Talk:Mausoleum of Princess Jeonghyo

Untitled
Where exactly was it escalated? Samnikal 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Language used by the Balhae people are close to Altaic language family,(From Korean wikipedia) which is much closer to modern Korean then Chinese. The Korean authorities use the name 'Jeong-Hyo', and most Western references and publications refer to Balhae as a "ancient Korean kingdom" (See Appleby's links). It is also inconsistent and not logical to characterize the Balhae monarchs in Korean romanization, but characterize their daughters name in Pinyin.

Deiaemeth 07:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Mausoleum of Princess Jeong-Hyo" turns up exactly three hits, showing that the name isn't exactly notable. In addition, Mausoleum of Princess Zhenxiao is the official name of the site. In addition, no Hangul are found on the tomb sites, so attempting to coin new Hangul for these ancient names isn't exactly accurate. Furthermore, the characters written in the Mausoleum would historically have been pronounced either in Middle Chinese, or in the pronunciation of the language/dialect used at the time in Balhae. If you want to make the assertion that the modern Korean pronunciation is the more accurate one, please provide a citation. My opinion: Historical records indicate that the languages of the three kingdoms in Korea did differ. Even in modern day Korean language, words like Nodong differ in pronunciation between South Korea and North Korea. Modern-day Korean is seperated from ancient Korean of the time by over a thousand years, and whatever language spoken at the time in Balhae itself would have differed from that spoken by Silla, so it's silly to somehow state that modern day Seoul dialect of Korean reflects ancient pronunciation more accurately (unless you can provide a citation to backup that claim). I don't claim that modern Mandarin is any more closer to either Middle Chinese or ancient Balhae, but again, Google searches turn up no hits, and the Zhenxiao name happens to be the official name.


 * In principle, I don't dispute the inclusion of the Korean names as well. However, the official name should take precedence, and I don't find it convincing that somehow pronunciation from either modern language is more accurate. Perhaps as with other articles like Gando, we could use the infobox to provide names in both formats but keep the title and article as it currently is, with "Jeong-Hyo" as a redirect? --Yuje 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

measurements
It says:"The 105-metre-high [underground!] chamber is rectangular: 50 × 26-m, and is covered with blue-green bricks. It contains a 1.05-metre tall, 0.58 × 0.26-m epitaph ...." - these can't be right! 10.5 high, or 1.05 ? 5.0 x 2.6 m ? I have reduced all by a factor of 10, pending confirmation. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

title
Jeonghyo was a Balhae princess, so it's proper to pronounce her as 'Jeonghyo', not Zhenxiao(as we can see at Gwanggaeto Stele) adidas (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Yuje changed the title again. But with the example of Gwanggaeto Stele, I think current title(Zhenxiao) is not correct. The Stele is actually in current China territory just like the mausoleum. Koreans pronounce 廣開土 as Gwanggaeto, but I think Chinese would not. Yuje said that "official names take precendence" and I agree with that. 貞孝公主墓's official name could be "Mausoleum of Princess Zhenxiao", but 貞孝公主's official name will be Jeonghyo, not Zhenxiao. How could we solve this problem? adidas (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The official name is typically used for the title of the page. In cases where something is part of, or claimed by, or was formerly in different cultures, then usually to be fair to everyone, all the different names are mentioned. So I think both Chinese and Korean names should be mentioned, as fairly as possible. The problem of what ethnicity to call people causes disputes in other cultures, too. One example is Nicolaus Copernicus. Germans said he is German, Polish said he is Polish. To solve the problem, the page doesn't say he was was German or Polish, but says "he was born in this country", and gives some background on his family, but doesn't pass favor either side. But I think this page is pretty fair. It gives Chinese and Korean names in the box. And it says that the tomb and princess are from the Balhae kingdom, which is true.


 * As for Jeonhyo being "official", why would 貞孝公主's official name be Jeonhyo? Her official name was 貞孝公主, as pronounced 1000 years ago in that area. Both Zhenxiao and Jeonhyo are modern pronunciations of 貞孝, and both modern Korean and modern Chinese are different than Chinese and Korean from 1000 years ago, so neither one is "official". And the Koguryo language isn't the same as the Korean language. Even the Samguk Sagi says Silla, Koguryo, and Baekje has different languages, and in modern Korea, north Korea and south Korea pronounce some stuff different from each other. So how is south Korean pronunciation of 貞孝 the most official?--Yuje (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong in some points. North Koreans also pronounce 貞孝 as Jeonghyo as South Koreans do. I agree with you that Balhae language is different from modern Korean, but it's more similar to modern Korean than modern Beijing Chinese. You're arguing that 貞孝 is Zhenxiao, but it should be Jeonghyo rather than Zhenxiao for Balhae people are ethnic Koreans.(I am sorry I don't know much about the ethnicity of Copernicus.)
 * I think you are confusing what I am saying. I didn't say Zhenxiao was more "correct", I said it was more official. I don't agree that the Balhae language is more similar to modern Korean. Scientists don't agree on how closely related to the modern Korean language Koguryo was, or even if it was related at all. Here's a 200-page paper on the subject, by the
 * That's only your own point of view. You can show me a 200-page paper, but that cannot prove that Balhae is more related to China than Korea. To mention 貞孝 as Zhenxiao is to say that Balhae people are more related to modern Chinese, but that's not the correct consensus among historians. I know some Chinese historians want to take Goguryo and Balhae into Chinese history, but it seems that their attempts are not successful. If you can read Korean then I can show you several papers relating to Balhae. adidas (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you what 廣開土 should be pronounced. I think Goguryo people would not say it's Gwanggaeto, but is there another alternative? If there's no alternative, it should be pronounced as Gwanggaeto and 貞孝 as Jeonghyo for Goguryo and Balhae both are not ethnic Chinese. adidas (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for 廣開土, I haven't looked at that very often, so I'm not sure. You'll have to ask the editors. From the bibliography, the some of the sources written in English used Kwanggaeto as the name, so maybe they felt that made it more official. --Yuje (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Balhae. There can be some debates, but Balhae referred to itself as Goguryeo, which is absolutely a part of Korea History. adidas (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And in the past, Joseon referred to itself as "Little China", and China is absolutely a part of Chinese history? Does that mean the people of Joseon are Chinese now? Of course not. Mentioning just this one thing like this won't solve complicated problems in history.--Yuje (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that modern perspective on history will cause some serious errors, but we can speak Han dynasty is Chinese and Joseon is Korean. What you did is just arguing Balhae language is more similar to Beijing Chinese, not Korean. If you're correct, Goguryo should be Gaogaoli and Balhae should be Bohai, but I can't find such studies. It's just your own point of view. adidas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Like I said, I don't think one is more "correct" than the other. I said that the usual Wikipedia policy is to put the more official name as the article name, and also put the names from other cultures it's important to. Like the Sakhalin article, for example. It's a Russian island, but it's also related to or important to Chinese and Japanese culture or history, so those names are there also. And like I said, the place of the Koguryo language is also controversial and/or uncertain. See --Yuje (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that you never wanted to say that this Balhae princess is a Chinese. But what you're doing now is just arguing that Balhae people are Chinese, which most historians would not agree. adidas (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where I argued that?--Yuje (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't, but your words imply that Jeonghyo is a Chinese. adidas (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This Balhae's princess was nothing do with China or Chinese, even Russian & Japanese confirmed Balhae was indeed Korean Kingdom, so their names should be remain as Sino-Korean name. All Balhae's discovered tombs and artifacts shows Korean (Koguryo) influence. --115.64.154.127 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that, actually. Let me quote directly from a Russian news article: "Aleksey STARICHKOV, Professor, Dean of the FENU Higher College of Korean Studies, thinks, that the topic of symposium is interesting not only to ethnic Koreans, but also to Russians. He also paid special attention to the fact that even nowadays the subject of much controversy is what nation is a descendant of the State Balhae. Some scientists think that descendants of Balhae are Udege people living nowadays at the territory of Primorye. The Chinese think them their ancestors, Koreans – their. This subject was developed by Igor TOLSTOKULAKOV, who thinks that it would be more right to regard Balhae not as a part of any national history, but as an example of ancient international community. In the end of symposium scientists came to conclusion that studying of ancient history of modern Russian Primorye is an important condition for understanding of modern tendencies of development of all countries of the Asian-Pacific region."--Yuje (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those words sound like 'post-modern', but is that the major opinion of East-asia historians? Then, why all articles relating to Balhae have Korean titles? adidas (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

nationalism?
Yuje argued that 'Jeonghyo' is nothing but a sort of nationalism. But is 'Zhenxiao' not a kind of Chinese nationalism? Yuje said Zhenxiao is more official than Jeonghyo, but he/she missed that Zhenxiao is only 'official' by China government. Sakhalin is 'territory' of Russia so it is totally different from this thing. It's all about a historical person who was a princess of 'Balhae' not 'Bohai'(modern Beijing Chinese pronounciation). If 貞孝 is really a princess of Balhae, she should be 'Jeonghyo' not Zhenxiao.

No one can figure out what Goguryo/Balhae language really was, but there is a consensus of historians that they are more related to modern Korea than modern China. See Balhae, if 貞孝's real pronounciation is really controversial, we should follow other usages. In Balhae, every Balhae people are pronounced in modern Korean. But why not on 貞孝?

See also Emperor Mun of Balhae, 貞孝's father. His name is pronounced in modern Korean, but his daughter in Mandarin. I think this is ridiculous. In that article we can find that 貞孝 is Jeonghyo, not Zhenxiao. adidas (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagreed on Balhae as well. Formerly, the page on Balahe was bilingual, but a group of editors kept on using sock puppets to remove the other names and rename repeatedly. A listing existed showing that Balhae was romanized in scholarly papers in a variety of ways, including Po-hai, Bohai, Parhae, and Balhae. The pages are at Balhae and Emperor Mun not because it's regarded as the "correct" way, but because one group of editors kept on pushing their viewpoint, and in one case, sending threats to my talk page. And as I said before, read some of Christopher Beckwith's work. He has written extensively on the ancient languages of Korea. In his classification scheme, the most closely related modern language to Koguryo isn't Korean, it's Japanese. IIRC, in his linguistic classification scheme, the old Japanese, Baekje, and Koguryo languages descent from the Fuyo languages, originating in Manchuria, while he proposes that the Shilla language descends from the Sam-Han, representing an earlier migration to the Korean peninsula. As it is currently, the tomb, like Sakhalin, is an actual location, and in instances of conflict, like Danzig/Gdansk, Smyrna/Izmir, Ragusa/Dubrovnik, Ersekujvar/Novy Zamky, Ancyra/Angora, Adrianople/Edirne, Konigsberg/Kaliningrad.--Yuje (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not one of those sockpuppets, and you should read Korean historian's book first for it's about Korean history. Most Korean historians conclude that culture and language of Goguryo and Balhae is so similar to Goryu.(you may know On-dol) I've never seen such papers which argue Balhae people speak with Chinese language. I guess that some Chinese historians would argue such things but their perspectives are not accepted actually.


 * I know what is Balhae language is a disputable problem, but it is clear that Balhae people are related to modern Korean, not Chinese or Japanese. Where Balhae royal families went when they were defeated by Khitans? How about late Balhae and Jeong-an State? What You Deuk-gong said? You said "Emperor Mun" is a kind of "pushing their viewpoint", but that is the consensus of historians, like that, his daughter should be pronounced in Korean.


 * What actually you want to say? What you said is just arguing that Balhae is a part of Chinese history, nothing more. You have to know that the title of a wikipedia article should follow existing consensus of scholars, but your opinions seem to include 'some' historians' views. adidas (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Angry Korean VANK nationist is angry.