Talk:Balhae/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

goodfriend you idiot

Could somebody put the image of balhae in the information box at the top? I don't know how to do it. Thanks a bunch. Good friend100 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; required some editing to {{Koreanname Chinesename}}, which didn't have the image option before. Now it does. :-) Although actually I wouldn't mind having another image there... Cheers, -- Visviva 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BALHAE KOREAN? NOT KOREAN?

Niu, what are you saying is that Chinese scholars are accurate about Chinese history?? Chinese historians or China never practice " censorship"?? or China isn't Communist state???? Whats your point? That Korean historical information is all wrong??? China never built "Great Wall" to separate between Chinese territory and Manchurian territory???? Its not Semi- political or historical or even Semi-Racist. I'm just justifying and sick and tired of "Corrupt" Chinese historians trying to justify and change Korean history based on Corrupt Chinese political view. Lets not debate " narrow" topic. Lets discuss about much more wider topic Why? is China trying to change Korean history???. The reason is its China " Political and Economical" interest. Just accept the fact. PLEASE!!! ENOUGH WITH SEMI-THIS GARBAGE.


China is still " Communist" country. What it means is that China practices " Censorship" so the people aren't getting real History. In which in future it can lead serious problem between Korea and China. In past years Chinese Historians aren't providing real facts and real information about Korguryo and Balhae Kingdoms. These two Kingdoms had vast territory and it was behind " Great Wall China" which it means it didn't belong to China or Chinese. But instead it belonged to Koreans. Chinese historians are nervouse about " Greater Korea Syndrom, as we call it " G.K.S Syndrome. Its Korean westernized syndrome that 1.2 billion Chinese are afraid. The reason is simple, Korean culture aren't scary to average " Joe" Chinese. Why?? Koreans never invaded China in 20th century. The Greater Korea Syndrome, is Manchuria did belonged to Koreans and Manchuria belonged to Korean history. The Chinese are afraid of " Korean influence in Manchuria" or "Korean influence in China ( Chinese youth). Korea always has been " Lip and teeth" to China. If lip don't protect the teeth. Then China can always crack. Learning or Studying Chinese history. Yes, it can. China is vulnerable to foreign influence. Once Chinese get the taste of Korean culture or westernized Korean culture. Like eating Kimchee, it can't be stopped. That is what they are afraid of. Regarding to " Balhae and Korguryo" Kingdom. Thier both belong to Korea. Yes, Manchuria belongs to Korea. Like I said. Great Wall that divides Manchuria and China. That always has been Chinese history, other side of Great Wall China never cared because it wasn't part of China. It was part of Korea/ Koreans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teacherjjlee (talk • contribs).

In any case, I agree with teacherjjlee remark, you cannot manipulate and distort history by using Political and Economical reasons. I agree with him 100 percent.


Someone takes the "Korean" out from before "Balhae" and someone else puts it back. Balhae is an extremely important part of Korean history, but to call it "Korean" is anachronistic and appears to violate the NPOV Doc Rock 03:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was doing several things ar one time and changed that by mistake. -- General Tiger

Phew! I was afraid that we were falling into one of those wrestling pits where we could lose sight of the big picture. Glad to be wrong! Doc Rock 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

need to rewrite the the ethnic background of Balhai

I have noticed that Korean insead of Goguryeo and Mohe were considered as the natives in this country.While Mohe later became Jurchen,which became Manchu.So It means we should rewrite it as Korean and Manchu?--Ksyrie 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what kinds of ethnic people lived in Balhae, although I have read that the government was ruled by "Koreans" (Goguryeo remnents) while the people were both Goguryeo people, Chinese people, and Manchus. Good friend100 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ksyrie. Or, if you prefer it, I think "proto-Koreans" and "proto-Manchus" is also a good way to put it, unless you just want to keep it simple. I think it's also a good idea to add "multiethnic" as an adjective. Cydevil 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME

An entry from Balhae appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.
Wikipedia

It's gone. I can't find it. 155.97.195.124 02:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Someone

Balhae Korean?

Don't rewrite history. Its historically proven fact. Balhae Kingdom is Korean territory. Balhae Kingdom history comes after fall of Korguryo Kingdom.

Yes, Balhae is Korean kingdom.

Manchuria and Korean peninsula always had deep cultural and historical kinship. Ko-chosun, Korguryo, Balhae, Koryo, Chosun kingdom. All those kingdoms has close connection with Manchuria because Manchuria always had been part of Korea and Korean history.

Manchuria had been closely related to Korean history but we can not consider that region as part of Korea.Whlee 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Its historical fact between two Northeastern part region. Manchuria like Tibet, was never part of China historically and culturally.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teacherjjlee (talk).

Manchuria: History and Culture always had been isolated one for China. Reason is Chinese separated what is Chinese territory and what is independent Manchuria by building " GREAT WALL". So Chinese can't really say too much about Manchuria whereas Korean history and Culture is directly link with Manchuria. It was cradle of Korean civilization and birth of Korean Kingdom. ( Ko-Chosun, Korguryo, Palhai, Koryo) all of these Korean Kingdom has close kinship with Manchuria. Simply cannot deny historical and geographical location of the country and culture.

Concerning Manchuria case, I'm agree with you it belongs to China since 1860 but before it didn't belong before (see China Proper article): After the Primorsky Krai area (滨海州) was ceded to Russia in 1860 Treaty of Peking (北京條約), the Manchu/Qing government began to open the area up to migration, which quickly resulted in Han Chinese becoming the dominant ethnic group in the region at the dawn of the twentieth century.Whlee 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think people disagree on whether Balhae is Chinese or Korean, so I don't know why this page is classified under Korean History and written in a pro-korea tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk).

According tomy point of view concerning Balhae Kingdom. It would be very difficult to defend Korean claims on Balhae Kingdom, because :

  • it can be considered as a multi-ethnical nation like Goguryeo was. No written records from Balhae itself survived.
  • Balhae Kingdom was strongly influenced by Chinese Tang dynasty more than Silla was.
  • Unlike Goguryeo, Balhae rarely fought Chinese (only in the beginning under Mu Wang) but sought to expand its hegemony over the Mohe in Manchuria [under Mun Wang (737 - 793) and Seon Wang (818-830)]. Balhae policy was more friendship than Gorguryeo's one were previously.

Although the statements i mentionned above, Balhae belongs to Korean History because :

  • The extreme southern part of Balhae Namhae Prefecture (남해부) and part of the Yongwon Prefecture (용원부) the present-day South and North Hamgyong Province respectively
  • Silla and Balhae fought each other on the beginning of the 8th century and then remained indifferents themselves.
  • After the fall of Balhae (in 926), Goryeo instead of Silla welcome Balhae peoples for an asile first. and in addition to that Goryeo was not able to reconquer southern Balhae territory (Hamgyong Province) which were left and settled by Jurchen, we can also remark that Goryeo Cheonlijangseong built between 1033 and 1044, which serve as a border between Goryeo-Khitan Liao and Jurchens, ran from the mouth of the Yalu River at Uiju to around Hamheung.

Conclusion : Balhae is less "Korean" than Gogouryeo was and should have to be considered as an independent state. Whlee 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on the encyclopedias in the External Links section. Balhae is under Korean history topics. Likewise, the Korean history template belongs in this article. The introduction is pretty clear about the character of the state, being a union of Korean and Malgal people, with Goguryeo ruling class. And yes, the other encyclopedias call Goguryeo "Korean." No need for personal opinions or original research. Etimesoy 19:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your links classifiy Balhae under Korean History doesn't mean it has anything to do with Korea. I also have tons of links classifying Balhae under Chinese History. I think it's really irresponsible to classify this article under Korean History. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Show me your tons of links then. Thanks to you, you motivate me to learn Chinese.

== Balhae has always has been part of Korean peninsula. Historical and cultural ties are deep between Manchuria and Korean peninsula. Its a Historical fact.

I suggest moving this article out of Korean History. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Dear Wikipedia user 155.97.195.124, instead of removing relevant external Links, bring also relevant from Chinese sources (or elsewhere) as a proof and i advice you to adopt a neutral point of view policy and consider Balhae as a Manhurian Kindom at least and recognize that this kingdom also belong to Korean history. RegardsWhlee 13:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you put it under "Korean History" only.
Really?!!!? Have a look below then Mr Chinese nationalist : Category History of China, History of Russia, History of Mandchuria...Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But there is only a "History of Korea" template ON THIS PAGE and no one can be redirected to Chinese/Russian History from this page. Besides, I don't think Personal Attack is APPROPRIATE.
It's also part of Chinese / Russian History.
I know that's why i didn't touch it.Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the whole article reads like an introduction to a Korean country?
You are a little bit right... People have forgotten to add the existence of Andong Protectorate in the southern part of Manchuria we should have to add some words concerning that point.Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's you who don't have a NPOV, not me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Really??? so why have YOU decided to remove some external links ONCE' again.
Morality : It is very easy to damage/destroying an article by various means (vandalism, propaganda etc...) than bringing relevant information.
Conclusion : I'm much NEUTRAL than YOU. I will restore them. Imagine that i spent several weeks to found those links painfully... Therefore if you want to be more NPOV then i recommend you to find relevant source/references describing Balhae/Bohai instead of deleting the previous one (like you do several times before). Add them to that article and we will discuss about that latter here OK ? We are not here to fight each other but we should rather use that space to find a compromise and to share our knowledge on Wikipedia. Zaijian. Whlee 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted those external links in Korean because this is Wiki English. Mr.Korean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.195.124 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


To show that Balhae should not be a part of Korean history, please provide sources as numerous, reputable, independent, and prominent as these. These sources, which describe Balhae in their Korean history sections, are not blogs or individual writers, but the best tertiary sources that show the expert consensus, just like Wikipedia should be:

Wikipedia in English, not Korean.

I deleted those external links in Korean because this is Wiki English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.101.96.171 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Protection

Please stop the edit warring. Now. As I believing Assault11 (talk · contribs) to be the "more guilty" party in this (that doesn't mean that the others are not guilty parties), I've reverted to the version that he/she disfavors; that is, however, not an endorsement of that version. Please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I believe a History of China template on right side should be included, although I am not sure what the edit war is about. No matter how disputed it is, it certainly play important role in Chinese history, as a local kingdom or not. As you can see, the Chinese characters on the steel showed in the article, somehow no Korean words?--Yeahsoo 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, "Korean words" wouldn't be there since the current form of Korean writing system would not be around for more than another thousand years. Without arguing one way or another as to whether the {{History of China}} template should be included, it should be noted that the template contains no link to Bohai/Balhae. --Nlu (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You might got some points on the templates, if include all the minor local tribe or kingdom in Chinese history, the template might need several pages.

But I think maybe it is time to add some important minor kingdoms now, and then we should add it with no technical excuse.--Yeahsoo 06:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Yeahsoo is as guilty of edit warring as much as his views are NPOV. I suggest reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&oldid=110478125 before all this ruckus started. He may discuss his views in the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil (talk • contribs).

Yeahsoo has an extremely POV attitude. I have reverted at least twice his edits which included labeling of "Korean nationalists". Good friend100 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, you are obviously siding with Yeahsoo, or you wouldn't have put protection on this article without correcting "Korean nationalists" in the first sentence of the article. REMOVE IT. Good friend100 15:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, pardon me, but protecting the wrong version doesn't mean I'm siding with him/her. I'll remove that sentence as vandalism, but watch your attitude. --Nlu (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Balhae (698 - 926) was claimed by Koreans is not NPOV either. Why don't you instead warn the vandalizer(s) instead of protecting the entire article? I think it would be easier to fix the problem by stopping the source of the problem. Good friend100 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your proposed language? In any case, the article was protected because of edit war, not of vandalism. As I said, please discuss. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Should be protected for both. "Claimed by Koreans" is vandalism and so is what user Yeahsoo is doing. I am not engaging in an edit war, simply reverting POV edits. Good friend100 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Claimed by Koreans" is not a clear case of vandalism, even if you disagree with it, and even if it is wrong. Also, "simply reverting POV edits" can definitely be edit warring. Even being in the right, if such a right can be established, doesn't mean that reverting is the correct approach, or that it's "not edit warring." Also, if you can step outside yourself for a moment, consider the "assume good faith" policy, and recognize that the person who disagrees with you can be just as convinced that he/she is "right," and therefore justified.zadignose 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not siding with anyone, ok? Balhae is part of China or Korean, chech the category. it even have a history of Russia.

Why say I am "Korean nationalists", that is funny. I just add a Chinese history template together with Korean history tab. I agree that maybe Balhae should add into the template. I do not see the guilty there.--Yeahsoo 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So reverting vandalism is not the right thing to do? Do you think I should erase everything about China in this article and make it entirely Korean POV. Then I guess you can't revert what I did because its "edit warring".
A chinese POV wrote "claimed by Koreans", definitely POV. I could write "claimed by the Chinese" and maybe it wouldnt be a clear case of vandalism like you said.
Almost jaw-dropping, how rv Chinese POV edits are not really vandalism and promotes edit warring while Korean POV edits are immediately erased without much attention. Good friend100 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been filed with regard to this article and Goguryeo. As Goguryeo is the "higher volume" article, the RfC discussion has been directed to Talk:Goguryeo. Please discuss there. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

delete

Please delete "was claimed by Koreans" in the first sentence of this article. It seems you are taking advantage of the situation and keeping it in a POV manner. "Balhae was claimed by Koreans" is POV and grammatically wrong. Even if it should be there it should be called "Balhae is claimed by Koreans". Anyways, delete it because its POV. Good friend100 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, there is a typo in the lead; "was can ancient kingdom" should be "was an ancient kingdom". --Kusunose 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No one but you can edit this article. Its very annoying requesting an edit instead of correcting the problem by yourself. Good friend100 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently protected so I can't fix it. --Kusunose 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am referring to Nlu who has made the situation extremely hard. I do not understand how there is a serious edit war going on. It is simply a couple POV vandalizers that can be easily blocked and/or warned to fix the problem going on in this article. Good friend100 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Balhae "Gao" family

The Bohai state was a state in the rein of the Tang Dynasty. The Gao family in the state was the second largest one after the royal family. Many Gao family members were officials in the Tang government.[1]--Yeahsoo 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're (or rather, that rather brief article) was mixing up the Gaos. There were many Gaos in Tang government who had nothing to do with Bohai/Balhae. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I know you would say so, but this is real direct Goguryeo king family "GAO", the guy name: Gao Zhen" on his tomb, it carved as:

“唐开府仪同三司工部尚书特进右金吾卫大将军安东都护郯国公上柱国高公墓志序”有云：　　大历八年夏五月廿有七日，右金吾卫大将军安东都护公毙于洛阳教业里之私第，春秋七十三。前年四月十二日，郯国夫人真定侯氏先毙于博陵郡，……礼也。公讳震，字某渤海人。祖藏，开府仪同三司工部尚书朝鲜郡王柳城郡开国公；祢讳连，云麾将军、右豹韬大将军安东都护。公迺扶余贵种，......见周绍良编《唐代墓志汇编》大历075条. It said he is from Balhae渤海. He become 安东都护, this is the lead officer in Balhae. this book published in 1930,by A Qing dynasty scholar. --Yeahsoo 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's one. That's not "many." --Nlu (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo

Nlu, please revert what you deleted on the article. Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo.

  • From korea.net ( Yeah, korea.net. That explains something.), it says that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo [2]
  • From Britannica, it says that it was considered a successor to Goguryeo [3]

Good friend100 22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is only because they wanted to pretend they were the successor of a powerful nation that had defeated the Tang army several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Why don't those pro-korea guys cite the original ancient Asian documents instead of repeating the junks of those "Mr.Know All" in U.K ?

Deiaemeth's comment below explains your question. Good friend100 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Balhae get the name from Tang

Balhae established by Mohe people, at first it called "Zhen". Tang granted the title "Bohai Junwang", that is the origin of Balhae.[4]--Yeahsoo 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources as numerous, reputable, independent, and prominent as these. These sources, which describe Balhae in their Korean history sections, are not blogs or individual writers or Korean-produced, but they are the best neutral tertiary sources that show the expert consensus, just like Wikipedia should:
Those "encyclopedias" are written by the American/British who are pro-korea because they were on the side of South Korea in the Korea War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
I really don't understand why those koreans trust contemporary interpretation of Asian history by westerners rather than the original documents written houndreds of years ago. The authors of those encyclopedias never really understand Asian history/cultures.
If you don't think those encyclopedias are not reliable sources because the authors they "never realy understand Asian history/cultures" and "favor South Korea because of the Korean War", please take that discussion up to the respective pages - Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not original interpretation of ancient texts which every editor seem to have different intrepretation of. Deiaemeth 07:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove all the Korean in this article before the dispute is resolved

It looks like to me that the current block of editing is in favor of the Korean view of Balhae history. Please delete the "Korean History" template and all the pro-korean text in this article before the dispute is resolved. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.98.19.142 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

      • Yes, Balhae is always a vassal in China, "Korean History" should not include it, although Chinese history template did not include Balhae, but that is bacause it is too manny vassals to be included, and Korean History template is simple, but it should not include Chinese vassal.--Yeahsoo 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the title of your subheading, I don't understand why the Korean history template should be removed. A link can always be placed in the Chinese history template, there always is room. A history template is placed to show how the kingdom was part of the country's history. You can at least agree that Balhae is part of Korean history. Good friend100 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree Balhae is related with Korean history, for the same reason,Chinese history template should be included, as it is also in history of China category, even the template does not have balhae link. if include all minor gov in the template, there will be more than one thousand links, geez. Maybe it is good to make a template for Chinese history eastnorth area so less content shall be included--Yeahsoo 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just have a question. Why are Chinese people claiming that Goguryeo and Balhae is theirs so suddenly? It may seem racist to the Chinese, but I just do not understand why u guys were quite for a looooong time, and then suddenly bursting out to take Goguryeo and Balhae. I apologize for my unneutrality and incoviniance. Je comprende pas! Le Coree a Goguyei et Balhaie quod le shine mal.Orthodxy 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Power of state-controlled media! Merumerume 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree!!!!


I lived in the united states for the past 7 years, what are u talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.232.59 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Remider:Chinese name should be above Korean name here

I hereby paste the Admin comment as a reminder, the below is from Talk:Goguryeo:--Yeahsoo 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "I think a compromise needs to be first reached on Goguryeo. The Balhae issue is a separate one and needs to be dealt with separately. (But yes, I do think that the Chinese name should be above the Korean in that article -- but again, that's something to be discussed later -- but I'd also be advocating adding the Russian name.) If there is no way to reach a compromise here as to Goguryeo, it bodes poorly for the hopes of doing so eventually universality.

I oppose "Northeast Area of China" (or any variation thereof) as cumbersome and historically problematic -- because what constitutes the "Northeast Area" of China was constantly shifting throughout history. It is for the same reason why I felt it was boneheaded for the Republic of China authorities to refer to the Indochina Peninsula -- as problematic as that name itself was -- as the "Central-Southern Peninsula" (中南半島) -- not only did it show disrespect to the people of the region but, even when that problem was ignored, it was not historically accurate. I can be convinced, otherwise, though, if there are good reasons, and I don't see any right now. Again, "Manchuria" was coined by Hong Taiji, not the Japanese. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)"

Admins are not the absolute voice in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC))