[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Buyeo

Latest comment: 3 months ago by 2601:600:9481:9690:EB67:7C8B:9851:A0D3 in topic Please, look at the namu wiki
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

would anyone mind if i renamed this article Buyeo (Korean history)? it seems more commonly known by the Korean transliteration (formerly Puyo, now Buyeo), & most links to the article are from korean history articles. it is arguably also manchurian history, so i would like some feedback. Appleby 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

from googling, i think "fuyu" will eventually need to become a disambiguation page, fuyu county of jilin province, fuyu persimmon, fuyu/buyeo (state), & must also mean something in japanese. Appleby 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Appleby - Fuyu needs a disambiguation page. Top 10 pages listed for a google search on "FUYU" pertains to FUYU persimmon, Fuyu Corporation, and Fuyu Hardware Ltd. Fuyu is hardly used (even by Chinese authorities) for Chinese variant on Buyeo. IF I muster up enough time, i'll work on it. Deiaemeth 04:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have checked. I couldn't find reference which verify "It claimed the inheritance of Gojoseon, and the rulers continued to use the Gojoseon titles of Tanje, meaning "emperor." Am I right in guessing that some (largely Korean) claim that it is inherited from Gojoseon solely on the basis of the word "Tanje"? Until someone can give more specific source from ancient text which clearly state that "Buyeo is a successor of Gojoseon", the sentence is off. If it is based on guess or speculation, then such opinion require attribution and disambiguation. FWBOarticle

These are the only references to buyeo/puyo/fuyu (state) in the 2005 encyclopedia britannica deluxe edition (with wikilinks added):

  • under Koguryo: "Koguryŏ is traditionally said to have been founded in 37 BC in the Tongge River basin of northern Korea by Chu-mong, leader of one of the Puyŏ tribes native to the area, but modern historians believe it is morelikely that the tribal state was formed in the 2nd century BC."
  • under Korea, History of: The Three Kingdoms: "Apart from Chosŏn, the region of Korea developed into tribal states. To the north, Puyŏ rose in the Sungari River basin of Manchuria. Chin, which had emerged south of the Han River in the 2nd century BC, was split into three tribal states—Mahan, Chinhan, and Pyŏnhan."

see also [1]Appleby 04:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

All these citations suggest that Fuyu/Puyo/Buyeo is part of Manchurian history rather than Korean history. Chinese romanization should be used for Manchurian history.--Endroit 05:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Those citations does use Korean romanization over Chinese ones. If the sole reasoning beyond using the Chinese romanization for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu is that it was located in Manchuria, Goguryeo, which territory greatly occupied that of Manchuria, should only employ Chinese romanizations as well? I don't know about this. Also, I guess common English usage for whichever romanization is important for naming of the articles. Deiaemeth 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:MOS defers the naming conventions for Chinese place names to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). There, it specifically says Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Please follow the rules, Appleby & Deiaemeth.--Endroit 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That refers to Chinese ""Place names", as in Chinese cities and such. Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyo is not a city/town/place in mainland China right now. Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names. So use Hohhot, Kashgar, and Shigatse, not Huhehaote, Kashi, and Rikaze. This is the chinese naming conventions for historical names [2]. Please read the rules, Endroit. I wouldn't call Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu a "Chinese place".Deiaemeth 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe I am reading it correctly, Deiaemeth. Manchuria is a non-Han Chinese place using Hanyu Pinyin. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), this would mean Place names in "Manchuria" should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used "for those places". or Place names in "Manchuria" should be romanized in "Hanyu Pinyin."
Can other editors confirm which romanization "is commonly used" in Manchuria? I don't think Korean is commonly used in Manchuria.--Endroit 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
By your reasoning, should we then romanize Goguryeo as Gaoguli, seeing as how it was located in Manchuria? Btw, the naming conventions state "These conventions are guidelines only, and there are examples of exceptions, so please use your discretion. As always, all discussion is welcome on the talk page." Just because it was located in what is present day China does not automatically subjectable to Chinese romanization. Also "Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names" .. so this would mean whichever Romanization is common for "Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu" should be used, not for Manchuria. Deiaemeth
Deiaemeth, don't try to evade the issue by mixing it up with Goguryeo. Your POV with respect to Fuyu/Buyeo is at odds with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). I'd ask others for opinions if I were you.--Endroit 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not trying to "Evade" the issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which isn't a Wikipedia policy but rather a guideline, states "Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names". So it is stating that romanization/name used most commonly for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu kingdom should be used. It is your POV with respect to Buyeo/Fuyu that is at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're suggesting that Fuyu is the most commmon romanization for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu Kingdom, than back it up with sources and publications. Deiaemeth 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Deiaemeth-POV prefers Korean romanization for a Manchurian placename because he believes it is the most popular in English. Endroit-POV prefers the Chinese romanization (Hanyu Pinyin), because it is actually used there in Manchuria. I believe we disagree on the interpretation of "for those places". Other people are welcome to interpret Wikipedia:MOS and naming conventions with respect to Fuyu/Buyeo and comment here. Thanks.--Endroit 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions Chinese which is just a guideline and not a Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions specifically states that Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. So, whichever one has more English usage should be the article name. Deiaemeth 08:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neither "Buyeo" nor "Fuyu" are "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." That rule wouldn't necessarily apply here. Again Deiaemeth-POV says that rule applies. Endroit-POV says it doesn't.--Endroit 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not many English speakers would recognize many (or any)things in relation to Korean or Chinese history. So that naming convention would mean most English publications and such, independent reference works, etc. most commonly use. Deiaemeth 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's not what it says in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The "naming conventions" merely defers this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for "Place Names in China."--Endroit 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) is a guideilne. Wikipedia:Naming Conventions ( a de jure policy) states that the most common English usage should be used.

Deiaemeth 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to add Fuyu as alternative name at start. At present (Dec. 23,2019), There is no occurrence in the full text except in inserted map, which is a bit misleading. Also, add a ancient Chinese pronunciation onomatopoeia (Middle Chinese: bhu-yio) helps solve the controversy of which romanization to use. Lpyy15 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Common English usage?

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

by Tetsutaka Sugawara - 1996]

by Iyanatul Islam - Business & Economics - 1997 - 306 pages]

by Donald Stone MacDonald - History - 1996 - 356 pages]

edited by Keith Pratt - History - 1999 - 568 pages]

by Warren I Cohen - History - 2001 - 528 pages]

by Eun-Joo Lee, Duk-Soo Park, Jaehoon Yeon - Foreign Language Study - 2004 - 328 pages]

by James Huntley Grayson - Religion - 2002 - 320 pages]

edited by Delmer M. Brown - History - 1993 - 650 pages]

edited by Philip Baldi - 1990 - 764 pages]

by Sarah M Nelson - History - 1993 - 324 page]

by Hung-Gyu Kim - Literary Criticism - 1997 - 246 pages]

History of Korean Literature by Peter F Williams - Literary Criticism - 2003 - 654 pages]

edited by Peter H Lee, W Theodore De Bary, Ytngho Ch'oe, Hugh H W Kang - History - 1996 - 480 pages]

edited by Kozo Yamamura, John Whitney Hall, Marius B Jansen, Madoka Kanai, Denis Twitchett - History]

by Marvin C Whiting - History - 2002 - 604 pages]

by James Huntley Grayson - Social Science - 2001]

edited by Peter H Lee, W Theodore De Bary, Ytngho Ch'oe, Hugh H W Kang - History - 1996 - 480 pages]

edited by Yongho Ch'oe, Peter H Lee, William Theodore De Bary - History - 2001 - 448 pages]

Common usage in English; will list more if you guys request.Deiaemeth 08:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fuyu, a people of Manchuria

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

-- ran (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that's not "64 books", it's 64 "pages. That kinda confused me too. Ancient Puyo [3] (95 results)

Fuyu people [4] (188 results) , Puyo people [5] (335 Results) and Buyeo people [6] (3 results)

[7] Puyo state (208 Results) vs. Fuyu state [8] (150 results) (most of them relating to State-owned enterprise and state-owned farms of fuyu county)

Let's look at some of these results for "Puyo people":

  • Hence people from riverine sites such as Puyo (this is about South America)
  • Specifically, Rojas Puyo told rebel leader Jacobo Arenas
  • To the Oriente, buses depart regularly for Puyo ($1.50, two hours)
  • Some people complete the whole 61km to Puyo (7—8hr with breaks), which is quite a challenging ride,
  • but they spoke Puyo Quichua perfectly and we understood each other
  • Unión Base, Puyo. Zayed, S., B. Sorg, and E. Hecker. 1984.
  • south of Puyo is home to the Shuar people, still known for their former
  • There is a constant flow of goods and people between Puyo and the Sierra through Ambato and Riobamba
  • In 1992 black people from Esmeraldas province joined indigenous peoples in a protest march from Puyo, in the Amazonian Region, to Quito.

"Puyo state"?:

  • A particularly relevant exogenous factor was the selection of Puyo as provincial capital in 1959,
  • Puyo None Al 18.7 21.7 Ye Yes Ye Ye No No Yes (From report on global slums)
  • In one anonymous 1997 group interview in a community outside of Puyo, Pastaza,
  • Puyo. An educated mestizo born in Pastaza
  • Puyo Pungo Post-nasal voicing [—son] -4 [+voice] / [+nasal]
  • Whitten (1985: 217-45) analyzed the 12 May Puyo parade of 1981
  • to keep, as it were, the statuteI pUYO and consistent state.
  • East of Baños, the road to Puyo, in the Oriente,
  • Puyo. 1994. 17 Waves of colonization into the Amazon region began
I Could ferret out the ones that relate to kingdom, as I've done above - I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. It would take me quite a while to link them all :P Deiaemeth 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


"Fuyu" has much more disambiguous meanings.

  • Fuyu Persimmon

- The most common meaning for "FUYU", many books had info on Fuyu pollination and genetic makeup.

  • Much Japanese people named Fuyu, including yu no yama
  • Chines Fuyu County, as dicussed in China's Industrial State-Owned Enterprises: Between Profitability and Bankruptcy'
  • Chinese meaning for surplus workers, "surplus' (fuyu Qigong)" [9]

[10]

-- ran (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, another thing: I noticed that Buyeo is the least common Romanization in the results you cited. So why did you move this page back to Buyeo again? -- ran (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

We could move it to Puyo per McCune Reichshauer, which I don't mind at all. Deiaemeth 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

buyeo/puyo is a style choice, & the wikipedia convention is to use the relatively recent official Revised romanization of Korean. this means wikipedia uses Goryeo & Busan, even though Koryo & Pusan are still somewhat more common in google & academia. whether to romanize from the korean or from the chinese pronunciation is more of a substantive question, & this needs to follow the non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy of following the majority of prominent reference works. Appleby 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

History of Manchuria

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Changes were made to the Template:History_of_Manchuria to reflect actual Manchuria history. The changes were major. Please access the new changes and determine accordingly the relevence to this page.
Wiki Pokemon 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Goguryeo and Baekje Languages, Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Before anyone claim that Goguryeo is a Korean state, it is useful to note that linguists have shown with the limited available evidence that the old Goguryeo language is cognate with Old Japanese, but no corresponding relationship has been established with the Korean language. We also know that Goguryeo and Baekje both claimed descent from the old state of Buyeo, and that Baekje not only is ethnically similar ot Goguryeo but also has extensive links with Japan. It is entirely possible that All the 3 states of Goguryo, Baekje and Yamato Japan are all old Japonic states, and that modern Korea derived from Silla, which is ethnically more distant. As such it would also provide a good explanation of Japanese roots - i.e. that they really did come from the Korean peninsular. However, they were not the descendants of the present-day Koreans of Silla but rather descendants and cousins of the defunct states of Goguryo and Baekje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeoic-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that some Japanese-like toponymes (place names) found in the central part of Korean peninsula don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language on the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
  • None of the Japanese-like toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated.
  • Some Japanese-like toponymes (such as Japanese-like numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in southern part of Korean peninsula.-Jagello (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Only Southern parts of Korean peninsula are similar to Japanese-like toponymes. The Goguryeo link with Japanese is less likely. KoreanSentry

useful evidence from talk@goguryeo page. some user posted it. i borrowed this.

其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘句麗同. <三国志>

(Manchurian tribe) are looks similar with Buyeo people (Note : Like Chinese and Japanese looks same), But, Their languages is completely difference from Buyeo, Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Records of Three Kingdoms>

挹婁, 古肅愼之國也. 在夫餘東北千餘里, 東濱大海, 南與北沃沮接, 不知其北所極. 土地多山險. 人形似夫餘, 而言語各異. <後漢書>

(Manchurian tribe) are originally Sushen. They located at (almost) 1000 ri from North East of Buyeo. Their East side is sea, Their south side is buyeo, They look similar with Buyeo people, But their language is completely difference from Buyeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of the Later Han>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 舊肅愼國也. … 言語獨異.<魏書>

(Manchurian tribe) locate at North of Goguryeo. They are originally Sushen. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of Wei>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異.<北史>

(Manchurian tribe) They called as Mohe. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, History of Northern Dynasties>
  1. Lineage: Manchurian Language was completely difference from Goguryeo and Buyeo. They are difference race.
  2. Geographical reason: They located at different place. They located at North of Buyeo and Goguryeo. They are difference race.
  3. Culture: Goguryeo and Manchu tribes were completly difference races each other. Also, There is absolutely no evidence that Goguryeo and Buyeo race haircutting like Manchurian Pig Tail Hair(Queue (hairstyle)). They are difference race.
  4. History records: Manchurian never treated as Buyeo race. Even classic machurian history record never mentioned that Buyeo was their ancestor. Even classic Chinese history record never mentioned that Buyeo was Manchurian. They are difference race.

I think this is useful data that buyeo and manchurian are completely difference race. --Fc57zj (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Borders of Buyeo?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have a map of Buyeo's borders during various times of its existance? What were Buyeo's borders in 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD, 475 AD, etc? I'd like to show borders for Buyeo in the maps I've created for those years, but I haven't found a map that shows enough info about its borders. Thomas Lessman (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Er, Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu(list more?) doesn't have complete borders. It is not complete.Kfc18645 talk 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

How was Buyeo "absorbed" into Baekje?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both on this and related pages, it is written that the remnants of Buyeo was probably absorbed into Baekje. I don't quite see how this is possible, since Baekje was on the other side of the peninsula (past Gokuryou), and they by no means shared borders (at least not if we are to believe the geographic explanation and the map). I guess it is possible that the large amounts of Buyeo people (including officials etc.) simply moved to Baekje when their own lands became uninhabitable, but is this the prevailing theory? As the article stands now, it is very confusing. 121.160.52.133 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Buyeo language

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://books.google.com/books?id=2AmspKX3beoC&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 24 October 2015

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Buyeo kingdom → Buyeo – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – Article editor (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Korean POV

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article reads like it is written from a Korean POV.

See for example the history of Fuyu from a Chinese POV.

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/fuyu.html

"It was founded by a people belonging to the Tungus branch of the Altaic peoples and flourished from the the 2nd century BCE to the 5th century CE."

"A decade later the rest of the people of Fuyu joined the federation of the Wuji 勿吉 and withdrew to the north again, where they lived in the region of River Fuyu'r 富裕爾, a tributary to the River Nenjiang, whose name reflects the name of the ancient Fuyu."

Nowhere does it say that the Fuyu people were Korean or even proto Korean Historicalchild (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Northeast China is more appropriate as place name

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think Northeast China is more appropriate as place name here. Manchuria means somewhat Manchusfied, but it's not the case with Fuyu. Fuyu / Buyeo is culturally more Han Chinese than Manchusic, as people mainly engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry instead of fishing and hunting (what Manchu-Tungusic people mainly do). Also, as pointed out in the passage, Fuyu language is very different from Manchusic (Yilou) language. Furthermore, Fuyu / Buyeo has clearly more ties with its South-neighboring ancient Han Chinese and proto-Koreans. Conversely, Manchu (Mohe) influence southward in this region is after the fall of Goguryeo (7th century). Lpyy15 (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Manchuria is a geographical term, and does not mean something that is Manchusfied. Northeast China is a neologism invented by China. It can be misleading, especially in historical contexts, and it can be confused with the meaning of northeastern China. And contrary to your belief, Buyeo's culture has close cultural ties with Koreans and Tungusic peoples, and not the Han Chinese. Koraskadi (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Manchuria, in a narrow sense (i.e., Inner Manchuria), is most often referred to as Northeast China. I don't think there's anything that is misleading for hostoric usage, especially on non-Manchusic topics.
It also reflects the non-Manchusic beginning in history in southern part of Northeast China. For Manchusic, Manchuria is a endonym. For non-Manchusic, it more like a xenonym. In my POV, from a modern perspective, Northeast China has better neutruality in this context.
What's more, this phrase "Northeast China" is much more common in English than the word Manchuria. Lpyy15 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Northeast China is a recent creation that is indeed misleading in historical context and is often confused with northeastern China. Manchuria is the preferred terminology in academic sources, especially in those that cover Northeast Asia, and in a broader context, it is also used in Korean and Japanese to refer to this region. Koraskadi (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fuyu removed and proto-Korean added?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

New people are adding Korean nationalist historiography back into this article by describing it as "proto-Korean" when Cambridge, De Gruyter, ... articles do not use this term. They also removed "Fuyu", the name used by many books for 100+ years even in Korea! [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo

Please see that the historical description is corrected. History Department, UCR. 168.228.50.151 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2022

User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo
Please stop the new accounts which continue to keep the Korean nationalist version and delete names used by historians for over 100 years. 168.228.50.151 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo
Zessede and his other accounts are doing it still, they remove the details from Western sources in favor of the nationalist Korean sources. 200.119.185.137 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Zessede: Proto-Korean in academic usage has a specific meaning that is described in the linked article, and nothing predating that has scholarly consensus. None of the citations are verified, but even if they are true citations, it is hard to take any source that use the term for BCE polities seriously. Based on what is currently available, Japonic and Tungusic are both equally as likely as Koreanic for Fuyu/Buyeo. Esiymbro (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Esiymbro: Aside from the linked article, Proto-Korean is also a referential term in a definitive sense referring to the early Koreanic groups that predated the foundation of full-fledged ancient Korean states, most notably, the Three Kingdoms. Amongst them were the Yemaek people that founded Korean BCE polities such as Saro, Okjeo, Eastern Ye, and so forth after the fall of Gojoseon. It's a term used by Western scholars such as Alexander Vovin, John Whitman, Jan Jahunnen et cetera in this regard to refer to these specific ethnic groups. In respect to its binding categorization, sources from classical Chinese records to the work of both Western and Korean scholars note the distinctive features between Buyeo and Tungusic groups. Based on what is, for example, the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Book 30, Chapter of Eastern Barbarians (Dongyi), Section of Buyeo states: 其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘·句麗同. It clearly marks the contrast in both language and culture between the Koreanic Buyeo people and Tungusic Yilou people who coexisted at the same time. As some like to think that the Buyeo people were Tungusic Manchurians in nature, works such as Buyeo group and Manchu (Akulov, 2020) clarifies that the two were not related in a linguistic manner. From Koguryo to Tamra (Vovin, 2013) continues on with similar premises that explicate the relationship between the Koguryo (Buyeo) language and Koreanic, rather than Japonic (which was more prevalent in the Southern regions of the Korean Peninsula). The Lamadong burial grounds of which were those of the Buyeo people excavated by Chinese archaeologists including professor Chen Shan and 田立坤, and later examined by Jilin University's research team stated that the genetic sequences shown as results marked a significant genetic connection with Modern Koreans compared to other ethnic groups such as the Xianbei, Manchus, Mongolians, Han Chinese, etc. (东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究) & (Comparison of Lamadong and Immediate Modern Asian Mongoloid with Values) Upon these descriptions, it is important to note Buyeo's significance in Korean History through the connection it has with the Korean kingdoms of Goguryeo/Baekje/Gaya, and no other. Based on what is given, there is no sign or implication of state succession or inheritance of consciousness by Tungusic groups not to mention Japonic as well. Many of the citations that have been linked with the texts are 'true' and 'verified' ones that are from the official page of KCI (Korea Citations Index) of which the works of scholars are available to all. Speaking based on these accounts, it is biased to deem the revision of this page done by myself upon the premises of these works 'nationalistic' as user:168.228.50.151 puts it. The term 'Fuyu' is not the official term used widely in academia by Western/Korean scholars and historians who specialize in Korean and Japanese History albeit used by some such as Colonel Smallwood (1932) who in fact is not a specialist in this regard. Just because the term was used for a 'century' does not mean it has the justification as an official term. In keeping with the example of Gaya, a southern Korean federation of city-states that maintained close ties with Yamato Japan and held a presence of Japonic-speakers was also called Mimana or Imna, but this is not the official term used thoroughly. And no, Zessede is the only account I use, and the claims made by user:200.119.185.137 who outright speculates that I use different IDs are false. Aside from the comments regarding the terminology and historical references, I'd like to add that I have updated citations for the texts of this section which was lacking in it. Thank you. Zessede (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Vovin is the only prominent Western scholar that definitively puts Puyo in the Koreanic family, while there are many articles that discuss the possibility of a Japonic classification for the Puyo languages. Jahunen clearly states that he considers Puyo to be Amuric (see "The Lost Languages of Koguryo"). I am not able to check the other sources, but I have to suspect that you are mis-intepreting those as well.
  • The self-constructed consciousness of later states does not need to comply with the actual ethnic identity of earlier peoples. Otherwise, the Roman Empire is going to be a Greek nation (Aeneid).
  • I have checked the article "东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究" and there is nothing in it that supports your claim.
  • There is no such thing as an "official term". Fuyu/Puyo is as important in the regional history of Northeast China as it is for the early history of Korea. Most Western sources, even if they don't use the name Fuyu, will at least mention and discuss the terminology. It is completely ridiculous to claim unbiasedness when you are removing every "Fuyu" from the article. Esiymbro (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Aside from Vovin, Unger is also an advocate from the West that does the same based on a similar model. Meanwhile, most of the works discussing the proposed linkage with Japonic if not all, are based on and influenced by Christopher Beckwith's (who specializes in Sinitic languages) theories that have been criticized by Western and Korean scholars alike. Robeet's 2021 theories which have been influenced by Beckwith's work are already being criticized along the same lines. Meanwhile, Jahunen's ideas on the language of Buyeo are different from those of Unger, Whitman, or Vovin as he relates the Buyeo languages to the Tungusic family despite what classical Chinese sources say otherwise. However, the terminology of 'Proto-Koreanic' is used. As I said, the term works as a reference to the specific ethnic groups predating the formation of full-fledged ancient Korean kingdoms that managed to formulate a centralized political system. Let's also not forget that Alexander Vovin, is a renowned linguistics researcher with perfect command over the Japanese and Korean language whereas Beckwith, Robeets, Janhunen, Whitman, Ramsey are not.
  • The self-constructed consciousness of later states and their compliance towards their former predecessors defer by ethnic groups and countries according to historical contexts. In this case, the collective consciousness preserved by later states such as Goguryeo, Baekje, Balhae, and onto Goryeo is made through its inheritance of ethnic lineage, culture, language, and national identity. Such revelations are not deeply looked into amongst Western or Chinese scholars. Comparing Buyeo to the case of the Greek East Roman Empire is insufficient for a good comparison. I would rather compare it with the connections between the Achaemenid-Sassanian empires.
  • 东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究 by professor Zhu Hong goes along with the research conducted by <Comparison of Lamadong and Immediate Modern Asian Mongoloid with Values>. The values based on the Morant Method show a sequence of 0.442 for the Koreans compared to other ethnicities including the Nanai (0.538), Huabei Chinese (0.722), Mongols (0.888), Eskimos (0.956), Tungusic (1.903). The dendriform representation of cluster analysis based on the values classifies the Lamadong and Koreans as a single group while the others were classified as other groups. (Lamadong/Buyeo-Koreans)/(Mongols-Tungusic)/(Nanai-Eskimos / Huabei Chinese). In summary, China's research team on trait anthropology at Jilin University had regarded the remains as Buyeo people ancestral to modern Koreans through their analytical techniques. In the end, this thesis actually supports the fact that the Buyeo people (and the groups closely related to this, the Goguryeo people), are very close to modern Koreans in terms of trait and anthropology which isn't a surprise.
  • Apparently, there is a general term that is wildly used working as the de facto official. And that is definitely not Fuyu. Buyeo may have had a strong presence in Manchuria, in what we would call 'Northeast China', but it wasn't a Chinese nor Tungusic dynastic kingdom so to speak. Establishing tributary relationships with China or having territories in modern-day China does not imply a historical affiliation to it. Similar to how we don't refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Russian terminology just because it held a presence in territories considered modern Russia. Hence, the domestic pinyin term of 'Fuyu' cannot be represented along with other Korean names such as Buyeo or Puyo. In fact, the Chinese terminologies of pinyin regarding Koreanic kingdoms are never consistent in the sense some do not even bother to regard other successor states of Buyeo like Dumakru other than the Korean term 'Dumakru'. This is largely due to the fact that the comprehension and understanding in regards to the history of Buyeo and Korean history overall are relatively thin. Not to mention that coverage of northern Korean kingdoms is often cherry-picked and thus influenced by the contentious Northeast Project driven by political motives and criticized by Western, Korean, Russian, and even Chinese scholars. This is where the factual evidence and academic interpretations come to be contested and be branded as 'nationalistic' when in fact are in-depth research-based upon objectivity and neutrality. Zessede (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
This stance contradicts the sources given by the initial poster here. They gave French and British sources dating back to the 1930s with "Fuyu"... MGetudiant (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Can you please use scholarly sources besides Korean journals and Korean encyclopedias? For example, the journals from Oxford, Cambridge, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc. MGetudiant (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think User:Esiymbro is correct about the Puyo languages. Vovin is the only one who puts Puyo as strictly Koreanic. Unger actually argues that Koreanic and Japonic are in the same family, divergently descending from a proto-Korean-Japanese (pKJ) language. So Unger does not actually see Japonic and Koreanic as being different. This is discussed thoroughly in Unger's book The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages and its reviews. So that makes the Puyo languages Koreanic-Japonic in Unger's theory. MGetudiant (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • My arguments remain intact along the same lines. Your reference to Korean sources sounds as if they aren't "scholarly" when in fact Korean Academia has been conducting in-depth research far off and longer than any 'French' or 'British' researchers out there. Chinese as well. These are finalized research materials from universities and research centers that have a wider and deeper range of command over Korean History than you think. Not to mention that these are works done without any government intervention and state-supported ideals like the Chinese counterparts being advocated in this section of Wikipedia. Let's also note that while Unger doesn't speak Korean fluently like a native, Vovin actually has mastered both languages of Japanese and Korean on a level higher than that of its original Japanese and Korean speakers. But then again, Unger does not even state that the Puyo Languages were Koreanic-Japonic in The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Nor does the review from Ohio State University where Unger dwells state that Puyo was Japonic in any way or sense. "Non-Korean elements in ancient peninsular place names were vestiges of pre-Yayoi Japanese language: one should doubt the assumption that Korean developed exclusively from the language of Silla. More likely, the rulers of Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla all spoke varieties of Old Korean, which became the common language of the peninsula as their kingdoms overwhelmed its older cultures and vied for dominance." Pretty much seems that Professor James Marshall Unger and Ohio State University states otherwise? Unger's theory is based on the connection between Old Korean and Old Japanese with the possible genetic intermingling by the Japonic Yayoi folks who left and stayed in what is now to be the Korean Peninsula. It's not a surprise to see users from a 'certain' country vandalizing Korea-related topics like Hanbok, Balhae, and Buyeo to assert their state-supported Northeast Project-aligned narratives on history, which is in fact accepted as a fuss in mainstream academia over the West to Korea. To see how users take over a certain Wikipedia page and 'reach consensus', hence the deliverance of falsified information with intentions too obvious. Zessede (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Of course, Korean scholars that you agree with are "conducting in-depth research" and have a "deep command" over history, and Western scholars that you don't agree with are amateurs funded by the Chinese government. Unfortunately, it is not up to you to decide who are trustworthy and who are not.
As for Korean works being "without any government intervention and state-supported ideals", I recommend everyone to take a look at the website of NAHF, where much of the Korean research on NE Asian history cited here is being produced, and decide for themselves how much of it is not "state-supported". While every Korean ultranationalist is indoctrinated to hate the "Northeast Project" as imagined by Korean media, they apparently don't find a problem at all with actual, explicit state-sponsored revisionism as long as it aligns with their interests. Esiymbro (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Zessede, it is ridiculous that you (and Q1A1Z) remove the name "Fuyu" as "outdated back to the 'colonial era'" when the references include an Antiquity article (Cambridge University Press) from 1999 and a Asiatische Studien - Études Asiatiques article (De Gruyter) from 2021. Your other changes are wholly unhelpful because those sources do not say that Buyeo was Korean. You also remove many tags added by User:Qiushufang, User:Esiymbro, and others without any reasoning. The article history shows that your changes (identical to ones made by other accounts) have been contested by editors (those two, myself, and ones mentioned by the IP above like User:MarkH21) here for months. You are behaving very disruptively. MGetudiant (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree, Zessede is not acting in good faith here. The removal of the maintenance tags was not warranted or noted in the reversion. Zessede is obviously WP:POVPUSH right now. Qiushufang (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Eastern Buyeo is listed as Korean history. But why isn't Buyeo a history of Korea? Q1A1Z (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Buyeo is important to Korean history, as you can say Normandy is important to the history of England. No one is doubting this. Esiymbro (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply


  • "Where much of the Korean research on NE Asian history cited here is being produced". I count only two references and those are ones that reflect the case of which Goguryeo and Buyeo hostages were taken by the Murong Xianbei and the war between these factions that led to such results. Stop distorting the facts. Thing of it is, the Northeast Asia History Foundation was founded in 2006 by Korean historians to counteract and refute forced claims by the CCP's narrative on Northeast Asian History, linking Ancient Korean states that were located in Manchuria as "Chinese" or "Tungusic (now that the Manchurian minority are Chinese nationals)" since 2002. Let's also note that China has been doing the same with the histories of other people around its borders like Mongolia, Tibet, Uighur, Vietnam, Dali, etc. State-sponsored? It is an organization established to respond to China's fantastical and ridiculous Northeast Project (which you seem to abide well with as a 'strong possibility) and is never a group united with extreme national sentiment and nationalism. How would it be so when scholars from the same organization exchange with historians from neighboring countries like China and Japan while China doesn't even let Korean historians and archeologists into historic sites in Manchuria? Governmental interference in historical studies are a taboo in Korea; like how the Korean president Moon Jae-in was criticized by the Korean public for 'supporting' studies conducting based on the History of Gaya (加倻). By the way, did I mention or brand any Western scholars having to disagree with their claims on Buyeo? I did assert that the Buyeo is a topic out of the scope of interest to Western Academia compared to Korean Academia. But I don't reckon any doings of false claims but refuting to Jan Janhunen's that the Goguryeo language was Tungusic when Classical Chinese texts certainly states they are not + Christopher Beckwith's (refuted by painstaking details forwarded by Vovin, etc) and Martine Robbeet's (too based on Archaeological discoveries without linguistic profundity). Korean ultranationalist? Then why is it that I see only Chinese users vandalizing Korea-related content herein Wikipedia having a wonderful consensus that feels so artificial? Why is it that I don't see Korea-based users vandalizing China-related content in Wikipedia? I reckon Qiushufang on other Korea-related pages, etc doing the same things there. How are you even doing Wikipedia when Google isn't even allowed in China? Strange... The Antiquity journal by Pak Yangjin mentioning 'Fuyu' doesn't make the term representative whatsoever compared to the original term <Buyeo/Puyo> like how he referenced the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo as Goguryeo but including '(Gaoguli in Chinese pronunciation)'. This is the equivalent of stating that the Tang Dynasty (Tang-chao) was called Dang-nara, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was officially known as 'Речь Посполитая' by the Russian version. Asiatische Studien - Études Asiatiques article (De Gruyter) doesn't even cover Korea-related topics like they do for China <"The quarterly journal presents, in a fixed schedule, regional issues on China, the Islamic World, Japan, South or Central Asia as well as general and special issues."> and uses pinyin terminologies like it's the lingua franca. Not to mention that there are equally published works that refer Silla/Shilla (a Southeastern Korean state which is speculated to have had a peninsular Japonic-substratum before the emigration of Gojoseon/Buyeo-based northern refugees) as 'Xinluo' by the Chinese pinyin term. Another funny thing to note is, Buyeo's direct successor states such as Eastern Buyeo and Dumakru (and classified as Korean) aren't even mentioned by the Chinese term like how it is insisted here on this page. Quite the contrast, I see here. Zessede (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Neither Buyeo/Puyo or Fuyu are the "original term". They were written in Chinese characters/Hanja, whichever you prefer. These are just transliterations based on modern pronunciations. Their inclusion and removal are based on modern concerns and modern nationalist motivations. Obviously pinyin is not treated as the lingua franca here, which is why it is or was provided alongside all the other transliterations, so I do not see why that is a matter of discussion. Before you started your changes, they were all included. Nobody was treating "Fuyu" as the only legitimate transliteration. Before accusations of vandalism, please provide proof. I did not do anything here except provide maintenance tags that were then reverted and it became obvious that many members were engaged in an edit war. Qiushufang (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why is it that I don't see Korea-based users vandalizing China-related content in Wikipedia? Oh the irony...
I should remind you that we are discussing your removal of Western sources and opinions here. The complete absence of modern Chinese research and Chinese views in this article is another problem, and a major violation of WP:NPOV when so many of the sources are from South Korea. But we can leave that to be another discussion for another day. The principal problem now is that you are deleting well-sourced material from American, French and British scholars. Also, I'm mentioning NAHF to you, because you are citing them ([25]). Check here for how non-political, non-nationalistic it is [26]: "a central history and territory research institute to solve historical issues in Northeast Asia and to keep hold of sovereignty over Dokdo Island". Fortunately, not all previous editor of this article need to be reminded of this fact. Esiymbro (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Zessede's last comment was mostly irrelevant to this article, so I will just reply to the relevant parts.
"...while China doesn't even let Korean historians and archeologists into historic sites in Manchuria" Isn't that because of state-sponsored theft of Chinese Koguryo artifacts? (for example, [27]) And how do South Korean scholars conduct in depth research on Buyeo, when they don't even have access to the archaeological sites, unlike their Chinese, Japanese and Western counterparts?
"This is the equivalent of stating that the Tang Dynasty (Tang-chao) was called Dang-nara, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was officially known as 'Речь Посполитая' by the Russian version." If these are your examples, then it is also the equivalent of Fuyu being referred to as Buyeo, the South Korean transcription. The state was physically located in China, and we only know of this state because of records written in classical Chinese. Esiymbro (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Puyo languages

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alexander Vovin and James Marshall Unger argue that Goguryeo brought an early form of the Korean language to the peninsula from Manchuria, replacing the Japonic languages which they believe were spoken in the Samhan.[1][2]

In the preface to this document, Puyo languages are linked only to Japonic, Amuric and Tungusic. The recent theory that the Puyo languages is a direct ancestor of the Koreanic languages is not reflected. The currently most cited argument by Lee Ki-moon et al. is that Puyo languages belonged to Koreanic languages and were intermediate languages between Korean and Japanese. On the other hand, Alexander Vovin and James Marshall Unger and others classify Goguryeo language, which is recorded as using almost the same language as Buyeo language, as a direct ancestor of modern Korean. According to Chinese records, the Buyeo language and Goguryeo language differ from those of the Tungus ethnic groups such as Sushen, Yilou, and Mohe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega23days (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Vovin (2013), pp. 237–238.
  2. ^ Unger (2009), p. 87.

New additions

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
  1. Multiple unsourced sections on history and etymology, likely WP:OR.
  2. There is nothing in the cited quote about Cheonsin or Cheonja.
  3. Yilou was once Buyeo's vassal/tributary, not "commandery". The same wording is used for Buyeo's relationship with the Han's Xuantu Commandery, which was removed.
  4. There is nothing in the source saying Hubuyu/Hobuyeo is Buyeo.
  5. What is the reason for changing Xianbei to Seonbi, Yilou to Eupru, and even Weilüe to Wiryak? For "Unbiased, object descriptions"?

Esiymbro (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Buyeo is origin of Gokurea and Baekje. Baekje royals' surname was Buyeo. Their capital city's name was Buyeo, also signed 'Nam Buyeo' which means South Buyeo.
Buyeo founder Dongmyoung's gravery and shrine is in Pyeounyang, North Korea.
It has no relationship with China nor Manchu people who found Geum, and Qing. According to Machu people's origin chronicles滿洲源流考흠정만주원류고, Manchu is originated from Shilla. They also attacked Buyeo in the downterm, made it surrender to Gokurea whose frounder 'Jumong' was descendant of Dongmyoung.(founder of Buyeo)
I do not care or interested about editiors war, Chinese history distortion on Buyeo is seen here in many parts.
Like it is stated,
1. I citated sources each by each sentence. your reversion is not valid.
2. Buyeo's Dongmyoung founder is from Takri nation. Takri means Tengri of Tengrism. It is also the same meaning as 'Dangoon'. Tengri, Dangoon is born from the sky father and bear tribe's lady. This is why Buyeo made celestial ritual even during the war. From sentences stated in your chinese Samgookji, We are not even bringing the book 'North Buyeo chronicles' here, It is proved that they make celestial ritual called 'Young-go', singing dancing wearing white clothes to present it.
3. No. Tributary is only from giving gifts. In Euproo's case, It is written vassal.
4. I can put citation for this.
5. The language that was used in Buyeo is Buyeo. This regions is millet farmers' area according to recent thesis, their very likely language is Tungus, proto-Koreanic, proto-Japonic, trans-Eurasian. According to Martine Robbeets, Remco Bouckaert, Matthew Conte, etc. There is no reason or space here to put Chinese like Fuyu, Xianbei or anything else here.we won't put how French would call 'Buyeo' for example. Like it is stated in many thesis, this continent by that time is not China.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04108-8 Lightbearer03 (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Plus, both Eup and lou is still used vocabulary in Korean.
Eup means "One of the local administrative units under city-province. Insinde city, there is Eup. City belongs to province. Today, the population should be 20,000 or more to be Eup, but there are cases where it is less than 20,000.
Lou means "A house built as high as an attic without doors and walls so that you can look everywhere. In other word, watch house."
Euplou : eup(a town, village) that has a watch house.
Like it is showing, language in this region can be explained when it is written and pronouced in Korean. -which can be one other evidence it used proto-Koreanic language. Lightbearer03 (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  1. Again, not mentioned in source.
  2. Citation needed.
  3. As I have already said, the same vocabulary is used for Yilou-Buyeo and Buyeo-Xuantu. What is the reason for deleting the latter?
  4. Citation needed.
  5. This shows your complete ignorance on the topic. Yilou, as well as Fuyu/Buyeo and Xianbei, comes from Old Chinese transcriptions of local names, and languages can change. Please do a simple search and see how linguists have reconstructed these names and words. Hint: none of them sounded anything similar to the modern Korean transcription, because most Korean Hanja were adopted much later. Uninformed guesses have no place here on Wikipedia. Actually, are you seriously trying to argue that the Yilou and Xianbei were Korean speakers as well?
The article you linked is about Neolithic–Bronze Age. Buyeo existed in AD. Plus, according to you, "their very likely language is Tungus, proto-Koreanic, proto-Japonic, trans-Eurasian". Then why are you removing Japonic and Tungusic theories?
  1. Additionally, Northeast China is not North Asia. This is geography common sense.

Esiymbro (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

1.I mentioned source, read before you just undo.
2. TWO Citation is already stated. 論衡 Nonhyung.魏略 Wiryak.
3. You have to make a citation for Hyundo(Xuantu) province and evidence. There is a debate where Hyundo is nor if Han really took it. No records about it initially. nor Han dynasty got it in the first place. How can Chinese historians of many hundreds and thousand years later know what was not written at the initial place? It is not trustful. Also Han mooje was very angry of his generals and he actually killed all their generals after Joseon was taken down. This is written records of the initial statement. They were rightfront the war with Huns, if they won, why would they kill their own generals right before their wars?
Joseon was not taken down by Han. Its servant generals killed Wiman's sons who was a king that time. Because Wiman is not Dangoon(Tengri).
And Dongmyoung appeared from Dangoon's country (Takri, tengri, Dangoon, all have same pronounciation and meanings, published study this is.)
Wiman which is Yeon(Yan), surrendered to Joseon, not Han. Wiman remained as Joseon, and their children fled to Mahan, Choongcheong province of Korean peninsula.
Buyeo's Dongmyoung founder is a person who recovered part of ancient Joseon's territory. This was North Buyeo, if there really was Han's army, it should be somewhere in the North.
The expression Buyeo people used "we are deceased nation's people" means they are ancient Joseon refugees, since it is the only country existed there. It is also stated in Ming founder Taijo and Goree's diplomat Kwon Guen's conversation. "始古開闢東夷主", "此是昔時王氏業 檀君逝久幾更張 here is a place of Wang's family karma, Dangoon went into transformation (passed away, in the most respectful expression) has been long, dynasties continued changing.",(Goree's royal that time was Wang) "聞說鴻荒日 檀君降樹邊 位臨東國土 時在帝堯天 傳世不知幾 歷年曾過千 後來箕子代 同是號朝鮮 Very long time ago, Dangoon was a king of Dong-gook(East land). It was the period of Yo, I don't know how many generations it continued but for yearly counts it was longer than one thousand years. Later Gija came, the country was still same as Joseon.", " “東夷之號 惟朝鮮之稱美 且其來遠 Dongyi(Easterners)'s country name is Joseon, it is very beautiful and ancient name.”
4.I put citation, and explanation already.
5. Like it is in the thesis put in Nature, the language of people in that region and Tungus, proto-Koreanic, proto-Japonic, trans-Eurasian. Buyeo's foundation date is not AD.
You better look back of yourself. I know very well who Seonbi and Euplou are. Seonbi is part of Huns(Huengne), They are Turkic people from the same civilization as us named Turkic-Seonbi. Seonbi is close to Shilla people.
Euplou is just small village people who had a watch tower.
1. Chinese Mandarin you use today has nothing to do with Manchuria/Mandarina origin. You are using very Southern language. Chinese is in the same language group with Burma. Thai also has 6 intonations like Chinese, it almost sounds like Chinese if you just hear it as background. Burma, Thailand's traditional costume still is very much alike to Han dynasty's cloth. Males wear skirts, which is also old Chinese proud characteristic. Because they are rice cultivators, not riding horses, they wore skirts. This rice is Indica rice, the rice in Korean peninsula, Manchuria are short rice called Japonic rice.
Core people of China today is Han-Burma-Thai(Dai) along this line. This is probably why Shi Jinping switched Birma government to their people. Binding with Tibet is in question today beause a lot of Tibetans turned out Jomons.
Northern Chinese are just pathetic people who was assimilated to their enemies,
lost their identity completely. and confusing they are Han, They are bringing their history and culture arguing it is Han's while they are not Hans. 222.97.60.83 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Tungus, Turkic language speakers are not Buyeo. Including Shilla although it might be able to find just a small link in the beginning.
Turkic, Tungus, Mongolic, Huns, Seonbi, Manchu, Shilla are different language users to Buyeo.
Because Buyeo is a later country of Dangoon Joseon, the closest language to it today is Korean, since Korea is still same people as Joseon.
Chinese and most scholars misunderstood Koreans would be Shilla, and the language is related to Shilla.
But no, it turned out, most Koreans are proto-Koreanic users from the old stone age-neolithic age. 222.97.60.83 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if you are Manchu or any other ethnicities of Northern Chinese, Trust Koreans. We are protecting you.
Also, have faith in your ancestors' choice, Silla. The history is very well kept, not known now. You will not regret choosing Silla in the future.
There are a lot of detailed history of the whole Asia, and the world, we are not using any of our resources, yet. Lightbearer03 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please, look at the namu wiki

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EB%B6%80%EC%97%AC https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EA%B3%A0%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0-%EB%B6%80%EC%97%AC%20%EA%B4%80%EA%B3%84

intially I was skeptical to even consider the namu wiki since it is a Korean source and could be biases but it deals with claims from both sides and debunks the ones related to being Chinese pretty fairly and even shows a connection between Goguryeo and Gojoseon with evidence this wiki just does not have. Please if you more interested in the straight facts rather than national pride I do recommend checking it out I was blown away by the research actually done.

In fact the namu wiki actually has an interesting view on Gojoseon. They think Gojoseon and Buyeo is what led to Goguryeo and Baekje and that Silla is the odd one out only claiming to be a successor from a couple immigrant yemaek people.

The namu wiki brings an entire new perspective on the Three Kingdoms, gojoseon, and Buyeo.

They also make fun of this page for being in a edit war 2601:600:9481:9690:EB67:7C8B:9851:A0D3 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buyeo&oldid=1239747510"