Talk:Xingliao

It is proposed to change the headline of this document to “Heungryo”.

Like many successor states of Balhae, Heungryo was also a successor state of Balhae. As Heungryoguk was a state established by the ancient people of Balhae, the title and main content of the document should be changed to Heungryoguk. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

As the primary source, I have in 遼史, 卷17, 「本紀」17, 聖宗8, August of the 9th year of Taihei, which recorded the history of the Liao Dynasty.

I present an article titled Capturing Daeyeonrim and Calming Balhae.

In the previous article of '遼史', it was stated that the country that Dae Yeon-rim founded was Heungryo, but the subjugation record stated that it was Balhae.

This means that Heungryo established by Dae Yeonrim is being identified with 'Balhae'. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Connection to Balhae/Bohai is not a justification for name change as pinyin romanizations are also completely valid for Bohai people and places. Especially for the post-Bohai period there is no reason to use other transcriptions, as the people themselves were already speaking the Chinese language. Esiymbro (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Balhae and Heungryo were identified meant that other countries at the time recognized that they were successor states.

What is the basis for the majority of people speaking Chinese after the fall ofHeungryo State? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And if you want to refute, please clearly indicate what ranking the refutation material is based on.

I am speaking based on historical sources, the number 1st source. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, the successor state of Parhae, a Korean history, is Heungryo state.

Isn't it common sense that a successor country of a Korean nation uses a Chinese name?

If you want to mark a country that is not a Chinese country with Chinese Pinyin, you will have to provide a suitable basis for it. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not related to the discussion, but I'm asking because I'm personally curious.

You seem to be a Chinese living on the mainland, but I know that Wikipedia is blocked in China.

are you okay I am personally concerned because I have heard that China's laws are strong.

If this is a risky question, please forgive me. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What is incomprehensible in the first place is that history is strongly influenced by the language used by the people at the time.

The name of Heungryokuk should always be the name used at the time, and if that is not possible, it should be expressed in the language of the people of the people closest to the language of the people at the time.

From a conservative point of view, Heungryoguk is a country of refugees from Balhae. Since Balhae was founded by the union of Goguryeo and the Malgal people, it is certain that Chinese was not the language used in Heungryo at the time.

If so, two solutions are the answer: Goguryeo-Korean language notation or Jurchen-Manchu language notation.

Chinese notation should not take precedence by any logic. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit log, you changed the name and contents of the Xing Liao Bureau to Chinese characters.

However, since no rationale was submitted for the change, the change has no justification.

It is suggested that the title and content of this document be restored. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to continue this discussion when you seem to take it as given that Balhae/Bohai of Manchuria was a "Korean nation". In reality this is a modern revisionist view largely limited to South Korea. I also want to point out that Chinese was Balhae's only recorded language. There is no consensus over whether any Koreanic language had a significant presence at all in 9th century Balhae, not to say a century after Balhae's fall. Pinyin is also the undoubted norm for names from all other contemporary polities in this region, such as Liao and Jin, including names of Balhae people in those states. Esiymbro (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2026

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Xingliao → HeungyoHeungyo – The articles Parhae and Chŏngan both use Romanization of Korean instead of Pinyin. Heungyo and the aforementioned two regimes were established by the same ethnic group, therefore the titles should use a consistent language system. 特磨 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll need to see some evidence that this is the common name in sources. @特磨, have you looked at the sources here? Toadspike [Talk] 15:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently, my judgment is based on historical consistency, without searching for sources. I would be grateful if someone could help. 特磨 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Academic sources in English almost always use pinyin when referring to Parhae/Bohai persons who lived in the Liao/Jin states, see sources cited in the main article Parhae. A Korean romanization would also give the impression that they were still speaking a Koreanic language in the 11th century, for which there is currently no supporting evidence at all. Esiymbro (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment The second reason you mentioned also applies to Chŏngan and Parhae, which were established by the same ethnic group. My philosophy is simple without any nationalistic sentiment: these titles should be consistent, using either Pinyin or Korean Romanization. 特磨 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Not true, there is indeed evidence that Koreanic languages were spoken in Parhae itself. Parhae also has a presence on the Korean peninsula, which is not the case for Xingliao. It should also be pointed out that even for Parhae, there is no clear preference in academic sources for the Korean romanization over pinyin. Esiymbro (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The name of the article, the state that Da Yanlin founded, is inspired by the name Liao dynasty, rather than any Korean state. Qiushufang (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Per above. The identity and ethnic affiliation of Parhae is disputed so there is already precedence for different transliterations using pinyin, which many sources use, even ones written by Korean authors such as Kim. The reasoning for the use of pinyin romanization here is one, that the sources cited use pinyin, and secondly, the subjects involved had lived in a state that was definitely not Korean for the entirety of their life and were in a process of de-parhecization anyways, which I suspect is also part of the reason why a Chinese transliteration system was used by the authors. The section on this topic in the Parhae article, which I wrote, also uses pinyin romanization. I think this makes sense given that the person involved, Da Yanlin, was a distant descendant of Parhae people living in the Liao dynasty rather than an unambiguously Parhae person in a Parhae environment. A large part of those sections revolve around assuming other identities, including Khitan, Jurchen, and Han Chinese. I can see why someone would want consistency, but it is not agreed upon that Parhae was 100% Korean in the first place, so there are provisions within that very article that I took part in creating, and the subjects are descendants of Parhae removed by multiple generations unlike Chŏngan, which is a direct successor of Parhae. In comparison, Xingliao's name itself references the Liao dynasty, which the founder lived in, and I suppose took inspiration from. By the time of Xingliao, Parhae as a state and unified people had been gone for over 100 years. I think given the number of reasons which the authors certainly took into consideration, there's more than enough reason to keep the current pinyin transliteration names. Qiushufang (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

To further emphasize the lack of any solid foundation for Da Yanlin or Xingliao's identity as unambiguously Parhae, note that the article body states that Other Parhae people serving in the Liao military also refused to join Xingliao. and that Instead only a handful of Jurchens joined Da's regime. Qiushufang (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2026 (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.