Talk:Dae Gwang-hyeon

"Phrasing"

@Morrisonjohn022:, regarding this edit with the edit summary "phrasing", I honestly find it a somewhat odd edit, specifically because you removed a Harvard University Press source with the quote "When Parhae perished at the hands of the Khitan around this same time, much of its ruling class, who were of Koguryŏ descent, fled to Koryŏ. Wang Kŏn warmly welcomed them and generously gave them land. Along with bestowing the name Wang Kye ("Successor of the Royal Wang") on the Parhae crown prince, Tae Kwang-hyŏn, Wang Kŏn entered his name in the royal household register, thus clearly conveying the idea that they belonged to the same lineage, and also had rituals performed in honor of his progenitor. Thus Koryŏ achieved a true national unification that embraced not only the Later Three Kingdoms but even survivors of Koguryŏ lineage from the Parhae kingdom.". While I have no issue with making articles phrased more up to current academic standards I'm not sure if Chinese academic standards are the best ones, a major difference between Non-Chinese and Chinese academic phrasing is that Chinese nationalism often retroactively makes Chinese-style dynasties by non-Han peoples into "Chinese dynasties", the Liao only became more Sinicised after conquering the Sixteen Prefectures and I would argue that up until that point referring to them as "the Khitans" wouldn't be misleading at all. Furthermore, the way you re-phrased the text largely makes it seem like you're trying to erase minorities from Chinese history as earlier you would have written "Khitan-led" but now you just removed all references to the Khitan people. In fact, this was the only source in this page and it was quoted from an academic publication, so why remove it?

Don't get me wrong, removing references to terms like "nation" is good as people didn't have a concept for it like we understand in the post-French Revolution world today, but why remove the Korean name Sanggyeong for only the Mandarin name? You could have turned into something like "Shangjing Longquanfu (Sanggyeong)" --Donald Trung (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please make the appropriate changes as you deem fit. I agree with the points you raised. Cheers. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your point on “erasing minority” from history, I feel that the succinct way to write it would be to just include the name of the regime itself. For those who are interested in the ruling ethnicity of the regime, they would click on the link to the relevant article on the regime which would provide them with all the information they need. Although there is nothing wrong with adding “Khitan-led” to “Liao dynasty” as you have suggested, not mentioning it in an article that is not directly dealing with the Liao dynasty does not equate to “erasing ethnic minorities” from historical narratives. I would posit that only by not mentioning “Khitan” in the article on the Liao dynasty itself would constitute “erasing ethnic minorities” from history. Also, including the ethnicity of the rulers to the name of the regime seems to be done mostly to articles concerning Chinese history, whereas for similar examples concerning other countries’ histories this is usually not the case; so I am not sure why this has to be done to articles on Chinese history in order to prove that minorities are not being “erased” from narratives. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)