Talk:Parhae

Requested move 22 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Balhae → Parhae – WP:COMMONNAME per this ngram. Also is McCune–Reischauer, which is preferred for pre-division topics for Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Against - The majority of English texts on Balhae now use "Balhae" as the most common name rather than Parhae. Even Bohai, the pinyin name using Chinese transliteration seems more common from what I've seen. Qiushufang (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

After checking the sources cited in this article, many of which I contributed to, I must admit my impressions on Balhae were wrong. It seems much more mixed than I remember. Some of them (Maps of Korean History) use Revised Romanization and goe with Balhae while others (Sloane) use Parhae, but also Chinese pinyin for all other related terms. I was right in remembering that Bohai was also used in many instances (Kim, Sloane uses both Parhae and Bohai). I am still against the change. There doesn't seem to be a dominant way of transliterating this name so I would just leave it until one becomes apparent. Qiushufang (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also note that I've been tallying up what romanization systems books on Korean history use. WP:KO-BOOKS. Think it's fairly clear that MR is still significantly used over RR for coverage of Korean history. Also, again, the ngram; that's stronger than the anecdotes you mention imo.

Overall I've provided multiple pieces of evidence of broad trends, vs a few anecdotes you point out. I'm not really convinced by your argument; just seems to be "I'm not convinced" without much evidence behind it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

My point is this: if we're going to use the Korean name at all, it makes more sense to use MR. There's no sense in staying at the less common "Balhae". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The ngram shows that use Balhae/Parhae was even not long ago with steep declines and rises without any dominant trajectory. I realize that MR is used more even today for Korean historical topics, but note that that does not apply with the same degree to every topic. I've already pointed out that out of the sources that specialize in Balhae like the ones cited in this article, there is no single dominant transliteration for the name with large portions of sources using either Balhae/Parhae or the Chinese pinyin name Bohai. In Google Trends it shows that Balhae as a search term far exceeds Parhae, which indicates that the expectations of the audience has shifted in the English language despite the continued use of Parhae in academic works. My point is that there is no dominant transliteration scheme used for this specific topic, not Korean history overall. In recognition of the multitude of different and varied transliterations, I am simply in favor of keeping the name as is without any further changes, both for the reader as well as consistency over the past two decades. Despite WP:COMMONNAME, there does not seem to be a single demonstrably dominant name. I find the proposed change needless. Qiushufang (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not really convinced by these arguments. First you point to sources used in article (again, these are anecdotes; cannot assume representation of overall English-language coverage of this topic), second you point to Google Trends (which isn't indicate of usage in WP:RS). You're saying there's no dominant transliteration scheme, but again imo this claim is made without adequate evidence. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you'd like, I can go through all the books in that list I gave above and prove that they use the "Parhae" spelling. I'm not just talking about Korean studies as a whole, I'm talking about this specific topic. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Google Trends is a RS. I'm also not sure you understand what dominant means. Mixed usage despite one being used more than the others, is not dominant. If we're talking about this specific topic, Bohai is used more than either of them in English academia due to intersection with Chinese history. That said, frankly I don't feel too invested in this topic. I am still generally against the change for the above reasons, but if others voice their opinions and feel that the change is appropriate, then I won't fight against it. My advice is to make sure the transition in the article body is smooth and account for situations where it shouldn't be changed to McCune-Reischauer. For example, here, a quoted term was changed to MR when the original quotation used RR. Qiushufang (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I know you're not claiming Google Trends is an RS, I'm saying it's not a good argument here because it doesn't say anything about usage in RS, which is what we rely on for determining COMMONNAME.

The ngrams suggest dominant usage in recent history, other than that single spike. You say there's no discernable trend, but imo other than the spike it's looking like Parhae is gaining in usage in RS. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, then we'll have to disagree. I am still not convinced that Parhae would be an improvement over Balhae. I don't see the ngram as a definitive proof of common name. This does not seem like a dominant naming system for Balhae, but one that is used to a large extent, more so than Balhae, but which exists with a number of other naming systems. I'm sure we can both list a large number of titles that use both names, and we can do that if you want, but I'm not sure that would be of any use. I'd rather just wait for others' opinions now. Qiushufang (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging others who have made contributions to this page and in talk: @Sunnyediting99: @Esiymbro:. Qiushufang (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Also @Koreanidentity10000: Qiushufang (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Most sources widely use the term Parhae over Balhae. From this paper [1] from the South Korean academic journal, 고구려발해연구, it shows that the term Parhae is used the most in English literature, with the current name of the article being the least used. "발해사를 다룬 논거만을 정리해 보면 가장 많은 영문 표기는 Parhae이다. 그리고 그 뒤를이어 Bohai와 Bokkai가 사용되고 있다. 이와 달리 현행 한국의 ‘국어의 로마자 표기법’에 따른 ‘Balhae’는 거의 사용되지 않는다. 고구려 영문 표기와 동일한 상황이 전개되고 있는 것이다." The machine-translated text reads as follows: "If we summarize only the arguments covering Balhae history, the most common English spelling is "Parhae", followed by "Bohai" and "Bokkai" [the Japanese translation of 渤海]. In contrast, "Balhae," which follows the current Korean "Romanization of the Korean Language" [aka Revised Romanization], is rarely used. This situation mirrors the English spelling of Goguryeo." This is from pg 68. Most English language sources such as books and articles from notable journals that directly focus on Parhae as the primary topic use the MR form. Examples include: A New History of Parhae [2]; Parhae in Historiography and Archaeology: International Debate and Prospects for Resolution [3]; Mid-Tang Exchange Poetry, the Kingdom of Parhae, and the Reception of Bai Juyi in Early Heian Japan, Part 1: Parhae Envoys and the Yuan-Bai Style of Exchange Poetry [4]; The Dual Status of Parhae: Kingdom and Empire [5]; Parhae’s Maritime Routes to Japan in the Eighth Century [6]. The NGrams from the nominator show that at the very least that Parhae is the more popular Korean romanization. While I do sympathize to some extent with Qiushufang that there isn't a 100% complete dominant romanization, it tends to be between the MR romanization and the pinyin romanization, rather than MR vs RR. A decent amount of sources tend to use both MR and pinyin to appear neutral on Parhae/Bohai history dispute.⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have much investment in this topic to be frank so I have no further arguments to make since others support the change. Parhae/Balhae both seem fine to me from a practical use perspective, but I had an inkling of a feeling that it was not as dominant per common name as it was made out to be, which was my main gripe to begin with. The first article you cite confirms that there has been a recent shift in the choice of transliteration systems: There is also a point to note about the recent trend identified through JSTOR. The situation in which 'Parhae' became mainstream has been changing and it seems to be shifting to a similar quantity to Balhae and Bohai. Considering that 'Balhae' is mainly used by Korean scholars, it is more appropriate to maintain the superiority that 'Parhae' has unless 'Balhae' can substitute. It further identifies this trend as undesirable due to the increasing use of Bohai and seeks to unify the consistency of the transliteration system. Honestly this is something I had never considered to be of importance because I had assumed Balhae was more popular. Regardless, I'll defer to others who feel strongly about this topic. Qiushufang (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Support - I'm not against keeping it as Balhae, but I do think Grapesurgeon made a good argument especially in lieu of their/multiple other editors initiative to change most of the Korean pages into MR. Qiushufang's point is very valid and realistic. From the initial point that this is the status quo name of the article to the point that the move can cause some issues. I think there's definitely a lot of continuity issues that will require fixing (or making notes of) given that this topic has numerous different names on different articles whether it be Balhae, Parhae, Bohai, Pohai, etc. This will definitely require a significant time commitment.

CountHacker's point is what convinced me to lean towards support, as I had assumed Balhae or Bohai were the most common English names but it appears my assumption was wrong and that Parhae (based off the source) is the most common English spelling for this state for academics. Again, I don't feel strongly on this topic (of changing it from Balhae to Parhae), but I do support the change towards Parhae in line with Grapesurgeon's efforts to switch to MR. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• No strong preference between the two spellings either, but I do recall seeing Parhae more often in academic sources than Balhae, so I'm also leaning towards support. Esiymbro (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

McCune–Reischauer (MR) has remained in use in certain academic circles, especially in older scholarship and works focusing on North Korea or pre-modern history. However, Revised Romanization (RR) has been increasingly adopted in more recent international publications and is now more widely recognized by the general public.

Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and according to WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should follow the most commonly used and recognizable form for the general readership. For this reason, titles such as Goguryeo and Balhae should be used as the main names, while the MR forms (Koguryŏ, Parhae) can be provided in the lead as alternative spellings. 3legsbird (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not the wording COMMONNAME uses. It uses generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. It doesn't mention general readership, it mentions RS, and RS on this topic uses MR. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

but I can't say that MR is more widespread and popular than RR 3legsbird (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

RR is familiar to the average person through popular South Korean TV series 3legsbird (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

TV series aren't RS. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Noting this is a single-topic editor (purely commenting on these romanization matters) that has provided no evidence for their claims, also doesn't seem to understand Wiki policy very well; previously posted LLM slop. I'd take their posts with a grain of salt. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's focus the discussion on the text, not the person. The points I made are based on the source. 3legsbird (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

What source? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6652 3legsbird (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.worldhistory.org/Balhae/ 3legsbird (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

https://english.khs.go.kr/chaen/search/selectGeneralSearchDetail.do?mn=EN_02_02&sCcebKdcd=79&ccebAsno=0006650000000&sCcebCtcd=11&pageIndex=1&region=&canAsset=&ccebPcd1=&searchWrd=BALHAE&startNum=&endNum=&stCcebAsdt=&enCcebAsdt=&canceled=&ccebKdcd=&ccebCtcd= 3legsbird (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

That's 3, compared to like the majority of academic works. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not the most convincing argument, though it is interesting UNESCO does list it as Balhae. I still think grapesurgeon has the stronger case. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EB%B0%9C%ED%95%B4 3legsbird (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NAMUWIKI is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Also, that page is automatically machine translated without human intervention; it can't be used as evidence. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.museum.go.kr/ENG/contents/E0201031000.do?showHallId=760&showroomCode=DM0010 3legsbird (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources by South Korean government organizations will use RR. Giving us these anecdotes little by little won't change the overall situation. The Ngram above, as well as research on academic books, is much broader than these individual sources you're giving grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That is probably also the reason why the unesco link above uses Balhae. Since it is on the tentative list, the content would have been written by the South Korean government rather than UNESCO. Esiymbro (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The name Balhae is linked to South Korea’s historical narrative, so they used this term with their RR romanization system in the UNESCO submission, just as an academic article might use MR. 3legsbird (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you think Wikipedia is an academic article. 3legsbird (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

We've already discussed this before. Also I dislike MR; don't assume my personal feelings are at all relevant here. If anything it'd be possible to argue your personal feelings are being pushed more in this convo; I actually personally want RR but I'm just following how Wikipedia policies are designed. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but Wikipedia's rules don't say that only MR should be used. 3legsbird (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I've already explained the reasoning for why Wikipedia's rules suggest the use of MR. Also, MOS:KO-ROMAN and WP:NCKO both suggest use of MR in general, albeit with the exception of COMMONNAME. The dispute in this discussion is whether COMMONNAME is clear enough here. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/what-keeps-the-kitans-enigmatic-roots-of-the-ethnic-narrative-in-liao-historiography/9F3D25689A854A6B965198FFCD009FDA 3legsbird (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop sharing single sources like this. WP:TEXTWALL. I'll respond to ur other comments later, out right now. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think a proposal to move this page to "Foot Sun" is more convincing than whatever 3legsbird is saying. 121.158.170.117 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

While I think 3legbird's arguments aren't that convincing as grapesurgeon has valid points + is properly citing his position I think its unfair to just borderline insult 3legsbird's beliefs/positions. Like its not really the strongest position but they do have some foundational merit. I still lean towards grapesurgeon's changes. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone is threatening me using multiple accounts. 🤣 3legsbird (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

While MR (“Parhae”) appears in many academic works, the RR form “Balhae” is internationally standardized and used in official contexts. For example, UNESCO (link) and the Korean Heritage Service (link) both use “Balhae,” reflecting not just domestic policy but recognition at the global level. Since RR is the official romanization system of Korea and “Balhae” is more recognizable to readers, it remains the clearer and more appropriate title. 3legsbird (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You've already made these arguments before, please don't repeat. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there going to be any further discussion? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much more to add grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I do think general consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the change? There were some fair counterarguments but I really do think yours + CountHacker were compelling. I assume the move will start at some point? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Move closer will decide grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject East Asia, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject China, WikiProject Korea, and WikiProject Russia have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per CountHacker's strong evidence and grapesurgeon's ngram. The closer will of course weigh the arguments made here by their consistency with policy and the quality of evidence cited. Toadspike [Talk] 16:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per the strong arguments from CountHacker and grapesurgeon. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liaoyang/Liaodong or Liaodongese Bohai descendants

Seemed to have a more Mongol-oriented identity by the Yuan dynasty according to Jesse Sloane, preparing the way for themselves to join the Jianzhou Jurchens or assimilation among Mongols living close to their region. After Naghachu capitulated to the Ming many Bohai descendants in Liaoyang attached to Mongol armies moved into the Mongolian steppe and assimilated into the Mongols, or they could have gradually assimilated into the Mongols through once being attached to Khitans. So rather than just contributing to the base of Jianzhou Jurchens who later became Manchus and assimilating among period Northeastern Han, many Bohai descendants could have assimilated among Mongols of Northeastern China, as well. Kebineng88 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

"Balhae (version 2)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Balhae (version 2) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 19 § some v2 redirects to have fun with until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Edits in Parhae

moved from User_talk:DUCKstudying#Edits_in_Parhae

Hi Duckstudying, I see you are making edits that are similar to the ones that were previously reversed by @Qiushufang. I'd ideally like to prevent any edit wars (I see your account is a year or two old, but also that you don't have a high edit count) so I highly recommend you try to respectfully talk to him. Well-intentioned engagement can be very productive.

I would recommend you both discuss it but Qiushufang made some very legitimate points such as the adherance to MR transliteration versus RR, since there was a consensus a few months ago for the Korean topic pages to all transition over, as well as the Chinese and Korean romanizations, etc etc. Id strongly recommend against trying to push your edits especially since Qiushufang raised various points, please try to engage in dialogue with him. Edit: Also correct me if im wrong but im not sure if all of what you edited in was properly sourced, some of it was but others im not so sure like the opening edits. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Some of the deletions and additions don't seem particularly helpful. The part about the founder being related to Mohe and Goguryeo was removed from the lead. I made a note about keeping that part short, but didn't mean to say that the reader should be completely left clueless as to what the controversy is about. DUCK also changed the title that the Tang originally gave to the Jin to "King" rather than prince, which doesn't make sense because it's then followed up by a statement that the Tang recognized Parhae as a kingdom in 762. 王 is usually translated as prince in a post-Han dynasty context. That, and the user seems to insist on RR, but the Wiki community has already decided on MR romanization. An attribution, such as Jin Yufu's claim that the New Book says that the state was called Mohe prior to 713, was removed. It's not inherently wrong, but in such a case as Parhae where controversy is inherent, it is safer to have attribution. Qiushufang (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea I generally agree with your feedback, I think some of the user's additions could be helpful (specifically the "The founding of Parhae in 698 was marked by Dae Joyeong leading Goguryeo refugees and Mohe tribes to establish a sovereign state at Mount Dongmo.") since I think this gives readers some sense of the fusion nature of Parhae between the Mohe and the Koguryo cause the current introduction is a bit vague on how Parhae formed.

This is the main edit that I'd be open to adding in as I know various historians like McBride and etc write on this, but other than that, I do agree with you. Also a note, the one part that I do agree with, wasn't sourced Ducky, since no new sourcing was added so readers would assume this was based off the old source.

I think a lot of the deletions aren't helpful, I get some people have a RR preference as I've run into it a lot but the Wiki community decided on MR. Id like to hear your reasoning @DUCKstudying but generally I don't think these deletions/additions (with that exception) are improving the page that much and is deleting some relevant information on early Parhae-Tang relations. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've spotted some possible synth content in the name section while re-adding content added by DUCKY.

I'd prefer to leave any mention of ethnicity beyond cursory acknowledgement of the founder's relationship to Mohe and Goguryeo to the article body. Even the founding of Parhae has more than one version of events and some scholars disagree on whether or not there was a fusion of cultures or what the relationship is between Mohe and Goguryeo is. A specific location where it was first founded also sounds like too much detail to me and doesn't really add much understanding to what Parhae is since Dongmo Mountain doesn't have an article besides the Chinese named Dunhua. Qiushufang (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's continue here @Sunnyediting99: @DUCKstudying:.

Anyways, I couldn't find an English source on Mount Dongmo and there seems to be multiple articles and names that are linked to it, like Dunhua and Liuding Mountain, Tianmen/Cheonmun mountain range, so I'd rather to just leave the specific location in the article body. Same with ethnicity of followers. Qiushufang (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea moving it here is probably better, I do think having perhaps just a sentence would still be helpful for the Mohe-Goguryeo relationship/etc. I do think perhaps Mount Dongmo shouldnt be mentioned in then until the body if that's the case. Also curious what Ducky thinks of our comments once they respond. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've re-read the passage from the Old Book of Tang and added some more details to Parhae's origin in the body with attribution to the source. I think if a sentence is going to be added on Goguryeo and Mohe as Parhae's founders, don't include the part about refugees or tribes and just call them Goguryeo and Mohe groups/people. I might add it in later. Qiushufang (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I was not aware of the community consensus regarding the use of MR romanization instead of RR, so that was my mistake.

Regarding the point about the Tang originally granting Parhae the title of “king,” I made that mistake because the Chinese character 王 commonly refers to a king. I have since confirmed that in this context it refers to a prince or vassal ruler. The removal of the attribution to Jin Yufu regarding the claim in the ''New Book of Tang'' that the state was called Mohe prior to 713 was also an unintentional mistake on my part.

You mentioned that my edits may not significantly improve the article and that they remove important information about early Parhae–Tang relations. My reasoning was that, since this is the lead section of the Parhae article, it should primarily summarize the rise and fall of Parhae itself rather than focus on its relationship with the Tang dynasty. While the early relationship with Tang is certainly related to the founding of Parhae, I am not sure whether it is more important than a general summary of Parhae’s historical development.

Regarding the issue of ethnicity in the lead, I believe that in addition to briefly mentioning the founder’s relationship to the Mohe and Goguryeo, it would also be appropriate to note that Parhae developed a distinct culture influenced by Mohe traditions, Goguryeo heritage, and Tang institutions.

Finally, I believe that mentioning the first capital and founding site in the lead is not excessively detailed but rather essential information. If this were considered too specific for a lead section, then similar details—such as the mention of Winchester as the first capital in the Kingdom of England article or the reference to Chang’an in the Tang dynasty article—would also have to be removed. DUCKstudying (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Since the first founding site of Parhae is generally recorded as Mount Dongmo, I believe it is reasonable to mention it. However, because the exact location of Mount Dongmo is still uncertain, I also agree that it would be better to simply mention Mount Dongmo in the lead without going into further detail. DUCKstudying (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't find any English source that actually says that the site Parhae was founded was at Mount Dongmou. This seems to come almost exclusively from Korean sources. What the Old Book of Tang says via translation by Sloane is that the place where they settled was protected by Mount Dongmou, not that it was at Mount Dongmou itself. I'm still against adding it to the lead because it's not confirmed where the place is today or backed up by a reliable English source. Qiushufang (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the lead section should focus primarily on summarizing Parhae itself rather than centering on its relationship with the Tang dynasty. In my view, the lead should include a concise overview of Parhae’s history and key characteristics.

This could include: the founding of Parhae (with Dae Joyeong leading Goguryeo and Mohe groups and establishing the state at Mount Dongmo), the evolution of its relations with Tang (initial tensions such as the attack led by Zhang Wenxiu on the Shandong Peninsula in the early period, followed by the adoption of Tang institutions and more stable diplomatic relations in the 8th century, and the period in the 9th century when Parhae was referred to as the “Flourishing Land of the East Sea”), its political system (the Three Chanceries and Six Ministries), its Confucian educational institution (the Juzagam/State Academy), the presence of Buddhist culture, and finally its decline and fall (internal strife in the 10th century, the rise of the Khitan and the invasion by the Liao dynasty, as well as the subsequent fate of its people such as remnants, migration to Goryeo, or revival movements, before the final disappearance of these polities under the Mongol Empire).

What do you think about structuring the lead in this way? DUCKstudying (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Since the purpose of a lead section is to summarize the most important aspects of the article, it may be more appropriate to provide a balanced overview of Parhae’s founding, political system, culture, relations with neighboring states, and eventual fall rather than emphasizing one particular aspect. DUCKstudying (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added some more info to the lead. However I still left out most of the specific details to avoid bloat and controversy. The founding of Parhae involving Goguryeo and Mohe groups is disputed as to what exactly took place so I still think it's best to leave out the specifics. There are different versions of events and some scholars don't consider Mohe to be a distinct group or believe it was the primary group. Crossley doesn't think there was a rebellion at all. "Flourishing Country in the East" without the characters in brackets because this is the lead and it's a direct quotation, even though I see that "sea" is also there, and to avoid multiple romanizations. I think mentioning specific attacks by certain people is too detailed and the current description of the Tang-Parhae relationship should remain as is. But I can see the validity of adding more information on the government and religion, so I re-added some of your content. Qiushufang (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Qiushufang's edits are good, it now addresses the multiple perspectives/groups that either contributed or allegedly contributed to Parhae's founding. I do think the bloat point is a legitimate thing to try to avoid, though i think many Wikipedia articles do struggle with this (essentially Ducky, most articles should try to balance between having critical, relevant details and not getting too bloated with details).

I think a lot of what you recommend Ducky could be included moreso just in the societal/cultural/legacy sections of this page, if you have sources (preferably English) you can always share them. Primary sources can sometimes work but generally secondary is strongly encouraged on Wikipedia. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I like your edit but I found some parts to change.

"Parhae adopted some of the Tang's administrative systems while synthesizing Tang and Japanese cultural influences, particularly in Buddhist art." This sentence should mention 'goguryo and mohe'. So I suggest "Parhae adopted aspects of the Tang administrative system while developing a culture shaped by Goguryeo traditions, Mohe elements, and Tang and Japanese cultural influences." Also, I think this "Numerous cultural and political exchanges were made." sentence is needless. DUCKstudying (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The relationship between Goguryeo and Mohe culture to Parhae is disputed. Not fit for lead. Goguryeo and Mohe influence is already mentioned elsewhere. Unfortunately as @Esiymbro: pointed out, as have I previously, you tend to have a problem with original research. Several quotations were altered by you to misrepresent the source (Sloane) and reverted. Qiushufang (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

ex. This passage that was added However, due to the cultural continuity seen in elements such as Buddhist statues, roof tiles, and ondol heating systems, as well as the rulers’ use of the name Goguryeo, many Korean scholars generally regard Parhae as a successor state to Goguryeo. Accordingly, many researchers like Sloane assume that the ruling class of Parhae consisted largely of people of Goguryeo descent.

misrepresents Sloane's perspective. He is describing what the sources present, not his own view. Moreover, the statement on succession is not directly related to ethnic identity and was used as a replacement of a deleted sourced sentence While modern Korean scholars usually consider Parhae a Korean state and one of the Northern and Southern States of Korea, Russian and Chinese scholars reject this notion, echoing the position of historical Korean scholars such as Kim Pusik, author of the Samguk sagi.

The ethnic identity section is also meant to be an overview of the written primary sources, for the sake of forgoing interpretive arguments, rather than a broad representation of the debate itself and their arguments such as archaeology, language, population movements. That is too large for this article and invoking it would cause endless ad-ons as counter-statements. Those are covered in the dedicated controversy page. Qiushufang (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added in more info on the Korean stance to the opening paragraph of the section but left out the specific reasons, which is in line with the other sentences on other stances surrounding the controversy. Qiushufang (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea Duck id recommend maybe proposing what you edit and then receive feedback (before implementing the edit since a Talk discussion is already ongoing), as sometimes this can cause situations where editors will revert or partially revert each others edits. Again, we dont want to overload the front of the article anyhow. The culture/society sections can always use more edits. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Another more pressing issue is that DUCK is regularly introducing original research into the article. I'm not confident any additions they make will benefit the article. Qiushufang (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

From now on, I will first provide feedback on any controversial or debatable parts, and then proceed with editing so that revisions can be made.

"Parhae adopted some of the Tang's administrative systems while synthesizing Tang and Japanese cultural influences, particularly in Buddhist art." I think this sentence is too scanty and can be misunderstood. The culture of parhae is infulenced by goguryo and mohe is not a controversive argument. These journal and book support; Early Modern China and Northeast Asia - Evelyn S. Rawski/ The Ethnic Composition of Bohai State on the Archaeological Materials -Olga V. Dyakova/ 渤海史 - 魏國忠 (北京 : 中国社会科学出版社, 2019)/ https://ygx.sxu.edu.cn/db/%E6%9C%9F%E5%88%8A/bfww/bfww2005/0501pdf/050107.pdf - 李殿福/ https://book.douban.com/subject/3125403/ 渤海国民族构成与分布研究/ https://www.cssn.cn/lsx/lsx_kgx/202210/t20221024_5552690.shtml 作者：刘阳 来源：《文物春秋》2019年第5期)

DUCKstudying (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It is meant to be general in nature rather than definitive, because the nature of Goguryeo and Mohe culture's relationship to Parhae itself is disputed. Some people don't believe Mohe was a distinct culture while others do not believe Goguryeo was the primary culture of Parhae or that the culture of Parhae was based on a distinct class system separating Mohe and Goguryeo. All of this is disputed and there is no definitive source superseding another one. You also haven't addressed the instances where you inserted original research such as direct quotes. Qiushufang (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

ex. Here you changed the quoted word from biezhong to gaoli even though that is not in the source. A knowledgeable reader on this matter who recognize that gaoli means Goguryeo, but this doesn't make sense in the context of the sentence, because the word has no other meaning other than Goguryeo, making the "literal" meaning part redundant because it only has one meaning. You also added but different to the quotation "a branch of the Goguryeo people" but this is not found in the source. The addition of (別種) is also redundant since the characters had already been added before in full and is unnecessary. Qiushufang (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added a line on Parhae's cultural influences as a compromise while preserving neutrality on their relationship to these cultures. However I still think it's unnecessary. Qiushufang (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

May I konw why do you think it's unnecessary? I think the calture of country and what culture influenced it is important. DUCKstudying (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's such a broad statement that it is not useful for the reader. It is also disputed so it is not definitively accepted among academia. It is redundant because other statements on the founder and founding already mention Goguryeo and Mohe and imply as much about their influence on culture. The reader can simply go to the article body if they want to inform themselves about culture. You added "Japanese" to the list of cultures that Parhae is related to but I don't see that reflected in the article body. It makes it feel like you're just adding stuff without any substance. Qiushufang (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea I'd caution Duckstudying on going too much into detail, the article does describe the Goguryeo-Mohe elements more with Qiushufang's more recent edits. Also please dont interpret sources Duck, unless if you have sources that interpret sources id recommend against reading too much into it. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Even acknowledging the ongoing debates regarding the nature and proportion of influence, it is generally accepted that the cultures of Goguryeo and the Mohe peoples contributed to the development of Balhae. However, if an introduction were to state that only Tang China and Japan exerted cultural influence, while omitting any mention of Goguryeo and the Mohe, this could lead readers to a misleading understanding of the historical context.

I agree that my contribution of Gaoli Biezhong relied mostly on a few scholars' views rather than a broader range of Korean academic sources. Also, I changed "Goguryeo" to "Gaoli" because many readers might not know that "Gaoli" refers to Goguryeo. As for biezhong, since its interpretation is a matter of debate, describing it as "the literal meaning" seemed to imply one particular interpretation in advance, so I decided to remove that wording. DUCKstudying (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

See above on the line I added, I replied to the wrong message. As for gaoli biezhong. It is not a matter of what sources you rely on if you don't cite them or cite them wrong or misrepresent them. Describing biezhong with a literal meaning is fine because that is what the citation states and is a factual statement that is not disputed. Its interpretation is what is disputed, which is what the sources follows up by describing. Wikipedia works by presenting disputes, not interpreting them, per WP:SYNTH. Qiushufang (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Also I think Ethnic identity paragraph should divided from history paragraph. DUCKstudying (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. The ethnic identity section requires prior context from the origin section and is a natural followup in terms of knowledge useful for the reader. Qiushufang (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)