Talk:Balhae/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Identity of Mohe people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wuhan virus does not agree with you. He kills O but the Chinese and Koreans suffer more - and the M55 is the main one for the Japanese, he does not touch. The Japanese are not Koreans, but a completely different people. Koreans are Chinese - and the virus confirms this. Killing the Chinese and Koreans.185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of the map presented as an illustration

Archaeological works of Russian archaeologists show completely different borders of this state - this is the scientific work proving the borders of this state. http://www.suchan.narod.ru/artcls/Bohai_granica.pdf What is the map presented in the article based on? Kaustritten (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The preamble has been brought to neutrality.

If there is no single scientific consensus idea then this should be indicated. Only one should not be indicated - the pro-Korean version as a preamble - the version of two other and more significant than the Korean scientific schools is radically different. The preamble should give a correct idea of the state and not distort in favor of one of the sides of the conflict.Kaustritten (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For discussion is called User:4thfile4thrank - justify your reversal of the edits leading to a neutral position, in favor of a distorting Korean position Kaustritten (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Start a community vote to check for consensus. I don't know much about this subject. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your answer is unsatisfactory - which community and which voting are you talking about?Kaustritten (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Basically, when there is a dispute around here, people look for consensus across the Wikipeida community to see what to be done. I feel like that is the right idea. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I repeat once again - what kind of community and what kind of voting you are talking about - give a direct link to the voting by approving the Korean position as a consensus.Kaustritten (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am saving that other editors here discuss what to do. Then, consensus is reached. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Explain who you are talking about and why their opinion is important, if but violates WP:NPV. Especially considering the fact that all Russian and Chinese users who conducted debate and work here are banned.Kaustritten (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For discussion is called User:Kor Ph - The preamble should not contain non-consensual formulations distorting to please one of the parties. Keep away from bringing them in. Also, there is no need to manipulate the rules - there was no deletion of the section - there was a transfer of the controversial wording from the preamble to the body of the article. Don't get into an edit war.Kaustritten (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia in this Balhae dispute?

I don't get it. Russian arrival to Far East came pretty late, began from 16th century and consolidated completely only in 19th century when Russia annexed Outer Manchuria from China. How much does Russia contribute to the dispute over Balhae? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously Korean - your views are adequately and even excessively presented in the article. Despite the fact that the territory of this country has never been on the territory of your country - South Korea.

Americans arrived in the United States at the end of the 18th century. And in Primorye, Russians appeared in the 17th century. 180 years earlier than the arrival of the Americans in the United States - however, Americans write about the history of America from the Paleolithic.

So your argument is purely racist.Kaustritten (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL am I racist? I question if Russia really involves in the dispute for which goal. It is not racist. You are delusional. Second. I'm not Korean. I am just surprised to see Russia being taken as part of the dispute. If anything, China and Korea are more likely to be discussed for Balhae controversy.

More than anything, Americans wrote history but instigated disputes only by the time the country was founded. Russia literally involved in a dispute that for a thousand years ago, Russians had not even made their foothold into Siberia, leave alone quarrelling for Korean soil. I disagree with the motion of setting Russia as part of the dispute, Balhaeans did not even speak Russian outside having some territories that now belongs to Russia. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftechwork.livejournal.com%2F952038.html The South Korean government is playing very dirty. Therefore, your owl is just words. And your racist position is obvious. Any nation has the right to study the territory on which it is located and no other nation has the right to tell it how to study the history of these lands. Part of the lands that previously belonged to the Tungus-Manchurian state of Bohai is now the territory of Russia. Naturally, in Russia, with a developed scientific and archaeological school, the history of this state is best studied. However, unlike you, we do not impose our point of view. Because we have a scientific, not a propaganda school. In contrast to you. You don't even have a single object of the Bohai state on the territory of your state - South Korea. However, you are most active in imposing your point of view. Kaustritten (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pro-Korean distortion

The article is heavily distorted in favor of South Korean state ideology.

In the history of edits, the deletion of a large data array with verified links has been noticed.

The studies of Russian and Chinese archaeologists and scientists are completely ignored if they contradict the official Korean version - nationalistically motivated.

The article needs to be completely revised due to its poor quality. 185.17.129.116 (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain why this article is heavily distorted in favor of South Korean state ideology? Korean, English and Russian sources are used interchangeably throughout the article. If you are truly concerned about historical distortions here, maybe you can provide a good alternative that is not Korean, Chinese or Russian and explain Balhae from a neutral point of view? Take this for example, from Russian linguist Vovin[1]:

• First, it is quite clear that there was a direct connection between the Koguryo and Parhae elites: as I mentioned above, the founder of Parhae was a former Koguryo general. Second, Parhae incorporated most of the former Koguryo territory. Therefore, we should presume that the ethnic and linguistic properties of the Koguryo and Parhae elites were essentially the same.

Please provide neutral sources from experts like that and maybe we can try to explain the history of Balhae with more accuracy and less ideological distortions. Koraskadi (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You are distortingly translating from Russian. You are Korean but I am a native speaker of the Russian language. And you count on the fact that English-speaking users do not know the Russian language.

However, Vovin’s article states that the Goguryeo language is a Japonic language. Nothing is said about Koreans. It is a question of Japanese influence. If you want, I can add data on the Japanese influence about Bohai to the text.

But to prove Korean by reference to the work where the connection with JAPAN is described !!! This is an intentional misrepresentation of information. It is not ethical.

With regards to pro-prosecution distortions - I described this in detail in the article Balhae controversies

And you know very well that the Korean position contradicts both Chinese and Russian. Despite the fact that both China and Russia have archaeological objects of this state and are actively studying them. And your country does not have such objects. And all the "study" of speculative conclusions only.

But since this country is indeed a subject of acute conflict, I am ready and kindly represent all positions equally - according to the requirement for neutrality.

Unfortunately, there is no neutral side to the study of this country. Only China and Russia have archaeological sites in this country and have been studied for decades. South Korea has no objects, but there is an active desire to present this state as Korean within the framework of Korean ethnic nationalism, which is sometimes very barbaric in nature, such as an attack on the US ambassador because of his mother’s racial identity or #nonojapan - anti-Japanese hysteria similar to the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

Not in China, not in Russia; no other country, except Japan, is involved in excavations. No other country except the three parties to the conflict has a developed scientific school for the study of this state. The maximum that can be found in English-language sources is the reprint of articles from one of three parties. Support for one of the three parties.

Beyond the limits of English sources, outside the three countries there is a developed scientific school in Japan. But you, as a Korean, reject it for racial reasons. In addition, she fully supports the position of Russia.

This state is not studied anywhere else.

https://tttkkk.livejournal.com/100993.html Here is a detailed about of Vovin’s theories from Lankov’s blog.

Aek973 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

All this "Korean theory X", "Chinese theory Y", "Russian theory Z" style of your writing is confusing and inappropriate for this article. The purpose of this article is to provide information on Balhae to readers with as much neutrality and validity as possible. Your style of writing, which is inclusive of all information regardless of neutrality and validity, is appropriate for the article on Balhae controversies. I created that article for the very purpose of covering all conflicting points of view on Balhae. In this article, editors like you and I should strive to come up with a coherent description of Balhae based on the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER. Looking at sources that are not involved or tainted by Korean/Russian/Chinese/Japanese bias is most preferable. To resolve this dispute, I believe the disputable contents should be identified. So what part of the original narrative of the article Balhae do you find disagreeable and needs to be corrected?

There was another editor claiming to be Russian before, and I tried my best to reflect the Russian perspective in the article, such as its ethnic composition and its trade relations with Japan. If you believe I had left out something, we can talk about it. Russia has done a lot of research on Balhae that I believe can be added in this article without conflict. And I don't think the Korean perspective and the Russian perspective are as conflicting as you claim, and neither was the previous state of this article somehow conflicted with the Russian perspective. Shavkunov said that Balhae is not the exclusive domain of Korean history, and the article here makes this point very clear by defining Balhae as a multi-ethnic kingdom. The previous state of the article would only be at odds with the Russian perspective only if the Russian perspective completely denies any role of Goguryeo refugees in its founding and denies any ties to Korea. So I am curious, what did Shavkunov say on the matter? His works, along with the bulk of Russian research on Balhae, seem to be available for download here[2], but alas I am not proficient in Russian.

And based on Vovin's work[3], you stated in the article that Balhae developed relations with Japan and its language was close to Old Japanese. Can you please pick out where Vovin says Balhae's language was closely related to Old Japanese? I am very befuddled here because, in that particular work, the most important theoretical premise is that the Balhae elite spoke a Koreanic language. Koraskadi (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with Japanese positioning as neutral? Why did you decide that the Korean position is neutral?

In addition, the theories of Vovin are well known in Russia - as are Vovin and Lankov. Or do you not know who Vovin is and who Lankov is?

You are completely not ethically distorting his theory. It’s not pleasant for you to speak even after such your behavior. Vovin is firstly not a historian but a linguist. He cannot affirm anything from a historical perspective as a historian. All of his opening words are an artistic introduction.

As a linguist, Vovin previously claimed that the Koguryes language has nothing to do with Korean and is Japonic. There was also a period when he sought to prove that Bohai was a state associated with Japan. And he came up with a theory in 2010 (I don’t remember the exact date, but I can later when I have time to search) the year that the Bohai elite spoke the Koguress dialect of the Old Japanese language. Then he did not consider the Goguryo language as something related to Korean. For which he was criticized.

Now in his last work, he recognized that there is some connection between Goguryeo and the Old Korean languages. And accordingly, he has long since abandoned the theory that Bohai was a Japanese-speaking state. He was then criticized by his NINJAL colleagues.

You use his attempt to prove that this is a Japanese state, distorting his position and taking a quote out of context - to prove that this is a Korean state. such behavior is highly unethical and hostile and offensive.Aek973 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted to state of article before edit war, until consensus is reached.Jungguk (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And you completely accidentally destroyed a block of text with confirmed links with the equal position of all countries so that there would remain a block of text distorting the story in favor of South Korean state ideology.Aek973 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Aek973, I'm going to be very generous and try my best to be cooperative and try to understand your perspective as much as I can. But please be noted that this takes some effort from your side as well, to cooperate. Let me point to something that is very clear and undeniable. You completely misinterpreted Vovin's work. My guess is that if Vovin ever read what you've written about his views, he would slap you in the face. He's very passionate about his work and his views, which you interpreted in the direct opposite, that Vovin is a proponent of the much misguided theory, now mostly discredited, that the Goguryeo language was Japonic. Vovin ridiculed Beckwith in a public conference for continuing to advocate his theory, despite much evidence to the contrary, that the Goguryeo language was Koreanic. You also mention his colleagues from Japan, National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, that they shunned Vovin for advocating the theory that the Goguryeo language was Koreanic. But what NINJAL colleagues are you talking about? Do you mean Unger? Here's the work of Unger.[4] Look at page 229. There is no doubt that Vovin's NINJAL colleague defines the Balhae language as Late Old Korean. Here is another NINJAL colleague, Whitman, and his work.[5] There, Whitman argues the Koreanic languages took root in Manchuria and the northern part of the Korean peninsula at bronze age, and infers that the Koreanic speakers completely displaced the Japnoic speakers on the peninsula through brutal conquest. A Japanese archaeologist, Miyamoto, who seems to be academic partners with Whitman, is more subtle about the violence, and pretty much gives the same account of what most likely happened in ancient Northeast Asia, particularly with regards to Koreanic and Japonic languages.[6] Miyamoto gives a far more detailed account backed by archaeological evidence. The difference between these scholars and Vovin is that Vovin passionately denies any genetic relationship between Koreanic and Japonic, while, taking Miyamoto for example, claims the Altaic languages, including Koreanic and Japonic, all commonly originated from the same region in Manchuria, in the basin of the Liao river. So here is linguistics and archaeology that directly reject your view that the languages of Goguryeo and Balhae were Japonic. Not to mention you have yet to produce any reliable evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, with the exception of interpreting Vovin's work in the exact opposite. This violation is so tempting that maybe I will contact Vovin and show that one of his Russian compatriots, if it can be even be assumed that you are Russian to begin with, of how his work full of passion and conviction is being blatantly distorted. And as for Lankov, he is indeed a respectable historian and an expert on North Korea, but ancient Northeast Asia is not part of his expertise. Not at all. In the blog you cited[7], he basically rejects Vovin's work and thinks Beckwith's theory is widely accepted, which is a pretty good indication that he doesn't know much about the subject, considering Bekcwith's theory nowadays can be considered to be extinct and not taken seriously.

Another point I'd like to make is that instead of trying to explain the works of revered Russian experts on Balhae like Shavkunov, you are bringing out the completely irrelevant subject of the recent conflict between Korea and Japan. First of all, don't try to pin that prejudice upon me. I'm not one of those Koreans that behave in a way that I consider to be very shameful. Not to mention your obsession with Japan puts a lot of suspicions on your claim that you are a Russian at all. So please stop with your prejudiced comments, and, assuming that you are Russian, I'd be very much interested in the Russian perspective on Balhae, and would like to cooperate to strive towards a coherent narrative that is agreeable to both perspectives. Koraskadi (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • Once again - Vovin is not a historian but a linguist. These are completely different things. Those. if his opinion can be considered authoritative, although not exclusive in languages. It cannot be regarded as authoritative in history - simply because he is not a historian at all.

Moreover, the position of Vovin was exactly the same as I described and I indicated later - in the block removed by you and your companions, that now he has changed his position.

At first I didn’t want to include Vovin’s position as it is constantly changing. And by the way, unlike you, I know him personally.

Vovin is a bold experimenter. And if you could not use Google Translate, then I will help you. [8] Here is a description of Lankov - an undoubted authority in Korean studies, Vovin’s position in one of the periods (just when he wrote his work to which you referred, distorting his words) Anyone can read here as Vovin thought then. And then he changed his mind. [9]] He had and such theories, then he changed his theory. His opponent was Viktor Viktorovich Rybin. Head of the Department of Japanese Studies, St. Petersburg State University. Who died in 2014.

Vovin A. Koreo-Japonica: A Re-Evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin.. — Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2010. In this book, he tries to prove that between Japanese and Korean there are no genealogical borrowings, but only areal ones. Which, in his opinion, means that Korean has developed separately. Japanese separately - but the Koguress language is closer to Japanese than to Korean. As well as Beckwith, C. I. (2004). Koguryo, the language of Japan’s continental relatives: an introduction to the historical-comparative study of the Japanese Koguryoic languages with a preliminary description of Archaic northeastern Middle Chinese. Brill’s Japanese studies library, v. 21. Boston: Brill. ISBN 9004139494 But today Vovin had thrid theory [10]

Moreover, he is not a specialist in Bohai writing at all. Specialists in it are, for example, Ivlev. MATERIALS OF BOHAI AND BOHAI TIME FROM PRIMORYE Well, and many others - here is a catalog of their scientific papers published in quoted journals language of bohai.

But one way or another - Vovin is not a historian at all. And even as a linguist - he is still alive and is constantly changing his position. Therefore, I did not want to mention it. You insisted that he be mentioned. And he was mentioned as he is. And not what it would be convenient for you with a special out-of-context quotation.Aek973 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Language, as much as history and archaeology, is important information on ancient kingdoms. For example, the elite class of Balhae speaking a Koreanic language[11] is supportive of the theory prominent among South Korean historians that Goguryeo refugees made up much of the higher class in Balhae's social structure. As for other works of Vovin that you brought up here, Koreo-Japonica: A Re-Evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin and Out of Southern China?, how do these support your theory that Goguryeo and Balhae were Japonic? Please provide the exerpts that support your theory. As I see it, if anything, Koreo-Japonica: A Re-Evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin pretty much says the Korean language has a Japonic substratum resulting from Goguryeo's conquest of the central Korean peninsula, and this is consistent with his views on how the Koreanic languages spread from Goguryeo to Baekje and Silla. Out of Southern China has nothing to do with Korean, Goguryeo or Balhae. It does mention Pseudo-Koguryo, but if you think this somehow indicates that Goguryeo spoke a Japonic language, then you have no idea what that word means. And seriuosly, Beckwith? His work on Goguryeo has long been dismissed and is no longer pertinent to Goguryeo linguistics.

As I have indicated before, Lankov is a respectable historian on North Korea, but ancient Korea, such as Goguryeo and Balhae, is well beyond his field of expertise. And as of Ivlev, are you talking about Alexander Ivliev, the author of this exerpt?[12]

• Russian scholars also touch on the question of Balhae origins the nature of Balhae history. Many works express the most common opinion that the Malgal people founded the Balhae state with participation by some people from the former Goryeo state. After the collapse of Balhae, the Kitan transferred the Balhae people to North China and Inner Mongolia; the Balhae people fled to the Goryeo state and became part of Jurchen tribes. Balhae history belongs to the history of East Asia and the history of states which now divide the ancient lands of Balhae – China, Korea and Russia. Professor E. V. Shavkunov rejected both the Chinese conception of Balhae as a simple local administration of the Tang dynasty, and the popular Korean view of Balhae as the exclusive domain of Korean history (Shavkunov 1992; Shavkunov 1993). At the same time, based on archaeological data he pointed out that Balhae played an extremely important role in the history of Korea (Shavkunov 1997a). However, some recent Russian specialists in Korean studies include Balhae as a part of Korean history in their works (Tolstokulakov 2002: 66-67).

It would be helpful if you can expand upon that, such as the works of Shavkunov and Tolstokulakov. And Ivliev himself as well.

The article already explains how Balhae was not exclusively not Korean, that it had a diverse population. There's conflicting accounts of how it was founded, but that's because of conflicting original sources. There can be some improvement there. In the Politicization section, the Russian perspective is written exactly as Alexander Ivlev wrote. In fact, if you look at the article, you can see that a lot of the references are Russian. If you find something disagreeable in the article, please point them out. Koraskadi (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is criticism over Korean distortion over Balhae? When Balhae was founded at the first place, China was in state of war with Gokturks at the time and still conflicting with the ancient Koreans, Russia was yet to be in Balhae as original Russian territory was only in somewhere at Eastern Europe. You make it like should Russia be truly included. Maybe China's involvement is understandable, but adding Russia for what? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• The United States did not exist then. And there were no Spaniards in Laithn America and in the Philippines either.

History is not property. History is science. If we Russians have studied this state by scientific methods on our territory, as well as on the territory of the PRC and the DPRK, then obviously our knowledge is of great importance. Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an acute conflict.

User:211.217.64.35Introduced large-scale and uncoordinated edits to the article. The article was not patrolled on time and was devoid of a neutral preamble. Refrain from large-scale distorting edits.Kaustritten (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

At face value, I see nothing wrong with the edits the IP made. The content the IP provided appear to be sourced reliably and made in good faith, so the edits are not vandalism (and continuing to call them that is a personal attack). And yes, this section is a duplicate of another section that is already in the article; we don't need to state the same thing twice. SkyWarrior 02:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

These edits were not agreed on on the talk page, although the article is a subject of controversy and radically changed the neutral appearance of the article, which was here for over a year and was agreed upon after discussion.

No point of view can prevail in the preamibule if there is no single all accepted point of view. WP: Neutrality Kaustritten (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Now at WP:AN3. Input welcome. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not an argument in the discussion of this article. You needlessly get personal by attacking me and not discussing the article.Kaustritten (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The edits I made. 06/13/21 changes concern only the request for sources and also the expression of the position of Russian science as the position of Russian science and not the generally accepted point of view. Therefore, they did not require agreement and consensus.

The correction of the theory of the Paektu explosion was made according to the one who actually expresses such a theory. Which academic science doesn't recognize.Kaustritten (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Alina KimSar (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)In this case, in my opinion, the previous version is more neutral than the current one.Alina KimSar (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry - but Paektu's explosion theory is rejected even by official Korean science. This is a marginal theory of the followers of the Nazi ideology "Hwandan Kogi". Writing about this in an article is like writing about microchips in a vaccine in an article about Covid.Ulianurlanova (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tongliao Tunliao Тунляо One of the Kidan tribes was later one of the "banners" of the Liao Empire.

Before deleting information about them, you must familiarize yourself with the person in question. Request sources and not delete immediately. This is one of the Kidan tribes. Consisting of many tribes. Their descendants are the Khorchin Mongols. You can also simply specify - Khitan people. But not in any way delete the weighty information along with all my other edits.Ulianurlanova (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK I have improved the grammar with your material. Qiushufang (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• you do not edit the grammar - you attack me using the fact that I do not know the procedure for appealing your actions and completely delete all my edits.Ulianurlanova (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I improved some of your sentences because you are clearly not a native English speaker. Some of them do not make grammatical sense or are very awkward. I also improved the Origin and Fall section to be less redundant since some of the paragraphs covered overlapping material. Sorry for deleting some of your citations. Feel free to add them back in or I'll do it for you, either is ok. The exception is the idea of "some marginal scholars" which is WP:POV, which I removed. Otherwise all your main contributions are still in as of current version. Qiushufang (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In Russian

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

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

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

Manchus is newly formed ethnic group of Manchuria and Tungusic is language group, the fact that you have failed to understand this simple words clearly show you have no ideas about History of Korea & Manchuria. Koreans are long time settlers in Manchuria too. Manchus clearly have Korean heritage, read 滿洲源流考. It clearly explains how & when Manchus were formed. --KSentry(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The term Tunguso-Manchuria is used by Soviet, Russian, Japanese and Chinese historians, waiting for the designation of a group of peoples who spoke Tunguso-Manchurian languages.

This was done to simplify the clarification of the national composition of a state.

Among the peoples who spoke these languages ​​there is a genetic unity. However, they considered themselves very different nations.

There is a dispute over Solon, Udege - which branch they should be assigned to - this is not clear. there are differences in the composition of the peoples of Mohe, in the structure adopted by Yilow, in Evenki and Nivkhs. All this is still under study.

And since it is often difficult to say which particular branch of Tungus-Manchu languages ​​speak this or that person. But it is known for certain that he is one of the peoples who spoke the Tungus-Manchurian languages. The concept of Tungso-Manchurian peoples is used. This is a completely different term than Manju. Manchu is a specific nation that arose in the 17th century. But she did not appear from another planet. These people lived before. And these people were the Tungus-Manchurian community in ethnic terms. Although not one nation.

If they acquire a time machine, it will be possible to ask specific historical figures - who exactly do they consider themselves to be, this term will become obsolete - but so far no one has come up with anything better.

And since 80% of scientific research is carried out by countries using this term, it is obviously correct.185.17.129.116 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Russia has never taken any role on Balhae history. It is a late comer; Russians arrived to Siberia from 16th century but struggled to finally consolidated control only by 19th century. By the time, Balhae had gone to history. And how does Russia justify it? Maybe for chauvinist researches? Russian name for the entity needs to be dropped in English and other languages' Wikis, save only in Russian Wikipedia. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• The United States did not exist then. And there were no Spaniards in Laithn America and in the Philippines either.

• History is not property. History is science.

• If we Russians have studied this state by scientific methods on our territory, as well as on the territory of the PRC and the DPRK, then obviously our knowledge has a significant value. and only supporters of the Nazi ideology "Hwandan Kogi" can reject the scientific approach. It's bad that Wikipedia is turning into a tribune for such groups, to which, judging by your behavior, you belong too.Ulianurlanova (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The US, Spain, Latin America, and the Philippines are wholly irrelevant to anything discussed so far in this thread. Non sequitur.

History is most definitely not science: it is inherently subjective as a telling of a story. History often relies on science, but the discipline itself is not science, nor can it be. Simply peruse our article at History. There have been arguments for centuries about how scientific the discipline of "history" is.

Then you bring up this additional non sequitur about Nazi ideology -- wrong country -- and an unexplained mention of the Hwandan Gogi.

Are you confused, and in the wrong thread? Are you trolling? If you're trying to make a cogent point here, I'm afraid it is quite lost. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• if you consider history not as a science, the study of which is possible by any scientific school with the availability of material, without national reference, but as an ideology, then this only speaks of your distorted and biased picture of the world. And why are you answering me from another account?

• Regarding the Nazi ideology of Hwandan Kogi, it is obvious that it was mentioned because the anti-scientific distortions introduced regularly into the article, as well as the subsequent controversies and scandals that violate encyclopedicism, are associated with this ideology and the actions of its adherents. Who seek to impose their point of view on the English-speaking world. Turning Wikipedia into a Tribune is a violation of the project rules. Of course, the excessive loyalty of the administration to such behavior is strange. Ulianurlanova (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ulianurlanova: Your reply is unfortunately also mostly unintelligible. I am not trying to antagonize you, I am simply trying to express that your posts are extremely confusing and hard to understand.

"And why are you answering me from another account?" -- I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have only this one account.

"Regarding the Nazi ideology of Hwandan Kogi, it is obvious that it was mentioned..." The only mention of the Hwandan Gogi that I see is here in the Talk page, and you are the one mentioning it. I have no idea what you are referring to. In fact, that whole paragraph sounds like disconnected ramblings to me. Again, not criticizing, simply describing.

It might be helpful if you start by providing more context for your points. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Little Goguryeo

Talk:Little Goguryeo it is clear that this is a fictional state that never existed in reality. In the article itself, there is not a single reliable link confirming the existence of this state since 2018. This is sufficient reason to remove the mention of this fictional state in the article.Ulianurlanova (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The order and mention of predecessors in the template

The indisputable representation of all scientific schools is that the main population of the Bohai state is mohe. Accordingly, they should be listed first. Also, everyone agrees that part of the land of Goguryeo became part of this state. And they must be listed second. The theory of state creation by the Goguryeo revival movement is Korean, and two other schools of thought disagree. Therefore, it is indicated third and a mention is added of who exactly insists on including it.Ulianurlanova (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from non-consensus edits.

Since the history of this state is the subject of an acute conflict, please refrain from making non-consensual edits to the preamble and to the description of the positions of the parties to the conflict. This is a violation of the project rules WP:NPV , WP:CON Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Northern border of Bohai

Before making fantastic edits with claims to Russian territories, please read the document on the basis of which they will all be deleted. [13].

Any native English speaker will be able to read this article automatically.

A metal sign was found that the Tang Empire gave to tribes that they considered as uncivilized but allied to the Tang. This document was issued in 795 to the ruler of Teli - Tsitus. This people lived to the west of Lake Khanka. But these people were not part of Bohai. For Bohai received Wang signs from China. And if these people were part of the Bohai state, then the Tang empire would not issue documents to them, as it recognized Bohai.

Since we have a document, all edits that ignore this document will be deleted immediately.Ulianurlanova (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please cite which part of the content specifically that you have a problem with and what the document refutes. You have engaged in deletion of referenced content and mass blanking of sections of the article. You are also not the sole person who gets to decide what is included in the article. Statements such as "all edits that ignore this document will be deleted immediately" is not appropriate to Wikipedia and indicative of WP:OWN. Qiushufang (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Here you deleted content involving the king of Balhae and Balhae's relationship with the Tang dynasty based on the reason that it is "internal Chinese history and not related to the Bohai state." How is international relations betwen Balhae and the Tang only internal Chinese history? Even sections of the paragraph that had to do with Balhae's internal politics were deleted. And what do you mean by "The author's reasoning has also been removed - Wikipedia is not a tribune."?

Here you deleted content because it is supposedly related to Hwandan Gogi. Where in the source does it say this and do you have a source to prove this? Why is it a reason for the sourced content's removal?

Here you claim that "Khabyarovsk was founded by the Russians in 1858 and only became a city in 1880. there were no settlements on this place before the arrival of the Russians." Do you have a source that says this? You also claim that it is from the Hwandan Gogi again. Please provide a source for this and why it is a problem. You also claim that "Bohai never reached the size of the Amur River." Please provide a source for this as well and a direct quotation to prove it.

Here you claim that the content is "a false statement about the position of Russian science and falsification of links . Where is the source for this? Please provide a source and a direct quotation as proof.

Here you deleted content and claimed that "the Japanese never saw it that way. This is a Korean distortion of Nihon Seki. The Japanese used to say "own the lands of Goguryeo". But not that they are the people or the country of Goguryeo." Please provide a source and direct quotation for this. You also deleted content to do with the Samguk Sagi which you did not mention in the edit summary.

Here you claim that Choe Chiwon did not say that the Balhae people were Mohe. Provide a source for this. You also claim that you "Removed falsification of claim and source. There is no such statement in this work." However here is a direct quotation from the source itself:

As we know in relation to the origin of the Bohai people, when Gouli [Koguryo] was not yet destroyed, they [the Bohai people] were the useless tribe of Mohe, [and] many tribes were alike; its name was that of the small barbarian nation Sumo, and in the past [this tribe], being in competition with Gouli, moved to the inner area [China]

— Choe Chiwon

([14] Kim, Alexander. "The Historiography of Bohai in Russia." The Historian (SUMMER 2011), vol. 73 no. 2: 284-299, p. 292-293)

Here, here, and here you deleted content with the justification that "I will delete non-consensual edits made without discussion that distort history in favor of one of the parties based on one dubious source and falsification." I do not need your consent to make edits nor is the added content unsourced. What history has been distorted in favor of one party and what makes the source dubious? What do you mean by falsification?

Here you claim to have returned the preamble to neutrality. In fact you deleted practically the entire lead. See difference in versions: [15], [16].

Qiushufang (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• • I don't have unlimited time to sort through every deletion case. I, unlike you, a KOTRA employee do not receive a salary for this and do not do this on a professional basis.

Everything that I deleted I deleted based on the fact that the edits were made without approval - although there was a template on the page about violation of neutrality that you simply deleted.

You will add a huge amount of text that does not have scientific evidence and reflects only the state propaganda of the Republic of Korea.

once again we have a document and the conversation is therefore over.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ulianurlanova:, Qiushufang has kindly asked you to provide sources to support your edits. Its not ok to delete content and references without consensus. Pious Brother (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Korean bias

The fact that balhae is used as the title of the article speaks to the heavy korean bias of the article. The article itself states that mainstream western academia uses Bohai so why go against this and use and obscure korean transliteration? Because a few doesn’t want a ‘Chinese narrative’? 2405:6E00:138F:CA00:AC49:623D:D197:E57 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF Assume good faith, please. '''[[User:Geofferic|<span style="color:#06A;">Geofferic</span>]] <small>^{[[User talk:Geofferic|<span style="color:red;">T</span>]]}•_{[[Special:Contributions/Geofferic|<span style="color:#000;">C</span>]]}</small><span style="color:#06A; (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

On Military Confrontations between Tang and Bohai

Regarding "In 818-820, he also invaded Liaodong and parts of Silla on Balhae's southern border." under Expansion and foreign relations Towards the middle of the 9th century, there does not seem to be direct and violent military confrontations between Bohai and Tang over lands in or towards Liaodong/Liaoyang

The situation was more of Tang pulling out in order to cover for more turbulent areas of the empire And Tang diplomatically "allowing" for Bohai to occupy where it could not effectively garrison their troops, on more friendly terms

Just to speak casually, the stretch of land along the Yellow Sea from Liaodong to Pyongyang/the Taedong River was treated like a "no-man's land" that overgrew with hedges and forests.

So "invasion" would not reflect accurately the situation at that time

I cannot source this currently, but this is what recent academic research points to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The language needs to be checked within these sections. Words and terms like "vassalize"/"subjugate"/"conquer" from both sides of Tang and Bohai may not be the most accurate terms/language to reflect the situation at hand

I am not sure why or what you want to be changed with regards to the info related to the sources. None of the words listed are used in this article to describe the relationship between Tang and Balhae. Please make new sections at the bottom of the talk page. Qiushufang (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)