Talk:Balhae controversies

gentlemen koreans do not distort on behalf of Russia.
Please do not need to make on behalf of the Russian edits with the allegations of people living or later emigrating to South Korea that this is a Korean state. According to the position of RAUK. Hundreds of people working on this topic and 70 years of archaeological excavations are 100% NOT KOREAN. And I repeat - Leonid Petrov, despite the Russian name and family name, is NOT a Russian scientist and does not reflect the position of Russian science. Moreover, he is associated with South Korean nationalists. All his statements have no archaeological basis. And they are not national. And they are not scientific. He can work anywhere - it is a question of the quality of the school and the engagement of the school that hired him. It does not matter at what university he studied. Fomenko also studied at a serious university and is the creator of a New Chronology - an anti-scientific religious movement. In confirmation of what I am saying, I cited references to a scientific catalog where hundreds of works express the position of Russian science. Hatchiko (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Petrov seems legit to me. And what's your basis that he's associated with South Korean nationalists? He works at an Australian university. Here are also other article publications by Russian scholars that seem to disagree with your view. Koraskadi (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Traditions and Trends in the Russian Study of Koguryo History, Sergei V. Alkin, Novosibirsk State University
 * Koguryo's Influence on Parhae Culture, E. I. Gelman and V. I. Boldin, Russian Academy of Sciences
 * Balhae Studies in Russia, Alexander Ivliev, Russian Academy of Sciences


 * * A person working at an Australian private institute may well be associated with the Korean nationalists who staged him there and he certainly does not have the right to represent the position of Russian science - because 100% is not a Russian scientist. Stop distorting the data. I cited and once again provide a link to the catalog of scientific papers in Cyberleninka. https://cyberleninka.ru/search?q=%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9 Anyone can download works from the catalog and translate them via Google Translate. And once again you manipulate and lie. Bohai in Russian historiography is the state of Tungso-Manchurian people and not Korean. and unlike South Korea which claims that it is Korean in Russia there are many historical monuments of this state. Yes, there is some cultural influence of the minority. And I described in detail what is in the main article. This is naturally recognized by the whole scientific school. However, not a single serious Russian scientist believes that this state is directly connected with Goguryo. It subjugated a number of Goguryuo lands with population. Naturally, they did not kill him and integrated him - just how much does this have to do with the image of the "Korean state" that creates South Korea which has NO ONE historical monument of this state on its territory but few artifacts that have been bought from the bandits who stole them from North Korea. Yes, there are a few gifts from Russia. Which were low valuation. I indicated position of Russian science in this article with the sources. Once again, do not make a false statement that Russia supports the point of view of South Korea - this is not. The scientific point of view of South Korea is refuted in Russia even before its appearance. In particular, the father of Bohai studies in Russia, Vladimir Ernstovich Shevkunov.Hatchiko (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You distort sources. And you make an unjustified accusation in Talk:Balhae. http://ihaefe.org/files/publications/full/Bohai.pdf for example, this job has an English introductory word. cite "The monograph is devoted to the first Tungus-Manchu state Bohai (698–926), situated in the territory of the Russian Primorye, North East China and North East of Korea. In the work there analyzed history of Bohai since its beginning, the process of forming and the ages of its development till downfall, and histori-cal fates of Bohai residents. Much attention is paid to ethnic problems and ethnic genesis of Bohai residents." http://congress.aks.ac.kr/korean/files/2_1358412425.pdf cite "The state of Bohai (698-926 AD) was polyethnic. In addition to the core ethnic group of Sumo Mohe, Bohai citizenship included the Paleoasians, Koguryo, Chinese, and more. Particularly large influx of the Koguryo people took place after the downfall of Koguryo state. The Jurzhen, especially those from northeastern part of the Korean peninsula, were another group who kept friendly ties with the mediaeval Korean tribes. However, scarcity of written sources prevents a full reconstruction of the mediaeval history in the Far East to be made. To overcome this obstacle we need archaeological data containing evidences of cultural, political, and military contacts among the mediaeval Tungus-Manchurians and Koguryos." This is literally what I say in the edits I made. This is an example of the most compromising statements for so much that it published the government of South Korea.Hatchiko (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The Russian view should be presented in a separate section from the Japanese view, unless you can prove that their perspectives are in complete unison. Petrov's work should also remain. Your conspiracy theory that he's a South Korean puppet is certainly not an acceptable argument. Also, Balhae's relations with Japan has nothing to do with the controversy and therefore should be ommitted. Koraskadi (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the points of view of several scientific groups coincide, they can be expressed in one section. According to the journal of edits, Hatchiko did not contribute information about relations with Japan. He only shortened the text without deleting the links. Yes, this text should not be in this article but in the main article Balhae. This information meets the criteria WP:N and you can not delete it, just move to another article.
 * According to rule WP:BESTSOURCES to display the position of the side according to all majority and significant minority views, It is obvious that the source recommended by you does not meet this criterion. He does not live in Russia, does not work in Russia, is not a Russian archaeologist working on the excavations of objects of this state. He expresses only his personal position and not the position of Russian science. His opinion does not meet the criteria Notability. In addition, when writing the opinion of one of the parties, the criterion WP:BALANCE, and you are clearly violating it by citing as an example the personal opinion of a non-expert in this matter. While in Russia there are dozens of scientists working on the study of this state and their opinion is radically different from the opinion of this person expressed by a short phrase in 2004. 80 years of scientific work and a developed scientific school is obviously not equal to the opinion of one person who is also not part of this school. So no matter how much you want the opinion of this person, he has no rights to the represent in the section describing the opinion of the Russian Scientific School studying the state of Bohai. The authority on the study of Bohai in Russia is the founder of the Bohai Studies School | Шавкунов Эрнест Владимирович and people who continued his work. Thousands of archaeologists and dozens of scientists. Which constantly work for 80 years on objects. But not unknown to anyone in Russia Petrov. Who is he with you? A teacher at some Australian university? How long has Australia become part of Russia? Gnomsovet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Original version of Balhae in fact does mention its relations with Japan in detail. I however agree that further details can be added, given that Russian-English translations of the source are provided. As for Petrov, he was educated at the Saint Petersburg State University majoring in Korean studies, and his views should not be discounted, especially not because of the conspiracy theory that he is a "South Korean puppet'. He alone does not represent the Russian point of view, but his view should not be excluded on such basis. I agree though that perspectives of other Russian scholars should be included, not only in Balhae controversies but also in the main article, Balhae. Shavkunov's work on the demographics of Balhae based on archaeological evidence seems convincing and invaluable, and it can be added to maybe a new section in Balhae called demographics. Resutls of other archaeological research, including the joint Russo-Korean archaeological research, can be added to the culture section. But then again I hope you also consider that Russian scholars themselves are not free of political bias - they also have a political stake in the history of the region, focusing on the role of indigenous populations of the Russian Far East in Balhae. What I'm saying is that Russian sources should not be taken blindly, but should be taken with NPOV issues in mind. Koraskadi (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT You did not cite the arguments refuting what I wrote above. What is the difference which university he graduated from? I also graduated from two universities, so what? It does not matter. He even has a Russian name — only that has nothing to do with Russian science. I do not care who whose puppet. There are rules that you ignore the Korean Nazi and that you are trying to manipulate to hide the fact that no one except the South Korean government and associates, or those whom you misled because they do not have access to primary materials and constitute a secondary opinion based on your distortions, supports your Nazi theory. Which of this book Doksa Sillon, which along with other things promotes the "Purity of Blood" And it is not based on scientific data - namely, the research of archaeological objects. It makes no sense to talk to a Nazi who plays "I can't hear" Gnomsovet (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Three sides
There are not two but three parties to this issue - their positions are different. It is impossible not to recognize the position of Russia. The official position and not the private opinion of an Australian scientist with Russian roots.

In addition, Russia is not a foreign state - Rather, South Korea is a foreign state since it has never been located on the territory of this state.

The objects of this state are on the Korean peninsula but in the DPRK.

Russia possesses 20% of the territory of this state according to the Russian position and 40% of this state according to the Chinese and Korean positions.

This is obviously not a foreign state. A state that owns the Bohai territories and is actively studying its history. 185.17.129.116 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted to state of article before edit war. Jungguk (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

balhae or bohai
There are disputes between user and me in whether all links to article of balhae in article should be balhae or bohai which redirects to balhae. i agree with the other changes that aek973 made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae_controversies&type=revision&diff=938520594&oldid=938440781 but my only concern is the link of balhae and bohai. bohai is redirect to balhae hopefully this issue gets finish soon. i had to undo all edit because i do not know how to just change the link. hopefully person giving third opinion can state their idea and leave the other changes made as is. i hope you understand my question. Jungguk (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Balhae and Bohai are consistently used together in reliable sources (see Google books) and we should follow the practice for neutrality, at least in introductory sentences. Of course, Bohai is a more ambiguous term as it also refers to a sea, which makes Balhae a more natural choice for article titles. -Zanhe (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not dispute the title of the article. However, this state has different names in different scientific schools. If it is at the same time homonymous with some other English word, this does not mean that it should not be used - for the analysis of homonyms there are Disambiguation refers pages. A lot of words in different languages ​​are homonyms. In addition, in both Chinese and Russian, the name of this state is not homonymous. Because the state is called Bohai, and the bay is called


 * In Russian, Бохайвань (Bohaiwan) 13,300 results, Чжилийский (Zhilisky) 3,330 result, Бохайский (Bohaisky) 36,000.


 * In Chinese, 渤海湾 (Bohaiwan) 7,890,000 智联湾 (Zhili) 30,600,000


 * So in the languages of these scientific schools it’s not even homonyms. Although homonyms in the names are permissible. In Wikipedia, hundreds of thousands of geographic objects and not only - homonyms.Aek973 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * balhae is common name. it is confusing to use balhae at one point of article and then bohai. a reader will be confuse. we should change mentions to balhae. mention to bohai is in balhae article, someone could go there if she wished. no need to confuse reader hereJungguk (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not true. And this is already shown by another user whom you ignore. Moreover, this is not just a name - completely different meanings are put into these names by different scientific schools. Similarly, for example, the Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo and Metohija, autonomous region of Abkhazia and the independent state of Abkhazia and hundreds of others. The name has meaning for different historical positions. In the English-speaking world, both names are used and there are no commons at all. Those who work with Chinese and Russian archaeological data use the word Bohai. Those who reprint South Korean cabinet work - it’s not clear what is based on - or rather what is known - on the 1908 book - Doksa Sillon, three literary texts of the 12-14th century written 500 years after the fall of this state, and quoting in a circle each other use the word Balhae. Aek973 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

To Korean users
Please do not misrepresent the article in your country's favor. You have a section dedicated to the position of your country - you can write anything there - but please do not go into the preamble and do not distort it in favor of Korean state ideology. and do not go to sections of other countries.Aek973 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * this article is not yours. since this is controversial topic if you want to change it you can discuss it in talk page of project Korea and gain approval from other editors then make the edit. from current state of article i will not edit it until i seek approval from talk page pf project Korea and you should do the same. this is in official policy regarding edit conflict. Jungguk (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, Aek973, an editor may edit any section of an article which they believe they can improve, unless they have been warned not to do so. The lead section is as editable as any other. WP:POV editing is an error which all editors are supposed to avoid, whereas neutral editing may be done by anyone on any article that can be edited. Rather than charging other editors with "distortion", please give a short and specific example of the biased language you find objectionable.
 * I believe that Jungguk gives good advice in recommending a discussion on the Talk page of WikiProject Korea--Quisqualis (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

** I’m not going to discuss on the Korea project what is not relevant to the history of Korea. I am also not going to waste my time on useless discussions with aggressively trained and supportive Korean users. Wikipedia is a project hostile to Russia. Engaged in misinformation.

If you want Russia to be your enemy, he will be your enemy.Aek973 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. It's amazing, how many errors you managed to make in two such short sentences.
 * No one user “can write anything” – Wikipedia policies (WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:WWIN and WP:NPOV, to name a few) define what one can write.
 * Additionally, nobody here “has a section dedicated to the position of their country” – most editors are not from Korea, not from Russia and not from China. Most editors have even never been to those countries. So there is no section of 'their' countries.
 * Please don't confuse Wikipedia with social media – an encyclopedia is not for promoting or defending one's position, it's for collecting and presenting a common knowledge. Editors from Zimbabwe can write about Korea and editors from Korea can write about Bolivia here. You don't have to live somewhere to be 'entitled' to writing about the place. One can even write about Mariana Trench deep in the Pacific Ocean, about a Sea of Cleverness on the Moon or about a social structures in the kingdom of Gondor — even though nobody ever lived there. The only requirement is to have - and reference - reliable sources of the presented knowledge.
 * The lead section (which you call a preamble) is not an exception – everyone can add, copy edit or update data in it, as long as it is supported by reliable sources and fits the WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT rules.
 * And finally, Wikipedia contens does not belong to any editor; there is not even a bit of ownership distributed over the Wikipedia community. See WP:OWN:
 * All Wikipedia content [...] is edited collaboratively. No one [...] has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
 * As a result nobody can tell others what they may or may not edit. The only exception is administrative block, which may be applied to stop intentional or persistent vandalism or otherwise disruptive activity.
 * CiaPan (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The rules you just listed require an equal and balanced position of all scientific schools. Yes, there are editors from different countries. However, the scientific approach has pronounced positions. For example, there are different views on the history of Aksai Chin. Different views on the history of the conflict on Damansky Island. Different scientific views on different treaties. By presenting only one position, the rules you listed are violated.

If there is a consensus, then the article presents a consensus version. However, if there is no consensus, then it should be informed that there is none. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda for either side. And further in the article should be the positions of all parties such as Russo-Georgian War.

All issues related to this state are also very sharply politicized and reflect the claims of the parties. Therefore, it is necessary to strive for neutrality - which implies that in general texts there should only be a consensus version. Those. one that does not violate the rules of a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view is one that does not favor either version. No Korean, no Chinese, no Russian scientific school. In the formulation of general data, there should not be something that describes the position of only one scientific school. If there is no consensus, then the text should have a formulation in which there is no description for the sake of one and the parties. For example, the name of the ruler is controversial - it should not be in the general text and should only be mandatory indicating different readings of hieroglyphs - all options. The origin of the ruler is controversial - it should not be in the general text and should only be mandatory, indicating different positions on its origin in a separate issue. Ethnic composition is the same.

we are not talking about a forum there is a fact

1. The Russian scientific school exists, it has been conducting research for 80 years and has many archaeological sites. its position is weighty.

2. The Chinese scientific school exists, it has been conducting research for 25 years and has many archaeological sites - its position is significant.

3. The weight of the South Korean school is in doubt, since there is not a single archaeological object of this culture on its territory, and the view on the history of this state is determined by dubious sources. Let's discuss the weight of the position of the South Korean scientific schools? Kaustritten (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit proposal by Jungguk

 * The section title added by CiaPan (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

here is what i think. in the intro there is no source for the statement on japanese historian. so that should be removed. sentence on Russia should be removed as the source links to biography of historian without mention to things in introduction

we should add sentence >Neither Silla nor the later Goryeo wrote an official history for Balhae, and some modern scholars argue that had they done so, Koreans might have had a stronger claim to Balhae's history and territory<, which is sourced.

logically section on english speaking world should come after korea section because of logical flow.

in chinese section mentions to korean or japanese text should be remove or go to korea section. also should add part of korean people as balhae had korean people, see balhae article. the translation of the chinese quote should be done correctly.

in russian section map should be remove as it is by amatuer historian which has no place in wikipedia

in general we should use balhae or balhae/parhae/po-hai/bohai together

i hope you reply soon about my suggestion aek973 Jungguk (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping: (The ping added by CiaPan (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC))
 * These are good points, and I agree with most of them, but there is really no need or requirement to restrict sources to a given language based on the topic of a section. If they are quality sources, they should be cited for any and all statements which they support. As for using a variety of name variants within the article, that might placate some POV readers and editors, but it violates the Wikipedia policy on uniformity in topic names within articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it sounds good i made those changes on talk pageJungguk (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Russian position

 * The position of Russian science is no less important than the position of Korea and China.

1. Russia has been studying this country for 80+ years and a number of institutes are working on the problems of this country. This is the longest period of scientific and not political study. Taking into account the scientific approach, and not nationalist myths.

2. Russia controls about a quarter of the former territory of this country.

3. Russia has carried out a lot of archaeological research and has its own information about this state, which refutes the point of view of South Korea (which does not even have objects to study on its territory) and differ from China.

This is confirmed by archaeological data as well as epigraphy on stones.

Difference from the Chinese point of view

1. Other boundaries what China and Korea are claiming, and this is confirmed by archaeological excavations.

2. formal, not real dependence from China. Ruler Bohai called himself the Emperor.

It can be discussed - but not ignored.

Ulianurlanova (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to Teli, according to the Chinese position, they were vassals of Bohai, and Bohai was a vassal of China. However, a Tang Empire tag has been found which indicates that the Teli were not vassals of the Bohai. But they were considered allies of the Tang Empire. The tag was issued by the Tang Emperor in 795 to the ruler of Teli - Tsitusya. Such a tag was issued to peoples that the Chinese considered wild - but could be China's allies. Please follow the link for scientific work. There is a photo of this tag. Ulianurlanova (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For this sentence: "On the territory of Russia, over 80 years, 18 small objects, 19 villages and 7 cities of this state have been studied." While the other numbers are plausible, are you sure that only 18 small objects were studied? Because I don't see them mentioned in the sources and these seem far too few for 80 years of study. Esiymbro (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You should still read what is written on the link provided in the article.

Google Chrome allows you to do this in any language.

In addition, there are also registration numbers of objects for 1991. (There is a registration of archaeological sites in Russia)

For example - large objects - cities of the state of Bohai.


 * Object 136 Registry number 306 "Poltavkinskoe" 14 hectares
 * Object 137 Registry number 589 "Kraskinskoe" 14 hectares
 * Object 138 Registry number (no number) "Kavalerovskoe" 15 hectares
 * Object 140 Registry number 230 "Gorbatkinskoye" 15.5 hectares
 * Object 142 Registry number 827 "Novorossiysk" 16 hectares
 * Object 143 Registry number 784 "Koksharovskoe-1" 16.5 hectares
 * Object 149 Registry number 792 "Chuguevskoe" 24 hectares

And the rest of the objects are described there and you have no right to ignore it. Since the source is reliable and unambiguous.

With regards to how many years there has been "Бохаеведение" (Science of Bohai Studies) in Russia  It is generally indicated here that the research began in 1851. Iakinf Bichurin. Then when this territory was still a buffer between Qing and Russia since 1689. I hope you can find the text of the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 following the military conflicts of 1649-1689?

OIAK (Society for the Study of the Amur Region) was founded in 1884. And the first catalog of archaeological research was published in 1888 under the editorship of Busse Fedor Fedorovich.

So there is a mistake in the article. The one who wrote the article was initially more likely based on the resumption of the archaeological expedition in 1947. Ok I'll fix it for 137 years.

Bohai in the territories of modern Russia had only one peripheral province. And only one trading city. # 589 14.4 hectares.

The Bohai core was on the territory of the modern PRC.

A small object in the classification is a detached farm, a watchtower, a smithy far outside village. Such objects have not been researched many because they are very difficult to find. They practically do not persist.

How can you participate in a discussion without knowing such a basic thing ? Ulianurlanova (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

== NOT Shavkunov ==

https://portfolio.vvsu.ru/education/tid/11414/ In the article, the private opinion of an associate professor from Vladivostok University, a Korean by nationality, an ardent supporter of South Korea, is presented as the opinion of the entire Russian science and an objective position. In addition, there were distortions that were allegedly on behalf of Shavkunov, which he never published in any his works.

In reality, there was no particular distortion of Bohai's historiography in Russia even during the period of the split. Because the USSR, unlike South and North Korea, as well as China, never built its claims on the falsification of history.

The USSR was simply guided by "historical necessity" from Marxism-Leninism. And was not in the Confucian model of historical claims. TTACH (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Jodaegi
I have checked the source for the claim that a work known as the Jodaegi detailed Balhae's history and that it was commonly cited in Goguryeo and Joseon and could not verify it. The source as far as I can tell from translation, says that another work (Jinyeok Yugi) was based on the Jodaegi which was written by a person who was Balhae, and was about Gojoseon rather than Balhae. The article itself is about trying to legitimize Dangun Gojoseon as history, an opinion column piece, and comes from an unprotected site. It should be removed unless a correctly translated quotation or other source supporting the content is provided. Qiushufang (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The Jodaegi as far as I am aware was a real source that is largely lost except for a few excerpts, though looking into the article it does seem it is citing some works that are't as reliable. Here are some other sources that could replace the current source that do vouch for the existence of the Jodaegi as a Balhae history book.
 * (Dongpo News, Balhae Historian): This one and this one directly cite the Jodaegi and are written by Historians. The first one is a column written by a historian attacking the Northeast Project so I won't use it but just bringing it up from a reputable source, the second is more of an objective article just citing the Jodaegi and not mentioning the dispute but providing a rundown of the history of Balhae. Both articles use a surviving passage from it.
 * The best might be to combine one of those two sources with one of the sources talking about literary purges conducted by Joseon, which I can find for your review if thats ok.
 * Yes I agree though the Gyuwon was defintely a forged document after having taken a look at it. A big problem is the translations are somewhat accurate but not fully accurate so it sometimes leaves out words/phrases correctly, and given that it's a lost work, except for a few excerpts there isn't much knowledge on what it fully contained besides 1) It was written by a Balhae Refugee 2) It appears to have some religious element to it, hence why it was purged/lost during early Joseon and 3) The passage mentioned indicates it at least mentions the end of Goguryeo/Beginning of Balhae Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Probable best sources on its destruction would be here, let me know if you have any preference or objections. Note: Joedaegi is not the focus in all three sources, but is listed as rather named as one of usually multiple prominent works destroyed by the Joseon Dynasty.
 * (Sky Daily, Lee Eul-hyung, former professor of law at Soongsil University). Mostly mentions history of Korea but does mention Jodaegi is a lost work.
 * (K Spirit, Cultural/Science Newspaper, So Dae Bong), King Sejo and King Seongjong's purges of the Jodaegi and other books are mentioned. Also notes dispute between ROK and DPRK historians on authenicity of some books.
 * (Research Institute of Korean Studies, I'm not sure if they're private or government funded), briefly mentions Jodaegi's destruction amongst many of the books purged during Sejo and etc, main focus on article is on the religious nature of Korea. It appears Jodaegi had a religious element as noted before, perhaps that's where the Gojoseon reference came from given that Gojoseon is a largely unverified state with semi-legendary status and most of its history religious/mythical, with the first verified events being the Gojoseon-Yan War and Wiman's takeover. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the source does not seem reliable at all. It mentions the Gyuwon Sahwa, a forged document, on which the author's entire argument rests. Both the Jinyeok Yugi and Jodaegi's existence are based on the forged document's authenticity.Qiushufang (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On the ethnic characteristics of Pohai
It seems to be Pohai reflects internal diversity in Tungusic

It shows the regional variations / dialectology, possibly separate languages within the Manchu-Jurchenic branch of Tungusic or Southern Tungusic, of which Jin Dynasty-era Jurchen and perhaps Manchu could form separate branches of, stressing the sub-regional divergence and formation of this ethno-cultural complex of peoples influenced by historic considerations. My opinions are more preclined to Zimin's linguistic categories

The core Jin-dynasty era Jurchen tribes originated from around Harbin, the Ashi River / Alchuka, although there might have been a great deal of movement and migration over centuries. And it is noted that their later direct descendants were the Haixi Jurchens who have been heavily influenced by Mongol / Mongolic ways. It is documented many Jurchen clans were of Khitan / "Para-Mongolic" origin as well.

Huligai / Hurka might be descended from Amur Valley Jurchen groups. Since we have to know the original mountain of the Bukuri Yongson foundation myths was found to be that further north closer to the Amur attached to the Hurka tribal domains and was not originally based on Mount Changbai. Genetically they might overlap with the Daur, and Russian archaeologists found large Jurchen cultural complexes all the way north in the Amur and Jewish Autonomous Oblasts dated right before the Mongol-ascendency / conquest and the Yuan dynasty

Although the script is undeciphered or undecipherable at the moment, we are able to delineate the relationship and position of the Pohai within or relation to the Jin-era Jurchens just from their treatments. We may also not be able to know or tell its relationship with the Jianzhou Predecessor of Manchu / Literary Manchu. The Serruys translation from Ming Emperor's Yung-Lo's records, might not be enough to delineate Jianzhou Jurchen and its relationship with what was spoken by the Pohai

Also Pohai might be the a better transliterated English name than Balhae, Bohai or Parhae, since it is close to the Manchu pronunciation "Puhai" Skeptic717 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)