didn't find any mention of North Korean Balhae propaganda is aimed at convincing western publications to change their romanizations on the article. And if the article is calling "Balhae" in the context of North Koreann propaganda, i would assume they would refer Balhae as "Bohai" in the main context or at least mention that "Bohai" is the accepted standard romanization for the name of the kingdom and "Balhae" is just a Korean variant (or North Korean propaganda!). The article itself, however, makes no mention of the name "Bohai" or variations thereof. Deiaemeth 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
it seems there is some confusion about the point of this discussion. to remove a distraction, i will remove the wording "korean kingdom" from the intro, although i think it's a fair description of what the references say. right now, per nanshu, we should be discussing the default romanization. we should do that by discussing applicable wikipedia naming policies and manual of style, and comparing npov verifiable sources, not get sidetracked by ad hominem or "guilt by association" rhetoric. although i think an issue like this is settled by wikipedia policies & npov sources, we could have a more useful poll if there was a brief description of the issue and arguments on both sides, and it should be publicized at WP:RFC and/or WP:CS. Appleby 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this will placate user:Ran and user:Yuje, as they were upset regarding terming Balhae exclusively as a Korean state. While I regard Balhae does have significant place on Korean history, various ethnic groups also made up Balhae and that should be not disregarded. As for the content, I hope we can work something out.Deiaemeth 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
also, endroit established that the romanization from chinese refers to the body of water, not the kingdom being discussed in this article. this would mean Bohai should redirect to Bohai Sea. Appleby 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A disambig page would also be plausible. Deiaemeth 08:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
try variations of "kingdom," e.g. [67], 897 hits for "balhae kingdom."Appleby 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The general number of google searches does not reflect the commonness of the name in English, when done by searching "Balhae kingdom" (or variations thereof) For example, when you search "Bohai Kingdom" (disregarding Wikipedia links). http://www.chinaculture.org, http://www.china.org.cn, http://www.regenttour.com/, http://www.kaogu.cn, http://www.holidayschina.com, etc. etc. as the firsthand results. (disregarding such websites as http://www.answers.com/topic/bohai and http://www.governpub.com/Bee-J/Jilin.php seeing as how their information is copy+paste of old wikipedia articles). Also, just by simple denomination, "Bohai Kingdom" gives 600 hits while "Balhae Kingdom" alone grants over 900 hits. You can all see that the sources that makes exclusive or major usage of the term is Chinese websites and the English version of those websites (with Chinese POV). There are numerous Korean sites that use the term Balhae, and those sites invariably reflect Korean POV. Those sites can't determine the "commonness" of names. However, Parhae and Balhae and variations thereof are used in prominent English encyclopedias and publications. Also, Bohai possesses many alternate meanings in Chinese, so to narrow the search (Notably Bohai Sea; searching Bohai at google will not give you information on Bohai Bay and Bohai industries first), dictions as "Bohai state" should be used when searching at google. However, Balhae does not hold any alternate meanings (major) in Korean, so you do not necessarily need to type "Balhae state" (or variations thereof) to get the results about Balhae. Also, "Parhae" has no alternate meaning, so you do not need to search "Parhae state"; you will see that atleast for the first 10 pages or so, "Parhae" will give you information on the kingdom. The only alternate meaning for "Parhae" for first 10 pages (the sites with most hits) is [68]. Only alternate meaning for Balhae that was found was a guild name in a multiplayer game called "Ultima Online" (2 hits) for the first 10 pages of google searches. So "Parhae" gives over 10,000 hits just on the kingdom alone. Clearly, Balhae and variations thereof are most commonly used name for major English publications and encyclopedias, as "Bohai" and variations thereof are employed by Chinese websites (and occassionaly Japanese websites as well). Typing "Parhae Kingdom" is pretty much redundant when just "Parhae" gives you accounts on "Balhae" kingdom and there is no alternate meaning for "Parhae" in Korean or English. Deiaemeth 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Bohai kingdom, Bohai state, Bohai province, Bohai region, Bohai prefecture, Bohai guo, Bohai sea, Bohai bay, Bohai river, etc. (and variations) are all part of the same Bohai area & culture, which interrelate to each other. Why pick only Bohai Kingdom?
--Endroit 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

endroit, you're confusing two different questions, which is not clear in the poll wording:

  • romanization of 渤海, which is more appropriate for a chinese dictionary. the more common romanization of these chinese characters is of course bohai/bo hai, since it is a contemporary name of a sea, a gulf/bay, a prefecture, a river, many companies, etc. once you determine that 渤海 is most commonly romanized as bohai, what goes on the page titled "Bohai"? as you showed, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam Webster Online, and American Heritage Dictionary say the primary meaning of bohai/bo hai is Bohai Sea, so the wikipedia page titled "Bohai" needs to redirect to Bohai Sea, or to Bohai (disambiguation) with Bohai Sea as the top link.
  • english spelling of the kingdom. this is the question i think nanshu meant to ask. for this, i think you want to look at Britannica [69] Encyc World History Columbia Encyc US Lib of Congress Met Museum [70] [71], which show that romanization from korean is how this kingdom is known in english. if you want to rebut this point, please provide equivalently prominent english publications that refer to this kingdom as "bohai," and then we'll discuss and poll the quantity and quality of those sources. that is really the only relevant discussion here, and it hasn't happened yet.

if you want to google for the spelling for this kingdom, you have to be careful that's what you're doing, with all the various spellings of parhae/palhae/barhae/balhae and bohai/pohai/bo'hai/bo hai (and don't forget jin/chin) and state/kingdom/country/nation, & be careful about the kind of results you actually get, as deiaemeth points out. this is far less helpful, in principle, in practicality of results, and in weight, than the publications cited above.

if we're gonna have a useful poll, the poll question needs to be fixed, and then get more outsiders to take a look. (for the purpose of this poll, it should also be explained that various romanization systems/common misspellings for both balhae and bohai are being considered equivalent, since there is no one established spelling that rises to the level of a loan word). Appleby 15:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (modified Appleby 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with Appleby. Treating "this kingdom" separately is similar to North Korean propaganda mentioned above. And the title of this article used to be Bohai, not Bohai Kingdom, until it was controversially moved using a "cut and paste" method.--Endroit 17:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

please stop with the guilt by association, and address this topic on its merits. if you don't treat the kingdom separately, the page titled "bohai" would be a disambiguation page, with the primary meaning being "bohai sea." this poll is about the kingdom's english name. i'm not disagreeing with you, we're just talking about different things. Appleby 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(Again) I disagree with Appleby over what this poll is about. I cannot speak for others like Appleby did, but here is my reasoning behind my own decision: Etymologically speaking, the name Bohai Kingdom (渤海國) was derived from Bohai Sea (渤海). And so all uses of Bohai would be treated equally, including Bohai Sea and Bohai Kingdom, according to my interpretation. We are having a poll here, because we disagree over such things. It is not right for Appleby to tell me whether I am wrong, because nobody can speak for me. This is merely my opinion, just as Appleby has stated his own opinion here.--Endroit 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

if this poll is about how to romanize 渤海 (primary meaning Bohai Sea), i'd agree "Bohai" is the most common romanization. if the question is about the subject of this article (which is what i thought i was voting on), then english reference publications are pretty much unanimous on using korean romanization, & since wikipedia uses the rr system, this article should remain titled Balhae. but i guess that hasn't been asked. Appleby 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Appleby is free to start a new poll or pursue Wikipedia:rfc or RfM. As it stands now he is against consensus.--Endroit 18:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

consensus on what? you're free to start a poll on what you actually want, but there is no consensus on what this poll was about. i'm fine with the way it is now, the sea being spelled bohai and the kingdom being spelled balhae, the most common respective english names. Appleby 19:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the poll clearly says "default romanization for Bohai-related articles", which would obviously include Bohai Sea as well as Jilin and other Bohai-related articles. Whether Appleby considers "Bohai Sea" to be included or not is irrelevant, as the wording was clear and 6 people have voted against Appleby's-POV already.--Endroit 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

you're the one who considered bohai sea, bohai prefecture, etc to be relevant. i thought this was just about the balhae/bohai kingdom, since this is the discussion page for that specific topic. i'd guess that's what some other people thought too, but you are disagreeing. you are saying the vote included all meanings of 渤海, treating the sea, prefecture, and kingdom as if they were one entity, even though they are different topics and referred to differently in english. you and i voted on different issues. Appleby 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, I hope you are not saying that you will ignore this poll. I urge Appleby to come up with an alternate poll, and it is up to Appleby to do so if he doesn't like this poll. However, the way it stands now, I believe there is consensus already, and it is a matter of time before we start reverting to "Bohai" in these articles.
Let me add that Appleby has a choice whether he follows Wikipedia rules, or defies consensus and resorts to revert wars (as he has done in other articles). I advise Appleby not to resort to revert wars, as it will not be kindly looked upon by the admins who will have to mediate and/or arbitrate later.--Endroit 22:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting Balhae should be romanized "Bohai" because "Bohai Bay/Sea" is commonly used in English? Balhae and Bohai kingdom is a seperately treated issue, as you may realize from reading the article itself. Also, since you emphasize "consensus" in this matter, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing. Per cited sources, do you see that Bohai is the most common Romanization in prominent English-based sources and publications? Bohai is commonly used to refer to Bohai Sea, not Balhae kingdom, and that is a indisputable fact, as per cited sources. I would hardly suggest 5 Chinese & Japanese editors and 2 Korean editors reflect "NPOV" and "consensus" in this matter, but the fact of the matter is, most English sources and publications exclusively or majorly use the term "Balhae" (or variations thereof) over Bohai. Again, if you are suggesting that we use "Bohai" for "Balhae" related articles because "Bohai Sea" has common usage in English (whihc is quite irrelevant to the article itself), I think you are reading the wrong article here. That's like suggesting renaming Bohai Sea as Balhae Sea because Balhae is the most commonly accepted Romanization for Balhae kingdom in prominent and influential English sources and publications. Also, if you think Polls are de jure Wikipedia policy and that everything should be reverted disregarding cited sources just because one group of editors outnumber others by 3 people, you should definitely think about reading Wikipedia:Voting_is_evil. Contrary to what you think, let me cite some stuff from the guideline; You claim that this pole established absolute consensus and that this article should be renamed, per Wikipedia Policy Let's start from some of the excerpts from the WIkipedia guideline, which you suggest we must adhere by. Polling isn't fair, either (HUH?), Polling discourages consensus

Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing. en:Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete option and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made. Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing. (This excerpt is from Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Note that Voting is evil is guideline (de facto policy-ish thing) and Consensus is a direct policy]

Interesting, isn't it? Do you think it sheds some new light on the subject? Realized that your beloved poll' doesn't establish NPOV just because some editors persuing their own POV outnumber other editors with their own POV and completely disregard the NPOV English sources ?

Another interesting policy, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. Very interesting; contrary to your claim, voting and disreagrding the provided prominent and influential English sources isn't the proper way to establish NPOV and fairness after all Hmm. Very interesting.

Also, Again, if you really suggest renaming Balhae related articles "bohai" just because "bohai sea" is commonly used name in English sources and disregard the fact that Balhae Kingdom and Bohai Sea is a seperate matter, that is against Wikipedia policies and true spirit and mission of Wikipedia. Following your argument, should we rename Buyeo to Fuyu because Fuyu persimmon is a common English name for the persimmons even though they carry different meanings? Also, please not that Bohai Bay and Bohai Kingdom uses different Chinese characters, thereby carrying different meanings. I gotta say, this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard today. You emphasize that Appleby isn't the one adhering to Wikipedia rules, but you're the one that is actually carrying matters contrary to what the Wikipedia policies directly states, as per cited excerpts from the policy itself. If you think that NPOV in this matter is established by simple poll between Chinese, Japanese and Korean editors here and disregard main prominent and influential English sources, you are gravely mistaken. You accuse Appleby of "Edit Wars" - infact, there has been no edits for the Balhae article itself that can be termed "edit war" for the last 3 days. Not many seem to have problems with the current version of article, and Appleby removed the Korean Kingdom excerpt per user:Yuje and user:Ran's request. Have a nice day, and remember; when you start telling other people to adhere to Wikipedia policies, it's generally a very good idea to read them first yourself. Adhere to the policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia! You also noted that this it is just matter of time until we start reverting articles to "Bohai". As long as there are editors that stands by NPOV and true spirit of Wikipedia, editing articles just by way of Straw polls in complete disregard of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and prominent English-based sources will not be tolerated. *note that Wikipedia:Voting is evil isn't a Policy but a guideline. The policies I cited were "Wikipedia:Consensus" and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Deiaemeth 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (Modified Deiaemeth 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Deiaemeth just said: "Also, please not that Bohai Bay and Bohai Kingdom uses different Chinese characters, thereby carrying different meanings. I gotta say, this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard today."
Who's being ridiculous here? Contrary to what Deiaemeth said, Bohai Sea is 渤海 (Simplified: 渤海), Bohai Bay is 渤海灣 (Simplified: 渤海湾), Bohai Kingdom is 渤海國 (Simplified: 渤海国). All of these are based on the Chinese word Bohai Sea (渤海), and you see the characters 渤海 in each word. Whether anybody likes it or not, the Bohai Kingdom was given its name from the Bohai Sea, even if its Capital was not along the Bohai Sea. Please get your facts straight, Deiaemeth. Bohai Sea is an actual name of place surrounded by China.--Endroit 03:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake there; also, when the most ridiculous thing I was referring to was your claim that Balhae should be renamed Bohai per Bohai sea. Meanwhile, I would suggest you to read about Wikipedia policies (please get your facts straight about the Consensus and voting part, as some materials you suggested runs contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines) and please learn to differentiate between Balhae Kingdom and Bohai sea, as prominent English sources and publications tend to specifically utilize Balhae (KRN Romanization) when referring to the kingdoms and use Chinese romanization when referring to Bohai Sea. If your reasoning that Balhae kingdom should be renamed per Bohai Sea, I would expect to see major English-based publications and encyclopedias do so and call the kingdom itself "Bohai Kingdom", based on the reasoning that "Bohai Sea" = Balhae Kingdom. But they do not, as per cited sources, most English-based publications and sources chooses the standard "Balhae" over bohai. Clearly, they see the difference between the Balhae kingdom and Bohai Sea. Let me sum it up for you; Balhae Kingdom =/= Bohai Sea.

Deiaemeth 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Deiaemeth that we need to follow other publications regarding this matter which prioritize the name "Balhae." The name of the Kingdom (Bohai) is a Chinese name and needs to mentioned first with the Chinese name Bohai, and then followed by Korean name Balhae in parentheses. Otherwise I believe it would be inconsistent and illogical. But that's merely my opinion, and other editors have their opinions too.--Endroit 04:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you would associate Chinese name with Balhae (Bohai) Kingdom, when per Wikipedia policy (Which you seem to really put a heavy emphasis on), the most common variations used by English-based sources and publications used. But I agree that the Chinese name should also be featured in infobox. I would call it inconsistent and illogical to disregard the NPOV and prominent & influential English-based sources to use the Chinese name. I don't see any major English-based encyclopedias/publiations/researches using the standard "Bohai" over "Balhae" when referring to the ancient kingdom. Also, you noted that " I disagree with Deiaemeth that we need to follow other publications regarding this matter." So you would disagree with NPOV and prominent English-based sources? But do you still think Chinese/Russian/Japanese sources listed by Nanshu are still applicable? Also, I thought you suggested renaming article to Bohai because English-based sources used the term "Bohai Sea" to refer to Bohai Sea and you claimed that directly correlated to "Balhae Kingdom". (even though they used seperate Romanization for the kingdom and differentiated it with the sea) But you just stated that you "disagree with Deiaemeth(me) that we need to follow other publications regarding this matter". I'm really confused here. So, are you stating a) Use the English-basd sources for your claim of Bohai Sea = Balhae Kingdom (Bohai) but disregard them when they use the Korean romanization over Chinese one when referring to the Kingdom itself (which is, the main point of the article, u know, Balhae (Bohai) kingdom).Deiaemeth 04:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (modified Deiaemeth 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
OK, I clarified myself above, because you seemed confused. I maintain that "Bohai" should take precedence over "Balhae" in all situations.... always."--Endroit 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So you want to diregard the sources if they romanized the kingdom itself as Balhae (the prominent English-based sources) and only consider them as verifiable sources if they use the Chinese romanization over Korean romanization. So When Brit. Encyclopedia calls the sea "Bohai Sea" and romanizes the kingdom as "Parhae", you want to disregard the latter. I see. Thank you for clearing your point up, and have a nice day! That sums up a lot. ^__^ Deiaemeth 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I merely applied a single standard for both names (Bohai Kingdom and Bohai Sea), and concluded that "Bohai" is more appropriate (and more common) than "Balhae" in English in general. Like Deiaemeth pointed out, other publications may not do this.--Endroit 05:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Bohai is more (or most) common name for Bohai Sea, but English-based sources utilize seperate Romanization for Balhae Kingdom, and grouping them under one umbrella is inconsistent. If the major English-based sources and publications and encyclopedias took such approach and refer both the Sea and Kingdom as "Bohai" instead of referring the kingdom as "Balhae Kingdom", what you're proposing would be reasonable. But however, Balhae kingdom and Bohai Sea is quite often differentiated in terms of Romanization. So disregarding that fact and grouping them under a single standard would be quite unreasonable. BTW Bohai needs a disambig Page between Balhae Kingdom and Bohai Sea, I think. But also, I think I understand your concerns regarding the Romanization. Deiaemeth 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC) (modified Deiaemeth 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

This entire discussion is quite ugly. I'll just limit myself to pointing out the main problems with Endroit's position that there can only ever be one single way to write 渤海 in English. As far as I can tell, Endroit doesn't make clear the reasons behind this argument, so I am left to guess. Obviously, the reason cannot be that all place names derived from the same Chinese characters should use the same romanisation, because that would suggest that both Tokyo and Tonkin (東京) should use the same spelling in English (presumably, the pinyin-based 'Dongjing' would be preferred).

So I'm guessing that the argument is that when a place name that is still in use is the etymological origin for an ethnonym and the name of an ancient kingdom, then the same name should be used for all those variations. Step back now and consider the implications of such an argument. Would this mean the same spelling should be used for Guyana and Guiana? Should we go back to using the name 'Belorussia' to make the etymological connection to Russia plainer? Actually, should we just collapse all variations of Rus', Russia, and Ruthenia (including Ruotsi, which actually refers to Sweden) into one? No, we use different names because they refer to different things, although in each case they are etymologically related and are part of the same cultural/geographical continuum. The only reason we are even having this argument is because in the case of 渤海, the name is written with the same characters whether referring to the sea, the region, or the ancient kingdom, thus masking all those distinctions and driving home their shared etymological origin.

So the main argument then becomes one of choosing the path of simplicity, not necessity; and as such, it's actually pretty decent: as long as we're dealing with an ancient kingdom whose actual self-appellation we have no way of determining, why not use the same romanisation as we would use for the Chinese region and the sea? Not bad, but it comes nowhere close to saying that using a single romanisation is the only way to go. And it is clearly not the only option, as we can see from the fact that there is a substantial tradition of making such a distinction in recognition of the fact that the kingdom has been considered to have a closer relationship to Korean history than to Chinese history (whether that is justified or not is a separate issue). That is why the references above – and from my experience, most of the English-language works in the academic literature – choose a romanisation based on the Korean for the kingdom, while Pohai/Bohai is almost universally used for the sea.

So failing that, I guess Endroit's argument is that North Korean propaganda calls the kingdom by the Korean name, so it just must clearly be wrong. There may be little of merit about the North Korean historical viewpoint, but you cannot accuse it of pushing an unpopular name for the kingdom. In calling it by the name based on the romanisation of Korean, the North Korean historiography is merely following a well-established practice in the English-language literature. --Iceager 09:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that if most English-language works choose Korean romanization for the Bohai (Balhae) "kingdom", all Wikipedia articles should do the same. I will acknowledge what Iceager says, that "the kingdom has been considered to have a closer relationship to Korean history than to Chinese history", as also shown by most of Appleby's citations.
So you actually disagree with Wikipedia policy, per most common usage for the context in English? Deiaemeth 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So I propose the following: For articles written in the Korean context, the "kingdom" should be referred to as "Balhae (Bohai)". For articles written in the Manchurian context, Chinese context, Japanese context, and Russian context, the "kingdom" should be referred to as "Bohai (Balhae)". And for articles written in the general context, such as this particular article, the "kingdom" should be referred to as "Bohai (Balhae)" as voted here.
Read the policy on voting and consensus please. Well, your proposal is certainly interesting, but I don't know why you still insist "Balhae" is Korean POV (and North Korean propaganda), when clearly all cited English major sorces uses the Korean romanization over "Bohai" in context of the ancient Kingdom. I would call it sinocentrism to ignore the mainstream romanization utilized by all English-based major sources. Deiaemeth 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I will add that the Bohai Kingdom is multi-ethnic, and more Manchurian (Malgal) than Korean. There's no need to make this particular article Korea-centric. We should restore some of the Chinese romanizations that were deleted, such as the names of the rulers. We can still keep the link to List of Korean monarchs#Balhae (669 - 926) at the bottom, and call it "List of Korean monarchs, Balhae (Bohai)", though.
For all romanizations within this particular article, the Chinese romanization should be listed first, followed by the Korean romanization.--Endroit 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

i think english-speaking scholars already knew the ethnicity and history of the kingdom when they chose the korean romanization in independent reference works. i don't know of any other encyclopedia that uses different primary spelling of the same topic depending on national context. the only close analogy i can think of is wikipedia's own Sea of Japan, where the alternate english name (East Sea) is used as an alternate name in the main and korea-related articles, but since "Sea of Japan" is the primary english name, that is used throughout wikipedia, consistently. so, here, since "Balhae" is the primary english name for this kingdom, it should be used consistently throughout as the primary name, and "(Chinese: Bohai)" can be included in this main and china-related articles. Appleby 17:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect to this Bohai (Balhae) article, you'd have to at least admit that both romanizations need to be there for pretty much everything (even if we don't agree on the ordering, etc.). That means a link to the List of Korean monarchs#Balhae (669 - 926) is not enough, and the list of monarchs needs to be restored here with both romanizations.--Endroit 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

again, independent reference works treat balhae/parhae as the primary spelling, and "bohai" is already in the first mention and infobox and disambiguation. the cited npov sources show, even with mixed ethnic composition, the leadership was of goguryeo and balhae is treated as a part of korean history (just as china consists of more than the han). as far as monarchs go, the consistent format would be to have all the relevant romanizations in an infobox in the individual articles. 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of Appleby's referenced citations are written in the context of Korean history to begin with, and are not NPOV. This Wikipedia article should be NPOV by listing both romanizations.--Endroit 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

that's because that's where balhae/bohai is mentioned, and i assure you i wasn't consulted by these encyclopedias. please offer equivalent english sources that use bohai as the primary spelling, and then we can compare the quantity and weight of the references to come to a rational conclusion.

What I find curious about Endroit's argument is the claim that since the kingdom was multiethnic and primarily Malgal (debatable but certainly plausible), we should avoid the Korean name because it would make the article Korea-centric. If we accept that the kingdom was primarily Malgal in ethnic composition, then I am not picking up on the difference between using the Korean and Chinese names. By the same argument, shouldn't we avoid the Chinese name because it would make the article Sinocentric? (Unless, of course, one belongs to the sort of people who consider all ancient East Asian cultures to be Chinese and vehemently argue, for example, that Genghis Khan was Chinese.) I wish there was an available neutral alternative, but failing that, the Korean name is actually more neutral than the Chinese name and should be preferred since the Chinese connection to the kingdom is even more tenuous than the Korean one. --Iceager 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not just my opinion. Other editors have mentioned that this article has become too Korea-centric. An equal balance between Chinese(Manchurian-POV) and Korean is preferred to make this article NPOV to begin with, as Chinese is the universal language of the Manchuria region today. And apparently, most editors also think Chinese should be the default, but I believe we should always list BOTH romanizations.
Also, concurrent citations are slanted towards a Korean-POV and tend to ignore Manchurian-POV. At a different age and time, the citations were slanted towards a Manchurian-POV (and, unfortunately, also Japanese-imperialist-POV) as shown in the 1911 Britannica article about Manchuria. There, it is mentioned only as "Kingdom of Pohai".--Endroit 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is year 2006 now, and right now, it is mentioned as Kingdom of Parhae. I would really like to hear your elaboration on all prominent and major English sources being "Korean POV'd" and only presenting Korean POV. Are you trying to refute the verifiability and reputation of those encyclopedias and publications (such as U.S Library of Congress)? That is an interesting point, I must say. So all major English-based encyclopedias and publications slanted towards a Korean-POV .. interesting.. Btw, your article regards that Chinese Chow dynasty (sp?) called the nation under different names such as "Pohai". Britannica Encyclopedia right now calls it "kingdom of Parhae"; primarily because Encyclopedias tend to update old information with more NPOV and factually accurate information.( And your article merely remarks that "Thus under the Chow dynasty (1122—225 B.c.) they were known as Sewshin, and at subsequent periods as Yih-low, Wuh-keih, Moh-hoh, Pohai," - Chinese Chow dynasty called it "Pohai") Deiaemeth 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think your next logical move will be to propose moving Zhou Dynasty page to Chow Dynasty as per your cited sources? I mean, if we use the 1911 citation in disregard to change concurrent (2006) one to Pohai, I think moving Zhou dynasty to Chow dynasty seems pretty logical. Deiaemeth 06:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

what we're comparing is not wikipedians' opinions, but npov citations. endroit's 1911 citation merely says that china's chow dynasty called this kingdom pohai, which of course is not disputed & not the point under discussion. Appleby 20:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way Appleby, the website [[82]] is a website of Wheeling Jesuit University 's 'Erma Ora Byrd Center for Education technologies' [83]. Deiaemeth 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
for some reason, that site comes up a lot in korea-related searches in google .... i didn't realize that the secret korean cabal had infiltrated the jesuits so completely Appleby 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, recently Pope Benedict XVI DID instate a Korean cardinal... Deiaemeth 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If this page actually followed the usual pattern of naming disputes on Wikipedia, one would have suspected the issue would be whether to call it "Parhae" or "Balhae", because a reasonable argument could be made that "Parhae" is the English name, being found on numerous reference works such as Britannica, perhaps a majority of them. It is not a simple issue of updating the romanisation from the previous standard to the current one, because strict McCune-Reischauer would yield "Palhae". So it's possible to treat "Parhae" as a widely-recognised English word that has been given life beyond the simple transcription of the Korean name. (I'm not actually arguing this; I'm merely pointing out that it would be natural for such an argument to be raised.)

Now there's the issue of "Bohai" as well. Endroit says that Chinese is the universal language in the Manchuria region today; that's a bit of a hyperbole, but I guess what he means is that Chinese is the predominant language spoken by the Manchus (many of the other ethnic groups in Manchuria speak their own languages, while Manchu language itself is almost extinct). So that's one argument for considering the Chinese name as a sign of respect for the Manchu claim, supposing of course that the Malgals can be equated with the Manchus for this purpose (which is actually not as clear-cut as one might think). But let me tell you why it still does not follow automatically that the Chinese name should be used. In dealing with Manchu history, English-language historiography tends to use Manchu names such as Nurhaci, switching to Chinese only when Manchu history becomes seriously intermingled with that of China. The kingdom of 渤海 never conquered China as did the later Manchus, and it was no more sinified than Silla or any of the other neighbours of China in the Tang era, so there is no overwhelming reason to apply Chinese names in dealing with the ancient kingdom if we are to keep the pretense that we are respecting the Manchu claim to it. But then, I have never seen an attempt to call 渤海 by the Manchu name in English.

The simple fact is that for better or worse, considering 渤海 to be a part of Manchu history is a historical novelty even more recent than the Korean claim, and even then it is one helped along a bit by outsiders with ulterior motives (i.e. Japanese imperialists; for an interesting and illuminating variation, you might want to read up on how Macedonian nationalism's groundless identification with ancient Macedon was initially helped along by the Greek nationalist movement in their campaign against the Ottomans). That is why the Korean name came into currency in English while no one even talks about the Manchu name. --Iceager 11:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make that claim, I'd expect you to justify it. Can you cite where such an interpretation of history was motivated by Japanese imperialism? If that were true, it would imply that post-war Japanese research would show a significantly different historical interpretation. But it's I've seen in western sources as well (which I've cited on the main page). I'm sure that researchers from all the interested parties (China, N Korea, S Korea, Russia, Japan, etc) may have some of their own biases, but one would expect actual errors or gross distortions of facts to be pointed out instead of just dismissing a particular interpretation based on alleged biases. You now seem guilty of doing the same thing that Deiaemeth is accusing Endroit of doing, namely attempting to discredit an argument through guilt by association instead of attacking the argument's actual merits.
user:Yuje, I think you should note user:Iceager's comment was actually in reference to user:Endroit's earlier comment, in which endroit stated

At a different age and time, the citations were slanted towards a Manchurian-POV (and, unfortunately, also Japanese-imperialist-POV) . Endroit specifically stated this, and Iceager was just referencing his claim. Also, I fail to see how Gaoguli is found in major NPOV English sources and publications as the alternative for Goguryeo. Even by your way of simple google search, Gaoguli - wikipedia reveals a whopping 6 searches. [84] It is a Romanization found in no major English works, and even Chinese authorities very rarely use that Romanization (search for article regarding Goguryeo in china.org) So basically, Koguryo -wikipedia [85] - 181,200 searches, Goguryeo -wikipedia [86] 43,600 searches. So you're totally for claiming that when referencing the name, referencing the name that almost 0 usage in English first then the internatinally accpeted and used one is NPOV? I mean, google searching is pretty silly when discussing pages that have like 100 searches each, but 224,800 searches (English only -wikipedia) to 6 searches (English only -wikipedia) is pretty darn silly. But hey, this articles not for Romanization of Goguryeo anyway. Well, I've yet to see a major NPOV English-based encyclopedia or publications using the chinese romanizations regarding Balhae Kingdom (except for handful of Chinese websites, 2 Japanese researcher websites, and a bunch of wikipedia cut and paste articles). Deiaemeth 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that mentioning the role of Japanese imperialism in getting 渤海 recognised as a part of Manchu history was not meant as a slant, and in any case that has nothing to do with whether the claim has merit. Just because a view was endorsed by Japanese imperialism doesn't make it wrong. And indeed, the Manchu claim to 渤海 history is most certainly not a totally groundless fabrication, which explains why it is recognised in serious scholarship today. I should have known that what I thought was a harmless aside would be misinterpreted like this, but it's my fault for not recognising that the mention of Japanese imperialism sends automatic warning bells. --Iceager 04:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the romanization issue, previously, there was a system of dual romanizations, for the names and the monarchs (not only for this page, but for related pages). Now, those alternate romanizations have been mostly deleted or one system is blatently being promoted over the other (example [87]), I fail to see how this is somehow more NPOV than previously.--Yuje 01:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So you thought Bohai/Balhae in every context was NPOV even when Bohai has minor usage in English works? and Gaoguli/Goguryeo too? (see my post above) There is a specific mention of Bohai in the introductory paragraph of the article. By your logic, we should then note all Sea of Japan references in articles as East Sea (Sea of Japan). I mean, if we are to use the name that is reference more often as secondary name. I guess that is very NPOV. Deiaemeth 03:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i thought we covered this in the mountains of discussion above. inclusion is not the same thing as npov. if independent reputable reference works identify a topic a certain way, that's npov. adding a very small minority view that's not recognized by major reference works, in a way that suggests equivalent popularity or weight, that is unreasonable pov. again, note how East Sea, even though it is widely recognized as an alternate english name by major english encyclopedias, still is not even mentioned except in korea-related articles, because Sea of Japan is the most common name. sometimes, leaving a minority pov out is the npov. see WP:NPOV Appleby 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And only a very small minority views this as an exclusively Korean kingdom. I fail to see how, given this, having default Korean names (and only Korean names) is NPOV. --Yuje 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether it is an exclusively Korean-only kingdom or not is being questioned right now; the nature of the discussion is most common Romanization featured in NPOV, major English publications and encyclopedias and such. No one here claims that Balhae is an exclusive Korean kingdom, which you might have realized if you've read the previous posts. Chinese romanization is only in extreme minor use among major English sources (see cited sources), and it is redundant to feature Balhae (Bohai) every time in the article and its related articles. You'll see no one deleted the Chinese name (Bohai) in the context of the article, and it is still in the infobox. Per your logic, should we featuer Sea of Japan (East Sea) (or actually what you're insisting would be East Sea (Sea of Japan)) Every time the article is referenced? Why do you insist proper Romanization is Bohai/Balhae, when Bohai is in extreme minor use (or no use at all) among NPOV major English sources (including Dae Joyeong, etc.)? I wouldn't be as hasty to regard that as NPOV. This is Deiaemeth 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
this article doesn't view this as an "exclusively" korean kingdom. casting it as a part of korean history & using korean romanization is "neutral," determined by independent, disinterested, prominent, commonly accepted reference texts. if supported by neutral sources, using korean romanization for balhae is not "korean pov." using chinese romanization for beijing is not "chinese pov"; saying "beijing/bukgyeong" is not "more neutral" just because it adds information. it's all a matter of common english spelling & neutral references. Appleby 06:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Revised discussion

Taking into mind Deiaemeth's comments, I've refined the Google searches somewhat. Here, I'll use Google Scholar, which searches academic papers only, which will avoid Wikipedia mirrors somewhat, and search among actual areas of research or academic discussion. Google Scholar probably isn't anywhere near comprehensive, yet it might give a good sampling of current scholarly usage.

  • Bohai turns up 8,320 hits, many of which are related to the sea. I don't have to time to rifle through them all, so I'll just write it off.
  • Pohai -sea turns up 50 hits, of which 3 are related to the kingdom.
  • P'o-hai turns up 33 hits, of which 29 are related to the kingdom.
  • Po-hai turns up 121 hits, of which 20 are related to the kingdom.
  • Parhae turns up 59 hits, all of which are related to the kingdom.
  • Palhae turns up 17 hits, of which 15 are related to the kingdom.
  • Balhae turns up 6 hits, of which 5 are related to the kingdom.

Discounting Bohai, and from just a quick sampling of available internet research papers, 52 papers use some variation of "Bohai" while 79 use some variation of "Parhae", so Chinese romanization is hardly the extreme minority view characterized by some. Ironically enough, of all the names, "Balhae" turned up the fewest results. --Yuje 06:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The first 10 searches on "Bohai" is actually a paper done on rRNA sequence of several viral strains by a person named Bohai Wen. Also, check the first 6 pages - just skim it if you want to, ALL results were about Bohai Sea/Bohai Bay, and JrBohai Engineering college, etc. Completely irrelevant searches. Also, if you type in Bohai Kingdom or States, all are researches done by Chinese researchers, or researches done on Bohai Sea by scientists from United Kingdoms. Again, I don't see any basis that Bohai is widespread Romanization for Balhae Kingdom in NPOV, major English-source. Works such as these [88] [89] [90] actually predominantly feature Korean romanization (Norther kingdom of Parhae (bohai in Chinese), actually proving that Korean romanization is much more featured commonly in English-based sources. The only western source -> [91] An old report by a German University (German Wikipedia?) Searching for "Bohai State" gives you completely irrelevant searches as well, such as "Oregon state University" report done on Bohai sea. Well, actually it did give one relevant search in first 5 pages done or so - a report done by Dr. NR Adami , Bibliography on Parhae (Bohai-Bokkai): a medieval state in the Far East. Your search just bolsters the ponit that only Chinese (and some Japanese editors, one German editors) use Chinese romanization, while NPOV English-based researchers prefer the Korean Romanization. Searching "Bohai Kingdom" gives you 9 searches - of which 7 are Chinese, 2 are German and Japanese. Parhae, in the other hand, 59 searches - (Parhae and Balhae and Barhae are not used in any other context in Korean, so all searches are related to Balhae Kingdom). Let's compare -> [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] (Chinese source utilizing Parhae as sole Romanization) [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] Disregarding Korean sources, this is a small and incomplete list of NPOV English-based publications and sources that primarily uses Korean romanization (or does not use the Chinese on at all). Turns out Japanese researchers prefer Korean romanization over Chinese one too.I thank user:Yuje for this amazing tool; this tool has just help prove English-based sources and academia prefer Korean Romanization by a LOOONG shot. Try searching "pohai kingdom" or "bohai state" to narrow down the search; two English-based publications, most aren't even in English at all. Deiaemeth 06:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I completely ignored the "Bohai" searches entirely (which is actually to your advantage), and I counted only the papers which directly talked about the kingdom. As I said, even scrapping the entire collective results of search "Bohai", there are still 52 papers directly related to the kingdom, which use the Chinese romanization. And of them, you can see that they're not from Chinese journals, either.--Yuje 06:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC
Bohai State, Kingdom and Pohai State and Kingdom reveals about 7 searches each, most of them being Chinese journals. Deiaemeth 06:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There's an easier way to narrow down the search: Use the advanced search option, and limit the subject field to "Search only in Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities." I did that for Bohai, and got 300 hits of which 16 relate directly to the kingdom. [124].--Yuje07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's see here - 16 articles? one is a Korean research paper solely using Parhae than (bohai) at the end. [125] [126] - Parhae (Chinese: pohai), thereafteron, Parhae only. Questia article [127] - Parhae (bohai), Parhae only used thereafteron. [128] quoted "Bohai" from a Chinese source [129] article written by a Chinese person, student of one of the societies, [130] this book being repeatedly showing up on search for several (5-6) times for some reason, the German guy I told you about below, a Russian journal [131], Parhae utilized as primary then Bohai as minor, then Parhae used thereafteron [132]. So one Russian, One Japanese, and one German article, and couple articles written by Chinese persons. Hmm.Deiaemeth 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
from WP:NPOV, quoting jimbo wales, emphasis added:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
just so these "commonly accepted reference texts" are not lost in this interminable discussion:
Right. And as is shown, the viewpoints are not held by a significant minority, as shown through a search of academic papers. Which are published in commonly accepted sources such as The American Historical Review, The Journal of Asian Studies, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Journal of the American Oriental Society, none of which are trashy tabloids. --Yuje 06:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies .. do you mean this one? [139]? which features Korean Romanization first Parhae (Pohai in Chinese)? or this one, [140], which only uses Korean romanization. Those sources you listed actually uses Korean romanization over Chinese romanization.. check again. Journal of Asiatic studies, you mean this one ? [141] ? It refers Balhae as Parhae (Po-hai in Chinese]] and just uses Parhae from thereafteron. Journal of Asian Studies [142] - uses Parhae. The sources you listed actually makes exclusve or major use Korean romanization over the Chinese one.... Questia article that draws from American Oriental Society and Oriental Insitute, University of (cuts of there) [143] - Parhae as sole romanization. The sources you listed actually makes exclusve or major use Korean romanization over the Chinese one.... I've listed other sources that actually utilizes Korean romanization or makes major use of it above. Deiaemeth 06:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No, like this: *[144]
Again, I've listed about 30-40 papers above that prefers the usage of Korean romanization solely or bohai as secondary one.

"Japanese compiler mentions the presentation to the T'ang Court during the seventh century of " porcelain enamelled in purple " by the king of the P'o hai"

Source dating to 1924 (!); ARound that time, even Britannica encyclopedia called Balhae "Pohai". Have you taken into account that researches and findings actually do change over time and information becomes updated, and I think 82 years is pretty much enough time for that. Deiaemeth 09:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • [145]"Ta Yen-lin, a descendant of the founder of P'o-hai, seized Liao's Eastern Capital and proclaimed himself ruler of the state of Tsing-Liao"
  • [146]After 928 some of the subgroups moved into the ruins of the P'o-hai ~i~ Kingdom (692-926), which was created by the Su-mo ~, also one of the seven Mo-ho tribes
Also written by a Chinese scholar, and major works that were cited were Chinese.. hmm.. I'm not sensing much NPOVness here. Guess I'll start citing works in English by Korean researchers.
  • [147] "Wa-pen seldom left the capital in Manchuria, and his family was under strong Chinese and P'o-hai influence."
Written by a Chinese scholar named Jing-shen Tao, translated 30 years ago.
  • [148] "He describes the history of the state of P'o-hai, from the late seventh century AD to the early tenth century AD, and in the last chapter recounts the history"
  • [149] "events in Japan, China, Korea, and P'o-hai to 888 will offer no help to the reader of a two-page digression--will he even realize that it is one?"
Actually, that excerpt is from a Japanese book and is translated into English

...and so on. I'm certainly not seeing a majority of these sources using the Chinese as a secondary romanization. --Yuje 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

All of your sources are from around year 1960s. If you take the example of Asian journal, the more recent versions actually tend to use Korean romanizations and such. If you take a look at one of my 30ish articles I've cited above, you'll find that they mostly date after 1990, with most recent ones being 2005. I mean, researchers, they tend to update things and make changes to their works over 40-50 years. Older versions of encyclopedias, such as Britannica, called Balhae "P-ohai"; they've made the appropriate changes now. Deiaemeth 07:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

bohai as the minority spelling is not being disputed, it's already in the first mention, article body & infobox here. what more are you trying to accomplish? you are trying to counter the unanimity of major reference works, with the difference (against you) of tens of journal articles found in incomplete google searches, many of which actually use the chinese romanization as the second reference after the korean, others of which the context cannot be determined from google results. surely you are not saying that "bohai" is equal in weight or frequency, much less preferred, and under no wikipedia policy or example is the minority spelling always mentioned with the majority. Appleby 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Appleby, many of the reference works found by the tool provided by Yuje did not even feature Chinese Romanization (bohai) - If you see my above posts, most papers actually made exclusive use of Korean romanization.. including two chinese sources. When all cited works points that Korean romanization is the major one and Chinese one being minor, including publications, encyclopedias, and now academic papers, insisting that Bohai holds the equal weight of frequency as Balhae (or variations thereof) is just a silly notion. Deiaemeth 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to go do a raw count of all hundred or so hits and count the number of ones that exclusively use Chinese, exclusively Korean, Chinese secondarily, or Korean secondarily, then go ahead. I lack the time, myself. Have you found out how many of those fall under which categories?

--Yuje 07:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yah. Counting all the sources that utilizes Korean romanization is pretty hard because there are too many. But i've had real success in Bohai though. Well, for "Bohai" , it was pretty easy. I mean, you just have to ctrl+f and search "sea" and frantically press the enter key 30 times and you'll see maybe one search referring to the kingdom itself. Just did that for 2 minutes. Well, Korean romanization was much harder. I've invested 10 minutes and found over 40-ish papers that actually predominantly user Korean romanization, and are relatively recent sources prostdating 1990. BTW, sources that utilizes Korean as main Romanization (or exclusively) and Chinese as secondary (or not at all). Most postdating 1990, recent one being 2005. I didn't list all of them here. [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] (Chinese source utilizing Parhae as sole Romanization) [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]

Enjoy! Deiaemeth 07:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

no, i'm relying on the commonly accepted reference texts. Appleby 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll just quote something that Appleby says on this same page, somehwere above:

ok, even shorter: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..." Appleby 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As he himself quotes, he's poorly equipped to interpret and judge between the merits of different peer-reviewed journals, reputable publications, etc, yet...........now he proposes that we do the exact same thing, and support his pet sources over other equally reputable ones. --Yuje 07:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

um, that's a quote from the founder of wikipedia, not myself. wikipedians shouldn't be interpreting primary original texts, but citing reputable publications. so far, all reputable reference works and apparently the majority of journals you found use the korean romanization exclusively or primarily. what exactly are you proposing we change? Appleby 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why Yuje keeps claiming Lib of Congres, Encyclopedia Britannica, and other sources are Appleby's Pet sources. Just because they do not portray history in a sinocentric way, that does not make the sources automatically pet sources. If he wants to dispute the verifiability and reliability of those institutions, I suggest he take care of that first. He also seems to have forgotten that his findings actually discovered 3-4 old papers that predates 1970s (the most recent one being 1980s) that uses the old romanization "Po-Hai", half of them being written by Chinese researchers. His findings also helped find about 40-50 papers (excluding the Korean ones) that dominantly used the Korean romanization, with the most recent one being published in the late 2005. This is pretty funny. Deiaemeth 09:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Why am I not surprised?

Deiaemeth: When you volunteered to help look through the sources, I assumed, that despite differences in views, you would at least be honest and not distort facts. But I did get a bit suspicious when you claimed to be done so soon, and without any kind of numbers). I can hardly say where your claim that the majority of sources that use Chinese romanization use it secondarily to the Korean one. Here are the results from the Chinese romanization searches laid out and classified, and the links clearly labeled so that anyone can check and verify:

-- Uses only or primarily this romanization Uses this as a secondary romanization
Bohai Asian Affairs

T'oung Pao GeoJournal The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians International Journal of Osteoarchaeology The Journal of Asian Studies [182] Journal of World History Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews Artibus Asiae Korean Studies 1999 Pacific Affairs 1999 China Review International 2001 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2003 Artibus Asiae 1983 China: A Cultural and Historical Dictionary 1998 The Art Bulletin 1999

Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary

Monumenta Nipponica The Journal of Asian Studies Korean Studies 1999

Pohai Archaeological Materials on the Ancient History of the USSR 1978

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 1997 The Journal-Newsletter of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 1968 Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1979

The Koreans: Contemporary Politics and Society 1996

China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries

P'ohai The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 1912

The Far Eastern Quarterly 1950

Po-hai Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews 1985

The Far Eastern Quarterly 1955 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1949 Journal of the American Oriental Society 1986 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 1957 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1945 The Geographical Journal 1963 Journal of the American Oriental Society 1948 Journal of the American Oriental Society 1989 Journal of the American Oriental Society 1995 Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 1872 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1990 The Journal of Asian Studies 1986 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1939 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1996 The Journal of Asian Studies 1998 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1992 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1987 Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 1946 The History of the Mongol Conquests

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1988

As for the accusation of Sinocentrism, I was wondering how long before I would get accused of that. Funny how you were accusing Endroit of trying to exploit guilt by association and now you're trying to do the same thing by calling me a sinocentrist. I have neither called you a VANKer nor a sinophobe, but regardless of whether or not you extend the same courtesy to me, you surely realize that it doesn't help your arguments.

Actually, the "Sinocentric" thing was in reference to sources, as in my original quotes Just because they do not portray history in a sinocentric way, that does not make the sources automatically pet sources. I was making a suggestion that you not label the sources pet sources just because they utilize Korean romanization. I've never called YOU a senocentrist. Deiaemeth

As for the sources, I meant exactly what I said. Instead of accepting available sources, only the favorable ones were being supported and the non-favorable ones being disgarded. Again, here's a great example

Actually, user:Kamosuke distorted the entire reference regarding "western historians" and duplicated the excerpt on positions of Korean historians, which entailed "Western reference publications generally consider Balhae a part of Manchuria history." by citing britannic article that listed Balhae under History of Korea. So I tried to revert his claim, but accidentally duplicated the same excerpt twice (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&oldid=39331325), which I fixed in later edits. I accidentally deleted the whole excerpt on Korean historians, not just the sources, which you would find out if you looked closely. Whatever part you put it wasn't deleted and is still in the article to this day - Koreans believe the founder Dae Joyeong was of Goguryeo stock. The Book of Tang says that Dae Joyeong was of Goguryeo kind (高麗別種), and the New Book of Tang states that he is "from the Sumo Mohe of the former realm of Goguryeo.Deiaemeth 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This source was being cited as evidence, but when cited again to support a non-favorable view, instant revert. And yes, I find it extreme hyprocrisy that above, this was stated:

ok, even shorter: "historical interpretations with citations to primary sources" are inappropriate because "wikipedia is poorly equipped to judge" those interpretations. so "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published", reputable publications being "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house ..., general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications, ..." Appleby 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

.....yet immediately after peer-reviewed journals are quoted, they're immediate attempts to characterize them as lacking credibility. Attempting to favor only certain sources, but dismissing other credible ones is exactly what I mean by "pet sources". I don't favor removing them, or holding one over the other, only presenting both, in the NPOV manner. I mean, someone who can't even get simple facts right, is now supposed to subjectively interpret that certain academic sources are more credible than others?

In any case, I feel like I'm whacking on pop-a-moles here, everytime I satisfy every demand for rejecting Chinese romanization, I find the goalposts being moved further back:

  1. The original justification for all the changes was that it's a Korean kingdom False-There's a lack of concensus among scholars, and it's characterized as part of the history of other cultures as well
The matter of dispute wasn't on whether the kingdom was Korean - Appleby removed the Korean kingdom part after you and user:Ran protested over it. No one portrayed Balhae as an exclusive Korean kingdom.
  1. Chinese romanization is only used by an extreme minority, and therefore should be excluded False-Although not quite as prevalant, its notable, percentage wise, in use by all those major reference sources, pointed out earlier, some of the Chinese romanizations are even more prevalent than the current romanization,
No one said it shouldn't be in use, but rather, my position was, Balhae should be in primary use. No one deleted the Chinese name off the infobox or anything. No one said it should be "Excluded". Deiaemeth 09:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
IF Chinese Romanization is not as prevalent as "Balhae" (or variations thereof), why should it be in primary use in Wikipedia then? I
  1. Only Chinese sources use the alternate romanization False-As shown in half this page, the alternate romanization is widely used as well, by numerous non-Chinese sources
  2. The other listed sources aren't prominent or aren't credible False-They're peer-reviewed journals, many of them from prominent institutions
No one here said those sources weren't "credible". I said of the 6 sources you cited , 5 of them dated to 1970s. Deiaemeth 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, there's being yet another attempt to discredit them by attempting to characterize them as old or outdated (years of publication are listed in the above table). I wonder whether an outsider viewing this debate would see this as NPOV behavior, considering all the excuses being tossed in front of what should be a standard NPOV procedure on every other subject that has shared history between different cultures.


Well, it seems that the discussion is going nowhere. Looks like it's probably going to end up in requests for mediation, just like East Sea. --Yuje 05:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the journals that were found using Google Scholar search that primarily employed Korean romanization, I've included page numbers or direct quotes from them in most cases)

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Jun., 1988) , pp. 276-280]

Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Feb., 1997) , pp. 26-46]

SEEKING TRUTH 2001 Vol.28 No.5 P.100-106 (Aptly Titled)]

by Robert Borgen - University of Hawaii Press, 1994]

by Bruce Loyd Batten

Yong-ho Ch'oe Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May, 1981) , pp. 503-523]

Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Nov., 1987) , pp. 761-790]

Karl F. Friday Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Winter, 1997) , pp. 1-24]

Mimi Yiengpruksawan Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 1993) , pp. 33-52]

by W G Beasley University of California Press]

by James Huntley Grayson]

Russian Far East Edited by Stephen Kotkin and David Wolff ]

Robert Borgen]

Andre Schmid COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW YORK]

Asian History and Culture 2000]

edited by Keith Pratt - History - 1999 - 568 pages]

by Michael Breen - History - 2004 - 286 pages]

by Selig S. Harrison - Political Science - 2003 - 448 pages]

Page 55 - Students from she national Confucian college of Parhae ]

by Bruce Loyd Batten - History - 2003 - 312 pages]

by Pamela Kyle Crossley - Travel - 2002 - 256 pages edited by Committee of Japanese Historians edited by Denis C Twitchett, John K Fairbank - History - 1979 - 870 pages]

by Charles Holcombe - Social Science - 2001 - 2495 pages]

edited by Yongho Ch'oe, Peter H Lee, William Theodore De Bary - History - 2001 ]

by Ross Terrill - Political Science - 2004 - 384 pages]

Page 55 - Parhae retaliated by]

edited by Morris Rossabi - History - 1983 - 436 pages]

Page 14 - Furuhata TOru, who has written extensively on Parhae]

by Peter F Kornicki - History - 2000 - 498 pages Page 295 - Some Korean books from the same source also found their way into Tokugawa Ieyasu's library.35 The kingdom of Parhae]

by C Kenneth Quinones, C Kenneth Quiinones, Dr C Kenneth Quinones, Joseph Tragert - Political Science - 2004 - 448 pages Page 53 - Parhae]

Page 29 - In this sense, the country was more or less an equal of other Tang tributaries such as Silla (on the Korean Peninsula) and Parhae]

Page 15 - But more than the physical loss of Manchuria after the fall of Parhae]

seventeenth of the first month), and Parhae]

[http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0520234243&id=Wn4iv_RJv8oC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=parhae&sig=D0yxxIhI_2hWIA5QWcnHe1QmDNY A Translucent Mirror by Pamela Kyle Crossley - History - 2002 - 417 pages Page 74 - Xu Zhongshu, on the basis of the Xin Tang shu. thought it might be derived from a regional name of Parhae]

edited by Delmer M. Brown - History - 1993 - 650 pages Page 227 - To be sure, diplomatic missions were periodically exchanged with the Korean state of Silla, where Chinese influence was strong, and with Parhae ]

Page 177 - ... called Parhae]

by Allen Kent - Language Arts & Disciplines - 1977 - 516 pages Page 201 - ... Kija, Wiman, the Sam-Han, the four Chinese colonies, Parhae]

by Maurice Grevisse, André Goosse - 2004 - 1810 pages Page 448 - ... parhAe ]

Page 420 - ... [Moho], Parhae [Pohai]. ..]

by David R McCann - Literary Collections - 2000]

The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600 by Richard Bowring - Religion - 2005 - 502 pages]

by Cornelius Tacitus - 1883

edited by Peter H Lee, W Theodore De Bary, Ytngho Ch'oe, Hugh H W Kang - History - 1996]

Association of Korean Studies of Europe , November 2000, Centre for Korean studies of Europe

by Taro Sakamoto - 1991]

Erm, I've spent 20 minutes listing these, but I think right now I did something wrong in listing them.. I'll try to fix it. Yes, contrary to your claim, korean romanization is prevalent. I also found a funny book. [183], by Marvin C Whiting - History - 2002 - 604 pages Page 282 - 732 The Bohai of king Bohai Mu (7 1 9-737) sent an expedition by sea to attack Dengzhou in Liaodong. The Bohai were Koreans descended from The .... So this book is using Chinese romanization but says that Balhae is a Korean kingdom. Kinda convoluted there. Deiaemeth 07:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy?

Since this page is tagged for NPOV and Factual accuracy dispute, I wanted to ask which part (other than Romanization) other editors thought were factually inaccurate. There hasn't been much edits on the factual contents of the articles ; I thought some editors were dissastified with the Romanization of the article, which isn't factual inaccuracy (but rather a NPOV dispute). I will change the tag to NPOV dispute, if noone objects in 24 hours. If you think there are factual fallacies with the articles (ex. historical facts, I guess), please feel free to add your comments. Deiaemeth 10:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I object. I have marked the dubious statements {{dubious}}.--Endroit 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

高麗別種 = Goguryeo kind? I can't believe people can do this kind of selective reading and translation on Wikipedia. What happened to the 別? We can negotiate on how to translate 別, but Deiaemeth etc. need to stop pretending that this character does not exist.

Also, those four sources that Appleby likes do not prove that Balhae is exclusively part of the History of Korea. As I've already explained at Talk:Manchuria, Balhae is part of the history of every place that it ruled. A good source on the history of Korea would mention Balhae, but so would a good source on the history of Manchuria or the history of the Russian Far East. -- ran (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

those sources use korean romanization & list balhae under "history of korea" or some such. our mission is not to interprete centuries-old foreign language original texts, we rely on reputable english reference works for their objectivity, expertise, professional writers, fact-checking staff, & layers of editors. please review the non-negotiable policies WP:V WP:NOR & WP:NPOV, & remember the purpose of wikipedia. Appleby 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Balhae is not exclusively part of the history of Korea. A history of Korea would of course mention Balhae, but a history of Manchuria such as [184] or a history of China such as [185] would also mention Balhae. I've already explained at Talk:Manchuria why the history of Balhae is entwined with the history of everyone else in the region, and how it is illogical to claim an exclusive ownership over the history of Balhae for any particular modern state. Thus, the fact that sources list Balhae under the history of Korea proves nothing, because they do not indicate that Balhae is exclusively the history of Korea.

As for 高麗別種 -- are you seriously telling us, that instead of looking directly at the primary sources, written in a language we can understand, we should be looking at secondary sources with layers of posterior interpretation or simplification? That we should actually give these secondary sources precedence, and translate the primary sources in a way that we can see is inaccurate, because some of those secondary sources appear to so?

Also, I know the objectives of Wikipedia, which is to present all topics in an objective and unbiased light. By stubbornly refusing to discuss any of the points I've raised at Talk:Manchuria and now here, you are not helping with this process. -- ran (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

the article does not say balhae is "exclusively" anything. please do read the wikipedia policies carefully. you might be surprised, for example:
  • "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
"commonly accepted reference texts" have been cited and establish the korean romanization & the relationship to korean history. minority viewpoints, even of prominent adherents, are not treated the same as the majority viewpoint shown by the commonly accepted reference texts. Appleby 23:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There is the portion of the WP:V policy, which Appleby seems to overlook. Everybody, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Advice specific to subject area under the section "History" with extreme caution. In particular, there is a passage which reads:
  • General encyclopedia like recent editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. Be warned that most unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers with little expertise and must be used with caution.
In other words, Britannica may be unreliable at times. Please let it be noted that many other editors here question Appleby's interpretations of Britannica and some of his other sources. Wikipedia is not a medium for misinformation, and the other editors here demand accuracy in all Manchuria-related articles, including this one (Bohai/Balhae). Appleby cannot be allowed to make edits which blatantly contradict information on the authoritative primary sources such as the "Old Book of Tang" (945) and the "New Book of Tang" (1061).
--Endroit 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

endroit, please read more carefully. your citation is from a non-binding & always changing "guideline." please read the actual non-negotiable policies i cited. especially pay attention to the warning from wikipedia's founder about wikipedians interpreting original historical texts. it's in there. thanks. Appleby 00:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lest anybody wants to condone misinformation on Wikipedia, I'd advise Wikipedians to investigate where the alleged misinformation lies. A few of the citations and/or interpretations are in doubt.--Endroit 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

which ones? please specify the misinformation. and please specify the wikipedia policy that empowers you to label these generally accepted reference works as unacceptable misinformation.

The cited Britannica article titled "Parhae" [192] is highly suspect. In particular, the following phrase seems to contradict primary sources, as well as uses the wrong choice of words:
  • "Founded by a former Korean general, Tae Cho-yang, it was considered a successor state to Koguryo, which had occupied much of the same territory"
I advise Appleby to throw out this particular Britanicca (and related) citations in their entirety and then revise Wikipedia's Bohai/Balhae article accordingly.--Endroit 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)f
Are you disputing the verifiability of Britannica Encyclopedias as a source? That maybe be kinda severe there. I think you could take that up at Encyclopædia Britannica discussion page, and maybe try to change the wording of the article to Britannica Encyclopedia contains many highly suspect articles, including that of Balhae. Some Britannica articles contradict primary sources, and uses the wrong choice of words. Anywho, since we've established that primary English romanizatino of Balhae is in most cases, Korean (even noted by user:Yuje, (Chinese Romanizatino is) Although not quite as prevalant, its notable, percentage wise (you may read his post above), I don't know why you still insist Balhae should be primarily romanized in Chinese, in direct disregard of Wikipedia policies and a romanization that is more commonly used. No one deleted the Chinese romanization from Balhae article, it was simply reverted to a more common usage (Korean romanization), as per Wikipedia Policy. As for List of Korean monarchs#Balhae, the introduction regards that Names are romanized according to the South Korean Revised Romanization of Korean. If there were a seperate article entailing sovereigns of Balhae, I guess Chinese romanizations could be added secondarily. Also, Romanization is a seperate issue from contents of the article. Deiaemeth 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

did you read the policy about how the majority view is determined by generally accepted reference works? did you actually read the cited sources?

  • Balhae ... was founded by a former Korean general, Tae Cho-yang. [193]
  • founded by a former Kogury general who first proclaimed a state of Chin, renamed Parhae in 713. [194]
  • A former Koguryo general establishes the new kingdom of Parhae (Chinese: Bohai), [195]
  • a Kogury general named Tae Cho-yng established a successor state [196]
  • It was formed by remnants of Goguryeo and several Tungusic-speaking peoples (largely Malgal), in Manchuria and northern Korea.
  • Remnants of Koguryo formed the kingdom of Parhae (north of the Taedong River and largely in E Manchuria). [197]
  • It was made up of Kogury remnants and several Tungusic peoples (largely Malgal) living in central Manchuria. [198]
  • The ruling class consisted largely of the former aristocrats of Goguryeo. [199] Appleby 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the Britannica's "Parhae" article to be "generally accepted" if I were you. And there may be other problems too. Anyways, "factual inaccuracy" is claimed by multiple editors, and Appleby is advised to reconcile with the other editors here regarding that claim.--Endroit 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

as you know, wikipedia is not a democracy, & the combined weight of all the major english reference works outweighs wikipedians' opinions. please base your "advice" on wikipedia policies if you want to contribute to wikipedia. thanks. Appleby 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

by Warren I Cohen] Parhae was a new state established by a former Koguryo general...

under the leadership of former Koguryo general, Tae Cho Yeong

Varios tribes led by Koguryoans set up an independent state, Parhae

Korea by James Huntley Grayson ] a Koguryo general, Tae Cho Yong.. formed alliances with several tribal people ... The moho, Sushen and Yemaek tribes recognized Tae Choyong as their king.. changed the name of the kingdom to Parhae

Sugawara No Michizane and the Early Heian Court by Robert Borgen] Parhae founders were men who were earlier rulers of Koguryo

Deiaemeth 07:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth just further proved here that Britannica was alone in calling Da Zuorong (Tae Cho Yong) a "Korean general" ("Korean" rather than "Koguryo" or "Mohe"). So based on other citations (including Deiaemeth's here), we can say that the Britannica's "Parhae" article is suspicious. This is a big warning flag, and as mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Advice specific to subject area, it shows that such Britannica articles "are written in batches by freelancers with little expertise." Again, I repeat that this Britannica citation for their "Parhae" article (and its interpretations in the Wikipedia articles) need to be thrown out completely.
There's still this other issue brought up by Ran (and others) above.--Endroit 15:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

since goguryeo is a native korean kingdom[200] [201], how is saying "korean" suspicious & a big warning flag?? there is no error & all the major reference works are consistent. please stop citing your opinion & "guidelines" as if they supersede actual wikipedia policy that says generally accepted reference works (which are all consistent here) determine the majority viewpoint. Appleby 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A correct history is disregarded by two South Koreans' selfishness. Please stop Wikipedia being used for the nationalism of South Korea. They should make the effort to understand Chinese. Correct information is being written in ancient Chinese. --211.3.115.59 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


History is history. Fact is fact. Deiaemeth has repeated over and over again the truth that it was established by a Korean General Tae Cho Yong. Why is this still under discussion? Did anyone here suddenly claim that the history of Balhae shouldn't be included in other countries' (or ethnicities') histories? Obviously not. What's so ridiculous is that history is mentioned so many times on this page, but it's given clearly that it was established by a Korean descent. Yes, it played a part in the history of Manchuria, Japan, China, etc. (and I doubt any one country never has any affect on its surroundings) and it's even possible that the majority of the population of Balhae were of Chinese/Mongol descent. But clearly, it rose from what Goguryo used to be, which is obviously a Korean Kingdom, clearly distinguishing it as a Kingdom of Korean descent.
About the romanization of the actual words to describe the Kingdom, I support Deiaemeth as well. Balhae and Pohai are pronouncing the same two Chinese characters, and I do agree that Balhae and Pohai are both pronunciations that are plausible for the search. However, I disagree with the notion that because it is written in Chinese, it should be something pronounced with the Chinese pronunciation. This Balhae/Pohai Kingdom is of Korean descent. Koreans will be using this encyclopedia to know of the significance of this kingdom to Korea. It is more important to keep the Balhae romanization there because this article is related to Koreans moreso than the Chinese or the Mongols, because it is something of their descent. I'm not saying let's get rid of all the different pronunciations of those two characters, but I'm saying that the Korean pronunciation is the most important and it's crucial for Koreans to know that it is of Korean descent. I know for sure that I would like to type in "Balhae" over "Pohai" because Pohai is not something you would come across in the Korean tongue.
Please be advised, ladies and gentlemen, that this influences the media quite a bit. This encyclopedia alone has the power to change how Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and Japanese people view the history of East Asia. It is within our power to give the world community the truth and nothing less.
--Tae-Hee Kim - [email protected]
As has been mentioned above, even the part of Korean descent is disputed. Leaving aside completely whether or not one considers Goguryeo to be Korean, the oldest source texts on the matter indicate that the general who founded the kingdom wasn't even ethnically Goguryeo, but an ethnic Mohe from Goguryeo, and this has been repeated in some of the modern western sources which I have provided. And as other sources mentioned, many Korean scholars and historians didn't even consider it part of their history proper until the 19th century when they started making irredentist claims on Manchuria. That's why it's Koreaness has been disputed. --Yuje 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology has revealed that Balhae was a multi-ethnic state that comprised Koreans and Manchurians. Balhae itself had nothing to do with the Chinese, except for international/intercultural exchanges. There is no grounds for any claims that the term "Bohai" should be used because it was a "Chinese" state. Many of the claims made by Chinese nationalists here in Wikipedia - Nanshu and Yuje being some of the prominent extremists - are ridiculous beyond comprehension. If Balhae is to be addressed by a different terminology on the ground that it wasn't "Korean", I suggest it be in Manchurian, because Chinese had nothing to do with the kingdom, as much as Japan had nothing to do with it.

Balhae called itself Dae Jin Gook/Goguryeo, while the Chinese called it Bohai(where the term Barhae comes from) and Shillans called it Buk Gook(the northern country).

And so far, which of my claims have been ridiculous? If you see somewhere where I make a factual error, then by all means, please point it out and I'll try to correct it. Knowing that this was a controversial page, I made sure to properly attribute every single of my edits to a source, and I corrected several blatently inaccurate things as well. --Yuje 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Korean's Adoption standard in source

The Korean is demanding to adopt Daum as a source. How is proof that the source is correct done?　--Kamosuke 17:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Please don't refer to people as "Korean" since it is a specific name and can be considered insulting to some. Good friend100 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Balhae is nothing to do with China

The funny thing about chinese people are that they think the area ,where China is now controlling, had been always their territory.

No, China is a country which was established at 1912

at the time of Ming dynasty, Manchuria was not even it's territory and Manchuria people conquered Ming and established Qing Dynasty , since then Manchuria region became China's territory.

Balhae is a country which Korean and other Manchurian people were living, not Han people. Most of the high class people were Korean , including King , Queen and so on.

So Balhae is Korean and Manchurian people's history , not CHINA's history.

If China is a country established in 1912, then is Korea a country established in 1945, then? --Yuje 05:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OMG, do you not still get my point? I'm saying that people who established Balhae are ethnically Korean and Manchurian people.
Korea considers it part of its history because they believe the people there are descended from Koreans. (and actually, they only started considering part of its history centuries after it ceased to exist) China considers it part of its history because they believe that many of the Chinese now there are descended from them, and also because the area is now part of China's territory. Lelang Commandery certainly didn't belong to Korea nor was it ethnically Korean yet, but it's certainly presented as part of Korean history today, isn't it?
Whether you consider one viewpoint more valid than the other is your own opinion, and I don't care to try to convince you one way or the other, but I'm only interested in presenting a NPOV article, where all views should be presented. If you really believe the Korean view to be the right one and all others to be completely wrong, vile, and evil, then the intelligent reader should be able to see it right away and immediately spot the flaws in the other views, right?--Yuje 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
except that's not what wikipedia is supposed to do. according to WP:NPOV, we're supposed to present the majority scholarly view as the majority view, & significant minority theories as minority, probably not even giving space to extreme minority views. an encyclopedia is not supposed to throw in every wrong, biased, or fringe theory in there & make the reader sort it out. one of wikipedia's well-known consistent problems is that it tends to give too much weight to academically discredited minority views, as if all views are equal, because of this misunderstanding of "npov." if reputable reference works treat balhae as a part of korean history (and they do), that's what wikipedia should do, for credibility's sake.Appleby 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The facts are already there, and presented unaltered. I'm not or blatently altering any facts, now am I? There's a section of the page mentioning the modern-day controversy between Korea and China. Are you advocating that when mentioning this controversy, only the Korean views of the situation should be presented, then?
And, I remember asking you this way way way before, but which of your sources regard the kingdom as Korean, again? Of the ones you listed, such as Britannica, Bartleby, Columbia, and so on, all of them avoid stating that it's a Korean kingdom. My question is still listed right there higher on this very page, and it's a question you've kept avoiding up till now. Still waiting. --Yuje 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To assume neutrality, I put "Manchurian" there as well. The kingdom assumes territory of modern Manchuria and Korea and is largely composed of people that form the basis of modern Manchurians and Koreans. East Asia seems to be too general in meaning, like refering to Visigoths as "Central Europeans", not "Germanic". Deiaemeth 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Manchuria and Korea are mentioned in the same sentence so it seems redundant. Mentioning East Asia (or North-east Asia, which is narrower) would give readers a good perspective. Or just say "a kingdom occupying ..." like Goguryeo article. --Kusunose 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yuge: "Parhae was the last state of Korean origin to control Manchuria." [202]. "Parhae a Korean kingdom in Manchuria." [203]. That is two sources for you although I agree with Deiameth in the post above this one. Tortfeasor 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To the first discussion under this paragraph: actually there is strong evidence that Manchuria was ruled over by Goguryeo before. In cities where Balhae is located, you will find people who have Korean last names (Kim, Lee, Bak), therfore proving that Koreans had settled and ruled Balhae. But the catch is that although these "Koreans" have Korean last names, they have been controlled by the Chinese government for so long, after Koreans moved out of Balhae, these "Koreans" forgot their own language, and now speak Chinese, and, well, really are Chinese, with citezenships and so on. Oyo321 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Those were actually Chinese last names, and those names were found in Chinese history records and written in Chinese scripts. Koreans did not record their history until the 12th centurty, and when they started to write down their history they also used Classical Chinese.68.71.20.46 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
There are Chinese names passed down to Korea (Wang, Song) but not Kim, Lee, Bak. Those are pure Korean and my point wasn't about names. It was the fact that Kim, Lee, Bak named people exist in Balhae today.
Are you out of your mind? laozi last name was Lee or 李, so he must be a Korean ethnic according to your theory!! My last name is 李 and I sure know I am not of Korean origin! 69.166.226.1 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly am not. Your argument doesn't make sense, because the names are of Manchurian origin. And even if you are right, how would you explain the "origins" of the names Kim and Bak? lolOyo321 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know they are of Manchurian origin, please give me your evidence. 朴 might be a Korean name, in that sense it originated in Manchuria or Korean peninsula. 金 and 李 are not of Manchurian origin or originated in Manchuria. Both are very old Chinese names. You might want to check Chinese wikipedia pages on the name of 金姓 and 李姓, if you can read Hanzi.
It's not accurate to label Kim and Yi as Chinese last names because they are original Korean names, written in the "Samguksagi" (Three Kingdoms Annals). They chose to write it with the characters 金 and 李 because at the time, Hangul did not exist. Kinda like how every single "Smith"s and "McManus"es out there are not related. Linguistically, this can be proven at least for Kim because Koreans have two pronunciation for the character 金. When it is a last name, it's pronounced Kim (김), but when it is not a last name, it's pronounced Koom(금).

What's funny is that whether Balhae was a Korean kingdom or not was not in question until modern Chinese state start claiming that it was. Same thing with Goguryuh and Gojoseon.

Christ.. you guys already have the largest population in the world with like 4th (I think?) largest territory in the world and that's not enough? You look through the history between Korea and China, and it's always China trying to claim (through militaristic, 'historic', or political means) that Korea's part of China. Just a price a small nation have to pay for being a neighbor of such a huge expansionist nation, I guess... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.238.206 (talk • contribs).

I suppose the primary tension here comes between people who see history in a regional context and those who see history in a racial, ethnic, and cultural context. In a regional context, claiming Balhae as a Korean kingdom makes no more sense than saying that the Roman Empire was an English empire. Although some of the territories of both larger countries (Rome and Balhae) lie within the present-day territories of both modern countries (England and (North) Korea), most of them lie outside. By the same token, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call Balhae 'Chinese' either, but it does make sense to say that Balhae is a part of Chinese history, just as it makes sense to say that Balhae is also a part of (North) Korean history. A cultural, ethnic, and racial context, on the other hand, identifies Balhae as Korea (or at least more Korean than Chinese) because that's where the kingdom's cultural roots are -- on the Korean peninsula. People in Balhae lived/looked more like people in Shilla than they did people in China, therefore they were Korean. Of course, to me, it just seems more logical that a historical country, most of which lied within modern China, at least have a Chinese name in its Wiki entry alongside the Korean one, seeing how Balhae is a fairly important part of the history of at least one region in China. --ZonathYak 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why some Chinese editors believe Balhae, or better yet (i've heard this), think Korea itself is actually Chinese history. I hear how some people say Goguryeo is Chinese because all the artifacts are in China and the history is simply Chinese.
Balhae, technically should have a history of its own, since it was established by independent leaders. But, Dae Jo young considered Balhae as the successor of Goguryeo and it is fair for Balhae to be considered Korean history.
Tibet is now nothing and China is all pushy pushy at Taiwan today. What more do you want? Good friend100 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the Taiwan government still considers itself as a part of China... Let me know if that's changed somehow... And at any rate, the status of Taiwan and Tibet have nothing to do with the present discussion, other than to serve to divert attention away from the main issue. Let's leave them out of this one.
I think that the history of this area isn't as simple as 'X is Chinese' and 'Y is Korean.' If we could deliniate historical states like that, it would make learning world history a lot easier. Like I said above, I think it's fair to say that Balhae was part of Korean history (although most of it lies outside modern-day Korea) because of the ethnic roots of its inhabitants, and because of the ways in which it influenced Korean history. By the same token, however, Balhae was part of Chinese history, as well. Whether or not Balhae was 'Korean' or 'Chinese' is a silly question to ask, since obviously, Balhae belonged to neither -- it was an independant country. Just because something is part of Chinese history doesn't necessarily make it 'Chinese'. --ZonathYak 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

well you are certainly right, Yuje

but those sources (Braittanica, etc)you mentioned are just doing so to keep neutrality. And I would be glad to answer your questions for you. I find it difficult to find it up there with all those jibbery jibbery.Didigo10

edits by Breathejustice

Firstly, both the Korean and Chinese names are given in the intro because this is standard practice. The Korean name is already given precedence, in that it is both the name of the article and the name presented first.

Next, please do not rename Bohai Prefecture, which is in Hebei province, not even close to Manchuria.

Finally, there is no such thing as the "Littoral Province". The region is called Primorsky Krai. Nor is it in Siberia -- it is in the Russian Far East.

-- ran (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Chinese people think everyone is chinese. For example Taiwan. Just because they are a chinese territory doesn't make them chinese. There were natives already dwelling there before the Fuks got there. Secondly, everyone knows that Mongolians are not chinese!!! Why do the chinese argue that they are??? The two languages and its origins ard different.

Now they are basically trying to argue that Koreans are chinese.

Well to be real specific all those "states" in china are not even really chinese. Your only a true chinese if your family is related to the Qin clan or kingdom... whatever. So leave Korea alone. It's already bad enough that the Japs took our culture and get credit for it. and to those japanese... Your gov't hides a lot of truth from you.. your textbooks are full of shit.. by the way your kimonos were what koreans wore for a funeral ceremony... and another thing.. DOK DO is ours and so is KIMCHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have checked the article. It has improved a lot. But I would like to ask why the Chinese names are given first at the section of Balhae kings. Balhae, technically isn't Korea, but their ancestors were Korean and their government was founded by Koreans. I think we need to state the Korean name of the kings first, or drop the Chinese names. Good friend100 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Balhae/Bohai are neither Korean nor Chinese. To say that it is one or the other is politically motivated. Having said that, it is OK to have both Chinese and Korean romanizations. Preference to Chinese romanizations is due to the primary texts of the times using Chinese characters.--Endroit 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Balhae Bohai who cares its still Korean

Let the chinese call Balhae Bohai... It's just what they call it in their language.. We say Han Guk they say Han Guo. They are known for claiming that everything is theirs. Balhae is Korean territory. They are just saying that its theirs i think because recently they reclaimed hong kong from GB and they were afraid that korea would reclaim manchuria.. (balhae yanbian). I also noticed that the chinese try to claim all great accomplishments. They are currently doing so with the Ghengis Khan and the Mongolians. Im suprised that they aren't claiming that Sae Jong Dae Wang is chinese and that they sent him to create han gul for the Koreans. I mean Coreans. ( original spelling of Korea is with a C not K. The japanese changed it so that they can be first in the american alphabet.)

Object to Chinese King

I disagree with the Chinese names of Balhae kings. To make it even more misleading, the words are also writtin in English, making it misleading that "Balhae is Chinese".

I propose that the Korean name, hanja, and English translation first, since dropping the Chinese names is not possible. 71.155.194.101 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is simply bizarre. The kings back then did not use "Korean" -- since the script did not exist then. --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad, the user User:71.155.194.101|71.155.194.101 is me, I forgot to log in. Good friend100 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since Balhae was neither Chinese nor Korean, I don't see what makes one superior to the other. -- Visviva 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Balhae is technically a descendent of Goguryeo. I'm just suprised at the fact how some editors treat this article as if it was "Chinese" and "Chinese history". I think that is a nasty attitude. Good friend100 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

China Is definitely trying to take over the world!!!

I would first like to say that Balhae is Korean History. And Jumong is a real person. Chinese people tried to make him into a myth. HOw can you do that when there's evidence? Yah Koreans didn't have an established writting. But what you also dont know is that the hanja used by koreans had different meanings because it was modified as the Koreans were using it. Another thing China recently is trying to claim that Koguryo is also their history. I believe some time in 1990's the Chinese went to the tomb of Gwang gae To Dae Wang and change couple of Hanja to make it completely Chinese. This already indicates that even though Koreans used Chinese characters, the meanings for which they were being used was different than the Chinese. I dont understand!!! I think China's claims of Koguryo and Balhae are only going to unite the two Koreas. I really dont understand why chinese people argue that Koguryo is theirs when an Chinese textbook editor of Bejing named Liu DongMing clearly states the Koguryo is Koreans. By the way Korean as a language was always there. We just didn't have a form of writing. Therefore Kings did use korean Language but Hanja writing until Sae Jong Dae Wang. Let me guess He's Chinese too right???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ga Eul (talk • contribs).

Well technically, Hangeul didn't come into the common usage (especially amongst the upper classes) until the late 19th century, so very few Korean kings used it at all, even after King Sejong. Anyhow, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) so we know it's you. --ZonathYak 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC


What are you talking about? The language was always there! We just didn't have a form of writing. I'm not saying Korean language as in the terms of today. Im saying that we had our own distinct language different from the Chinese.Eventually it became known as Korean. 24.90.16.80 07:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) In case anyone is interested go to http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/virtualmongolia/kara_korum/mon_kor_friendship.htmGa Eul 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I was just talking about the writing system developed under King Sejong (hangeul), rather than the actual language. Yes, the language was probably in fairly common use by the kings, but the writing system most likely was only used by a very few of them. --ZonathYak 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the North Korean language is from Koguyro DynastyGa Eul 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC). North Koreans call it Pure Korean. Those that are Korean from the South know that this is a pure form of Korean. It means unlike South Korean language, it isn't influenced by Hanja. South Korean and North Korean language in itself however is the same. They just take out Hanja words. Infact from what I have heard, North Koreans dislike the fact that South Koreans are speaking Korean that is derived from Hanja. http://www.mygoguryeo.net/history03.htm

Zonath. You are right!!! Korean Kings didn't use Hangul they used Hanja. But Im trying to point out that some of the characters written in Hanja have different meanings than the Chinese. For example In Chinese, the characters for Dong Xi means "things" but in Hanja we read it as Dong Suh and it means East and West. If you were to show the character Wo to a Korean, they won't be able to read it.Ga Eul 03:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason why Balhae is Korean is came after the fall of Koguryo, due to the attack of Silla. But Koguryo, baekjae and Silla all existed at the same time. Silla united with Dang and defeated the Koguryo. The survivers of Koguryo restablished themsevles as a nation called Koryo and defeated Silla. Now during this time, of the reign of Koryo, Trades between Muslims began. Muslims had difficulty pornouncing Koryo so they named us on their map as Korea.

They are all also the same RACE (the three kingdoms). IF you learn in ethics or socialogy, you will learn that Koreans are one of the few races called the PURE race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga Eul (talk • contribs)

I don't think any of my ethics or sociology teachers ever identified Koreans as a 'pure' race (or, indeed, even accepted or espoused the concept of a 'pure' race), especially in light of the placement of Korea and the fact that it's both been invaded a few times, and served as an important center of cultural exchanges. But then again, none of my teachers in college were especially enamoured of racialist ideologies. --ZonathYak 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UT

Correction. But they do say that. If you actually had the time to study Sociology you will know that there races that are considered a pure race. Korea was indeed considered one of the few countries that is a pure race. You can see this in their culture as well. Koreans in general are extremely racist people and they in fact do not like mixing of blood. Hins Ward, the football player from the Steelers recently did a documentry about this whole issue. He goes on to talk about how he and his mother were not excepted as a Korean because of his mom's interracial marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga Eul (talk • contribs)

Racist attitudes aside, considering Koreans (or any other cultural group that isn't on an island in the middle of the ocean) 'pure' flies in the face of a couple thousands of years of history. Korea had significant influx of populations from other parts of NE Asia (Japan, China, Manchuria, Mongolia) at various times during its history, as well as the intermixing that accompanied it. In addition, modern nationalist views of 'pure race' aren't really informative of what attitudes Koreans have traditionally held towards intermixing with people from other cultures, so it's a bit disingenuous to relate modern racist ideals back into the days of Balhae. --ZonathYak 00:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Well thats what I learned... And maybe they were talking of todays terms since Korea is very strict when it comes to giving out their citizenship. Korean gov't doesnt give out citizenships to people unless they have a Korean blood line. Even if the person was born there. The only way they give them a citizenship is if they feel that you can benefit the country. Another thing Koreans are taught that they are originally of Mongolian descendant and this has also been confirmed by Mongolia. So I dont consider that a racial mixture. But you are right we did have trade relations with chinese japanese and arabs therefore somewhere down in history we are not pure.

P.S. Just wanted to let you know that I am happy to have these friendly conversations with you. As you can already see that Im Korean. hehe. If I say things to upset you I am terribly sorry. I have no intentions of hurting feelings. I just want people to know what Korea is about too. We are always ignored or unappreciated compared to the Japanese and the Chinese. It hurts to not get recognition. I mean everyone knows that Kimchi is Korean but still you see the Japanese arguing that its theirs. Well I hope to continue having friendly conversations with you. =)Ga Eul 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Zonath about Taiwan... I read something that you said about Taiwan. Actually they want to be independant fron China. I no this because of my boyfriend. He is native taiwanese ( not fj). His family only speak Taiwanese and hates anyone who speaks mandarin. Their country is very divided. There are two different groups right now , the only taiwanese speaking and only mandarin speaking. My friend went there last year. She only speaks Mandarin because she was born in NY. Well she tried to buy something there and tried to communicate with the people there with Mandarin. She told me that the people there pretended to no hear her and ignored her until someone translated for her. Just thought you wanted to know. Oh Since I think you know more about history maybe you would know but I heard that Native Taiwanese were actually Paken Indians and that they have likes to Mongolia. Is that true? Im asking because Native Taiwanese, Koreans, and Mongolians look extremely alike. Taiwanese language actually sounds like a mixture of chinese and Korean.Ga Eul 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to respond, but I have been a bit busy lately. About Taiwan: You're right that there is a disenfranchized minority consisting of native Taiwanese who would rather expel the ethnic Chinese from their island and declare their independance. In stting that Taiwan considered itself a part of China, I was referring to the official position of the Taiwanese government rather than that of ethnic Taiwanese. I'm not incredibly well-versed on Taiwanese history, however, so can't really answer your other questions.
Re Korean citizenship: You're partly right... To be considered a 'native born' Korean with citizenship, one generally had to have a Korean father (although the ethnicity/race of the mother is somewhat less important). On the other hand, I believe that distinction has eroded somewhat since the abolition of the family register system, so that now, either a Korean father or a Korean mother could pass on citizenship to their native-born children. Of course, the option of naturalizing as a Korean citizen isn't restricted on account of race, although there are some pretty difficult hurdles to jump. At any rate, this is getting pretty far off-topic (as far as this article is concerned), so I'll post any further answers to this conversation on your talk page. --ZonathYak 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why currently some Chinese keep insisting Goryro is Chinese territory and how Korea is really China and the history is the same. Its so biased and ethnically based. Its cruel to think about it. Good friend100 16:03 , 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balhae/Archive_1&oldid=1211785276"