The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
-Sloane's figure of 30 meng'an units.
Also try considering incorporating Henry Serruy's translation about Ming observance of Jianzhou and Maolien as descendants of Balhae Da family The populations in Liaodong were not necessarily sinicized until much later in the Ming
Not necessarily any insinuations of showing Balhae transformed into Jurchens The wars and campaigns between Mongolian Yuan remnants, Red Turbans, Jurchens, Koryo created lots of disruption, so that census figures were not able to reliably record populations of Liaodong until Ming and Joseon were established. Solid definitions of ethnicity were not there or imposed until much later through policies enacted during the Ming
It is likely the populations of Liaoyang during the Yuan were absorbed among later Mongols also, and not just Jurchens and Liaodong Chinese populations. Also the fact the Khitans were present there. /info/en/?search=Eastern_Liao This is also important because it could mean that those in Liaoyang who did not feel any attachment to Yelu Liuge vacuated with Puxian Wannu to Eastern Xia
Also. There were contingents of Uriankha Mongols who were attached to Naghachu, that many present day Mongol communities in Liaoning can actually trace back to
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 ( talk) 22:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Please delete "During the Jin era, Balhae was no longer geographically identified with Liaodong.", as it is not verified within the article by Sloane. It should belong to the next subsection Mongol Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 ( talk) 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Without any sources, page numbers, or quotations it's impossible to verify whether any of what you have written is true. On what page does Sloane's article does mention Bohai county, Shandong and what relation does it have to the separation of Bohai from Liaodong, which is what the article claims? What relevance does Jurchen linguistics have on a page about Balhae? The article never makes the claim that the end of Balhae identity was abrupt but occurred over multiple generations. The article also never makes the claim that Balhae identity ended in the Jin dynasty. On p. 368: Due to the demographic predominance of the Bohai in Liaodong, the terms "Bohai" and "Liaodong" were sometimes used interchangeably.
On p.388: Under the Jin a significant shift appears to have taken place regarding the Liaodong region: often referred to interchangeably with "Bohai" under the Liao, it had by the late twelfth century become dominated by other identities.
So "Liaodong" and "Bohai" went from being almost interchangeable (one was an ethnicity and polity while the other a region) with each other to not during the later Jin period. I took this to mean the geographical linkage was broken but perhaps a better description would be a decline in association with one another.
Qiushufang (
talk) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made some important changes to this article for more neutrality. I see Balhae as a transformative age when Koreans left Manchuria for good, but it is biased to believe that Koreans had no role in the formation of Balhae and its continued rule. I am the IP editor who made the recent changes. Please address any concerns to me. Thank you and God Bless. Signed, Taejina
I also want to add it is a logical fallacy to retroactively "claim" an ethnic group from the past or that belongs to the past at a certain point, within nation-based historiography. Just because one or the other culture became "tinged" by Chinese or Koreanic or Korean-ish culture or has a strong or feint resemblance to aboriginal cultures that dwelt in the region does not mean they can be essentialized or periodized to fit or become one under a category. This should be apparent in practice throughout historical and prehistoric Eurasia Skeptic717 ( talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The sudden impulse of Mohe and the spread of Mohe culture according to many Russian archaeologists is connected with the Xianbei due to lifestyles surrounding horses. Also genetic studies show that the Mohe may have been related to modern populations in Inner Mongolia like Mongola. They had nothing to do with Koreans, Koguryo or their ancestors who come from an entirely different genetic stock.
The Chinese Tongdian and Korean Samguk sagi said that Balhae's origin was of the Sumo Mohe people and its leader Dae Joyeong founded the state using a Mohe name Zhendan 震旦, and later abolished the Mohe title and changed the name to Balhae. [1]
The Japanese Ruijū Kokushi said that when Dae Joyeong established Balhae, it was entirely made out of Mohe tribes, the majority of the population was Mohe and the original natives were rare. [2]
The Chinese Old Book of Tang said Dae Joyeong was a different kind of "Gogoryeoan" from normal Goguryeo people. The Chinese New Book of Tang says that Dae Joyeong was a Sumo Mohe. [3]
The Korean Samguk yusa said Dae Joyeong was Mohe people. [4]
The Goryeosa said in 918 the people residing in Pyongyang were barbarians and not Koreans. [5] The Goryeo said in 993 the people between Liaoyang and Pyongyang were Jurchens. [6]
Western historians have said Balhae was founded by a Mohe family, [7] [8] [9] of "non-Korean ethnic origins". [10] [11]
References
@ Zessede: If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources.
Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro ( talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Ultranationalist claims? What an excuse to delete sourced materials. If were to talk about bias, nothing can par with Chinese state media that are aligned with the projects going North South East and West. By the way, just because you can't read 'Korean' doesn't mean it's unverifiable when in fact Korean academia has been conducting studies on Balhae closer than ever. Not to mention that the CCP bans all Korean entry to local Balhae sites and only permits Chinese entry. What a laugh. Zessede ( talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Her paper has only but one contribution from a Korean scholar, Im Sang son. Not to mention the ratio of Korea-based researches and sources that focus light on Balhae throughout her works. And it's pretty obvious she's a specialist in Northern Asian + Chinese history rather than Korean. The fact she's criticized by Chinese conservatives is irrelevant. How about giving an idea of what you think about Chinese state policies on histories and cultures of other countries? I bet you probably think Tibet and Uighur is genuinely Chinese lol. Your way of changing the names of Balhae individuals into Pinyin is ridiculous considering the fact that Han Chinese folks started to populate Liaodong and Manchuria after the Qing Dynasty. Zessede ( talk) 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Korean state owned site? Korean nationalist what? Please. Don't associate the CCP with the Korean government which is a free democracy. Korea is a country where government intervention on humanities and academia are highly problematic, offensive, and sensitive, unlike China. The Northeast History Foundation was a move to counter political maneuvers in academia by Japan and China. And the focus is to gather evidence amongst existing historical records, not twist them like your government (CCP) does. By the way, the site may be government-affiliated, but the source itself is from the 『고려사절요』권1, 태조신성대왕 을유 8년 12월 (Goryeosa-Jeolyo, Book 1n Taejo, Year Eulyu, August), a primary source. Since you mention it, the CCP has long been utilizing digital-based manpower such as the Wumao in a grand scale for the sake of fabricating history in favor of state ideology and state-led ultranationalism. From Hanbok to Aodai, Kimchi to Hanfu Revitalization Movement. Zessede ( talk) 00:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Even with the legitimate sources for even the individuals Esymbrio just undoes everything without a detailed explanation. I wonder why? Are the texts too much of an obstacle for you that might disprove China's claim on Balhae as part of the Northeast Project? These guys are ridiculous. Not to mention they come to sabotage other pages of Korean dynasties like Goryeo and Goguryeo. Zessede ( talk) 00:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Please then, explain why the contents on the Balhae folks of Jin Dynasty are uncited yet undeleted unlike mine that were cited albeit being Korean sources? Zessede ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In a newly added section, it was mentioned that "according to the Old Book of Tang, the customs of Balhae such as coming of age cermonies, marriages, funerals and memorial rites, were the same of Goguryeo."
I cannot access the Korean publication cited but the OBT itself is accessible. In fact, this is the original quote:
風俗瑟高麗及契丹同,頗有文字及書記。 "The customs and habits were the same as in Goryeo and Khitan. It had its script, books and documents."
Esiymbro (
talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:: It is interesting that many Russians were banned here for indications of this fact several years ago. And the one who banned today in the administration of Wikipedia.
TTACH (
talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
-Sloane's figure of 30 meng'an units.
Also try considering incorporating Henry Serruy's translation about Ming observance of Jianzhou and Maolien as descendants of Balhae Da family The populations in Liaodong were not necessarily sinicized until much later in the Ming
Not necessarily any insinuations of showing Balhae transformed into Jurchens The wars and campaigns between Mongolian Yuan remnants, Red Turbans, Jurchens, Koryo created lots of disruption, so that census figures were not able to reliably record populations of Liaodong until Ming and Joseon were established. Solid definitions of ethnicity were not there or imposed until much later through policies enacted during the Ming
It is likely the populations of Liaoyang during the Yuan were absorbed among later Mongols also, and not just Jurchens and Liaodong Chinese populations. Also the fact the Khitans were present there. /info/en/?search=Eastern_Liao This is also important because it could mean that those in Liaoyang who did not feel any attachment to Yelu Liuge vacuated with Puxian Wannu to Eastern Xia
Also. There were contingents of Uriankha Mongols who were attached to Naghachu, that many present day Mongol communities in Liaoning can actually trace back to
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 ( talk) 22:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Please delete "During the Jin era, Balhae was no longer geographically identified with Liaodong.", as it is not verified within the article by Sloane. It should belong to the next subsection Mongol Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:102 ( talk) 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Without any sources, page numbers, or quotations it's impossible to verify whether any of what you have written is true. On what page does Sloane's article does mention Bohai county, Shandong and what relation does it have to the separation of Bohai from Liaodong, which is what the article claims? What relevance does Jurchen linguistics have on a page about Balhae? The article never makes the claim that the end of Balhae identity was abrupt but occurred over multiple generations. The article also never makes the claim that Balhae identity ended in the Jin dynasty. On p. 368: Due to the demographic predominance of the Bohai in Liaodong, the terms "Bohai" and "Liaodong" were sometimes used interchangeably.
On p.388: Under the Jin a significant shift appears to have taken place regarding the Liaodong region: often referred to interchangeably with "Bohai" under the Liao, it had by the late twelfth century become dominated by other identities.
So "Liaodong" and "Bohai" went from being almost interchangeable (one was an ethnicity and polity while the other a region) with each other to not during the later Jin period. I took this to mean the geographical linkage was broken but perhaps a better description would be a decline in association with one another.
Qiushufang (
talk) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made some important changes to this article for more neutrality. I see Balhae as a transformative age when Koreans left Manchuria for good, but it is biased to believe that Koreans had no role in the formation of Balhae and its continued rule. I am the IP editor who made the recent changes. Please address any concerns to me. Thank you and God Bless. Signed, Taejina
I also want to add it is a logical fallacy to retroactively "claim" an ethnic group from the past or that belongs to the past at a certain point, within nation-based historiography. Just because one or the other culture became "tinged" by Chinese or Koreanic or Korean-ish culture or has a strong or feint resemblance to aboriginal cultures that dwelt in the region does not mean they can be essentialized or periodized to fit or become one under a category. This should be apparent in practice throughout historical and prehistoric Eurasia Skeptic717 ( talk) 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The sudden impulse of Mohe and the spread of Mohe culture according to many Russian archaeologists is connected with the Xianbei due to lifestyles surrounding horses. Also genetic studies show that the Mohe may have been related to modern populations in Inner Mongolia like Mongola. They had nothing to do with Koreans, Koguryo or their ancestors who come from an entirely different genetic stock.
The Chinese Tongdian and Korean Samguk sagi said that Balhae's origin was of the Sumo Mohe people and its leader Dae Joyeong founded the state using a Mohe name Zhendan 震旦, and later abolished the Mohe title and changed the name to Balhae. [1]
The Japanese Ruijū Kokushi said that when Dae Joyeong established Balhae, it was entirely made out of Mohe tribes, the majority of the population was Mohe and the original natives were rare. [2]
The Chinese Old Book of Tang said Dae Joyeong was a different kind of "Gogoryeoan" from normal Goguryeo people. The Chinese New Book of Tang says that Dae Joyeong was a Sumo Mohe. [3]
The Korean Samguk yusa said Dae Joyeong was Mohe people. [4]
The Goryeosa said in 918 the people residing in Pyongyang were barbarians and not Koreans. [5] The Goryeo said in 993 the people between Liaoyang and Pyongyang were Jurchens. [6]
Western historians have said Balhae was founded by a Mohe family, [7] [8] [9] of "non-Korean ethnic origins". [10] [11]
References
@ Zessede: If you think that "primarily working on Chinese sources based on works of China-based scholars" is a reason for deletion, then do not add any Korean source on controversial topics. The article's reference list is already heavily biased towards Korean sources.
Either way, we don't need any more unverifiable Korean ultranationalist claims as in your edits, especially considering that some of the claims are clearly not mentioned in the sources. Esiymbro ( talk) 23:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Ultranationalist claims? What an excuse to delete sourced materials. If were to talk about bias, nothing can par with Chinese state media that are aligned with the projects going North South East and West. By the way, just because you can't read 'Korean' doesn't mean it's unverifiable when in fact Korean academia has been conducting studies on Balhae closer than ever. Not to mention that the CCP bans all Korean entry to local Balhae sites and only permits Chinese entry. What a laugh. Zessede ( talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Her paper has only but one contribution from a Korean scholar, Im Sang son. Not to mention the ratio of Korea-based researches and sources that focus light on Balhae throughout her works. And it's pretty obvious she's a specialist in Northern Asian + Chinese history rather than Korean. The fact she's criticized by Chinese conservatives is irrelevant. How about giving an idea of what you think about Chinese state policies on histories and cultures of other countries? I bet you probably think Tibet and Uighur is genuinely Chinese lol. Your way of changing the names of Balhae individuals into Pinyin is ridiculous considering the fact that Han Chinese folks started to populate Liaodong and Manchuria after the Qing Dynasty. Zessede ( talk) 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Korean state owned site? Korean nationalist what? Please. Don't associate the CCP with the Korean government which is a free democracy. Korea is a country where government intervention on humanities and academia are highly problematic, offensive, and sensitive, unlike China. The Northeast History Foundation was a move to counter political maneuvers in academia by Japan and China. And the focus is to gather evidence amongst existing historical records, not twist them like your government (CCP) does. By the way, the site may be government-affiliated, but the source itself is from the 『고려사절요』권1, 태조신성대왕 을유 8년 12월 (Goryeosa-Jeolyo, Book 1n Taejo, Year Eulyu, August), a primary source. Since you mention it, the CCP has long been utilizing digital-based manpower such as the Wumao in a grand scale for the sake of fabricating history in favor of state ideology and state-led ultranationalism. From Hanbok to Aodai, Kimchi to Hanfu Revitalization Movement. Zessede ( talk) 00:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Even with the legitimate sources for even the individuals Esymbrio just undoes everything without a detailed explanation. I wonder why? Are the texts too much of an obstacle for you that might disprove China's claim on Balhae as part of the Northeast Project? These guys are ridiculous. Not to mention they come to sabotage other pages of Korean dynasties like Goryeo and Goguryeo. Zessede ( talk) 00:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Please then, explain why the contents on the Balhae folks of Jin Dynasty are uncited yet undeleted unlike mine that were cited albeit being Korean sources? Zessede ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In a newly added section, it was mentioned that "according to the Old Book of Tang, the customs of Balhae such as coming of age cermonies, marriages, funerals and memorial rites, were the same of Goguryeo."
I cannot access the Korean publication cited but the OBT itself is accessible. In fact, this is the original quote:
風俗瑟高麗及契丹同,頗有文字及書記。 "The customs and habits were the same as in Goryeo and Khitan. It had its script, books and documents."
Esiymbro (
talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:: It is interesting that many Russians were banned here for indications of this fact several years ago. And the one who banned today in the administration of Wikipedia.
TTACH (
talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)