Talk:Manchukuo

Archives
Discussion before July 2006

Feelings

What were the thoughts and feelings of the Manchus on the occupation? Did they believe this was good for their country? Did they resent the invasion? Furthermore, do they [now, or then] thank the Japanese for the [forced] rapid development, or hate them? I'd really like to see this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikastis (talk • contribs)

They weren't the ones who benefitted from "rapid development". -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--My question [now in the archive], never WAS really answered. Can someone please shed some light on it? Dikastis

Answers to your questions are: 1) We did not feel good about the invasion. 2) We believed this was invasion and it was bad to our country China. 3) We resent the invasion. 4) We hated the Japanses invasion forces.

Also Japanses did not develop Manchuria. It was actually under the ruling of the Zhang Family from after 1900 to 1931 that Manchuria was developed and industrialized. The demography of Manchuria after WWII was: Total population : 45,000,000, in which people of: Shangdong origin : 15,000,000, which lived mostly in villages Hebei origin  : 8,000,000, lived mostly in towns and cities and were business owners, government officials and military. There was a sizeable number of Manchu bannermen immigrated back to Manchuria after 1912 Revolution. Henan origin  : 4,000,000, mostly farmers and small town factory workers Shaanxi origin  : 2,000,000, mostly lived in cities Japan origin  : 1,000,000 Korea origin  : 1,000,000 The rest were mainly those natives of Manchuria whose families have lived in Manchuria for at least 3 or 4 generations. There were also sizable population of Southern Chinese and Russians.

--- Karolus 2006/11/17

Potential Jewish colony

I have made a pointer here from Zionism, I recall having heard about a Japanese proposal to ask Nazi Germany to transfer the Jews to serve as colonists in Manchukuo. Does anybody know more? -- Error

It happened - My 100 year old Great Uncle and his family escaped the Nazis that way.

Did they go to Harbin? I know that there was a Manchurian diplomat in Europe who issued hundreds of visas to European Jews, most of whom ended up in Harbin. --Manchurian Tiger 01:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That was probably Sugihara Chiune.--Niohe 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fugu Plan

If the Japanese treatment of Jews seems odd — know that an American Jew helped with financing their war against Russia in 1905. In 1919, White Russians introduced the Japanese to the book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The Japanese called their plan for Jewish settlement "The Fugu Plan." "Fugu" is highly poisonous blowfish. After the toxin-containing organs are painstakingly removed, it is used as a food in Japan, and is considered an exquisite delicacy. If it is not prepared carefully, however, its poison can kill a person. Ten thousand displaced people were relocated to Shanghai during its implementation with two thousand Jews housed in the Kansai area.

Koreans in Manchuria

I believe Japan also had Koreans move to Manchuria as part of the plan to "settle the land". Guppy 04:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's true. A lot of Chinese Koreans' ancestors came to Manchuria during Manchukuo era. After the communits took over Manchuria, Japanese, Russians and other nationals were kicked out of the country, but Koreans were somehow allowed to stay on.--Manchurian Tiger 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Korean Chinese are communists. Chinese communists and Korean communists are allies. Isn't that simple.

It's because ethnic Koreans are, in a sense, native to Manchuria, whereas Russians and Japanese are not. The Gogoryo (spl?) tombs and capital are all in modern-day Manchuria. --Sumple (Talk) 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is mainly because Korea was a Fan-Shu (dependent state) within China and Chinese, be it Manchu, Mongols, Northern Han or Southern Han, do not see Koreans as foreigners. -- Karolus 2006/11/17

Romanizations

Is this the spelling by which most searchers would expect to find the name? I did a Google search and came up with 6,990 hits for Manchukuo and only 187 for Manzhouguo. -- Zoe

"Manchukuo" is probably better. The change in transliterations came after Manchukuo ceased to exist, so the English-speaking world would never have seen much effort to change it. Stan 13:49 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. But I cannot move because there is already an article Manchukuo. I will put this to vote for deletion. -- Taku 05:33 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I don't get it. Why is there an article "Manchukuo" at Manchuria Crisis and an identical at Manchukuo? ben 02:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Manchukuo" is the official term used by the Manchukuo government as well.--Manchurian Tiger 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

education

I added the following to the education: "Confucius's teachings also played an important role in Manchukuo's public school education. " and Eventually, Japanese "in addition to Chinese language" became the official language taught in Manchukuo schools... " --Manchurian Tiger 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"puppet state"

"regarded by most as a puppet state" is not NPOV.

Yes it is NPOV. The fact does show that most people regarded it as a puppet state (such as PRC, ROC and their allies, which includes most of the world). If I said 'Everyone knows its a puppet state', then yes, it's POV. However, I said 'by most', meaning 'most people', which is a fact, and I did not in any way said that _I_ believe it to be a puppet state - which is POV. Please:

1. Read wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. 2. Stop your nationalistic nonsense and accept the fact. 3. Sign your comment, Manchurian Tiger. Herunar 09:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You have again removed the part completely without any reason. I have made a discussion on your Talk page. I have also made a list of websites obtained from Yahoo! search that state Manchukuo as a puppet state, in case you need reference (while I did not say so - I only said MOST people regarded it to be a puppet state, a completely NPOV statement), with some other articles in Wikipedia that also stated Manchukuo is a puppet state:

Puppet_state#Imperial_Japan

Mengjiang

Operation August Storm

Inner_Mongolia#History

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

If you need more references that at least a "number of people" believe Manchukuo to be a puppet state, kindly ask me. Herunar 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of stating "most people" it may be better to say that it is 'often' called a puppet state, and then provide a citation directly into the article so it clearly shows that it is a fact.(the bartleby.com citation looks the best, in my opinion). How does that sound? Cowman109^Talk 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay for me. I have changed regarded by most to often regarded, and added an external link at the end of the sentence. Herunar 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger edited it again (still without any edit summary, reply in user talk page, or talk page discussion), this time changing it to '...often regarded by its opponents as a puppet state...' Which is false because its opponents will obviously regard it as a puppet state, not just 'often'. 'By its opponents' is also misleading since it did not state WHICH COUNTRIES/WHO are its opponents - While, actually, nearly all the countries in the world did not recognize Manchukuo (the only few being Imperial Japan's allies or its other puppet states). Moreover, saying by its opponents contradicts with the link at the end of the sentence (obviously, a dictionary, which is 100% neutral, is not an opponent with any country). I suppose Manchurian Tiger hopes to clarify who deemed it a puppet state and who did not. If so, I suggest changing it to 'is a puppet state of Imperial Japan, though Imperial Japan and its allies denied it.' If it is not possible, Manchurian Tiger should stop his edits and instead come to the talk page discussion, and provide reliable, neutral sources which claims that it is not a puppet state. Thank you. Herunar 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say it again: "puppet" is just a term for political propaganda. It is not NPOV. If you insist that this "puppet" term should be in the article, it has to be clearified that who labeled this country as "puppet". Your claim "nearly all the countries in the world did not recognize Manchukuo" is totally bogus: the fact of the matter is that 23 out of 80 countries recognized Manchukuo. Do your math. --Manchurian Tiger 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet 57 countries did not, with most of the 23 countries doing so only for diplomatic reasons (Read the article itself), and obviously most of them will no longer recognize Manchukuo even if it still exists, after WWII. And yes, I did clarify which country labelled this so-called "country" as "puppet" - See the eight links that I provided. Wikipedia is not propaganda (you might as well quit Wikipedia - All of the articles I found that mentions Manchukuo had a title "Puppet state" before it). A dictionary is not propaganda. Encyclopaedia Britannica is SURELY not propaganda. If all these did use the term "puppet", while you insisted on not using it, I'm afraid YOUR usage is more like propaganda. I quote you - The war's over, Manchukuo does not exist any more - Accept the fact?

MOREOVER, even if the word "puppet" is propaganda, and is POV, the sentence itself is still NPOV, because I only stated 'often regarded', which is a FACT' (even if most of the people believed in propaganda or lies, so what? It IS a fact that they believe Manchukuo to be a puppet state). This is the meaning of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, not the erasion of any POV words, but an inclusion of every POV (and Not-point-of-view as well) words and ideas to form an article without any bias. I am not saying that your edit (the edit adding 'by its opponents) is false - Instead, it is illogical and misleading.

Since Cowman, a completely neutral, highly-respected mediator suggested the sentence that I used, I would have to revert your edit again. Thank you. And please provide some sources for your claims (a respected dictionary that labels the word "puppet" as propaganda?) Herunar 13:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment this content dispute has gotten way out of hand. At the moment both of you are close to violating the three revert rule, whether or not you believe your wording of the sentence is correct or not. At the moment my suggestion is that the two of you stop revert-warring with each other and instead have other editors weigh their thoughts on how the phrase should be worded. The most important aspect of the phrase is verifiability. If there are certain nations that did not regard Manchukuo as a puppet state, that could easily be mentioned as well (if it is cited properly). For example, "Many nations often regard Manchukuo as a puppet state (citation), while others, such as blank, do not (citation). Cowman109^Talk 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence is rather a bit misleading. In fact, there are no nation that did not truly regard it as a puppet state; instead, some recognized it only for diplomatic reasons. To state that some other nations do not regard it as a puppet state will leave the impression that Manchukuo may have been a truly independent nation, while, after searching on Yahoo for half an hour and going through hundreds of webpages, I still cannot find a single note suggesting that Manchukuo may not be a puppet state. To write an encyclopedia we must not base our view on one sole contributor's opinions, especially if he is directly related to this particular article in real life (As he is partly a Manchurian, so his views may be influenced).

I have already done my best and went far into POV to hope to adjust the sentence in Manchurian Tiger's will, and yet he still does not agree. I believe that more than 99% of the people who knew about Manchukuo will state as a matter of fact that Manchukuo is a puppet state (see previous edits by other editors). If another editor comes to this way, I would predict that he would not hesitate to change the phrase into "is a puppet state". Manchurian Tiger is the only one arguing that a few countries did recognize it (which he illogically changed into "is only opposed by its opponents), without any sources - So I have changed it to "often regarded as", a completely factual and neutral phrase by any standard, with a number of sources supporting me.

If Manchurian Tiger insists that these diplomatic reasons be used, we could instead use this sentence "Manchukuo was a nominally independent puppet state set up by Imperial Japan in Manchuria" (which is actually one of the first sentences that this article has seen), which can explain its actual fact being a puppet state, and how some nations "nominally" recognized it. The sentence is not written by myself:

[5] (Though this source may not be exactly accurate as it mis-written the chinese word 'Zhou'.)

[6]

[7]

You can see these three websites (and many others as well) all use the same article, which obviously could be deemed as trustworthy enough. Also noted is that the articles also stated that 'most nations in the world did not recognize Manchukuo', including the League of Nations, solving the argument between Manchurian Tiger and I. Herunar 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, yet again, reverted my edit without any explanation nor comment. If he does not make a respond here in 24 hours, I'm going to revert that edit, since it does not correspond to the sources given. Herunar 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A day has passed. Manchurian Tiger has failed to give any response, explanation or discussion for his continuing reverts. Since he has failed to given any source for his claims (which contradicts all of the 11 sources that I have provided), I have reverted his edit again and removed the tag NPOV. If Manchurian Tiger continues to revert my edit without any sort of explanation, discussion and source, it should be treated as vandalism. Aranherunar 05:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, if you can find a source that shows a specific nation does not consider Manchuoko to have been a puppet state, then please provide one here. Otherwise, please do not continue this revert war as it is not productive. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and the best solution for this problem is proper citation. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, please join the discussion. --Ideogram 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just please read the previous discussion. Everything needed to be discussed has been already discussed. I don't see any point to discuss some same stuff again and again just because some new guy jumps out to dispute everything he disagrees.--Manchurian Tiger 02:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they have not. You have retreated from all the previous discussions any user have made with you (such as ran), you have failed to provide any sources or citation, and then you continuely edited and reverted edits without regard to any other user's opinions, scaring away potential editors. What excuses are there for that? Please note that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that can be edited with just one person's opinion. We're doing this for millions of readers, and to verify your claims you'll have to provide sources. Moreover, please make your edits as logical as possible (unlike your edit "is often regarded by its opponents", which I have said is absolutely illogical and false (see discussion above)). Aranherunar 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, please remember that wikipedia is based off of consensus, although Wikipedia cannot necessarily cater to the requests of each and every editor. It is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports your edits, per WP:VERIFY#The_policy. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and citations are key to such edit wars. As it stands, there is no tangible evidence that supports your belief that Manchuokuo is only considered a puppet state by few nations, and I also don't honestly see how it could have opponents if it no longer exists. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that the sources I provided are either dictionaries or Wikipedias, and they could not possibly be opponents of a state. Aranherunar 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not a political forum and have nothing to do to judge whether a country is a "puppet" or not. Wiki is to lay out the facts about the topic. I suggest going back to the previous term "Chinese government and its allies regarded it as a 'puppet state' of Japan; while 23 out 80 then existing countries recognized Manchukuo." That is pure fact and both facts are verifiable. Beyond this, any guessing or theory suggesting whether a country truly recognize Manchukuo or just "faked" it is groundless and out of the question.--Manchurian Tiger 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, like I said a few hundred times, its completely illogical. The Chinese government did not had 56 allies, and not stating what are the 23 countries is POV. And right, it's not a guessing game: I have provided 11 sources, including few from Wikipedia, that stated it as a puppet state. That's not a guess. Wikipedia has to agree with itself. Omitting what most people think is misleading.

If you insist on laying out the 'facts', heres a suggestion: "While the Japanese government declared it an independent state, 57 out of the then 80 countries did not recognize it. Most historians agreed that it is a puppet state _source_". This way, we can state what countries recognized it (Japanese government, and the 23 countries), and what countries did not (57 countries), and the view of most people (most historians agreed that it is a puppet state). Again, all three of these are 'pure facts' and are verifiable. Aranherunar 03:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, please do not change 'former state' into 'former country'. Manchukuo is not a country. This has been discussed above between user Ran and you, and from what I have seen you have retreated from that discussion. If you wish to change 'state' into 'country', or into 'nation', please continue that discussion.

I have made my edit about puppet state already since, first, you did not wait for discussion to make your edit, so I assume I do not need to wait for your agreement to make mine; and second, because my edit does not contradict or vary from your edit great enough for there to be an argument. I have included one more sentence, 'which helped establish it' after 'the Japanese government', so as to make it clear to the reader why would the Japanese government declare it as an independent state. Thank you. Aranherunar 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to avoid editing the section in question during the mediation. Simply changing it back and forth is not productive. --Ideogram 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an ending for this sort of war of word. As a matter of fact, all you tried to put it here has been already included in the body. You can't not say "23 recognized M" is wrong if you insist that "57 did not" is correct. They are actually the same thing. I believe it is only fair to deleted all comments in the first paragraph leaving only pure facts. Manchukuo had its own land, people, head of government, armed forces. It has all the elements to be defined as a "country". If you like the dictionary, read Merriam-Webster's Manchukuo.--Manchurian Tiger 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet if someone think it is a puppet state, then obviously the same people would not recognize it as a country, because a puppet state is not a country. I'm not here to argue whether its a puppet state or not, but since some disagreed that its a country, saying its a country is POV. A state is much more neutral and factual. Every sovereign power can be referred to as a state, while a country has a much larger definition.

Yes, they are the same thing, but we're here to make an article, a piece of art, not simply list out a bunch of facts. If you think '23 recognized M' is much better, yes, you can suggest it, in the talk page. My main edit is not to change '23 recognized M' to '57 did not'. My main edit is to add the sentence that most historians agreed it as a puppet state. To make the whole passage logical, I have to state that '57 countries did not', as a basis for why most historians think it is a puppet state. That makes the article far easier to read. However, I understand my edit may not be flawless, and if you wish to change it to '23 recognized M', that's fine as well.

The problem, however, is your behavior. First, deleting the whole paragraph helps nobody, because it is a crucial fact that most other articles in Wikipedia has when referring to Manchukuo ("Manchukuo, the Japanese puppet state..." et cetera). Second, as Ideogram says, please discuss in talk page before you make any changes. From what I have seen you did not even read my explanation for the edit, since I have fully explained why I have changed '23 recognized M' to '57 did not'. Third, revert wars help nobody, and if my edit is exactly the same with yours in your ways of thinking, why revert my edit? And why delete the whole paragraph as well? That would seem more like vandalism than an improvement. Aranherunar 04:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the dictionary. Yes, it referred to Manchukuo as a former country, but that does not mean we should use the phrase 'former country' here, firstly because that entry isn't reliable, especially with just three sentences (it might even be copied from Wikipedia). Second, former country can sometimes be seen as correct in describing Manchukuo, but most people would not agree so. A country is a state, and the word state is much more neutral and acceptable in describing Manchukuo, since 1. Some people think its a puppet state, and thus must be a state, not a country, 2. Country essentially needs to have a much longer history and culture than a state, in which some people think Manchukuo does not have.

Third, the whole article is using the word state, 'State of Manchuria', 'Great Manchu State', et cetera. Changing all of them to 'country' is impossible since some of them have sources, and changing just one is illogical. Aranherunar 04:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember to focus on the content, not on the contributer. Personally I think that [8] does state the facts nicely and gets right to the point. If all we are arguing about is the numbers, then why not just state both the who did and who did not recognize Manchuokuo? Cowman109^Talk 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are OK, and Manchurian Tiger is welcome to change '57 doesn't recognize' to '23 recognize' (instead of deleting the whole passage). That's not my main edit. However, in my opinion '57 doesn't recognize' is rather more suitable since it is uncommon for a country not to recongize another, and 57 is a majority in number, which should be stated rather than the minority, even though the reader can conclude that easily. Aranherunar 11:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that simply saying "57 countries did not recognize it while 23 did" should be satisfactory. --Ideogram 11:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, what is your reasoning for reverting this?. The new content acknowledges your argument and explains that there were quite a few countries that recognized Manchuokuo. Please use edit summaries in the future to clarify, as well, though please continue the discussion here. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned he's simply a Manchurian nationalist trying to dispute my edit with any excuse he can get, and none now that he can't get any. Note that his reason for reverting my edit is different every time. Aranherunar 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We cannot have a discussion without it. --Ideogram 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet he is not bothering to discuss before he completely delete edits. Aranherunar 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You should simply ask, "please discuss before deleting edits" without your other comments. The mediator will ask the same. --Ideogram 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Like these [9] [10] [11][12][13][14][15]? I have told him enough times to realize that he will never heed these comments. Aranherunar 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Resorting to rudeness will only make things worse. --Ideogram 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not resorting to rudeness, merely pointing out the possibility that he is not trying to contribute to the article, as apparently seen from his edits. If it is shown that he however is willing to contribute, I would gladly try to cooperate. Aranherunar 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my unclear comment, "he's simply a Manchurian nationalist", which some may understand as an accusation of the person. I'm merely saying that Manchurian Tiger may either have some unavoidable bias for his home country (which most people would have) that would make my edit seem unacceptable to him, or is trying to dispute the works of others (i.e. a vandal, which is possible given the number of reverts and lack of discussion he had), so that we may need to use methods to prevent him to do so again. Again, I am not trying to make matters worse, rather trying to point out the problem that Manchurians would have in editing neutrally in articles like Manchukuo. Aranherunar 08:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, we should all remember to look at WP:AUTO and recognize the possibility that we could have subconscious biases when it comes to certain articles and look past those. Cowman109^Talk 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted again, and I apologize if I may have broken the rule by that, but the article could not afford to lose that important part, and it seems that Manchurian Tiger is not going to come and discuss at all, so it would be pointless waiting.

Manchurian Tiger, please discuss before you revert my edits. Point out my mistakes and I will change them myself. Deleting and deleting will not help the article.Aranherunar 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And then Manchurian Tiger reverted the edit yet again. Manchurian Tiger, come to talk page and discuss before you make an edit. This time I'll wait until a mediator agrees before I revert. If you make another revert without discussing I'll have to warn you.

From his explanation it seems that he has not read any part of my long discussion at all, and is going back to the first point I argued, whether the term puppet state should be included. Manchurian Tiger, obviously it should be included. I have argued this point enough times for a three-year-old child to understand, and you yourself agreed to it. It seems that you are arguing backwards. Please read through all discussions above, and the eleven sources I have given. Four of them are from Wikipedia and they all used the term 'puppet state'. The other seven sources are either dictionaries or encyclopedias, and can verify the term. Your claim is absolutely absurd. If you make another such baseless edit that argues with your own point I would have to treat that as vandalism.

This is simply ridiculous. How am I supposed to discuss with a person that does not even bother to come to talk page and repeats his mistakes everytime? Can any mediators help out? Aranherunar 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, here's a question. Why did you delete the whole passage and change 'state' to 'country'? If you do not agree with the term puppet state, you could have changed back to the original part you agreed with, "regarded by its opponents as a puppet state" (though you should not do so), not delete the whole part. As you have seen, I have already given my explanation for state instead of country, and you clearly have either not seen that or decided to ignore it and continue with your mess. Moreover, the recognition part is exactly copied from what you agreed with, and not a part of it is my own writing (I do not agree with including such a large part saying who recognized it and who did not, since it is too much in the introduction, but since you wanted it and the mediators agreed with it, I included the part.) However, you completely deleted it without any reason. Please give an explanation why you contradicted your own point, and do not vandalize the article again, intentionally or not intentionally, and be careful with your edits. Aranherunar 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

State is not necessarily a body in a country

As stated in state, for example, a state is not necessarily a body in a country, which may be a source of confusion in the recent edits. It actually consists of many of the things Manchurian Tiger mentioned himself in the edit summary, so perhaps whether Manchukuo should be labeled as a counry or a sovereign state should be looked at. Cowman109^Talk 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As Manchurian Tiger explained to me on his talk page, a state is often more concerned with the government itself rather than the land and the people, so country and state may both be valid terms. I also found a source, which I cited, that states that Manchukuo was a country ([16]). Cowman109^Talk 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO state and country do not have big differences in dictionary meanings. However, most people commonly note country as a state with cultural identity. Yes, Manchukuo may have a distinct, Manchurian culture, but again, it may not have, because some people think it's a Japanese puppet state, and we have to agree with those people as well, no matter they are the majority or minority (IMO, a majority). A Japanese puppet state, as the name suggests, is far more a state than a country. Therefore, using the word "state" is far more safe and neutral.

The source is valid and trustworthy. However, I do not think we should follow its words. States and countries are essentially same, but for Wikipedia I think state can produce a better result. The reason the source used 'country' is that it probably did not want to make things complex by calling some 'states' and some 'countries'.

Aranherunar 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchukuo is not a "puppet state"

1)"Puppet" is a war time propaganda and bogus term; 2) Many countries of today all had foreign forces behind in the beginning. Examples are: Today's Japan - established by USA with a US written constitution; All former East eupropean countries - established by USSR, and so on. Should Wiki label Japan as USA's "puppet" state? Should all former east ueropean countries should be labeled as USSR's "puppet" states? NO.--Manchurian Tiger 16:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should not be mentioned in the intro, but instead it could be explained in the body of the article as many sources clearly do label Manchukuo as a puppet state, which should be addressed. We can't just ignore such facts that historians have. Labeling Manchukuo as a puppet state should not be offensive to you, as we are maintaining a neutral point of view by pointing out a common view of Manchukuo. As editors, we can't discredit the sources that claim Manchukuo is a puppet state, but instead the key would be to find sources that declare it is 'not' a puppet state, and then we'd have a stronger reason to question labeling it as a puppet state. Do you agree? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying that puppet is propaganda is your point of view. Note that nearly every source states that Manchukuo is a puppet state. It is already very neutral by saying most historians agree so. If you think 'most' is bogus, fine, we can follow the other articles in Wikipedia and change the statement into Manchukuo is a puppet state, which is clear and can be verified.

It seems that you do not understand what is a puppet state. Again, please read this article: Puppet state. The former eastern european countries are not puppet states, first because they're not established after a conquest (Manchuria is originally part of the Qing Dynasty), second because most of them willingly joined.Aranherunar 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made my edit about puppet state, since it definitely can be verified. I have also changed to 'historians agreed that it is a Japanese puppet state', because apparently you do not like the 'bogus' word 'most'. Stating all historians agreed that it is a puppet state will be fine because I cannot yet find a source stating that any historian did not. However, if you can come up with one, I can change it to 'All historians except one'. Would you like that? If not maybe we should go back to the word 'most'.

Whatever your personal opinions are, Manchurian Tiger, please come up with a source first, like a dictionary claiming that 'Puppet state' is propaganda. I know you may be right - It is man to err. But note that you are editing on Wikipedia for readers, and they definitely need sources.

However, I have not made my edit to change country into state, since 1. I cannot verify that, and 2. Discussion is going on and that is an edit by a mediator. Aranherunar 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahah, it seems we have a nice rewriting of the paragraph (see diff). This avoids the confusion over the historians and simply states that it is a puppet state (with the source given that I re-inputted after it was accidentally removed). Let's please leave it at that unless we get a source that declares it is not a puppet state. Is that fine? Cowman109^Talk 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the new edition is full of errors. First of all, if a "former puppet state" is valid, what is a "current puppet state"? Secondly, Pu Yi is not "publicly known" as the head of the state. He WAS the head of state. I have to state that "puppet state" is a one-sided opinion, to say the least. I quote a recent study by Kevin M Doak's book review for a book by Duara about Manchukuo (please notice the words in bold):

Doak, Kevin Michael "Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern (review)" The Journal of Japanese Studies - Volume 30, Number 2, Summer 2004, pp. 502-507 Society for Japanese Studies

Excerpt The Journal of Japanese Studies 30.2 (2004) 502-507 [Access article in PDF] Manchukuo is a hot topic among historians these days, and for good reason. This short-lived state in the border regions of northeast China, established under Japanese military authority in 1932 and deeply tied to the fate of the Japanese Empire, promises important lessons on the world in which we live today. As academics and others turn to new paradigms to extol the virtues of transnational identities, constructed nationhood, multiethnicity, and postcolonialism as transnational critical practice, Manchukuo offers a tempting optic in which to position these issues in a new relationship to Western cultural power. It is in this hope that Manchukuo can speak to us today that Prasenjit Duara offers his own deep meditations on Manchukuo and "the East Asian modern."

Duara's trajectory takes him well beyond the historical polity called Manchukuo. But let's begin there, as much of his broader argument is shaped by how he approaches the nature of this chimeric state. As Tsukase Susumu pointed out some years ago, most studies on Manchukuo fall into two broad categories: those that regard Manchukuo merely as a "puppet" or colony of Japan, and those that see Manchukuo as an effort at building an ideal state that failed due to the pressures of war.1 One hastens to add that these positions [End Page 502] do not correlate with Chinese and Japanese historiography per se for, as Tsukase notes, the first approach also is largely the established position among postwar Japanese historians. Duara's own argument draws most heavily from scholarship that reflects the first position, although in subtle and fascinating ways he draws from both (as does Yamamuro Shin'ichi, whose work Duara builds on in his own study).2

This tells why the claim that "most" historians regard M as a "puppet state" is false.

If you're interested, please check out the website:http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/journal_of_japanese_studies/v030/30.2doak.html--Manchurian Tiger 03:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then! It seems we have a compromise. The article now does not state whether Manchukuo actually was a puppet state or not, but explains that it is disputed (clearly as we have seen from these discussions :) ). Are there any objections to the recent edits? Cowman109^Talk 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to pay more attention to the sentence "that failed due to the pressures of war". This implies that although some may want to build an ideal Manchurian state, it failed and became a mere puppet state that can only be used in war.

The source you given explains that there may be two possibilities - 1. The Japanese made a puppet state, 2. The Japanese tried to make an ideal state, but failed and it became a puppet state ("chimeric state"). Both ways, it's a puppet state, and the article also adds that even most Japanese historians agreed with the first possibility. Though, since it is clear that it is disputed, we should return to the word 'most', because it is obvious 'most' historians agreed with the first 'approach'.

As for the recent edit by another contributor, it's actually a very old edit that was concluded few months ago by few other contributors (and then abruptly reverted by Manchurian Tiger), so I'm sure he would not agree with it.

"Unfortunately, the new edition is full of errors. First of all, if a "former puppet state" is valid, what is a "current puppet state"? Secondly, Pu Yi is not "publicly known" as the head of the state."

First answer - obviously, a former puppet state is a puppet state that does not exist now, and a current puppet state is a puppet state that does exist now. Is there a problem with that?

Second answer. Yes, he is publicly known as the head of the state, and you may argue that he is also the head of state formally, but some may also argue that he had no real power as the head of state (actually, it's in the article itself, and mentioned in various other articles like Politics of Manchukuo). "Publicly known" is safer and more accurate, but since you would not even comply with "most", there is no need to argue this point. Aranherunar 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed "country" to "state" again. Manchurian Tiger, note that the source you provided uses the word "state". There's no problem with that anymore, right?

Also removed the source at the end of the first paragraph. It isn't need - there's nothing for it to verify. Aranherunar 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations

In the fourth paragraph down from the first header, the link to http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=330 appears to be down. Another source of that information may be required. Cowman109^Talk 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting

I have rewritten the opening and moved the explanation of the puppet state claims to the body of the article (see diff). Does that look fine to everyone so far? Cowman109^Talk 18:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the new edition is a good one. It included the opinions of both sides and is a more Wiki like article. However, I'm not sure if "created by Japan" is a correct statement - in that Puyi and other Manchu royal members played a major role to get help from Japan to establish M. As a matter of fact, it was Puyi who first suggested to the J military commanders in a letter to rebuild his empire. Therefore, "created with the help of Japan" might be a better choice. Saying M was totally created by J is even opposed by the Chinese historians who argue that this theory was actually made by Puyi in hope to get himself less trouble facing Chinese accusations.--Manchurian Tiger 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine, but IMO "Japanese influence" (the topic) is not very suitable, as there clearly is great Japanese influence in Manchuria, before and after the establishment of Manchukuo, and the section did not really deal with Japanese influence. I suggest changing it to "Factual power of the state" or "Puppet state" (the argument is "Puppet vs Ideal", but since most states are "ideal states" the topic can simply be "Puppet state", presented as a possibility), etc.

As for the "created by Japan" matter, I do not think Puyi could build a country simply by asking for the help of another country himself. The Japanese had motives to invade Manchuria - they would not risk so much to help a person who didn't really do them any good. "Created by Japan" is therefore more accurate, but since this is very interrelated with the argument of Puppet State, perhaps both sides should be included. Aranherunar 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, http://www.bartelby.net/65/ma/Manchuku.html does state that the Japanese 'founded' Manchukuo, so perhaps it may be best to leave it at that. I made that the heading so there are no arguments over it at first. Though there is plenty of sourced information about how the Japanese influenced Manchukuo (I'm sure a bit could be written about the transportation). Cowman109^Talk 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two 'See also' sections? Can someone merge them or is there a special reason? Aranherunar 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Shaky 13 years

Manchukou only shakily lasted for 13 years. It is totally ridiculous to refer it as a country and there is no need to have administrative division in this article for this puppet state. Also eatern Inner Mongolia is just part of Manchuria. It shouldn't be singled out. Manchukou also includes Jehol, which is part of Hebei province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manzhouri (talk • contribs) .

The cited source there clearly states that Pu Yi served as 'regent and emperor'. Could you please provide a source that explains where Manchukuo was? Also, I'm not familiar with Manchukuo myself and I say this as a neutral third party, but Manchukuo did have some sort of administrative division and it was labeled as a country in several sources (though as a state in others). However, the extensive administrative division listing does seem a bit unneeded, I agree, though soley because it is a hard to read table. Could you please explain why you removed the cited information (and the source) from the opening, though? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I ask Mr./Ms. Manzhouri to explain in English what "public head" means? Does it mean the opposite of a "private head"? History is history. No matter you like it or not. If you wanna do some serious work here, please register first.--Manchurian Tiger 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As disscussed in the Japanese influence section of this article, majority of historians dub manchukou as a puppet state. So it is neutral not to refer to it as a country. It is a well established fact in academy. The souuce is also provided in that section. I'll change "public" to "publicly known". Manzhouri 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not have a reason for why you changed Cowman's writing "Pu Yi served as 'regent and emperor" which most agreed on in the previous discussions. "Pulicly known" again does not sound right. Do you imply there is also a "privately known" head of state for Manchukuo? As far as I know, Pu Yi was the only emperor of Manchukuo. What is your source of evidence of this kind of statement? Please do not change the content that was written through many's efforts for a long time, just because you don't like it. you're welcome to discuss, but before most people agree, don't not delete other's work. Thanks a lot.--Manchurian Tiger 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The sourced information did state that Pu Yi was 'regent and emperor', so it would be best to find a source that says otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you questioning the validity of Manchukuo being referred to as a country? There's plenty of sources from earlier discussions that clearly state Manchukuo did have a form of government, though the notion that it was a puppet state is also clearly stated. I don't think it's our place as editors to question the existence of a country, but instead we should focused on sourced information. Could you please respond, Manzhouri? It's probably best to discuss such edits before changing the content as this article is still clearly a source of some debate. Essentially, regent and emperor may be the same thing as head of state, though the key here is citations. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what we see as a country. Some see it as something with a long culture, some see it just as any a sovereignty. Again, I suggest simply using the word 'state' once and for all, for those many reasons I stated. Its much simpler, easier, and we can put the rest of our time to good use. Aranherunar 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger, I do not agree with your comments on the user. Could you please use a more friendly way to treat other contributors trying to help instead? Though Manzhouri may be too quick and extreme in his edits, it doesn't need a 'Just because you don't like it' in response. From what I have gathered in experience every user who happened to stumble upon here disagreed with you, and obviously it is not written by many's effort for a long time. Rather it had been under your absolutism from the beginning to the end, and you simply scare away any possible contributor. Yes, he should discuss, and that is what the people I have seen did. Yet most of the times you simply stop all discussion and start reverting madly. When someone comes and tries to stop you, you say "That has been discussed already. Now just because you don't like it...Good, I'm back to my reverting". Please stop that. I would suggest you give up on editing this article because you simply cannot do it without any bias. There are much, much more other contributors in Wikipedia that can help put this article in a healthy way without you. Thank you. Aranherunar 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The very first word of the source in the article dubed manchukou a puppet state. That's the fact. Puyi was just a puppet, Even the empor of japan is a useless puppet in its country. It is a fact, you like it or not. Manzhouri 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a puppet state, but nonetheless it does appear that Pu Yi technically held that position, so it's best to use the proper sourced terminology. Also, in an unrelated question, perhaps we should use a word other than 'demolished' at the end of the introduction. Perhaps we can simply say that Manchukuo was put back under Chinese control after world war II, as demolished would imply otherwise, in my opinion. Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Manzhouri, please do not make any edit during the discussion. I have reverted your five edits. Three of them are disputed, and two of them are what I believe either vandalism or mistakes. You deleted the whole chunk of administrative divisions - and that isn't a result of the discussion. Then you re-added the 'See also' section, which I have actually merged with the other 'See also' section down below - simply shows that you did not even bother to read my edit summary. If you want to make a good contribution, please pay some attention to what other users are doing and trying to say, and read the article itself. Thank you. Aranherunar 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid editing

Please try to avoid editing the article during the mediation. It is not productive to simply change it back and forth. If someone else makes an edit, do not respond in kind. --Ideogram 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchukou was demolished by force in 1945 at the end of World War II. This is a basic and important information. It should be added at the first paragraph of this article. Extensive administrative division listing is unnecessary for this no-longer-exist puppet state. The information is simply useless and the messy table reduces the readibility of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manzhouri (talk • contribs) .

I do partly agree about the administrative divisions point in terms of it not being necessary, though I'll leave that to others to decide. As to it being demolished by force, I wasn't aware of that (I'm not familiar with Manchukuo's history until coming to this article) and it may be best to find a citation that states that. Could you also please try to refrain from making controversial edits before they are discussed, though? I would ask the same for people that disagree with you - sometimes the best edit is the lack of an edit to prevent an edit war. Cowman109^Talk 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

manchukou was forcefully demolished by the Chinese (nationalists and communists) and the Soviet at the end of World War II. This can be found in many history books. It is a common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manzhouri (talk • contribs) .

Untrue. Manchukuo was defeated by the Soviet Russia only not by any Chinese forces. All the major or small scale battles were between Kuntung Army/Manchukuo Army and the Red Army. There is no record showing that any Chinese forces committed any offense against Manchukuo. They arrived well after the Russians occupied the whole country. The Russian Red Army then handed Manhukuo over to the Nationalists and Communists except Dalian and Port Arthur.--Manchurian Tiger 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As we have a conflict concerning what the facts are, a source would be best. Cowman109^Talk 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that article Operation August Storm does agree with the point that it was demolished by the Soviets. However, I do not understand why "demolished by force" could not be included. As said, it is quite basic and Manchurian Tiger in the above reply does not seem to have said anything against it. All he is arguing is whether it is demolished by the Chinese or by the Soviets. Aranherunar 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not get it. How can user Manzhouri claim his edit to be 'neutral and necessary' when his edit is no different from his last edits, which were reverted and disputed? And how is it necessary when it simply repeats a point in the article in the introduction and delete a bunch of administrative regions that, yes, are not necessary, but had no necessity to be deleted? Aranherunar 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that "demolished" seems a bit over-dramatic to me, and I don't know if demolish exeplains the situation clearly. Like I said, I'm not familiar with Manchukuo's history, but wouldn't there still be people and buildings in Manchukuo? Demolished would seem to imply, to me at least, that the entire place, its infrastructure, and its people were wiped out. Cowman109^Talk 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be said that the government of Manchukuo is destroyed/demolished. That would be a more accurate description. Aranherunar 11:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any objection to specifying that it was the government, so I'll go ahead and add that to add clarification. There still seems to be the issue of the specifics, though, which are questioned above. Citations to verify the situation would be most helpful if they can be found. Cowman109^Talk 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles about the term Puppet State

Since a source was provided that argues Manchukuo is a puppet state (though not directly. It only says there are two conflicting views, and I cannot find the "not-puppet-state" view being expressed directly in any reliable source), a Japanese Influence section has been added with both views explained and verified. However, it seems that we have forgotten I have provided 7 internal links claiming it directly to be a puppet state, such as Operation August Storm, Puppet state, Imperial Japan etc. If the main article Manchukuo presented two different views, I suggest all these other articles concerning Manchukuo be found and edited if needed to present the two sources. Is it possible? Aranherunar 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is very true. According to policy at WP:NPOV#Undue_weight,

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

So, it is clear that the belief that Manchukuo was a puppet state is widely accepted, there is still a small group who refutes that. I think changing each reference to Manchukuo as a puppet state wouldn't be necessarily, as that is a commonly accepted description of it. Perhaps it should be made clear in the section that a majority of historians believe that Manchukuo was a puppet state for such and such reasons, and then retain the small blurb about those who disagree? I suppose by its very definition, whether a place is a puppet state or not will be refuted at times. Cowman109^Talk 15:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty hard to defend the view that Manchukuo wasn't a puppet state, especially when even Emperor Puyi called himself one. --Yuje 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Slave labor-bacteriological weapons

Aranherunar, you scold Manchourian tiger but without any reasons you have deleted the sections about slave labor and baterilogical weapons. Have you any motivation for this ?

Second, is the article better without the picture of the cute actress Li Xianglan ? --Flying tiger 13:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many photos of Puyi

There are too many photos of Puyi. The article is better off with only one or two Puyis. Zhang Qiang 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) One is photo, another is picture in magazine. `'mikka (t) 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since mikkalai is having trouble understand my question here. I will rephrase here. There are too many pictures of Puyi ( one magazin, one photo, one stamp). I think the stamp is something to keep. We need to choose one from the other two to delete. They are using too much space and not informative. Zhang Qiang 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture from Times is not informative, portrait is informative. Times deleted. If you want people to understand you, please write clearly. "Better off" is not an argument. `'mikka (t) 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll suggest delete the photo, because Puyi is generally considered not involved in millitary issues. User:九·一八事变 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 918 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 October 2006.

I've added something about the manchukuo independence movement, please don't remove them because if you go to the website i have indicated in the article, there is really such movement going on.