Jump to content

Talk:Manchuria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.104.150.78 (talk) at 07:34, 4 February 2011 (→‎Korean Trolls). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Korean Trolls

How many Korean trolls are going to invade this page? Seriously Manchuria is a part of China today, get over it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Apart from what others are saying, your argument here is very uneducated and flawed. No I'm not a Korean Nationalist. Your argument states that since Manchuria is under the government of PRC, so its former histories should be disregarded. Those so called "nationalists" are trying to uncover histories that are covered by Chinese propagandas that are clearly visible to a foreigner like myself. If you believe that they are arguing the wrong for the sake of nationalism, go prove it for PRC's government has provided enough distrust for some of us to ask questions. Thank you.

p.s. Apologize me for not being able to sign this reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.112.253 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchuria is a part of China today. The PRC government could do whatever it wants to that piece of land from migrating millions of people to that land to destroying previous cultural relics to further integrate that region. She can either allow or not allow foreigners to study the histories of that land, it's not up for someone like you to decide so by all means go ahead and voice complaints. Don't be surprised if your complaints fall on deaf ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.150.78 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is Manchuria ethnic minority?

See

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requesting help

[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Treaties of 1958 and 1960?

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.

Qing China in 1892

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Ok, guys. They were Tungus people. --Enerelt (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong

edit: I just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Leased_Territory

Reddirt (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)jpw[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchuria&oldid=411938279"