Talk:Parhae

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 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 ; Parhae in Historiography and Archaeology: International Debate and Prospects for Resolution ; 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 ; The Dual Status of Parhae: Kingdom and Empire ; Parhae’s Maritime Routes to Japan in the Eighth Century . 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)