Talk:Goryeo

I removed the one remaining ref for the status of "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the infobox, because the proposal in the RfC only said "[1]", it did not specify what "[1]" was to represent. It needs to be agreed (a) whether a ref is required at all, and (b) if so, which. Note that there was never a proposal to have a ref for "Vassal state of the Mongol Empire". Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any response after four days, I take it that the answer to (a) is no, a ref is not required. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say, "Go for it!" ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:BUjjsp, is Liao dynasty Han Chinese? Or Jin dynasty (1115–1234)? Yuan dynasty? Neither are Later Tang, Later Jin (Five Dynasties) and Later Han (Five Dynasties). In other words, six out of the nine polities supposed covered by the 4-word label "Imperial Chinese tributary system", are in-fact non-Han-Chinese. This label is particularly problematic for the 2 centuries after 994, when Goryeo after the First conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War started using Khitan Liao (and later, the Jurchen Jin) era names rather than the "Han Chinese" Song dynasty era names (though Goryeo used Song era names again between 1016 to 1022). In other words, for 220 years between 994 and 1224 Goryeo was making tributes to either the Khitans or the Jurchens rather than "Han Chinese". The current field is VERY MISLEADING. Either set it up like Ryukyu Kingdom, or delete the section altogether. Timmyshin (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The current label is not misleading at all. The dynasties you mentioned were not Han Chinese of course. However, these entities, like the Han Chinese dynasties, followed the model of the Imperial Chinese tributary system as a method of asserting their suzerainty over smaller states. If you were familiar with the definition of the Imperial Chinese tributary system, you'd know that being a 'Han Chinese' dynasty was not a prerequisite for assuming the role of power within the Imperial Chinese Tributary system. For example, the Manchurian Qing Dynasty was not a Han Chinese dynasty, yet indisputably, it continued the central role of the Imperial Chinese Tributary System until its demise in 1911. I hope that cleared up any misconceptions you may have previously held. BUjjsp (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, when the Mongols first conquered China, they didn't continue the tribute system. It wasn't until Kublai Khan established the Yuan dynasty that the tribute system resumed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have noted that consensus on the format for the status text in the infobox in the section #RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed?. However, that discussion did not actually discuss the years as vassal state at all. Rather, on a different section, i.e. #Goryeo and Mongol, it mentioned that the correct year is 1270-1350s. This is in fact true, and for more details on this period, please look at the Korea under Yuan rule article. The Zhengdong Branch Secretariat (征東等處行中書省) was established in Korea in the 1280s, and King Gongmin of Goryeo began to push the Mongol garrisons of the Yuan back in the 1350s. Both of these clearly suggest the years "1259-1271" as vassal state is wrong. Instead, "1270-1350s" is the correct span for the vassalage, as vassal state of the Yuan dynasty. --Cartakes (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cartakes: If so, I recommend changing the years to (1259-1356), and changing the label to say Vassal of the Mongol Empire to collectively describe Goryeo's semi-autonomous vassal status to the Mongol Empire (which includes the Yuan dynasty). Additionally, the vassal label should be made distinct from the "independent kingdom" label since Goryeo was not independent during the Mongol domination period. BUjjsp (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the said section (#Goryeo and Mongol), I think the actual Mongol domination in Goryeo only started after the enthronement of Kublai Khan in 1270 instead of early in 1259. For example, according to the book "A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present, by Michael J. Seth", page 112, "From 1270 to 1356 Korea was under Mongol domination". Beginning with 1260 the Mongol Empire became divided or fractured into the Yuan dynasty and the western Mongol khanates, so it is difficult to talk about a single Mongol Empire after that. It was Yuan under the Kublaids who dealt with the Goryeo (Korea), that is why I prefer to say "Yuan dynasty". However, I think it is a good idea to change the label "independent kingdom" as you said, at least add the years when it was in fact an independent kingdom (i.e. 918-1270 and 1356-1392). Thanks for your suggestion. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For now, while I have read sources that suggest otherwise, I think it's best that we follow the source you provided and change the starting year to 1270. However, I do have a couple of suggestions: 1) I recommend changing the label to say "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" to make it clear that the Yuan dynasty was in fact controlled by the Mongols and to avoid confusing readers. 2) For the purpose of aesthetics, I recommend that the following infobox status label be used:

Independent kingdom
(918-1270, 1356-1392)
Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty
(1270-1356)
Member of the imperial Chinese tributary system

BUjjsp (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have changed it to "Vassal of the Mongol Yuan dynasty" and add a new line between "Independent kingdom" and its years as you said. I did not force a second new line though because it would take a lot of lines and would thus look a little bad. Anyway, thanks for your input too. --Cartakes (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

To the editor(s) who is/are repeatedly changing the article's content without explanation, please explain the reasoning behind your edits. Considering that the article is about Goryeo, there no reason to change the pre-existing map to one that focuses on the Jurchen Jin dynasty, which is being persistently added without explanation. Moreover, I see no reason to repeatedly remove information that was decided by consensus on this talk page. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

After a brief search on the subject matter, it is my understanding that File:Royal flag of Goryeo (Bong-gi).svg is most likely inappropriate for this article. Sources which cover this flag are very scarce, but they generally appear to suggest that this image, known as the phoenix flag (bong-gi), is a largely imaginative reconstruction of one of Goryeo's various ceremonial flags which is briefly mentioned in the Gaoli Tujing [ko] (aka Goryeo Dogyeong), a 12th century book on Goryeo written by a Northern Song scholar.
In this sense, I highly doubt the reconstructed flag is based on any surviving examples, nor is it a "royal flag" or standard of the Goryeo monarchy. , , -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

→ this passage appears to be the specific passage in the Gaoli Tujing where the flag is mentioned.
Nonetheless, the image is probably unsuitable for wikipedia due to its highly speculative nature until it can be proven that it is based off of an actual surviving flag from the period (which I think would be very unlikely). -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

For reference, the War Memorial of Korea page which is referenced in the file page only cites the aforementioned Gaoli Tujing entry as its source (). Nonetheless, it was a ceremonial flag (의장기) and not a royal banner of some sort, so it definitely shouldn't be used to represent Goryeo as a whole. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, I would like to recommend that you research this topic in more detail.

This flag was actually used during the Goryeo Dynasty, and records of it remain in a book written by an envoy from the Northern Song Dynasty during the period when Goryeo existed. Additionally, it has been reconstructed by Korea’s official institution, the War Memorial Museum, based on that book as well as flags that also existed during the Joseon Dynasty.

鳳旗 鳳旗二. 其制, 身與旒皆黃, 法土數也. 中繪飛鳳, 鳳之爲物, 身被五綵. 位應中宮. 蓋五行, 非土不生. 故五方之色, 備於羽毛, 所宜取象. 其行, 在太白旗之次. - 宣和奉使高麗圖經(Xuanhe Fengshi Gaoli Tujing). 旗幟

This flag was used by the honor guard when the king of the Goryeo Dynasty was on procession. The translation “Royal Flag” has also been used in academic papers registered by official Korean institutions. 이영희. (2014). 우리나라 의장기(儀仗旗)의 디자인 연구. 커뮤니케이션디자인학연구, 48, 75-86.(Lee Young-He (2014). A Study on the Design of Royal flags in Korea. The Study on Communication Design, 48, 75-86.)

Therefore, there is no significant problem with using this flag in the template of this document.--Samhanin (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment as the creator of the image. But I am firmly convinced that the flag is unsuitable for this article, or the infobox at the very least.
Firstly, it appears to me that the only source the War Memorial of Korea has consulted for the recreation of the flag is this single passage on the Gaoli Tujing. Since the flag is not based upon any surviving examples or paintings (or written records of very specific dimensions), then it is a highly speculative piece of work, whether the expertise of the War Memorial of Korea was involved or not. There is simply not enough elaboration in the aforementioned passage of which such a detailed design could have been accurately derived of.
Secondly, the translation "Royal Flag" is misleading in the sense that the flag was not a royal standard of some sort which was used to represent the Goryeo monarchy as a whole (unlike File:Flag of the king of Joseon.svg, which actually was used as the personal royal banner (어기) to represent the king), but merely for ceremonial purposes. Korean academics sometimes make up terminology for English abstracts when there simply isn't a widely used translation for a concept.
In a nutshell, if we cannot guarantee that this specific flag design would've looked 99% identical to what was actually used back then, then it shouldn't be used on the infobox. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not importan. I’m sorry, but that amounts to nothing more than your personal interpretation. You have not presented any relevant evidence from experts and are simply repeating your own assertions. In contrast, I have provided historical evidence: the flag in question is recorded in a historical text written by a Chinese envoy who personally visited Goryeo during the Goryeo period. Furthermore, the ceremonial flag currently used was created by a Korean state institution based on that historical text and on flags that existed during the Joseon period.
In addition, regarding the translation of the inscription on the flag, I have cited a paper written by a scholar whose work is indexed in the Korean KCI database. Unless you can present evidence from scholarly papers, contemporary historical records, or materials from verified public institutions, it is difficult for me to accept the opinion of someone who is merely an individual Wikipedia user. --Samhanin (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The evidence you have provided does not refute the point of my claim, and I believe I have already cited enough evidence on my original comment. My point here is that it is misleading to display a speculative recreation of one of Goryeo's many, many ceremonial flags, which is based off of a single passage in a written historical source and is not based off of any imagery from surviving examples or other relics, as the single "Royal Flag" that represents the Kingdom of Goryeo as a whole.
Let's go back to the sole historical source this flag is based off of. It just says that the Bong-gi only had a five-colored pheonix drawn inside it. It doesn't mention whether the pheonix was facing north or south, or how many additional symbols were surrounding it. It is too vague as to accurately provide for such a detailed design. The War Memorial can improvise flags for whatever purpose it may serve, but in Wikipedia we shouldn't use them per se per WP:V.
Furthermore, you can't assert "Royal Flag" as the single most commonly accepted translation of 의장기 with only one source. For instance, this KCI listed source translates "의장기" as "Honor Guard flag". Searching up 의장기 in AKS's glossary of Korean Studies also shows that it was also translated as "guardian flag" in a 2006 book. Additionally, the 2014 source from 이영희 you provided says that there were 61 different 의장기 variants in Goryeo. So why should the Bong-gi be the sole example that gets to represent Goryeo entirely? I am not opposed to the use of the flag anywhere else in the article as long as the captions provide that it is a speculative recreation. It just shouldn't be in a place where an English-speaking reader would erroneously interpret it as the sole "Royal Flag" (in caps) which represented the royal family of Goryeo, like the British Royal Standard. 00101984hjw (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Now you're giving me the supporting data. If we had started the discussion, I think it would have been easier for each other to give us the supporting data sooner. Okay, let's go over it one by one. irst of all, it was not I who restored this flag, but a national institution of Korea. The direction of the phoenix was not something I interpreted arbitrarily. Moreover, on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, it is not uncommon for flags or symbols to be used in articles based on citations from scholars or public institutions. For example, the flag of Safavid Iran is displayed on Wikipedia even though no physical example survives, based on a quotation from a scholar. Second, you stated that this flag was one of many ceremonial royal flags, and that claim is correct. However, this particular flag was used during the king’s royal procession. In East Asia, the phoenix was especially recognized as a symbol of the tiān zǐ(Son of Heaven)...봉황은 성천자(聖天子)의 상징으로 인식되었다. 천자가 거주하는 궁궐문에 봉황의 무늬를 장식하고 그 궁궐을 봉궐(鳳闕)이라고 했으며, 천자가 타는 수레를 봉연(鳳輦) · 봉여(鳳輿) · 봉거(鳳車)라고 불렀다. 중국에서 천자가 도읍한 장안(長安)을 봉성(鳳城)이라 하였고 궁중의 연못을 봉지(鳳池)라고 불렀다.... Encyclopedia of Kroean Culture . Therefore, among the five animal flags, this one specifically represented the center. Third, I also understand and accept the translation you found, since it is a scholar’s translation. However, it seems that the translation may vary because the ceremonial guard did not only escort the king but sometimes also accompanied the state’s generals. I understand your concern, so I insist on continuing to use it in this document by annotating the flag, because it has already been clearly recorded in medieval Chinese envoys that the flag was used at the time, and it is also the state agency of Korea that restored it. --Samhanin (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the flag itself; it is historic, and it was indeed recreated by the War Memorial. The only thing I staunchly oppose here is the use of the flag in the infobox for the article, which should be reserved for national flags (like the Safavid example, for instance) or other flags which was the primary symbol of the entirety of a country. The big problem here is the lack of sources. I agree that this specific ceremonial flag was likely considered more important than other variations due to its pheonix ensign and its central position during royal ceremonies. But we have far too little sources to decisively assert that this was the one flag which symbolized the Goryeo nation and its royal family. We literally have one brief passage from a book written by a Chinese scholar to back up its very existence, which doesn't say anything about the symbolic importance of the thing other than the fact that it was flown in the middle during ceremonies. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As a compromise, why don't we move the flag to the #Government section for now? I think it really belongs there, next to Em's quote about the Goryeo worldview. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I have made it clear in a footnote that this flag was not the only 'Uijanggi' of the Goryeo period. I also addressed, in a footnote, the issue regarding the translation('Royal flag / Ceremonial flag / Honor Guard flag') of Uijanggi that you pointed out. Therefore, English-speaking users are unlikely to misunderstand this flag as the sole flag of Goryeo --Samhanin (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I still find it off that such a trivial piece of imagery is being used on the front face of the Goryeo article as a whole. I get why you'd want to keep it there; it's admittedly a good design, and I suppose you put much effort into digitizing it. But I find it awkward that "one of the many flags of Goryeo" is being displayed in the national/official flag position. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I would ask that you refrain from repeatedly referring to my efforts. My argument for using this flag is not based on my own efforts, but on the fact that the flag has a clear historical and institutional source. You also agreed that this flag carries stronger symbolic significance. Moreover, I have addressed nearly all of the points you raised through footnotes. As in the case of the Mahdist State article, readers of this document should now be able to understand more clearly what kind of character this flag has.--Samhanin (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think a third opinion could be appreciated here. - 00101984hjw (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea to keep the status quo until there are opinions from other users --Samhanin (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

(I saw the notification at WT:KO.) I am not very concerned about the accuracy of this image – for comparison, many images for coats of arms are based purely off of text descriptions. I believe that a flag like this one was used in the Goryeo court, and that a reasonably accurate reconstruction was made by a reliable source, the War Memorial of Korea. This reconstruction cannot be perfect, but I think I'm willing to accept that.

However, we can still discuss the presentation of the flag. This flag is currently given great prominence in the article – it is the first image the reader sees and shown up in the page preview. Based on the footnote they added, it looks like Samhanin and 00101984hjw generally agree that this flag was one of many flags used in a ceremonial role in royal processions. It is clear this was not the sole national flag of Goryeo. I understand the desire to use a symbol of some kind, but we need to be careful not to make present this flag as an official national flag in the modern sense. On the other hand, we have a real national symbol, the seal (also graciously vectorized and uploaded by Samhanin), presented right alongside it. I'm currently wondering if it would be possible to swap these, so that the seal appears first and on the left, and is also used as the page preview image. Maybe that would be a good compromise.

For comparison, the articles on the contemporary Song dynasty, Yuan dynasty, and Ming dynasty, two of which have attained featured status, present no national symbol or only the seal in the infobox. Toadspike [Talk] 12:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I am still concerned that we may be giving the flag too much weight just by simply putting it on the infobox, even when it's not on the image preview. Just because the pheonix flag was plausibly given more weight over other ceremonial flags doesn't render it a statewide symbol of some sort which would constitute for its position on the top of this article. Note that Xu Jing (徐兢), the Northern Song scholar who wrote the Gaoli Tujing, barely elaborates on the weight each ceremonial flag carried other than their general location and order. Goryeo used all kinds of flags showing sacred animals, including ones depicting the Five Dragon Kings (五方龍中旗), the Qilin (기린기; 麒麟旗), and the Vermillion Bird (朱雀中旗). Also I don't see what additional value a mere ceremonial flag can provide here when we already have a good seal. Chinese dynasties used various ceremonial flags as well (like the Northern Song 瑞鶴旗), but we don't use them on any of the Chinese dynasty articles.
On the other hand, I think this flag could really fit next to Henry Em's quote in the #Government section where he explains how prior to the Mongol conquest Goryeo saw itself as its own domain independent from China (Gaoli Tujing was written in early 12th C). -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've asked some folks who know more about infoboxes than I do whether it would be possible to switch the order of the images with a parameter, and was told that adding a parameter to do that is not generally a good idea. So we'd have to simply put the seal in the "flag" parameter and the flag in the "seal" parameter, which isn't ideal. I think, if we can't find a compromise, that I will have to support moving the flag out of the infobox and farther down the article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed reply as I have just gotten off work. To state my conclusion first, I support the compromise proposal suggested by Toadspike. Even without changing the parameter itself, there are several ways to prioritize the seal in the layout.

I will now respond step by step. First, I do not think the comparison between the infoboxes of ancient Chinese dynasties and that of Goryeo is entirely appropriate. The process through which the Goryeo flag came to be used is as follows:
1.Contemporary historical records from the Goryeo period.
2. Based on those records, as well as precedents from the subsequent Joseon dynasty, a state institution reconstructed the flag.
3. Using those materials, Wikipedia/Wikimedia user then produced the flag image.

In my view, ancient Chinese dynasties likely had similar traditions of royal or ceremonial flags, much like those found in historical Korean states. However, I am not aware of whether the modern successor states of ancient China—the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China—have attempted to reconstruct such flags based on historical records. Nor have Wikipedia/Wikimedia editors attempted to create such flags for ancient Chinese dynasties on that basis. What I mean to say is that the use of only seals in the infoboxes of English Wikipedia articles on Chinese dynasties may not be an appropriate comparison here, since those cases did not go through the same process as this article.

Additionally, the point raised by 00101984hjw—that Goryeo used a variety of flags—was already mentioned extensively in the previous discussion, and I agree with it already. The current Goryeo article already explains this in detail in the footnotes, and it also cites a reputable Korean encyclopedia to explain why the phoenix banner is considered somewhat more distinctive among them.

Finally, I am quite skeptical about the suggestion to place the Goryeo flag next to the paragraph discussing Henry Em’s argument. Although this banner was used during royal processions and similar occasions, there is no historical source indicating that it was used by Goryeo as a symbol to assert its independence against the Mongols or other external powers. Placing the flag in that context could unintentionally lead readers to assume that it served such a political function.

At the very least, if the flag were to be placed for the purpose suggested by 00101984hjw, additional historical evidence would be necessary—for example, sources indicating that the banner was banned by the Mongol government after the Mongol invasions, or other documentation connecting the banner to such a political meaning. --Samhanin (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, no worries about the delay. I've switched the flag and seal in the infobox. Regarding your individual points: It is not important that a state institution reconstructed the flag, only that a reliable source did. If a reputable museum or research institution in, say, the US or Japan had reconstructed the flag, I would be just as willing to accept its use. I'm also surprised to hear that your concern that placing the flag in the government section (presumably with a footnote) is misleading, but that placing it in the infobox (also with a footnote) is not. Toadspike [Talk] 16:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

For contemporary dynasties, we have reconstructed banners from the Western Xia and Jin dynasties (File:Banner of the Jin (Jurchen) dynasty.png, File:Banner Of Western Xia.png) both based on surviving paintings and used to showcase imperial might but absent from the infobox.
Also I don't think "process" really matters here in the first place. Perhaps the War Memorial was unique for its decision to reconstruct an uijanggi with no surviving imagery, maybe not, but the flag gets barely any coverage from RS for us to establish some kind of "Korea/Goryeo-specificity" argument for an unconventional infobox. For instance, if this flag was widely used among Korean academics in articles, official events, or books then you could argue that the pervasiveness of the image constitutes for its prominence in the infobox, but AFAIK this is certainly not the case. After a reverse image search the only source I can find which deals with this flag outside of UCGs like NamuWiki is the War Memorial.
In response to your opposition to my proposal, you did mention ahead how the pheonix was seen as the symbol of the Son of Heaven. If that wouldn't do, then we could move it somewhere else or just remove it altogether. Again, the only change I really wish to see here is the removal of the Bong-gi from the infobox. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)