Talk:Manchuria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hebei Province is not Manchuria

Manchuria doesn't include Jehol, which is part of Hebei province.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzhouri (talk • contribs)

Manzhouri

Manchuria is the British translation for the Inner Mongolian City name -- 满洲里 (Manzhouli).

Manchurian Culture?

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.

Wrong Picture

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.

Biased article

"Manchuria" is offensive to people in China. There is no need to use this word at all.

• Meople would only refer to this by the aboe mentioned name. I, for instance, wouldn't have thought of looking up for any other term, so I don't think the term "Manchuria" should be avoided, considering that it's the English wikipedia, and English speaking people often refer to it by that name. --Pfc432 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Information about "東北三省" and "東北九省"

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)

Old talk

1. It that correct to state that "Northeast" = "Manchuria". I have the impression that Shandong is also considered as a part of "Northeast".
2. What happened in 1956, which makes the region as being comprised of the Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning provinces?

olivier 12:38 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Shandong is not considered part of the "Northeast". As for 1956 -- nothing happened in that year really. Rather, in 1954-55, the present three provinces were created out of about six provinces and five municipalities that existed in the region at the time.

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)

"manzhouren"

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)

Manzhouren is the old name of Manchu's people; now, the call themselves Manzu. I am a Dongbeiren, do noe call me Manzhouren.--[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 12:03, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I totally have no problem being called Manchurian; as a matter of fact, I claim myself as Manchurian in most cases.--User:Manchurian Tiger Julu 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not our typical dongbeiren ;) -- ran (talk) 18:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup request: Stolen Excerpt

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".

• The above is clear as mud in the given article. If nothing else, the terms inner and outer M are so common that the cognizatti ought to make their meanings plain. The Outer arty seems clear enough, but this one seems to need clarified. (Sorry, I'm editting three majors at the moment!)Fabartus 02:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Manchurian

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?

Don't be so quick to stereotype either Chinese communism or Chinese nationalism. A lot of ultra-nationalists detest the current government. The Chinese version of Falun Gong-run Epoch Times, for example, denounced the government when it signed recent border agreements with Russia. Here's a direct quote: [1]

江泽民政府已通过和俄国签约，对沙皇时代通过不平等条约从中国获得的多达一百四十四万平方公里的土地（相当四十个台湾）全部一次性地法律性认可。那次签约意味著，今后千秋万代的中国人都失去了追索这些领土的法律根据，

I translate:

"The Jiang Zemin government has already signed an agreement with Russia, legally acknowledging Russia's acquisition of 1.44 million square km of territory (equivalent to 40 Taiwans) from China via unequal treaties during the Tsarist era. This agreement means that all future generations of Chinese have lost the legal basis to reclaim this territory."

Reclaim Outer Manchuria eh? I wonder what exactly happens to the self-determination of the millions of Russians who currently live there? (Wait... Manchuria was originally inhabited by Manchus, right? That appears to be what you care about the most. Well, it doesn't look like Epoch Times gives a hoot about their self-determination either...) Keep in mind that Epoch Times is Falun Gong-run and spends most of its time denouncing the Communist Party of China as an evil force. So why is it spreading "Red Chinese hyper-nationalism", in your own words?

Incidentally, this kind of "Blame the Communists for losing Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh, etc." game is very trendy among Chinese nationalists online nowadays. The Arunachal Pradesh issue is especially popular, since China claims it as a little slice of Tibet (indeed it is culturally Tibetan) but India controls it; China actually took in the Sino-Indian War, but gave it back later, a fact that Chinese ultranationalists get infuriated about. (I wonder what they would say to you if you went to them and suggested that, well, no part of Tibet should belong to China?) Of course the moderators get nervous and sometimes tell them not to be too obvious — because they're spreading anti-government, dissenting opinions!

In short, the world is a lot more complicated than you think. This is why we have the NPOV policy, so that no one can turn Wikipedia into the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, or any other type of biased encyclopedia that may or may not fit your tastes. -- ran (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Request by JYK

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

Battle of Lake Khasan and Battle of Halhin Gol are good starting points for your research. Basically, after these two battles, Japan no longer felt confident that it could defeat Soviet army, even with the Germans as a second front, so they turned against the United States instead.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, a start point on a discovery of a long pondered reason for Russian confidence in removing thousands of men from East to West at a crucial phase in Germany's invasion of Russia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JYK (talk • contribs) .

You are quite welcome.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Korean

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)

what i meant to say is that most internationally recognized publications refer to Balhae and Goguryeo as part of History of Korea, as contrary to Chinese claim that Balhae and Guguryeo people are part of Chinese ethnic groups. Sorry if you misunderstood me, I guess my statement was unclear. As usual, thank you for your great contributions to many articles on Wikipedia :). Have a nice day. Deiaemeth 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To my understanding, the history of Balhae, Goguryeo and Buyeo, especially Balhae, is shared by Manchuria and Korea, but definitely not China. It is ridiculous and makes no sense to claim the ancient kingdoms as part of today's nations that did not even exist in ancient times. In my opinion, both Korean and Chinese governments are guilty of trying to rewrite history to their own favor.--Manchurian Tiger 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the Wangyan clan (ruling family of Jin Dynasty) and all you said regarding my homeland is incorrect. The term Manchuria existed only after Nurhachi renamed Jin 金/Jurchen 女真to Manzhou满洲/Qing清, because of Fenhsgui (Man and Qing have the water raical) and this happened in late 15th century and early 16th century. The proper term in Chinese has always been Guanwai 关外. Balhae and Goguryeo were ethnic Puyu 夫余, whereas Shilla was ethinc Han 韩. All three kingdoms paid tribute to the various ruling kingdoms of China at that time, and China was divided into many different kingdoms for over 400 years till Sui and Tang united all China. China exists since 3000 BC and Northeast not only has always been part of China, it is actually the dominant contributors to the origin of Chinese Civilization. Qiji built Caoxian/Choson kingdom in easterm Liaoning in 11th century BC after the fall of Shang Dynasty, and Guzhu kingdom existed in NE Hebei and western Lioning from Shang Dynasty till the Warring State.

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

There's a related discussion going on right now at Talk:Balhae that may be of interest. --Yuje 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

May I ask Karolus why you are offended by Manchurian? I'm a Qi-Ren as well. Every time when people ask me about my heritage, I always proudly tell them I'm a Manchurian! What's wrong with Manchuria? What's wrong with you, man? I doubt about your claim that you belong to Wan-yan clan because you don't even know the correct pronounciation. Your understanding of history of Manchuria is totally one-sided Chinese communist propaganda. I'm a Manchurian and my ancestor's scripture says our ancestors were Koreans. We have lived in Manchuria for centuries.--Manchurian Tiger 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

discussed as part of korean history

Buyeo (state): these are the only mentions of the state in 2005 britannica deluxe:

• 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 [6]

All these citations suggest that Buyeo/Fuyu/Puyo is part of Manchurian history rather than Korean history. "Part of Korean history" suggests a strong and biased Korean-POV.--Endroit 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Balhae:

• britannica [7] [8]
• encyc. world hist (bartleby.com) [9]
• columbia encyc. (infoplease.com) [10]
• u.s. lib of congress [11]
• met museum [12] [13]
• misc [14] [15] [16].

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)

I don't understand what you're trying to do. What exactly does this sentence mean anyways?

Let's try a few analogous examples:

• "Western Germany was at this time ruled by Charlemagne, which is usually described as a part of French history."
• "Most of Turkey was ruled by the Byzantine Empire, usually described as a part of Greek history."
• "Egypt was then conquered by the Persian Empire, usually described as a part of Iranian history."

Do you see how POV it is to make such statements? The Byzantine Empire ruled a very large area, so it is part of the history of all of the places it once ruled. The fact that we use a Greek word to call it means nothing; if we used a Slavic or Turkic name instead, it would still be part of the history of all of the places it once ruled.

In short, don't try to fit ancient states into modern boxes. Like the rest of the world, East Asia was a jumble of ethnic groups and histories, and the modern entities of "China", "Japan", "Korea" etc. only emerged at the end of it. To make a statement like "part of Korean history" about Bohai, etc. is petty and illogical. -- ran (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

When you reverted again, why did you not discuss?

Do you realize the problem with your logic? For example, the Byzantine Empire is a part of Greece's history. This is obvious. If I go to a page on the "history of Greece", I would expect to find information on the Byzantine Empire. But the Byzantine empire is also a part of the history of many other places: the remainder of the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt, etc. If I go out and say, "Egypt was a part of the Byzantine Empire which was a part of Greek history", that's fundamentally a strange statement, because as long as we're talking about the Byzantine Empire's activities in Egypt, then we're talking about the history of Egypt, and how it interacted with the history of Greece and all of the other places in the Byzantine Empire. In fact, if, say, someone inserted the line, "Cyprus, Turkey, the Levant, and Egypt were all part of the Byzantine Empire, which was a part of Greek history", based on the fact that he found a description of the Byzantine Empire in a history of Greece, I can only conclude that this person is a Greek nationalist who appears to have irredentist tendencies towards the entire Near East. Wouldn't you agree?

And so, the same with the Manchuria page. The fact that Goguryeo and Pohai are described as a part of a history of Korea means nothing -- of course they're a part of the history of Korea, they ruled over parts of Korea during that time. But they also ruled other parts outside Korea -- namely, Manchuria and the Russian Far East. To say that the history of Goguryeo and Pohai are a "part of the history of Korea", on a page that is about the history of Manchuria, is a very curious, if not self-contradictory statement to make. Because Goguryeo and Pohai were ancient cultures and states that spanned this entire area, their histories and cultures are entwined with the entire area. In other words, everything is a part of everything, so to speak. To exclusively claim some sort of "sovereignty" over multiethnic, border-spanning empires 1,000 years ago for another, different pair of states that exist today is not just strange -- it is also suspiciously irredentist and blatantly POV.

Also, I'm wondering why Fuyu, a state that existed in northern Manchuria, is being rendered in Korean. -- ran (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(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)

Manchuria = Manzhou?

Manchuria is a translation of the Chinese word Manzhou (Simplified Chinese: 满洲; Traditional Chinese: 滿洲; Pinyin: Mǎnzhōu).

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)

Manchuria is either a translation of Manzhou, or a 'place name' for Manchu, similar with the naming of China from Chin (Qin, 秦). Herunar 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmong

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)

I don't see any possibility that Hmong are from Manchuria. They are obviously not the native Tungus people in Manchuria.--Manchurian Tiger 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

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)

"Manchuria" is still used as the primary name by britannica [18] Encarta Columbia and American Heritage Appleby 00:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Manchurian, and I call it Manchuria when I talk about my homeland. There are more and more are doing the same. Replacing Manchuria with the fabricated name "Northeastern" is the commie's effort to eliminate our national identity, why Wiki has to help the commies?--Manchurian Tiger 05:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, let's change China to Northeastern Asia. Deiaemeth 07:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Manchuria should be moved to Northeastern China since this is the more accurate, correct, and official term used in China. "Manchuria" is considered by many to be racist and only used in historical contexts. RevolverOcelotX

No one, well, except you, really considers Manchuria racist. State some proofs. And, by the way, Manchuria sometimes refers not only to Northeastern China, but including parts of Russia as well. Manchurian Tiger's right, for the first part. I don't agree more and more are calling it Manchuria though - Think it this way: Manchukuo is a deceased state. Even if people in the past are calling it Manchuria, and now it beccame part of China, there can't be more and more people calling it Manchuria. Herunar 13:10, 2 July 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)

Chinese name before Manchu name

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

This is the English wikipedia, not the Chinese one, so we use the common English name of Manchuria. Also:

1. The name stems from the Manchu word; the Chinese translation is secondary
2. The Chinese translation isn't prominent at all. In fact, it's practically a taboo word or an insult in China.

--Yuje 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The FACT is ALL of "Manchuria" is in China. The Manchu word is secondary since "Northeastern China" is the MOST common name used in Manchuria, a region COMPLETELY in China. RevolverOcelotX

The most common name, in Chinese', but not in English. And since the Chinese text for Dongbei/Northeast China has been left completely unaltered, what exactly does this have to do with the order of names for Manchuria? You've just dodged the point completely. If I ever chance the order of names for Northeast China, feel free to bring that argument up, but since I'm not, that point has nothing to do with what you're doing. --Yuje 11:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is Manchuria is a part of China and therefore the Chinese name should go before the Manchu name. Northeast China is just the name used for Manchuria in China which basically includes ALL of Manchuria. RevolverOcelotX

What youre doing is like putting in (支那) as the "most prominent" translation of "China" (which originates from India) based on the fact that the most common name in Chinese is 中國. As I said again, your argument doesn't follow. The English word is Manchuria, both the Chinese and English derive from the Manchu word, putting the Chinese first makes no sense. Bringing in the name Dongbei has no relevence to where the word "Manchuria" comes from. --Yuje 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another case that parallels this argument is Tibet. It is true that in Chinese it is called Xi-zang (West Land), but it is surely not an common English name.

One more example is China itself. China in Chinese is "Zhong Guo (Central Kingdom)", should we all give up the word "China" but use the Chinese word "Zhong Guo"? When it comes to the historical names, one has to respect history and the history of language. It is rather stupid trying to force today's ideology to reform history and language.

By the way, today's "Dong-Bei" is not whole Manchuria which also includes part of today's Russian Far East.--Manchurian Tiger 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would be jubilant if someone changes all relevant instances of "China" to "Centralia". ;) -- Миборовский 09:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

map

Extent of Manchuria according to Definition 1 (dark red), Definition 3 (dark red + medium red) and Definition 4 (dark red + medium red + light red)

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@rēino 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@rēino 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Informations in the History section

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)

Cited reference is not korean website. All the fact are from history book of Manchu such as 滿洲原流考. This book is written by the dynasty of Qing. This book contains about the Khitan, Goguryeo, Susin, Jurchen, Buyeo and Balhae. Wiki dont have to be same with internet encyclopedia. If the fact is contained in the history book, Wiki also have a right to show the fact of it.

It is from chinese history book about Goguryeo and Baejae.

From chinese history book of 宋書,

百濟者 後漸强大 兼諸小國

其國 本與句麗 在遼東之東 晋世 句麗旣略有遼東

百濟亦據有遼西晋平二郡地矣

今柳城北平之間

自治百濟郡

That is to say,

Baejae become stronger and larger, and destroyed small contries.

It it located at east side of Liadong (遼東), In the age of Jin (晋) (about 3th century),

Goguryeo occupied already Liadong (遼東),

And Baejae occupied West side of Liadong (遼西) and two county of Jinpyung (晋平二郡),

They are located between Yusung and north of pyung (平)

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 have found it

see

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/History_of_Korea

http://experts.about.com/e/h/hi/History_of_Korea.htm

Even though there is some wrong aspect such as Gija, Weman and chinese commanderies. They are written in only chinese history book. Japanese and korean history books dont contain any gija, weman, and chinese commaneries.

These links appear to have been copied from an old version of the Wikipedia article History of Korea. Perhaps, you should be editing Korea-related articles, NOT Manchuria-related articles.--Endroit 18:50, 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)

I hope you can read chinese character. I couldnt find any english source to describe manchu and korean history. The most impotant thing is that until 10century, the history of manchu is identically same with the history of korea and jurchen. And jurchen did not have any nation until 10 century. So, I added the history of goguryeo and balhae. They are located in manchu itself.

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

Okay, excuse me, what is your problem? Did you even read the Britannica article clearly? It did not say:

"Gojoseon governed most of Manchuria from B.C. 2333 to B.C. 108 until they are destroyed by Buyeo." or "Goguryeo covered large parts of present-day Manchuria. The country was not only the most powerful and most aggressive kingdom of three kingdoms in existence but also the most powerful in Northeast Asia in the 5th century. Great King Gwanggaeto (375-413), in particular, conquered the largest territory."

This is the Britannica excerpt:

"To the north, Puyo 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 Pyonhan. These states formed leagues, or tribal federations, centred on a leading state. The tribal leagues stretched across a wide area from the Sungari basin in Manchuria to the southern Korean peninsula. They evolved into three rival kingdoms—Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla."

No one denied that Gugoryeo was established in parts of the Manchuria; but you are trying to say that the Korean kingdoms governed most of Manchuria.

And please, don't name-calling others. I'm not even Chinese, and you are calling me a "nationalist of China"? That shows what kind of a character you are. --Godardesque 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is you that firstly mention about nationalist.

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)

I dont feel to answer your question. Please be human being...

if you are Breathejustice or 67.38.247.32 or 192.35.79.70, please sign your name, no offense but your writing style and grammatical errors show you are not a native speaker of English, furthermore please refrain from vandalizing this article with dubious information. If your information is actually, please provide some verfiable references, instead of repeatedly attacking this page. Wikipedia is not the proper outlet for you to vent out your ultranationalistic ideas and rants. Abstrakt 22:46, 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)

More informations would be nice, but since this region has been occupied by so many nomadic tribes as well as ethnic kingdoms before (stated in the Wikipedia article: Dong-i, Manchu, Ulchs, Hezhen (also known as the Goldi and Nanai), Gojoseon, Sushen, Xianbei, Buyeo, Malgal, Goguryeo, Balhae, Khitan, and Jurchens), it wouldn't be too nice to just incoporate informations about the Korean Kingdoms' (Goguryeo, Balhae...) into this article while ignoring others. I think if users wants to learn more about these kingdoms or tribes, they can go read/view its own article. Back to the vandalism war, what Breathejustice did was just too much and too out of control in my opinion. --Godardesque 00:33, 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)

Just to clarify, "vicariate" means "the religious institution under the authority of a vicar". A "vicar" is a sort of "Roman Catholic (or Christian) priest/clergyman". In other words, a "vicariate" is a territory drawn in religious (sphere of religion influence) term and not political term. Heilme 17:44, 22 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)

Three Gojoseon

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)

What are you doing ? haha. Are you agency of china government about northern east project ? haha.

Hwanguk is mythical country... and I wrote it as it is...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Breathejustice (talk • contribs)

Oh no, why would I dare challenge the claims of Tokyo, Shanghai and Beijing being rightful Korean territory? After all, Dangun and the vast Asian empire he established was real; North Korean archaeology confirms it. Not only did North Korean scientists discover Dangun's body and tomb directly in Pyongyang, but advanced North Korean DNA tests show that he is Kim Il-Sung's direct ancestor.--Yuje 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It represents cultural area, not administrative territory.

I said it was a mythical kingdom.

Original Chinese History book about Goguryeo and [[[buyeo]]

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.

My word to this user Breathejustice (or User:69.210.209.211, User:68.250.52.50): please just sign your name so we'll know who are we responding to. This makes the discussion look very confusing. Also, taking some grammatical English course shouldn't hurt either.--Godardesque 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

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)

The currently locked version is essentially a "Breathejustice version" from 08:42, 20 July 2006. See the diff's here. Isn't this against consensus already?--Endroit 05:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the admins could help with that. --Yuje 10:29, 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)

Situation getting out of hand

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)

That might be worth a try. However, looking at the history of this article, I'm not sure if I know exactly what you're talking about (although I have had to revert some Baedal-pushing in other articles recently). Can you specify the articles where these problems have arisen? -- Visviva 15:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

E.g. Gojoseon. -- ran (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I see your point. I reverted that one all the way back to the edit in which protection was removed. -- Visviva 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gojoseon
• Three Gojoseon
• Wiman Joseon
• Gija
• Baedalguk
• Hwan-guk
• Jurchens
• Balhae
• Nangnang nation -- trying to move Lelang-jun out of Korea

Some of these have already been fixed, but they're certain to be vandalized again. -- ran (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean History in Manchuria

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)

What I did was simple copy and paste from history of Korea page. I also looked at history of china pages. What's wrong with my editing? Any Chinese dynasties besides han, yuan and qing ever claimed Manchuria as its territory? Whoamiwhoami 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's odd; it looked like a copy-and-paste from Manchuria#History. Either way, I don't see the purpose of this content forking. If you have content to add regarding Manchurian history, why not add it here? -- Visviva 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuan and Qing were not Chinese dynasties.--Manchurian Tiger 13:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since Manchuria can refer to different things. This article should be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's policy to create a disambiguation page for an ambiguous term. Since I posted this suggestion, there has been no objections to my suggestion. So I will probably go ahead and change this article to a disambig, if there is no objections coming up. Disambiguation 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Snle, welcome back. I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea. It is better to clarify things in the article itself.--Niohe 15:43, 21 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)

Since the meaning of Manchuria referred to in this article is overwhelmingly the most common, I would suggest that you create Manchuria (disambiguation) and add {{otheruses}} to the top of this article. -- Visviva 16:24, 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 agree with Visviva. Please read Wikipedia:disambiguation carefully, on how it can be done.--Endroit 17:03, 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)

The existing article Manchuria is the most common usage. What are the other usages?--Endroit 17:16, 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)

So you're trying to disambiguate "the term Manchuria", without talking about the Manchuria article itself? You must be a troll.--Endroit 17:37, 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 :

1. Northeast China: generally defined as the three provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning
2. The above, plus part of northeastern Inner Mongolia
3. The above, plus the Jehol region of Hebei province. The part of Manchuria in China is commonly called Inner Manchuria to contrast it with Outer Manchuria (see below)
4. The above, plus Outer Manchuria or Russian Manchuria, a region in Russia that stretches from the Amur and Ussuri rivers to the Stanovoy Mountains and the Sea of Japan. Russian Far East comprises Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. These were part of Manchu China according to the Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689, but were ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Aigun (1858);
5. The above, plus Sakhalin Oblast, which is generally included on Chinese maps as part of Outer Manchuria, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Nerchinsk.

Disambiguation 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This material is already covered in the Extent of Manchuria section of the Manchuria article. There's no need to disambiguate this material.--Endroit 17:46, 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)

According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions." Keeping that in mind, go ahead and create Manchuria (disambiguation) and make your edits there.--Endroit 17:54, 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)

What does a disambiguation page look like

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 :

1. Northeast China: generally defined as the three provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning
2. The above, plus part of northeastern Inner Mongolia
3. The above, plus the Jehol region of Hebei province. The part of Manchuria in China is commonly called Inner Manchuria to contrast it with Outer Manchuria (see below)
4. The above, plus Outer Manchuria or Russian Manchuria, a region in Russia that stretches from the Amur and Ussuri rivers to the Stanovoy Mountains and the Sea of Japan. Russian Far East comprises Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. These were part of Manchu China according to the Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689, but were ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Aigun (1858);
5. The above, plus Sakhalin Oblast, which is generally included on Chinese maps as part of Outer Manchuria, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Nerchinsk.

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)

There are essentially only two meanings provided: "Inner" Manchuria, and "Outer" Manchuria. The rest is just variation in the borders of same.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:45, 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)

Don't push this thing too far, "Disambiguation". You have tried to delete the contents of this page and in so doing violated WP:3RR once. Also, the fact that you seem to have opened a Wikipedia account solely for the purpose of fundamentally changing the contents of Manchuria is not going to help your cause.--Niohe 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)\

Just to respond to the arguments raised above, I don't think English is a particularly good example. English is both an adjective, a proper noun and a surname of several people. Manchuria is the name of a region, the precise borders of which are disputed. A better example would be Mongolia, which is a similarly ambiguous geographical term. There are separate articles for Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia, but no disambiguation page as such. The case for deleting the contents of Manchuria and replacing it with a disambiguation page is even weaker, since Inner and Outer Manchuria are far less commonly used terms than its Mongolian counterpart. I think the principle of least astonishment should be applied here and preserve Manchuria page. --Niohe 00:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

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)

Recent case of sock puppetry on this page

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)

Gojoseon

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)

"Russian Manchuria"

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)

I want also to see the term of inner manchuria and outer manchuria. Please provide the citation about the terms.--Hairwizard91 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, as a matter of fact, I'm skeptical of dividing Manchuria into several articles. But the fact that the articles on Manchuria are fussy is not an excuse to increase the confusion by inserting new - unverfied terms - and deleting fully functional links. A lot of people are pushing agendas on Manchuria, and I prefer that we discuss any changes on the talk pages before we make aggressive edits like the one you just tried to make.--Niohe 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So, inner and outer concept in Manchuria violate the NPOV because the entire Manchuira is not the territory of China. For NPOV, it should be changed as follows.

Inner Manchuria --> Chinese Manchuria

Outer Manchuria --> Russian Manchuria

The inner and outer is opposite if the Manchuria is seen from Russia. So, the current naming convention is not correct. --Hairwizard91 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't get it, we're not here to establish "truth" or "correct" information, but to write verifiable articles.--Niohe 12:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the term "Russian Manchuria" is confusing because it sometimes refers to the area around Harbin in Heilongjiang, which was long dominated by Russians. One example of this is David Wolff's book, To the Harbin Station: The Liberal Alternative in Russian Manchuria, 1898-1914 (Stanford University Press, 1999).--Niohe 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is saying about NPOV. Dont vague the comments by saying truth and correct. Also, NPOV has nothing to do with truth and correct. However, if there is a reputable book by David, Russian Manchuria may not be proper name as well as Outer Manchuria. It is obvious that outer manchuria is Original research, and violate Wikipedia:No_original_research. Does anybody has reference about outer Manchuria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.151.27 (talk)

You may want to contest the article Outer Manchuria. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that the current article must be kept because there are so many chinese. Wiki may follow the rule of majority decision, which is the weakest of Wiki. --Hairwizard91 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

just because it is majority decision? that BS, you need facts to back any argument. that is a rude statement to make and completely unproductive to the discussion. Akinkhoo (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed History of Manchuria navigation template

As part of the discussion in trying to reach a consensus on Goguryeo (edit | 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)

Is Manchuria ethnic minority?

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)

Russians and Koreans are obviously considered foreign by Chinese and they're still "recognized" ethnic groups in the PRC.

Manchuria was independent and separate from China up until the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. After the Qing dynasty fell, the Japanese invaded and occupied it and then handed it over to the Chinese. Although today the Chinese control it, the Manchurians are a distinct ethnicity comprising of roughly 10 million. I think it does great injustice and turns wikipedia into a propaganda tool for the CCP by ignoring Manchuria's independence and long history.99.238.14.169 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't distort Chinese history!

Manchurian (Manchus) consider themself is Chinese!

Qing Dynasty is Chinese dynasty!

Manchuko is a Japanese puppet states, but prodominantly Han Chinese in 1931-45, after Japan lost to allies, Manchuria was legitimately returned to Republic of China!

Korean nationalists are paranoid. 116.49.71.147 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After the Japanese left, Manchuria was handed over to the Russians, who dismantled Japanese-built factories on a wholesale scale and shipped them across the border to Russia. The Chinese Civil War was between 1945 to 1949. In 1949 the PRC was established. The Russians then handed Manchuria to the PRC in 1950 (minus all the industrial hardware they looted). 86.176.119.142 (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Russians" and "Koreans" recognized as official Chinese minorities are the very small subsections of those peoples who have lived in Chinese territory for centuries, not people who asked very nicely to upgrade their permanent residence permits. They are absolutely considered Chinese by the government and by every schoolkid who was awake for that geography class. Their coethnics in other countries are (rightly) considered foreign but that's neither here nor there.

Similarly, "Manchuria" was never an independent or separate country unless you consider present-day Wales an "independent" and "separate" "country" from Britain because it has some regional peculiarities and some people mistakenly conflate some different senses of the word "country". The present article doesn't mention it but as far as I remember, under the Qing, it wasn't even a separate territory but administered for most purposes along with Mongolia. — LlywelynII 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In belated answer to your requests and questions: (1) OK. (2) Yes, they were considered foreign and alien to the Han. Yes, they were foreign and alien to the traditional Han lands ("China proper"). Yes, they were foreignish and alienish to "China" as understood during the Ming, who didn't really control Manchuria despite having its tribes as notional vassals a lot of the time. No, they were not foreign or alien to "China" as understood during the Qing, who did control Manchuria. No, they were not foreign or alien to "China" as usually discussed now since the PRC still controls most of Manchuria. Furthermore, after the Xinhai Revolution, many→most Manchus fully assimilated and passed as Han. Even the Manchu who remained Manchu mostly live as (Han-style) Chinese these days, with the added perks of affirmative action in college admissions and in hiring, laxer enforcement of reproductive limitations; etc. (3) No. The map's outdated but not wrong w/r/t what you're looking at. Manchuria's been majority Han since the mid→late Qing. The naming of the area never had much to do with census data: by the time other nations were calling the area that, the Manchus were the ruling class of the entirety of China and their former homeland was a territory initially protected from Han settlement. (4) No, Mancurians aren't an official ethnic group; Mancuria (滿口国?) isn't a thing. No, Manchurians (满洲人) aren't an official ethnic group; the PRC doesn't recognize Manchuria as a thing and certainly doesn't recognize one people as its dominant/characteristic population. Yes, the Manchu (满族人) are an official ethnic group. There are just many, many, many more Han in every northeastern province so they only show up on maps that break down demographic data at the county level. — LlywelynII 07:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help

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)

Mukden Incident: contextual confusion

The text states:

"The Japanese finally succeeded on June 2 1928, when a bomb exploded under his seven-carriage train a few miles from Mukden station.[2]"

"Following the Mukden Incident in 1931 and the subsequent Japanese invasion of Manchuria,..."

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)

The "Early History" section

By assessments based on history records:

1. A significant portion of Goguryeo residents went to Balhae. Many of them were Mohe, which became the majority of the Balhae population.
2. More than half Balhae's residents stayed in the Khitan Empire after Balhae's collapse. Descendants of these people are Chinese (Manchu, Daur, Xibe and Han Chinese), not Korean. Indeed, when Balhae collapsed at the 10th century, the Tungusic people in the area were of the same type. There was not much difference amongst them. However, the residence choice at the critical moment formed the differentiating lines for the region's modern ethnic groups: (1) Those ancient people stayed in the Korean Peninsula in the late 10th century became proto-Korean, namely ancestors of the modern Korean; (2) Those ancient people stayed in the Khitan Empire became ancestors of the modern Daur, Xibe and Manchu; (3) Those ancient people stayed in the northeast of both the Khitan Empire and the Unified Silla were Heishui Mohe, later became Jurchen, the ancestor of modern Manchu and northern Han Chinese.
3. At the early 12th century, the division line was drawn. Jurchens didn't treat people from Korean peninsula (i.e., Goryeo at the moment) as in the same group. Wanyan Aguda's elder brother and Wanyan Aguda did this. However, they treated Balhae descendants as in the same group.

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)

What are the evidence that Khitan and Mohe people 'were' Chinese? I think they are neither Chinese Nor Korean. Before PR China`s establishment in 1949, 'Chinese' means Han people. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.24.223.45 (talk) 11:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim that Khitan and Mohe people were Chinese. Instead, the claim is that they are "ancestors of modern Chinese". The 10th century was the critical moment---those who stayed in the present-day Korean Peninsula became the ancestors of modern Korean, and those who stayed in the present-day northeastern China became the ancestors of modern Chinese. In other words, it didn't matter whether a Tungusic person's of Mohe, or of a non-Mohe Goguryeo, or even of Khitan, prior to the 10th century. The residence choice at the end of the 10th century was an overwhelming factor to divide the modern ethnic line. I personally think that it is invalid to label the Tungusic people in the region with Chinese or Korean prior to the 10th century, but after the 10th century, it is fine.--Jiejunkong 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Khitan and Mohe are a turkic race, the Chinese are not. The claim that the Chinese descended from the Khitan, Mohe, Manchu's, etc is completely ridiculous and it is nothing more than a cover up of the multiple foreign controlled dynasties in Ancient China.99.238.14.169 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not ridiculous at all, so long as the qualification of "some Chinese" is made. Many so-called "races" are modern constructs. Take the "Turkic race," for example. How much "Turkic genes" do you really think the people in Turkey have? I've seen DNA studies that suggest <10% genetic contribution from Central Asia, and that most "Turks" are more related to peoples in Europe and the Near East.65.50.0.4 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Khitan are Mongolic, while Mohe are Tungusic. Neithere of them are Turkic, and have you heard of something called "assimilation"? Then modern Spanish speaking Mexicans of mixed race do not have Aztec of other Amerindian blood because they speak Spanish? [unsigned]

Treaties of 1958 and 1960?

Qing China in 1892

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)

Hey I was on your side. The page previously stated that the two treaties were in 1958 and 1960. I changed it to 1858 and 1860 and some people kept changing it back to 1958 and 1960. 68.93.3.230 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Water Tatars

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)

Mired in Propaganda

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.

This is joking, Manchus consider they are Chinese! There are Some Korean nationalists trying to steal Chinese territory by forfeiting Chinese history! 203.218.26.247 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the Manchus assmiliation was because they invaded and conquered China and then got melted into the population. How is that China's fault? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.240.20 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am half Manchu and I don't feel any different from Han Chinese! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographical Location: Guandong?

"The region is commonly referred to as Northeast China (Chinese: 東北; pinyin: Dōngběi), and historically referred as Guandong (Chinese: 關東; pinyin: guāndōng), which literally means "East of the (Shanhaiguan) Pass/Mountain"."

But I thought Guandong is near Hong Kong & nowhere near Japan/Korea/Russia?? This article would need to clarify this point.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Guangdong

edit: I just noticed this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kwantung_Leased_Territory. Reddirt (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jpw

I added a clarification to the article, which should help. I had the same confusion when I first read the article as well. I hope I did it right, I'm rather new to this, but it looked right. Shautora (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And I see I also managed to mess up the description of the edit, which I'm sure can't be changed---doh! >.< Shautora (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@TheLeopard--Oh! They are spelled differently, I hadn't even noticed that before. Despite this, I still feel that for most English speakers they would be easily confused. I would also like to point out that at the top of the article Thetis, it is cautioned in similar fashion that Thetis should not be confused with Themis. This article is indeed where I got the idea. So, I do not contest the reversion, only the statement "they would be hard to confuse." Shautora (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Re so called Manchurian nation Manchukou any preteners to the throne of this once "nation?

Ant preteners to thone of the so called Manchukou nation set up by japanaese beofre World war 2Innolad

Does not compute. Huh??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 11:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably there are: but they would have to be Manchu descendants of Chengis Khan. My guess. Missaeagle (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Manchukuo (1932-1945)? The head of the Aisin Gioro clan is the supposed heir to that throne, though they haven't made formal claims. The heads of the clan so far are:

• Puyi (term 1945-1967). The deposed Emperor of Manchukuo.
• Pujie (term 1967-1994).
• Jin Youzhi (1994-2015).
• Jin Yuzhang (2015-).

Dimadick (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Outer Manchuria

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 other Tungisic Jurchen speakers like Solon were enrolled into the Manchu Eight Banners as the "New Manchus", while the Jianzhou Jurchens of Nurhaci were the "Old Manchus", and both groups were most definitely under Qing rule. The Qing encouraged teaching of Manchu language and culture to these "New Manchus" and resettled them around during the clashes with the Russian Cossacks.Rajmaan (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the name "manchuria"

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.

There is now an obvious contradiction between two following paragraphs in this article. First it is said:

"Manchuria is a translation of the Japanese word Manshū, which dates from the 19th century... According to the Japanese scholar Junko Miyawaki-Okada, the Japanese geographer Takahashi Kageyasu was the first to use the term 满洲 (Manshū) as a place-name in 1809 in the Nippon Henkai Ryakuzu, and it was from that work where Westerners adopted the name."

And in the next paragraph:

"... the term Manchuria (Mantchourie, in French) started appearing by the end of the (18th) century; French missionaries used it as early as 1800, The French-based geographers Conrad Malte-Brun and Edme Mentelle promoted the use of the term Manchuria (Mantchourie, in French), along with Mongolia, Kalmykia, etc., as more precise terms than Tartary, in their world geography work published in 1804.

These statements clearly cannot both be true. Maybe the Takahashi Kageyasu invented the name without knowing that a similar name for the same region had already a little earlier become in use in France. If this is the case, then Westerners did not adopt the name from a Japanese source. But not necessary vice versa either. Because it was a region inhabited mostly by Manchus, it is not even very surprising that French and Japanese geographers, independently of each other, called the same region after its inhabitants and thus similarely. -FKLS (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It says "according to", not "the word was most denititely invented by". I added more sources on the issue. Elliot 2000, p. 628, Scharping 1998, p. 3, Tamanoi 2000, p. 249.

• Elliott, Mark C. (Aug., 2000). "The Limits of Tartary: Manchuria in Imperial and National Geographies" (PDF). The Journal of Asian Studies. 59 (3). Association for Asian Studies: 603–646. doi:10.2307/2658945. JSTOR 2658945. Archived from the original on 17/08/2012 10:31. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archivedate= (help)
• Scharping, Thomas (1998). "Minorities, Majorities and National Expansion: The History and Politics of Population Development in Manchuria 1610-1993" (PDF). Cologne China Studies Online – Working Papers on Chinese Politics, Economy and Society (Kölner China-Studien Online – Arbeitspapiere zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas) (1). Modern China Studies, Chair for Politics, Economy and Society of Modern China, at the University of Cologne. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
• Tamanoi, Mariko Asano (May, 2000). "Knowledge, Power, and Racial Classification: The "Japanese" in "Manchuria"". The Journal of Asian Studies. 59 (2). Association for Asian Studies: 248–276. doi:10.2307/2658656. JSTOR 2658656. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

1, 2, 3, 4.—Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nurgan and Liaodong

Nurgan was the name for Manchuria during the Ming dynasty. Crossley 1999, p. 58.</ref>

• Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 0520928849. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ming dynasty used Chinese, which doesn't have the syllable nur. — LlywelynII 05:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries

• Kim 金, Loretta E. 由美 (2012/2013). "Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries". Central Asiatic Journal. 56. Harrassowitz Verlag: 169–202. JSTOR 10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0169. {{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

Rajmaan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)