This image is based on original research and should be deleted per WP:OR. Cydevil38 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
To the administration team, User:Cydevil38 is a user who has repetitively refused to use canonical history records and replaced proper contents with volatile and casual modern web links. If needed, please try to verify the correctness of this diagram by contacting any neutral history researcher who can read Chinese text in zh.wikisource about Balhae, Khitan Empire and Jurchen Jin. Thanks.-- Jiejunkong 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know,
User:Cydevil38 is strongly against Balhae-Mohe-Jurchen connection and calls the diagram an original research. However, here is
Jurchen Jin's history officer
Wanyan Xu wrote in 12th century. It is against every common sense that Jurchen historians want to give themselves a false ancestral line. It is also quite clear that user
User:Cydevil38 cannot read Chinese texts:
In the first paragraph of the entire book " Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1", Jurchen Jin's official historians admitted that Jurchen was from Mohe. According to the same authoritative book, there were 7 Wuji tribes at the time of Northern Wei Dynasty. At the beginning time of the Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived. So there were not many choices for a person to be classified as a Mohe (mostly either Heishui or Sumo). At the time of Khitan Liao Dynasty, Mohe turned into Jurchen. Those, including descedents of Sumo Mohe and a part of Heishui Mohe, conquered by Khitan Liao Empire were called "Well-done Jurchen" (Shu Jurchen). Otherwise, they were called "Raw Jurchen" (Sheng Jurchen). Raw Jurchens were mostly descedents of Heishui Mohe. It included Wanyan Tribe, the founding tribe of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Those Well-done Jurchens were mostly taken from the conquer of Balhae, which was in turn a Sumo Mohe state according to " Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1". Note that this was the official view of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, it is crazy to assume that they wanted to make fun of their own ancestral line in the authoritative book.-- Jiejunkong 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians. It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.
Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation. There is no interpretation in the depiction. The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid.
This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other). User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources. This is his incorrect random guess. There is no assembling here. The proofs are merely supportive. The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.
The wikirule Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says:"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Every book in Twenty-Four Histories was produced in the next dynasty by officially organized editing, revising, and collating after the authority collects all credible sources of the dynasty being described. These canonical history records were authoritative sources used by professional researchers in the study of history of China polities. From the definition of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, these canonical records are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Therefore, they are unarguably reliable sources. The other examples of authoritative reliable sources include the Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi and the Chinese canonical record Zizhi Tongjian. After the explanation, those users who cannot refute the explanation, but still persist to block these reliable sources are blatant denial-of-service attackers who try to promote their own POV to degrade the wikipedia contents.-- Jiejunkong 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This image is based on original research and should be deleted per WP:OR. Cydevil38 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
To the administration team, User:Cydevil38 is a user who has repetitively refused to use canonical history records and replaced proper contents with volatile and casual modern web links. If needed, please try to verify the correctness of this diagram by contacting any neutral history researcher who can read Chinese text in zh.wikisource about Balhae, Khitan Empire and Jurchen Jin. Thanks.-- Jiejunkong 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know,
User:Cydevil38 is strongly against Balhae-Mohe-Jurchen connection and calls the diagram an original research. However, here is
Jurchen Jin's history officer
Wanyan Xu wrote in 12th century. It is against every common sense that Jurchen historians want to give themselves a false ancestral line. It is also quite clear that user
User:Cydevil38 cannot read Chinese texts:
In the first paragraph of the entire book " Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1", Jurchen Jin's official historians admitted that Jurchen was from Mohe. According to the same authoritative book, there were 7 Wuji tribes at the time of Northern Wei Dynasty. At the beginning time of the Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived. So there were not many choices for a person to be classified as a Mohe (mostly either Heishui or Sumo). At the time of Khitan Liao Dynasty, Mohe turned into Jurchen. Those, including descedents of Sumo Mohe and a part of Heishui Mohe, conquered by Khitan Liao Empire were called "Well-done Jurchen" (Shu Jurchen). Otherwise, they were called "Raw Jurchen" (Sheng Jurchen). Raw Jurchens were mostly descedents of Heishui Mohe. It included Wanyan Tribe, the founding tribe of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Those Well-done Jurchens were mostly taken from the conquer of Balhae, which was in turn a Sumo Mohe state according to " Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1". Note that this was the official view of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, it is crazy to assume that they wanted to make fun of their own ancestral line in the authoritative book.-- Jiejunkong 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 is the canonical view of Jurchen Jin official historians. It is unimaginable that they want to give themselves a false ancestral line, in particular in their authoritative history records.
Therefore, the diagram is solely based on a single verifable authoritative source Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 with literal translation. There is no interpretation in the depiction. The accusation from User:Visviva saying that this diagram is a concatenation of multiple sources is incorrect and invalid.
This Jurchen Jin's view is supported by multiple Han Chinese people's official records (at the moment, Han Chinese and Jurchens were the worst enemy of each other). User:Visviva incorrectly thought I assembled multiple sources. This is his incorrect random guess. There is no assembling here. The proofs are merely supportive. The Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1 alone is a valid verifiable source.
The wikirule Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says:"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Every book in Twenty-Four Histories was produced in the next dynasty by officially organized editing, revising, and collating after the authority collects all credible sources of the dynasty being described. These canonical history records were authoritative sources used by professional researchers in the study of history of China polities. From the definition of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, these canonical records are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Therefore, they are unarguably reliable sources. The other examples of authoritative reliable sources include the Korean canonical record Samguk Sagi and the Chinese canonical record Zizhi Tongjian. After the explanation, those users who cannot refute the explanation, but still persist to block these reliable sources are blatant denial-of-service attackers who try to promote their own POV to degrade the wikipedia contents.-- Jiejunkong 01:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)