This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Manchuria doesn't include Jehol, which is part of Hebei province.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzhouri ( talk • contribs)
Manchuria is the British translation for the Inner Mongolian City name -- 满洲里 ( Manzhouli).
Is Manchurian culture Manchu culture? That will be quite different from the Northeast culture, which is just a variation of Han Chinese culture. The use of "Manchuria" and "Manchurian" should be kept at the minimum level possible. They are just misleading, inappropriate and negative.
The picture of this article is showing the area of "Manchukou", which is very gross. The area of Inner Manchuria is actually smaller than that. It only includes part of northeastern Inner mogolia and Northeast China.
"Manchuria" is offensive to people in China. There is no need to use this word at all.
I think the definition of "東北三省" (literally "the Three Northeastern Provinces") nowadays and the historical "東北九省" (literally "the Nine Northeastern Provinces") should be added to the article. The article " 东北九省" in the Chinese Wikipedia may help. - Alanmak 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
olivier 12:38 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
ran 06:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
What is the relationship of opium with Manchuria? Was it cultivated there? --
Error
Fixed an error. The PRC has never asserted sovereignty over the Russian Far East. The shooting in 1969 was over disputed islands. The Chinese attitude toward the RFE is similar to Mexican attitudes over California. Bad thing that it was lost, but no serious suggestion of retaking it. Roadrunner 06:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think the name "Manchuria" itself is somewhat problematic --- post the very name (Manzhou) on a Chinese forum and you will get flamed. Perhaps the article should set that out a bit more clearly --- that Manchuria, as a name in itself, is NOT accepted by many people, and that the region it refers to is called Manchuria by some people, not all.
ran 06:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
I do have a question about "Haishenwei was renamed Vladivostok" bit of the article. Vladivostok was founded by Russians, and the city has never been Chinese/Manchurian. I am thus wondering what "Haishenwei" refers to. Is this the name of the territory on which modern-day Vladivostok is located? In any case, this sentence should be either removed or clarified.-- Ezhiki 15:08, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
To anon who made the latest edit: Are you sure? It's always been my impression that using "Manzhou" and "Manzhouren" is offensive, especially to people from that region. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not our typical dongbeiren ;) -- ran ( talk) 18:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
In contrast to Outer Manchuria, the part of Manchuria that is still part of China, usually called simply " Manchuria", can also be referred to as "Inner Manchuria".
Would you like the suggest an alternative? -- ran ( talk) 03:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Fabartus... The sentence is trying to stuff too many ideas into one sentence. Why is Outer Manchuria even mentioned in a statement that says Inner Manchuria = Chinese part of Manchuria = simply "Manchuria". That's 4 terms right there.... What is the sentence's point? -- Menchi 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am a native Manchurian. I never feel insulted by being called "Manchurian". As a matter of fact, I feel more Manchurian than Chinese.
Manchurian Tiger July 6, 2005
Wait, are you Manchu? (满族) That makes a pretty big difference.
There's a confusion of terms here. "Manchuria" usually refers to "Northeast China" (东北), so when I said that people from Manchuria don't like being called that, I meant that Northeast Chinese (东北人) don't like to be called Manchurian (满洲人). This is definitely true for the majority of Manchuria's population, which is Han (汉族).
When you say you feel more Manchurian than Chinese, do you mean you feel more Manchu (满族) than Han (汉族), or do you mean you feel more like a person of Manchuria (满洲人) than a person of China (中国人)? -- ran ( talk) July 7, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Hi Ran. I'm a Manchurian (满洲人), although I'm not a Manchu. My ancestors were Koreans (Chao-Xian-ren) according to inscription found in the ancestry temple. However, growing up in Manchuria, I used to identify myself as Han because my residential certificate was signed up as Han for my ethnicity. A Han Dong-bei-ren is also a Manchurian. Just as an American does not have to be a native Amerian, i.e. an American Indian; a Manchurian does not have to be a native Manchu.
The whole thing about Manchuria was totally overtaken by the Chinese nationalist fanatics and international politics. There is very little voice heard from true Manchurians.
By the way, how do you post your message here besides using "edit"? Manchurian Tiger July 8, 2005
Well, your view seems to be the minority in Dongbei 东北. Most Han Chinese Dongbeiren (汉族 东北人) seem to be opposed to the term "Manchuria" (满洲) probably because of Manchukuo (满洲国).
To post a message, just use Edit... or the plus sign (+) which adds a new topic. -- ran ( talk) July 8, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Manchurian Tiger: when you sign your name, please don't give a link to an article ( Manchurian Tiger)... the link should point to your user page (e.g. User:Manchurian Tiger). -- ran ( talk) 18:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why suck up to Red Chinese hyper-nationalism? Wikipedia should not be the Chinese version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, if some Han nationalists are offended by minorities, so what. What I (and many users) miss is a detailed number--how many Manchus lived in Manchuria in 1934? They were a "minority" but how big, how small. How large were the other non-Han groups?
I am trying to research the pre WWII conflict between Russia and Japan in Manchuria. I understand that a number of full scale battles were fought resulting in a massive attack by Russian armour which ended the conflict. Can anyone direct me to sources giving details of this conflict. My interest arises from pondering why Russia felt sufficiently secure from Japanese attack after Germany invaded Russia to remove a number of Divisions from the Eastern to the Western front in time to defend Moscow. JYK
This is an odd place to end up having this discussion, but I guess it's as good a place as any. User:Deiaemeth has made a number of assertions here and elsewhere that the kingdoms of Balhae, Goguryeo, and Buyeo were ethnically Korean.
To me -- and I may be missing something -- this seems far more like nationalism than useful information. Even if these kingdoms were of similar ancestry to modern Koreans, they (save perhaps Balhae) substantially predate the construction of a unitary "Korean" identity. Thus calling them "Korean" does not seem to tell the reader anything useful.
I may be mistaken in this, and that's why I would like to see some authoritative sources to support the claim of Korean ancestry. Deiaemeth has kindly provided the following links: [2] [3] [4] [5] . However, I have taken the liberty of commenting these out from the article, because they do not seem to have anything to do with the question at hand. As far as I can see, only the Infoplease link even mentions Goguryeo as a Korean state, and does not provide any further information to support this (reasonable) claim.
That these states were part of Korean history cannot be disputed; that they were Korean can be, and thus such an assertion needs some reputable support. What would be especially persuasive would be a history of China or Manchuria (rather than Korea) that identified these states as Korean. Is there such a text?-- Visviva 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I feel offended by the term Manchurian. I am a Manzu-ren 满族人, or Qi-ren 旗人
Karolus 2006/6/5
Buyeo (state): these are the only mentions of the state in 2005 britannica deluxe:
Goguryeo: feel free to look this up in any reputable reference work. Appleby 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to discuss this with Appleby on his talk page, but regrettably, he hasn't responded so far.
Here're my original messages to him, in their entirety.
-- ran ( talk) 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
(start)
(end)
all your questions are answered by the sources. honestly, i'm not here at wikipedia to chew the fat about my pet theories or philosophies. i'm trying to focus on contributing content from reputable, verifiable, npov english reference works. Appleby 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this statement really true? I always thought Manzhou was a Chinese transcription of the Manchu language name: Manju. -- Yuje 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone is insisting on adding Hmong to the list of ethnic groups that have dominated Manchuria. Apparently there is a theory that the Hmong did pass through Manchuria. However, this seems to be just one among a set of theories which involve the Hmong potentially having come from more or less every region of Asia. [17] Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in the known history of Manchuria which would seem to correspond to the Hmong. -- Visviva 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The English term for this region is now "Northeastern China," not Manchuria. The international press does not use "Manchuria," unless for historic contexts. No one in China uses the term Manchuria to refer to this region either. Naus 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing called "Northeast China". There is only "the Northest" - "dong bei" in Mandarin. Nobody says "dong bei Zhong Guo".
Manchuria is just like the word Tibet. Nobody calls it Xizang or the West Land as its Chinese name really means.
Aranherunar, it is true that more and more people in Manchuria use the term "Manchuria (Manzhou in Mandarin) nowadays. -- Manchurian Tiger 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Manchuria is currently in Northeastern China and is commonly referred to as Northeastern China even in Manchuria. Currently the entire land of Manchuria is completely in China and the Chinese translation is more prominent than the Manchu one which is outdated. RevolverOcelotX
-- Yuje 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This map seems to offend a few people, like Manzhouri. I'm not sure idea why, but maybe people don't like that it's presenting four alternate definitions on one map. Could someone either change the map or the caption so that everyone's happy -- or maybe even explain why this map is fine as is? I firmly believe that all geography articles are incomplete without maps.
-- M @ r ē ino 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I want to be clear -- I have zero opinion about what the map should look like. China is outside my area of study. All that I care about is that we get a map eventually. -- M @ r ē ino 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, those informations posted by Breathejustice are just plain ridiculous and out there. No prominent sources contain informations or claims like that. Major encyclopedias such as the Encyclopædia Britannica [19] or Columbia Encyclopedia [20]'s entry on Manchuria are nothing like this. The website the person sited are from an irrelevant Korean website. Biased or nationalistic sources are not the reputable or objective kind that should be used in an encyclopedia. -- Godardesque 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I should've expect this when most of the informations in the "Earlier History" section posted by Breathejustice or his buddies came from the site run by the government agency (the earlier link shows
Korea.net, which is an official government website, but he interestingly later delinked it. The present "
Asianinfo" website's informations are provided by the Korean Embassy). I just can't believe this article has became a portal for government Propagandas. --
Godardesque
17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Asianinfo is not provided by the korean embassy!!!!!!!! You see domain name is ORG NOT GOV And I cited the history book of your chinese... Even your chinese history book says that Manchu was Korean and Malgal territory at least 10 century..... You are blindly remove my writing even though I am citing your country's history book.
The website isn't, but the informations are provided by the Embassy. Could you just look at the article Asianinfo's bottom section; it says the content was provided by the embassy. Another thing, I'm not Chinese, thanks. -- Godardesque 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you are not chinese. sorry. I found the "embassy".... I will find another source. However, dont you read chinese character that I have cited the above? If you can read, you may understand what I have said. I am not nationalist. Every chinese, korean and japanese know that Manchuria had been a territory of korean until at least 10 century.
I want this article to be a good example of encyclopedia entry. As far as I can tell, your views or the informations you have put out seems to be in the extreme minority (check out other languages' Wikipedia article on Manchuria). No, I don't read Chinese characters or Kanji or Hanja, but I do have a extensive knowledge on East Asian history in general. Pretty much all the repsectable articles or encyclopedia entries on Manchuria ( Library of Congress's Country Studies, Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta...) doesn't have the kind of informations contained here. So far, these informations in the Earlier history section seems to be disputed materials at best, and solely seen from the Korean perspectives. -- Godardesque 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to pick on you or anything, but, those two sources' (reference.com and experts.about.com) entry came from the articles in Wikipedia (see their bottom's copyright section); they are exactly the same article as the articles in the Wikipedia. Why don't you just link Wikipedia's article on History of Korea directly, and which of course you must've know, anyone can edit it. Also, the History of Goguryeo and History of Balhae links in the Manchuria article's page also came from the Wikipedia. You probably should consider changing those too. -- Godardesque 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is an English encyclopedia, don't you think this article should fit into the standards as well (ever read other English encyclopedias)? That means, it should contains references in published works in English. Sources that are considered academic, authoritative, and objective in English. I don't care what they write about it in the Korean article or the Chinese or the Japanese, that is their business (no matter how nationalistic they want to be), but this article should fit into the coordinate standards of any other entries in the Wikipedia. -- Godardesque 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What i means is that history, which can be translation or interpretation, should be written based on the original history book. You think that it should be removed the history before 10 century because no enlgish book do not say about the history before 10 century about manchu. But, there are several original history book that described the history of manchu before 10 century as original language such as chinese.
Even in Britannica, there is a sentence that Buyeo and Gugoryeo are established in Manchu. Why did you have lie to me ? You are really nationalist of china. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-35004
Mister, do you know what does nationalism mean? Could you please also sign your name! I have no idea if you are Breathejustice or 67.38.247.32 or 192.35.79.70 or just one of your pals. Stop acting like a baby. -- Godardesque 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as things have calmed down, I can see a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to some of the points Breathejustice is trying to make. There are a few sentences that could be improved, and the relationship to Korean history probably do deserve slightly more detail, especially Koguryeo and Parhae. Of course, most of his stuff is patent nonsense, but someone else should integrate some minor details that are consistent with Western scholarship. Nijumet 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess that person changed an username and came back. What a surprise... Breathejustice again. -- Godardesque 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To Breathejustice: okay, if the "Toomon" river is not the Tumen River, then what is the "Toomon" river then? Which modern river in Manchuria does it correspond to? You can't just claim "Toomon is definitely not Tumen" --- what is it then? Which specific river is it? -- ran ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Map of Korea, made by Korea, from the late 18th century. -- ran ( talk) 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
See this map made by european missionary at 19th century
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.193.170 ( talk • contribs)
Read the map --- it's the boundaries of vicariates. -- ran ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
After repeatedly trying to insert the vicariate map as a political map into Gando, User:Breathejustice is beginning to insert very questionable, obviously POV edits into Gando. I've already exhausted my 3RR for the day so I ask anyone's who's interested to keep an eye on that article. -- ran ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Breathejustice has started the article Three Gojoseon. Included in the article is the following map:
Those interested in the history of Manchuria can take a look. -- ran ( talk) 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That particular picture on the page has since been replaced with this, which shows not only Manchuria, but the area north of it, all of Japan, and the entire eastern Chinese seacoast. -- Yuje 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) File:삼조선.gif
Another article started by him, on the state of Hwan-guk shows it as comprising not only the above territory, but most of Siberia as well, and seems to show ancient Korea as the origin of Mesopotamian civilization. -- Yuje 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1. 後漢書 東夷列傳
前言《王制》云:[東方曰<夷>.] 夷者, 也, 言仁而好生, 萬物 地而出.{事見《風俗通》.} 故天性柔順, 易以道御, 至有<君子>·<不死>之國焉.
Buyeo: <夫餘國>, 在<玄 >北千里. 南與<高句驪>, 東與< 婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>. 地方二千里, 本<濊>地也.
Goguryeo: <高句驪>, 在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 地方二千里, 多大山深谷, 人隨而爲居.
2. 三國志卷 魏書 東夷傳
Buyeo: <夫餘>在<長城>之北, 去<玄 >千里, 南與<高句麗>, 東與< 婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>, 方可二千里. 戶八萬, 其民土著, 有宮室·倉庫·牢獄. 多山陵·廣澤, 於東夷之域最平敞. 土地宜五穀, 不生五果. 其人 大, 性彊勇謹厚, 不寇 . 國有君王, 皆以六畜名官, 有馬加·牛加· 加·狗加·大使·大使者·使者.
Goguryeo: <高句麗>在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 都於<丸都>之下, 方可二千里, 戶三萬.
3. 宋書 列傳
Baekje: <百濟國>, 本與<高驪>俱在<遼東>之東千餘里, 其後<高驪>略有<遼東>, <百濟>略有<遼西>. <百濟>所治, 謂之<晉平郡><晉平縣>. -->The state of Baekje is originally Goguryeo, and they are located in the area of Liaodong Peninsula. After Goguryeo governed the area of Liaodong Peninsula, Baekje governed the west side of Liaodong Peninsula, and they are called as <晉平郡><晉平縣>.
and so on...
I must say this page has been vandalised by some Korean nationalists that obviously use biased maps that have no historical backing... since when was Japan a colony of Korea, and since when did a Korean kingdom take over Taiwan and the yellow river areas that were obviously Chinese lands? Someone needs to really fix this
This chinese text is quoted from "Chinese history book" without any modification. The text is exactly same with the original "chinese history book". Therefore, it is not written by korean nationalists. If these texts, quoted from "chinese history book", are said to be vandalism, that saying is also "vandalism" because they are considering the quotation from the orignal history books as vandalism.
Due to the number of reverts on this article, it's been protected until things calm down a bit. Any admin may unprotect without consulting me. Thanks! :D ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected. Legitimate users are welcome to discuss content changes, but this wave of POV pushing by anonymous IP's must stop. -- ran ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm satisfied with the current version. Although I'm a extreme Korean Nationalist, the current version is NPOV -- General TIger 09:47, 30 September 2006 (Korean Time)
Barely 48 hours after removal of protection, ultranationalist revisionists have returned to push their POVs into a wide variety of Manchuria- and Korea-related topics.
This situation is getting a bit out of hand. These revisionists insist on extending the scope of Korean civilization, both in space and time, far beyond what is generally agreed upon. The analogy I can think of would be revisionists trying to portray Huangdi as a real figure ruling a massive proto-China stretching from Lake Baikal to Sumatra, or Emperor Jimmu as a real figure ruling a massive proto-Japan stretching from Kamchatka to Guam, based on nothing more than centuries-old mythological literature twinned spuriously with archaeological finds of a pre-literate bronze age culture.
I think we need to ask the wider Korean community on Wikipedia for help. Perhaps a notice on the Korean noticeboard is needed? -- ran ( talk) 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
E.g. Gojoseon. -- ran ( talk) 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of these have already been fixed, but they're certain to be vandalized again. -- ran ( talk) 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The above-linked page seems to have a life of its own. It might be possible to create a sensible article at that title -- perhaps a survey of Korean people who have lived in or passed through Manchuria through the centuries -- but the current version seems to be a Korean nationalist POV fork of the "History" section here. I don't think this is constructive, and would like to redirect that article once again to this one. If there is a good reason for the KHiM article to exist as a separate article, please advise. Cheers, -- Visviva 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuan and Qing were not Chinese dynasties.-- Manchurian Tiger 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Manchuria can refer to different things. This article should be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny Niohe. Be sure you know what you're talking about. There is a policy here that you need to follow. Otherwise readers don't know which Manchuria the article is talking about. Disambiguation 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You're very confusing. Which Manchuria is overwhelmingly the most common? If that's case, I think you need to create a seperate article for that one. Disambiguation 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is one that is overwhemingly the most common. And I can see that neither of you can point it out. Disambiguation 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the term Manchuria, not an article. You're off the point. Disambiguation 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The following makes Manchuria an ambiguous term. No matter you like it or not.
“Manchuria” can refer to any one of several regions :
Disambiguation 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Then which Machuria the rest of this article is talking about? You are questioning the validity of Wiki's disambiguation policy. Disambiguation 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll do it. As you see none of the above is a dictionary definition. Disambiguation 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editor here doesn't know what a disambig page look like. Here is an example: English. It is a list of bullets and each bullet has it own defition of the term concerned. Since nobody can point out wich Manchuria is overwhelmingly the common (there is no such one actually), the disambiguation page should look like this
“Manchuria” can refer to any one of several regions :
If there is no disagreements, I'll make the above disambig page. Of course, if you think any of the above bullets is inaccurate, you can edit it. Disambiguation 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That still makes it ambiguous. And there are different definitions of Inner and Outer Manchuria. Disambiguation 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Manchuria can also refer to Inner and Outer Manchuria together. All these things make Manchuria ambiguous. Disambiguation 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To continue, from your comments above it seems that you have not understood the difference between disambiguation page and disambiguation link. If you wish, you can create a disambiguation link, as suggested, i.e. Manchuria (disambiguation).-- Niohe 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I just want to bring to the attention of other editors of this page that The discussion with User:Disambiguation has been confirmed as a sock puppet of User:Snle. This editor has been using sock puppets and single purpose accounts for a while in order to make aggressive edits on Manchuria related topics and has been blocked indefinitely. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. -- Niohe 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The actual spelling should be "Ko-Chosun" not Gojoseon. The actual territory was covering all Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan range. Korean political division between North and South makes research difficult. That was Ko-Chosun actual size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits made to Gojoseon suggest that Gojoseon covered all of Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan Range. This appears to be a Breathejustice-like POV-push to me. If anyone's interested, can you take a look to see how legitimate the edits are? -- ran ( talk) 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Hairwizard91, please provide tangible evidence that "Russian Manchuria" is a common term for Outer Manchuria before you make changes to the page. The burden of proof is on you, not anyone else.-- Niohe 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the discussion in trying to reach a consensus on Goguryeo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the idea of a {{ History of Manchuria}} template has been proposed. A tentative template has been created at User:Nlu/History of Manchuria, but as I am not good at designing templates, and particuarly hope to see (but cannot design) a template similar in format to {{ History of China}}, I'd like help from interested editors here. Please take a look at the page and dig in. For background information, please see Talk:Goguryeo. As I wrote there, I'd like to do this in the next 120 hours if possible, so that we can hopefully reach a compromise on that article. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
See this map showing Manchuria as a Han land. Were not Manchu dynasty considered foreign and alien to China? Is the map wrong? Are Mancurians listed officially as a ethnic group by PRC? Anwar 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The text states:
This seems to me to be a source of confusion. I think readers unfamiliar with the subject will infer from this that the " Mukden Incident" refers to the bomb which exploded under the train in the previous paragraph. Would someone more qualified than I edit this to: either make a distinction between these two unrelated events, or to distance the two references to Mukden in such a way that the context does not make it seem as if the two events are related? Please? User:Pedant 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
By assessments based on history records:
With these assessments, I cannot agree to putting "Korean" labels in the "Early History" section. (1) Before Balhae collapsed in the 10th century, the ancient people in the Balhae area were both "proto-Manchu" and "proto-Korean". (2) Between 10th century and the late 19th century, the ancient people in the entire Manchuria area were "proto-Manchu" (and "proto-Daur" and "proto-Xibe", but no "proto-Korean" people during this period because they stayed in Goryeo after 10th century) . During the Ming Dynasty, Han Chinese migrated to the present-day Liaoning Province area, but were decimated by Nurhaci and Huang Taiji. Most remaining Han Chinese in the area became Manchu at that time. (3) At the late 19th century, Han Chinese dominated the area by waves of migration.-- Jiejunkong 07:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
These are clearly typos of the Treaty of Aigun (1858) and Convention of Peking (1860). The Qing ceded the territories north of the Amur in the 1800s with these treaties not during the time of the PRC.
Do you see anywhere that the PRC COULD give up? By the time of the 1911 Revolution, China had lost control of all land north of the Amur. If I am wrong, please provide a source of the two such 1900s treaties. 70.254.213.240 ( talk) 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Who were water tatars that settled in northern Manchuria. I found that Mongols conquered them in 1232 but they revolted against Yuan rule in 1341 and defeated.-- Enerelt ( talk) 07:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, guys. They were Tungus people. -- Enerelt ( talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Manchuria was independent up until the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. It had its own distinct food, culture, language and history for centuries. It has no mentioned whatsoever of how it was invaded by Japan or China and the resulting power transfers between those 2 countries. What is most disturbing is that this article completely ignores many important aspects of this country and is now nothing more than Chinese propaganda in order to destroy and assimilate the Manchurians.
But I thought Guandong is near Hong Kong & nowhere near Japan/Korea/Russia?? This article would need to clarify this point.
edit: I just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Leased_Territory. Reddirt ( talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jpw
Ant preteners to thone of the so called Manchukou nation set up by japanaese beofre World war 2Innolad
The term Outer Manchuria seems to have been coined by Juha Janhunen in 1996 in his Manchuria: an ethnic history. Janhunen is probably the foremost expert on the Manchus, but the term 'Outer Manchuria' is problematic. It was not used historically because the Manchus inhabited only the area south of the Nen and Songhua Rivers. The Manchu ethnic group was created by Nurhachi in the 17th century from Jurchen speakers in what is now Liaoning and Jilin province. The communities to the north included other Jurchen speakers, but they retained their separate identies (Solon, Daur etc.) and were not assimilated to the Manchus (although some Manchus were later settled south of the Amur River. The area north of the Amur and east of the Ussuri was under loose Manchu hegemony, but it was no more 'Manchuria' than any region in China that the Manchus ruled. The 'Inner'-'Outer' distinction has a special meaning in the case of the Mongols, and it muddies the water to extend the term so loosely to another region. Atla5Atla5 ( talk) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The qing dynasty did not use the name manchuria. The japanese invented that name in 1809 and then spread that usage to the west. 1, 2.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |archivedate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Nurgan was the name for Manchuria during the Ming dynasty. Crossley 1999, p. 58.</ref>
10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries Loretta E. Kim 金由美 Central Asiatic Journal Vol. 56, (2012/2013), pp. 169-202 Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0169
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Manchuria doesn't include Jehol, which is part of Hebei province.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzhouri ( talk • contribs)
Manchuria is the British translation for the Inner Mongolian City name -- 满洲里 ( Manzhouli).
Is Manchurian culture Manchu culture? That will be quite different from the Northeast culture, which is just a variation of Han Chinese culture. The use of "Manchuria" and "Manchurian" should be kept at the minimum level possible. They are just misleading, inappropriate and negative.
The picture of this article is showing the area of "Manchukou", which is very gross. The area of Inner Manchuria is actually smaller than that. It only includes part of northeastern Inner mogolia and Northeast China.
"Manchuria" is offensive to people in China. There is no need to use this word at all.
I think the definition of "東北三省" (literally "the Three Northeastern Provinces") nowadays and the historical "東北九省" (literally "the Nine Northeastern Provinces") should be added to the article. The article " 东北九省" in the Chinese Wikipedia may help. - Alanmak 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
olivier 12:38 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
ran 06:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
What is the relationship of opium with Manchuria? Was it cultivated there? --
Error
Fixed an error. The PRC has never asserted sovereignty over the Russian Far East. The shooting in 1969 was over disputed islands. The Chinese attitude toward the RFE is similar to Mexican attitudes over California. Bad thing that it was lost, but no serious suggestion of retaking it. Roadrunner 06:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think the name "Manchuria" itself is somewhat problematic --- post the very name (Manzhou) on a Chinese forum and you will get flamed. Perhaps the article should set that out a bit more clearly --- that Manchuria, as a name in itself, is NOT accepted by many people, and that the region it refers to is called Manchuria by some people, not all.
ran 06:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
I do have a question about "Haishenwei was renamed Vladivostok" bit of the article. Vladivostok was founded by Russians, and the city has never been Chinese/Manchurian. I am thus wondering what "Haishenwei" refers to. Is this the name of the territory on which modern-day Vladivostok is located? In any case, this sentence should be either removed or clarified.-- Ezhiki 15:08, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
To anon who made the latest edit: Are you sure? It's always been my impression that using "Manzhou" and "Manzhouren" is offensive, especially to people from that region. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 04:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're not our typical dongbeiren ;) -- ran ( talk) 18:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
In contrast to Outer Manchuria, the part of Manchuria that is still part of China, usually called simply " Manchuria", can also be referred to as "Inner Manchuria".
Would you like the suggest an alternative? -- ran ( talk) 03:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Fabartus... The sentence is trying to stuff too many ideas into one sentence. Why is Outer Manchuria even mentioned in a statement that says Inner Manchuria = Chinese part of Manchuria = simply "Manchuria". That's 4 terms right there.... What is the sentence's point? -- Menchi 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am a native Manchurian. I never feel insulted by being called "Manchurian". As a matter of fact, I feel more Manchurian than Chinese.
Manchurian Tiger July 6, 2005
Wait, are you Manchu? (满族) That makes a pretty big difference.
There's a confusion of terms here. "Manchuria" usually refers to "Northeast China" (东北), so when I said that people from Manchuria don't like being called that, I meant that Northeast Chinese (东北人) don't like to be called Manchurian (满洲人). This is definitely true for the majority of Manchuria's population, which is Han (汉族).
When you say you feel more Manchurian than Chinese, do you mean you feel more Manchu (满族) than Han (汉族), or do you mean you feel more like a person of Manchuria (满洲人) than a person of China (中国人)? -- ran ( talk) July 7, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Hi Ran. I'm a Manchurian (满洲人), although I'm not a Manchu. My ancestors were Koreans (Chao-Xian-ren) according to inscription found in the ancestry temple. However, growing up in Manchuria, I used to identify myself as Han because my residential certificate was signed up as Han for my ethnicity. A Han Dong-bei-ren is also a Manchurian. Just as an American does not have to be a native Amerian, i.e. an American Indian; a Manchurian does not have to be a native Manchu.
The whole thing about Manchuria was totally overtaken by the Chinese nationalist fanatics and international politics. There is very little voice heard from true Manchurians.
By the way, how do you post your message here besides using "edit"? Manchurian Tiger July 8, 2005
Well, your view seems to be the minority in Dongbei 东北. Most Han Chinese Dongbeiren (汉族 东北人) seem to be opposed to the term "Manchuria" (满洲) probably because of Manchukuo (满洲国).
To post a message, just use Edit... or the plus sign (+) which adds a new topic. -- ran ( talk) July 8, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Manchurian Tiger: when you sign your name, please don't give a link to an article ( Manchurian Tiger)... the link should point to your user page (e.g. User:Manchurian Tiger). -- ran ( talk) 18:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why suck up to Red Chinese hyper-nationalism? Wikipedia should not be the Chinese version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, if some Han nationalists are offended by minorities, so what. What I (and many users) miss is a detailed number--how many Manchus lived in Manchuria in 1934? They were a "minority" but how big, how small. How large were the other non-Han groups?
I am trying to research the pre WWII conflict between Russia and Japan in Manchuria. I understand that a number of full scale battles were fought resulting in a massive attack by Russian armour which ended the conflict. Can anyone direct me to sources giving details of this conflict. My interest arises from pondering why Russia felt sufficiently secure from Japanese attack after Germany invaded Russia to remove a number of Divisions from the Eastern to the Western front in time to defend Moscow. JYK
This is an odd place to end up having this discussion, but I guess it's as good a place as any. User:Deiaemeth has made a number of assertions here and elsewhere that the kingdoms of Balhae, Goguryeo, and Buyeo were ethnically Korean.
To me -- and I may be missing something -- this seems far more like nationalism than useful information. Even if these kingdoms were of similar ancestry to modern Koreans, they (save perhaps Balhae) substantially predate the construction of a unitary "Korean" identity. Thus calling them "Korean" does not seem to tell the reader anything useful.
I may be mistaken in this, and that's why I would like to see some authoritative sources to support the claim of Korean ancestry. Deiaemeth has kindly provided the following links: [2] [3] [4] [5] . However, I have taken the liberty of commenting these out from the article, because they do not seem to have anything to do with the question at hand. As far as I can see, only the Infoplease link even mentions Goguryeo as a Korean state, and does not provide any further information to support this (reasonable) claim.
That these states were part of Korean history cannot be disputed; that they were Korean can be, and thus such an assertion needs some reputable support. What would be especially persuasive would be a history of China or Manchuria (rather than Korea) that identified these states as Korean. Is there such a text?-- Visviva 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I feel offended by the term Manchurian. I am a Manzu-ren 满族人, or Qi-ren 旗人
Karolus 2006/6/5
Buyeo (state): these are the only mentions of the state in 2005 britannica deluxe:
Goguryeo: feel free to look this up in any reputable reference work. Appleby 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to discuss this with Appleby on his talk page, but regrettably, he hasn't responded so far.
Here're my original messages to him, in their entirety.
-- ran ( talk) 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
(start)
(end)
all your questions are answered by the sources. honestly, i'm not here at wikipedia to chew the fat about my pet theories or philosophies. i'm trying to focus on contributing content from reputable, verifiable, npov english reference works. Appleby 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this statement really true? I always thought Manzhou was a Chinese transcription of the Manchu language name: Manju. -- Yuje 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone is insisting on adding Hmong to the list of ethnic groups that have dominated Manchuria. Apparently there is a theory that the Hmong did pass through Manchuria. However, this seems to be just one among a set of theories which involve the Hmong potentially having come from more or less every region of Asia. [17] Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in the known history of Manchuria which would seem to correspond to the Hmong. -- Visviva 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The English term for this region is now "Northeastern China," not Manchuria. The international press does not use "Manchuria," unless for historic contexts. No one in China uses the term Manchuria to refer to this region either. Naus 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing called "Northeast China". There is only "the Northest" - "dong bei" in Mandarin. Nobody says "dong bei Zhong Guo".
Manchuria is just like the word Tibet. Nobody calls it Xizang or the West Land as its Chinese name really means.
Aranherunar, it is true that more and more people in Manchuria use the term "Manchuria (Manzhou in Mandarin) nowadays. -- Manchurian Tiger 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Manchuria is currently in Northeastern China and is commonly referred to as Northeastern China even in Manchuria. Currently the entire land of Manchuria is completely in China and the Chinese translation is more prominent than the Manchu one which is outdated. RevolverOcelotX
-- Yuje 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This map seems to offend a few people, like Manzhouri. I'm not sure idea why, but maybe people don't like that it's presenting four alternate definitions on one map. Could someone either change the map or the caption so that everyone's happy -- or maybe even explain why this map is fine as is? I firmly believe that all geography articles are incomplete without maps.
-- M @ r ē ino 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I want to be clear -- I have zero opinion about what the map should look like. China is outside my area of study. All that I care about is that we get a map eventually. -- M @ r ē ino 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, those informations posted by Breathejustice are just plain ridiculous and out there. No prominent sources contain informations or claims like that. Major encyclopedias such as the Encyclopædia Britannica [19] or Columbia Encyclopedia [20]'s entry on Manchuria are nothing like this. The website the person sited are from an irrelevant Korean website. Biased or nationalistic sources are not the reputable or objective kind that should be used in an encyclopedia. -- Godardesque 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I should've expect this when most of the informations in the "Earlier History" section posted by Breathejustice or his buddies came from the site run by the government agency (the earlier link shows
Korea.net, which is an official government website, but he interestingly later delinked it. The present "
Asianinfo" website's informations are provided by the Korean Embassy). I just can't believe this article has became a portal for government Propagandas. --
Godardesque
17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Asianinfo is not provided by the korean embassy!!!!!!!! You see domain name is ORG NOT GOV And I cited the history book of your chinese... Even your chinese history book says that Manchu was Korean and Malgal territory at least 10 century..... You are blindly remove my writing even though I am citing your country's history book.
The website isn't, but the informations are provided by the Embassy. Could you just look at the article Asianinfo's bottom section; it says the content was provided by the embassy. Another thing, I'm not Chinese, thanks. -- Godardesque 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you are not chinese. sorry. I found the "embassy".... I will find another source. However, dont you read chinese character that I have cited the above? If you can read, you may understand what I have said. I am not nationalist. Every chinese, korean and japanese know that Manchuria had been a territory of korean until at least 10 century.
I want this article to be a good example of encyclopedia entry. As far as I can tell, your views or the informations you have put out seems to be in the extreme minority (check out other languages' Wikipedia article on Manchuria). No, I don't read Chinese characters or Kanji or Hanja, but I do have a extensive knowledge on East Asian history in general. Pretty much all the repsectable articles or encyclopedia entries on Manchuria ( Library of Congress's Country Studies, Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta...) doesn't have the kind of informations contained here. So far, these informations in the Earlier history section seems to be disputed materials at best, and solely seen from the Korean perspectives. -- Godardesque 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to pick on you or anything, but, those two sources' (reference.com and experts.about.com) entry came from the articles in Wikipedia (see their bottom's copyright section); they are exactly the same article as the articles in the Wikipedia. Why don't you just link Wikipedia's article on History of Korea directly, and which of course you must've know, anyone can edit it. Also, the History of Goguryeo and History of Balhae links in the Manchuria article's page also came from the Wikipedia. You probably should consider changing those too. -- Godardesque 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is an English encyclopedia, don't you think this article should fit into the standards as well (ever read other English encyclopedias)? That means, it should contains references in published works in English. Sources that are considered academic, authoritative, and objective in English. I don't care what they write about it in the Korean article or the Chinese or the Japanese, that is their business (no matter how nationalistic they want to be), but this article should fit into the coordinate standards of any other entries in the Wikipedia. -- Godardesque 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What i means is that history, which can be translation or interpretation, should be written based on the original history book. You think that it should be removed the history before 10 century because no enlgish book do not say about the history before 10 century about manchu. But, there are several original history book that described the history of manchu before 10 century as original language such as chinese.
Even in Britannica, there is a sentence that Buyeo and Gugoryeo are established in Manchu. Why did you have lie to me ? You are really nationalist of china. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-35004
Mister, do you know what does nationalism mean? Could you please also sign your name! I have no idea if you are Breathejustice or 67.38.247.32 or 192.35.79.70 or just one of your pals. Stop acting like a baby. -- Godardesque 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as things have calmed down, I can see a tiny, tiny kernel of truth to some of the points Breathejustice is trying to make. There are a few sentences that could be improved, and the relationship to Korean history probably do deserve slightly more detail, especially Koguryeo and Parhae. Of course, most of his stuff is patent nonsense, but someone else should integrate some minor details that are consistent with Western scholarship. Nijumet 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess that person changed an username and came back. What a surprise... Breathejustice again. -- Godardesque 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To Breathejustice: okay, if the "Toomon" river is not the Tumen River, then what is the "Toomon" river then? Which modern river in Manchuria does it correspond to? You can't just claim "Toomon is definitely not Tumen" --- what is it then? Which specific river is it? -- ran ( talk) 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Map of Korea, made by Korea, from the late 18th century. -- ran ( talk) 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
See this map made by european missionary at 19th century
-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.193.170 ( talk • contribs)
Read the map --- it's the boundaries of vicariates. -- ran ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
After repeatedly trying to insert the vicariate map as a political map into Gando, User:Breathejustice is beginning to insert very questionable, obviously POV edits into Gando. I've already exhausted my 3RR for the day so I ask anyone's who's interested to keep an eye on that article. -- ran ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Breathejustice has started the article Three Gojoseon. Included in the article is the following map:
Those interested in the history of Manchuria can take a look. -- ran ( talk) 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That particular picture on the page has since been replaced with this, which shows not only Manchuria, but the area north of it, all of Japan, and the entire eastern Chinese seacoast. -- Yuje 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) File:삼조선.gif
Another article started by him, on the state of Hwan-guk shows it as comprising not only the above territory, but most of Siberia as well, and seems to show ancient Korea as the origin of Mesopotamian civilization. -- Yuje 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1. 後漢書 東夷列傳
前言《王制》云:[東方曰<夷>.] 夷者, 也, 言仁而好生, 萬物 地而出.{事見《風俗通》.} 故天性柔順, 易以道御, 至有<君子>·<不死>之國焉.
Buyeo: <夫餘國>, 在<玄 >北千里. 南與<高句驪>, 東與< 婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>. 地方二千里, 本<濊>地也.
Goguryeo: <高句驪>, 在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 地方二千里, 多大山深谷, 人隨而爲居.
2. 三國志卷 魏書 東夷傳
Buyeo: <夫餘>在<長城>之北, 去<玄 >千里, 南與<高句麗>, 東與< 婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>, 方可二千里. 戶八萬, 其民土著, 有宮室·倉庫·牢獄. 多山陵·廣澤, 於東夷之域最平敞. 土地宜五穀, 不生五果. 其人 大, 性彊勇謹厚, 不寇 . 國有君王, 皆以六畜名官, 有馬加·牛加· 加·狗加·大使·大使者·使者.
Goguryeo: <高句麗>在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 都於<丸都>之下, 方可二千里, 戶三萬.
3. 宋書 列傳
Baekje: <百濟國>, 本與<高驪>俱在<遼東>之東千餘里, 其後<高驪>略有<遼東>, <百濟>略有<遼西>. <百濟>所治, 謂之<晉平郡><晉平縣>. -->The state of Baekje is originally Goguryeo, and they are located in the area of Liaodong Peninsula. After Goguryeo governed the area of Liaodong Peninsula, Baekje governed the west side of Liaodong Peninsula, and they are called as <晉平郡><晉平縣>.
and so on...
I must say this page has been vandalised by some Korean nationalists that obviously use biased maps that have no historical backing... since when was Japan a colony of Korea, and since when did a Korean kingdom take over Taiwan and the yellow river areas that were obviously Chinese lands? Someone needs to really fix this
This chinese text is quoted from "Chinese history book" without any modification. The text is exactly same with the original "chinese history book". Therefore, it is not written by korean nationalists. If these texts, quoted from "chinese history book", are said to be vandalism, that saying is also "vandalism" because they are considering the quotation from the orignal history books as vandalism.
Due to the number of reverts on this article, it's been protected until things calm down a bit. Any admin may unprotect without consulting me. Thanks! :D ~Kylu ( u| t) 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've semi-protected. Legitimate users are welcome to discuss content changes, but this wave of POV pushing by anonymous IP's must stop. -- ran ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm satisfied with the current version. Although I'm a extreme Korean Nationalist, the current version is NPOV -- General TIger 09:47, 30 September 2006 (Korean Time)
Barely 48 hours after removal of protection, ultranationalist revisionists have returned to push their POVs into a wide variety of Manchuria- and Korea-related topics.
This situation is getting a bit out of hand. These revisionists insist on extending the scope of Korean civilization, both in space and time, far beyond what is generally agreed upon. The analogy I can think of would be revisionists trying to portray Huangdi as a real figure ruling a massive proto-China stretching from Lake Baikal to Sumatra, or Emperor Jimmu as a real figure ruling a massive proto-Japan stretching from Kamchatka to Guam, based on nothing more than centuries-old mythological literature twinned spuriously with archaeological finds of a pre-literate bronze age culture.
I think we need to ask the wider Korean community on Wikipedia for help. Perhaps a notice on the Korean noticeboard is needed? -- ran ( talk) 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
E.g. Gojoseon. -- ran ( talk) 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of these have already been fixed, but they're certain to be vandalized again. -- ran ( talk) 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The above-linked page seems to have a life of its own. It might be possible to create a sensible article at that title -- perhaps a survey of Korean people who have lived in or passed through Manchuria through the centuries -- but the current version seems to be a Korean nationalist POV fork of the "History" section here. I don't think this is constructive, and would like to redirect that article once again to this one. If there is a good reason for the KHiM article to exist as a separate article, please advise. Cheers, -- Visviva 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yuan and Qing were not Chinese dynasties.-- Manchurian Tiger 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Since Manchuria can refer to different things. This article should be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny Niohe. Be sure you know what you're talking about. There is a policy here that you need to follow. Otherwise readers don't know which Manchuria the article is talking about. Disambiguation 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You're very confusing. Which Manchuria is overwhelmingly the most common? If that's case, I think you need to create a seperate article for that one. Disambiguation 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is one that is overwhemingly the most common. And I can see that neither of you can point it out. Disambiguation 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about the term Manchuria, not an article. You're off the point. Disambiguation 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The following makes Manchuria an ambiguous term. No matter you like it or not.
“Manchuria” can refer to any one of several regions :
Disambiguation 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Then which Machuria the rest of this article is talking about? You are questioning the validity of Wiki's disambiguation policy. Disambiguation 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Great. I'll do it. As you see none of the above is a dictionary definition. Disambiguation 17:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editor here doesn't know what a disambig page look like. Here is an example: English. It is a list of bullets and each bullet has it own defition of the term concerned. Since nobody can point out wich Manchuria is overwhelmingly the common (there is no such one actually), the disambiguation page should look like this
“Manchuria” can refer to any one of several regions :
If there is no disagreements, I'll make the above disambig page. Of course, if you think any of the above bullets is inaccurate, you can edit it. Disambiguation 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That still makes it ambiguous. And there are different definitions of Inner and Outer Manchuria. Disambiguation 20:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Manchuria can also refer to Inner and Outer Manchuria together. All these things make Manchuria ambiguous. Disambiguation 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To continue, from your comments above it seems that you have not understood the difference between disambiguation page and disambiguation link. If you wish, you can create a disambiguation link, as suggested, i.e. Manchuria (disambiguation).-- Niohe 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I just want to bring to the attention of other editors of this page that The discussion with User:Disambiguation has been confirmed as a sock puppet of User:Snle. This editor has been using sock puppets and single purpose accounts for a while in order to make aggressive edits on Manchuria related topics and has been blocked indefinitely. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. -- Niohe 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The actual spelling should be "Ko-Chosun" not Gojoseon. The actual territory was covering all Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan range. Korean political division between North and South makes research difficult. That was Ko-Chosun actual size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits made to Gojoseon suggest that Gojoseon covered all of Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan Range. This appears to be a Breathejustice-like POV-push to me. If anyone's interested, can you take a look to see how legitimate the edits are? -- ran ( talk) 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Hairwizard91, please provide tangible evidence that "Russian Manchuria" is a common term for Outer Manchuria before you make changes to the page. The burden of proof is on you, not anyone else.-- Niohe 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the discussion in trying to reach a consensus on Goguryeo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the idea of a {{ History of Manchuria}} template has been proposed. A tentative template has been created at User:Nlu/History of Manchuria, but as I am not good at designing templates, and particuarly hope to see (but cannot design) a template similar in format to {{ History of China}}, I'd like help from interested editors here. Please take a look at the page and dig in. For background information, please see Talk:Goguryeo. As I wrote there, I'd like to do this in the next 120 hours if possible, so that we can hopefully reach a compromise on that article. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
See this map showing Manchuria as a Han land. Were not Manchu dynasty considered foreign and alien to China? Is the map wrong? Are Mancurians listed officially as a ethnic group by PRC? Anwar 21:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The text states:
This seems to me to be a source of confusion. I think readers unfamiliar with the subject will infer from this that the " Mukden Incident" refers to the bomb which exploded under the train in the previous paragraph. Would someone more qualified than I edit this to: either make a distinction between these two unrelated events, or to distance the two references to Mukden in such a way that the context does not make it seem as if the two events are related? Please? User:Pedant 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
By assessments based on history records:
With these assessments, I cannot agree to putting "Korean" labels in the "Early History" section. (1) Before Balhae collapsed in the 10th century, the ancient people in the Balhae area were both "proto-Manchu" and "proto-Korean". (2) Between 10th century and the late 19th century, the ancient people in the entire Manchuria area were "proto-Manchu" (and "proto-Daur" and "proto-Xibe", but no "proto-Korean" people during this period because they stayed in Goryeo after 10th century) . During the Ming Dynasty, Han Chinese migrated to the present-day Liaoning Province area, but were decimated by Nurhaci and Huang Taiji. Most remaining Han Chinese in the area became Manchu at that time. (3) At the late 19th century, Han Chinese dominated the area by waves of migration.-- Jiejunkong 07:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
These are clearly typos of the Treaty of Aigun (1858) and Convention of Peking (1860). The Qing ceded the territories north of the Amur in the 1800s with these treaties not during the time of the PRC.
Do you see anywhere that the PRC COULD give up? By the time of the 1911 Revolution, China had lost control of all land north of the Amur. If I am wrong, please provide a source of the two such 1900s treaties. 70.254.213.240 ( talk) 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Who were water tatars that settled in northern Manchuria. I found that Mongols conquered them in 1232 but they revolted against Yuan rule in 1341 and defeated.-- Enerelt ( talk) 07:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, guys. They were Tungus people. -- Enerelt ( talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Manchuria was independent up until the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. It had its own distinct food, culture, language and history for centuries. It has no mentioned whatsoever of how it was invaded by Japan or China and the resulting power transfers between those 2 countries. What is most disturbing is that this article completely ignores many important aspects of this country and is now nothing more than Chinese propaganda in order to destroy and assimilate the Manchurians.
But I thought Guandong is near Hong Kong & nowhere near Japan/Korea/Russia?? This article would need to clarify this point.
edit: I just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Leased_Territory. Reddirt ( talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jpw
Ant preteners to thone of the so called Manchukou nation set up by japanaese beofre World war 2Innolad
The term Outer Manchuria seems to have been coined by Juha Janhunen in 1996 in his Manchuria: an ethnic history. Janhunen is probably the foremost expert on the Manchus, but the term 'Outer Manchuria' is problematic. It was not used historically because the Manchus inhabited only the area south of the Nen and Songhua Rivers. The Manchu ethnic group was created by Nurhachi in the 17th century from Jurchen speakers in what is now Liaoning and Jilin province. The communities to the north included other Jurchen speakers, but they retained their separate identies (Solon, Daur etc.) and were not assimilated to the Manchus (although some Manchus were later settled south of the Amur River. The area north of the Amur and east of the Ussuri was under loose Manchu hegemony, but it was no more 'Manchuria' than any region in China that the Manchus ruled. The 'Inner'-'Outer' distinction has a special meaning in the case of the Mongols, and it muddies the water to extend the term so loosely to another region. Atla5Atla5 ( talk) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The qing dynasty did not use the name manchuria. The japanese invented that name in 1809 and then spread that usage to the west. 1, 2.
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |archivedate=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Nurgan was the name for Manchuria during the Ming dynasty. Crossley 1999, p. 58.</ref>
10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries Loretta E. Kim 金由美 Central Asiatic Journal Vol. 56, (2012/2013), pp. 169-202 Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0169