1.239.117.84

November 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Xingliao, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The contents of the document seem to be written in Chinese Pinyin.

Like Jeongan-guk or Later Balhae, Heungryoguk is also a follow-up state to Parhae in Korean history.

I would like to proceed with editing the content, but you are renaming the document in Chinese Pinyin.

Please state the rationale for reverting the name to Chinese Pinyin. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources cited used use that transliteration. The name of the polity, Xingliao, is a direct reference to the Liao dynasty, which makes it unlikely to be a successor of Parhae or part of Korean history as it was neither situated in Korea nor named after Parhae. Qiushufang (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean that if another country presents a thesis using the title of Heungryo country, you agree to change the headline? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, as it is not named after Balhae, its founder had been separated from Balhae for more than a hundred years, it is not situated in Korea, and as the article notes itself the Balhae people in the Liao military did not join the state and only a handful of Jurchens did. If the logic is that the founder is descended from the people of Balhae and thus the state is Korean, then Wiman of Gojoseon should be changed to Wei Man of Gaogouli because he was from China and Wiman of Gojoseon would be changed to Wei Man of Gaogouli. Thus pinyin transliteration takes precedence. Qiushufang (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis that Jurchens participated in Heungryokuk and Balhae people participated in a minority?

Is it because Alexander Kim's thesis claimed so?

If so, is it non-linguistic that it is reasonable to change it to the Heungryo country if there is an opposing argument in another scholar's thesis? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable secondary and tertiary sources as the basis for articles. Qiushufang (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean you can change the headline if you present the data that corresponds to it? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not changes are made depends on consensus, probably based on the the sources used. So far you have not shown any reason for why the names should be changed beyond that you want them to. Qiushufang (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

However, there is something wrong with your words.

In the history book of Liao Dynasty, 『遼史』

卷17 本紀17 聖宗8 太平 10 years 8月丙午 The article clearly states that Daeyeonrim was destroyed and 'Balhae' was destroyed.

Since Dae Yeon-rim is the founder of Heung-ryo-guk, this is the basis for calling He-gyo-guk Balhae in the Liao Dynasty. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on primary sources. Qiushufang (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What are primary sources?

Are you saying Wikipedia doesn't recognize history books? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the number one source on Wikipedia is to include records of people at the time.

Are you saying that the history books left behind by people at the time cannot be the primary source? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Since this is a history book left by people of the time, isn't it the number one source?

If so, since it is a much more important source than the secondary sources you are talking about, Heungryao was founded by the Balhae people, and even Liao, who fought directly with them, acknowledged it.

That is why it is expressed that he subdued Heungryo-guk of Daeyeonrim and subjugated Balhae.

Of course, shouldn't the headline also be changed? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works, no. Qiushufang (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you say no?

I know that Wikipedia's number one source includes records of people at the time.

Are you saying that the history books left behind by people at the time cannot be the primary source? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---