Jump to content

Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Clarification on Nlu's inclusion criterion

As noted below, I am not insisting on this list or even this definition, but let me explain the list inclusion criteria, as far as I am concerned (and the inclusion critiera may very well include other articles that I didn't think of; I considered including Wuhuan but decided not do, because I don't think there's sufficient evidence that the Wuhuan controlled substantial parts, if any, of modern Manchuria. My inclusion criteria are:

  1. A power (whether tribal or state) --
  2. That controlled a substantial part of modern Manchuria --
  3. Where "Manchuria" is defined by definition 4 in Manchuria's "Extent of Manchuria" section --
  4. Verifiably so.

(Again, Wuhuan was my basic "close, but not quite" drawn line; Rouran may fall into the same category.) --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason that inclusion of ethnicities can be complicated is because there are so many. There are also the Yemaek(proto-Koreans), the Dongyi, the Rong, the Sushen and the list goes on. Cydevil 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add the Sushen. There are no articles for Yemaek or Rong, while "Dongyi" is a generic name that doesn't refer to a single group. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I think it's useful to divide the template into two sections, one section covering polities, the other covering ethnicities/cultures. But I guess the problem is how we can do that. Cydevil 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on list

I think Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon should be left out, as the term "Gojoseon" encompasses them both. And you have also included ethnicties, not just states. That may complicate things a bit. Cydevil 09:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it should be Gojoseon that gets taken out (and replaced by whichever stages of Gojoseon that came before Gija Joseon, because this should really be a template of successive regimes. The reasons why some ethnicities are included is that they controlled major parts of the region in tribal form, and therefore, while not perhaps states, were ruling powers over the region. I am not insisting on this current list, but there was a reason; it's written in this way, intending to be neutral. --Nlu (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And, as the articles themselves noted, there is a controversy whether Gija Joseon (if it existed) was really the same state as Gojoseon or not; the same is true of Wiman Joseon. I would say they should be separate from Gojoseon (which, as I reread article, didn't really have a separate term for the entity that putatively could have been the one opposing and different from Gija Joseon). If anything, Gija Joseon's exclusion may be based on its lack of verifiability (although I included in the sense that if it existed, it would, I think, verifiably have had major parts of Manchuria; the question is its actual existence). --Nlu (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, at least in Korea, Gojoseon is used as a period of Korean history, not a specific state. Something like the Three Kingdoms of Korea. The period of Gojoseon consists of Dangun Joseon, Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon. Actually, I may not be too sure about this. I'll check once I get back home. Cydevil 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Proposition of diving in sectors

History of Manchuria is very rich but also complicated to better understand its history i suggest to divide that region in six sectors have a look at map 1 map 2 and map 3 :

  • Inner Manchuria (4 sectors) :
The "western" border of Inner Manchuria now incorporated in Inner Mongolia
- the former Xingan/ Hsingan Province (興安)
- the former Rehe Province (热河/熱河) and Liaobei/Liaopei


The "southern" part of Inner Manchuria : the Liao river bank (with Liaodong peninsula), corresponding roughly to the former Liaoning province including :
- former Jinzhou (锦州/錦州) located the right bank the Liao river
- former Fengtian (奉天) located on the bank the Liao river


The "eastern" part of Manchuria bordering Korean peninsula, corresponding roughly to the actual Jilin Province : southern part of the Sungari basin contain also the banks of Yalu river , the banks of Tuman river and including the Changbai Mountain (Kaema Plateau)
- former Antung (安東)
- Kirin (吉林)
- and Sunkiang/Songjiang (松江) or Binjiang (濱江)
- parts of North Korea above the Goryeo Cheolli Jangseong (northern part of North Pyongan, Jagang, Ryanggang, North Hamgyong and South Hamgyong provinces)


The "northen" part of Inner Manchuria
- Nunkiang/Nenjiang (嫩江)
- Hokiang/Hejiang or Sanjiang (三江)
- former Heilongjiang (黑龍江)
  • Outer Manchuria (2 sectors) corresponding to well defined at the Nerchinsk Treaty:
- the actual Primorye/Primorskii Krai ceded by China to Russia in 1860
- the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai ceded by China to Russia in 1858 including :
- Bikinsky District
- Vyazemsky District
- Lazo District
- Khabarovsky District
- and eventually Nanaysky District because Nanai peoples are also Tungusic peoples.


Conclusion :

The western part of Manchuria history is closely related to China and Mongolia HIstory
The eastern part of Manchuria and the actual Primorye/Primorskii Krai is closely related to Korean History although not necessarily included.
The northern part of Manchuria with the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai : are closely related to the Black River Mohe history, the ancestor of the Wild Jurchen and the Nanai peoples.
I also emit some reserve concerning Rehe and Xingan province, because i consider that the border of Manchuria / East Tartary are :
- on the West : Liao River (see Goguryeo Cheolli Jangseong) and the Greater Khingan Range
- on the South: Goryeo Cheolli Jangseong and Liaodong peninsula
- on the north : Stanovoy Range or Outer Khingan Range
- on the east : Sakhalin Island and Sea of Japan (East Sea)
Have a look on my page User:Whlee/History of Manchuria

I think this is a good starting point for an eventual article. For a template, this is too complex. --Nlu (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are still some mistakes in my "article/template" but i will try to improve it later

Manchuria vs Dongbei : Trying to find a issue

  1. The concept of Man Zhou as a geographic entity did not materialize until the 20th century, even then, it existed only as a puppet regime - hence, it is illegitimate. Assault11 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you sure about what you said above??? The Manchuria region is well materialized :
- on the West Koguryeo Cheonlijangseong andThe Great Wall of Jin dynasty
- on the South : Yan State "great Wall", Koryeo Cheonlijangseong, the Liaodong peninsula
- on the East : Sea of Japan / East Sea of Korea
- on the North : Stanovoy Mountains
The correct term to refer to this region is "Northeast China" (Dongbei) - or simply the "Northeast." The use of "Man Zhou" (Manchuria) as a geographic entity has never been in existance aside from the advent of Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo. Assault11 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-"Northeast China" (Dongbei) is a correct term if you follow the CPOV or the Zhongguo Minzhu policy otherwise it is meaningless if you want be more more neutral you sould have to use another more appropriate term like "Eastern Tartary" or "Manju gurun" or "jušen gurun". In addition to that Manchuria has never been included as part of Traditional China Empire.Whlee 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with CPOV or "Zhonghua Minzu" AT ALL. The term "Manchuria" (rendered as Manzhou in Chinese) has never existed in official Chinese terminology referring to the three provinces of the Northeast. The Qing never called the place Man Zhou, nor did any of its successors. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "Traditional China Empire/China Proper," I don't subscribe to idiotic Western terminology. Assault11 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Other alternative names would be Sahaliyan or Nurkal (Nu'ergan) (Hanzi: 努尔干 or 奴儿干 (see also Nurkal Command Post) or Guandong (关东/關東)Whlee 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop dodging the question. This is about Man Zhou vs. Dong Bei. Since when was Man Zhou ever used (aside from Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo) as an official term referring to the Three Provinces of the Northeast? Never. Assault11 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Manchuria or Manchu or if you prefer Manju was adopted by Hong Taiji to replace the term Jurchen in 1635.
2) Dongbei (中国东北) is a Chinese word meaning the Northeast of China according to Chinese Point of view or Inner Manchuria according to general point of view : Dongbei never include Primorye (滨海州) and the southern part of Kharbarovsk Krai (哈巴罗夫斯克边疆区 or 伯力).
3) Northeastern China is defined by the government of the PRC to include the three northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning (all of them have been created or remodelled around 1955), replacing roughly the former provinces of Republic of China = former Heliongjiang, former Hejiang/Hokiang, former Hsingan/Khingan, former Nunkiang/Nenjiang, former Sungkiang/Songjiang , former Kirin/Jilin, former Liaoph/former Liaobei, former An-tung/Andong.
=> Dongbei is akin Sinocentrism.I'm very sorry announce that to you.
=> History of Manchuria template can be created and be used. Whlee 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of its origin, the word "Manchuria" was already established in the English language by the early 20th century before the "puppet regime". See:

And the current English dictionaries still list "Manchuria". See:

"Manchuria" was a name given by the Europeans, and there seems to be no alternative name for it in English except a descriptive one such as "a region in northeast China". "Dongbei" is not listed in the English dictionaries.--Endroit 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Assault11, I would like to ask you to drop the Chinese point of view and familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV policy, because this is the English Wikipedia. It is only us Chinese that use the term "Northeast" or "Dongbei", please keep that in mind.
The term Manchuria might be "stupid", but it is the common English usage in modern Western historiography per sources cited above. In regards of your quote "idiotic Western terminology", again, remember this is the English Wikipedia. (AQu01rius • Talk) 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Whlee, Huang Taiji changed the name of Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu (this was later shortened to Man Zu during the ROC), and Later Jin (Hou Jin) to the Great Qing. This name corresponds to the Man Zu (Manchu) ethnic group - NOT the region of Northeast China.
Dongbei was based off of the Three Provinces of the East (Dong San Sheng and includes the lost territories from the Treaty of Aihui/Aigun and the Convention of Beijing), comprised of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Fengtian (Shengjing). The Governor General of the region was known as the Viceroy of Dongsansheng - one of the eight during the Qing.[2]
Manchuria is inappropriate because there is not one instance (aside from Man Zhou Guo) where it has been used officially to refer to the region of Northeast China. Not a single Chinese history source I've come across ever mentioned the region of Northeast China as "Man Zhou." As well, Manchuria used to be a common term referring to the Northeast in the English language, however this has been gradually been replaced by Northeast China (case in point: refer to the recent steel plant accident in Liaoning province as reported by CNN [3]). The usage of Northeast China is also used by Encarta in place of Manchuria [4]. Assault11 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should look on the word "Manchuria" in a geographical sense. Good friend100 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In theory, that would work, but only if "Manchuria" had actually existed. Besides, what we are making is a history template, therefore it should be within a historical context. Again, I see no problems why the History of China cannot be used especially when Gaogouli is no different from Nan Zhao (which is linked to the HoC template). There is no real need for an HoM template. Assault11 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Nan Zhao? I have never heard of that having a connection to Goguryeo. Goguryeo was a completely independent kingdom during the three kingdoms period. Good friend100 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Nanzhao. It's basically the predecessor state (some would argue the same state) as Dali. I do agree I don't see the relevance Nanzhao has to Goguryeo, particularly given that it's fairly clear that the people of Nanzhao were eventually absorbed into China. That's not so for Goguryeo. --Nlu (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How so? Can you back that up? Of all the primary sources I've looked over, most of the suggested a larger migration of Gaogouli people into Chinese territory (namely Tang/Bohai), especially in comparison with Xinluo (Silla). Take for example, here's what I found in Sanguo Shiji: Gao Zong Yi San Wan Ba Qian San Bai Hu Yu Jiang Hui Zi Nan In comparison, the Xinluo took only 4000 households. Like Wangkon936 said earlier, most historical sources implied a larger migration of Gaogouli people into Chinese territory than Silla, which is understandable considering much of its territory was located in Northeast China. Gaogouli is similar with the Kingdom of Nan Zhao and Da Li in that both were subordinate states vis-a-vis the Tang Empire and that both are similarly related to Chinese history. Assault11 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Assault11, I am rather disturbed that my opinions on the matter are being misappropriated. Yes, I would agree with you that circumstantial evidence found in both the Samguk Sagi and The New and Old Books of Tang would indicated that a majority (and it may be a slim majority at that after you net the Koguryo populations that went to the Eastern Turks, Liaodong, Parhae, Silla and Japan) of Koguryo went to Tang. However, you are rather misleading when you use the terms "migration" and "assimilation." The definition of "migration" is a population moves from one place to another driven by resource requirements, whether it be due to better jobs, education, food, pastoral migrations, etc. This would imply a voluntary move of population (give certain "pull" factors). Koguryo's population move to Tang territories were, for the most part, not voluntary. The population of Koguryo people set-up in and around the Tang imperial capital were "defectors" to Tang so were the most trusted. Other then that, the vast majority of Koguryo people moved to Tang were untrustworthy or had less status then the Koguryo "defectors." You have to understand the reasoning why Tang did this. At first Tang just moved the families of the elites. However, from 668 A.D. to 673 A.D. the Koguryo population constantly revolted. Tang then systematically moved more and more of the Koguryo population out of their former territory and into all different parts of the Tang Empire with the expressed purpose of making sure that no single parts of Tang territory would have a big enough population for them to state a revolt. This concern of Tangs was played out when the last King of Koguryo, Pojang, lead a revolt in concert with the Malgal population in Liaodong. Furthermore, assimilation usually implies immigrants who came voluntary and "assimilated" voluntarily. Of course it doesn't always mean that, but the distinction between voluntary and forced assimilation must be made. The people of Koguryo who found themselves in Tang territory, were, for the most part, forcibly taken away (NOT migrated) from their lands and forcibly assimilated into Tang.
When it comes to migration, in the truest sense of the term, Koguryo people in Silla were "migrants," but Koguryo people in Tang were not.
Lastly, lets take your conclusion to its logical conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your assertion is: "Because there are more Koguryo people who went to Tang (regardless of whether or not they were forced or went by choice), and Tang is well recognized as a Chinese empire, then Koguryo was Chinese." Is this correct?
In my opinion, this fact alone does not really "prove" anything because there are probably more people (in terms of shear numbers) of English, German, Jewish and Irish ancestory in the U.S. then there are English in England, Germans in Germany, Jews in Israel, and Irish in Ireland. Does this mean that Ireland, Germany, Israel and England belong to the U.S.? No, it doesn't. Why? Because nationality and culture mean more then simple numbers. It means a cultural heritage, preservation of what remains of that culture, history and heritage, so on and so forth. The culture, history and heritage is best preserved in today's Korea and Korean population. For example, the game "yut" something that my family plays every new years day, is a Koguryo game. Fermented bean paste, a staple of the Korean diet, was from Koguryo. Dress and housing structures was similar to that of the other two Korean kingdoms. As Sarah Nelson would say in her book "The Archaeology of Korea," "[Koguryo tomb murals].. demonstrate a continuity in dress and house styles from Koguryo to historic Korea..." Ondol heating, which finds no meaningfully similar Chinese central plains culture equivalent, is prevalent in all three Korean kingdoms. So is clothing, such as trousers tied to the ankles and shoes with upturned toes. Religion wise, all three kingdoms have a mix of buddism and shamanism, with women clerics being prominent in shamanism. Further along this vein, Dr. Nelson would state, "Koguryo wall murals depict clothing, hair styles, dwellings and even kitchens that were little changed into [Korean in the 20th century]." WangKon936 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wangkon936, lets not to quibble over semantics. Whether it be forced migration (and yes, it is still considered "migration" nonetheless) or involuntary assimilation is not the issue here, the fact that the majority of Gaogouli people are now Chinese is the main point I was getting across, which was in response to Nlu's comment. Instead of making an argument (strawman) and attributing it to me on the presumption that it was my case, I would suggest that you read over my replies more carefully next time. By the way, some of your points might be flawed, just a brief search of this "Ondol" reminds me of the "Da Kang" - a stove-heated bed common throughout Northern China (including Dongbei). Whether they are similar, I'm not exactly sure. Whatever the case is, this is not something that I have brought up and I do not intend to issue a rebuttal for it. Assault11 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any sources. Good friend100 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And assuming that Assault11 is (again) citing the New Book of Tang, it doesn't say what he claims that it says. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not cite the New Book of Tang. In fact, I never even used it to support my argument before - that is, if you even bothered reading my responses some time ago. In any case, if you missed it, the source I quoted from was directly from Samguk Sagi - Annals of Koguryo (in English, although the one I quoted from was from the Chinese version). Again, if you have any more information that suggests Silla as the main receiver of Gaogouli migrants, feel free to prove me wrong. Assault11 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The source of the sentence that says many Goguryeo migrants were assimilated into the Tang is by Chinese authors as well as many of the other sources compiled.
Also, who assimilated into who doesn't really matter. A destroyed Korean kingdom that is assimilated into China doesn't mean that the Korean kingdom is automatically part of China. You should also note that we don't know how many people went to Balhae or Silla. I don't think you should dwell on "how many people went to where". Good friend100 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please be more specific, Samguk Sagi is a Korean source. What are you trying to get at? Most sources indirectly imply that Tang ended up receiving more migrants than Silla. This source sets the number of Gaogouli migrants to Tang at 300,000 and Bohai at 100,000 out of a total population of roughly 700,000. This has all been discussed in the archives. Besides, I did not bring this issue up. I only pointed out the similarities between Nan Zhao and Gaogouli. Assault11 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Just some clarification. The numbers you give are not of individuals but of households. The average number of people per household in Sui and Tang times was around 5 or 6, meaning that 100,000 households would mean 500,000 to 600,000 individuals. This would make Koguryo's population at the time of her fall at 3.5 to 4.1 million people. WangKon936 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A destroyed Korean kingdom that is assimilated into China doesn't mean that the Korean kingdom is automatically part of China. Good friend100 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, please address my arguments regarding Dongbei vs. Man Zhou, again, adding both would not infringe upon the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and would put the template in a more historical context
Dear Assault11, Dongbei would not put the template in a more historical context. Dongbei is corresponding roughly to Inner Manchuria. Manchuria = Dongbei + Russian Far East. adding the terms (Northeast China) close to Manchuria on the title is not appropriate. have a look on my page dedicated to Manchuria. But following NPOV Guideline Dongbei and Russian Far East are included in that template. Thank you for your comprehension. Regards.Whlee 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Whlee, you have to realize that "Inner Manchuria" (and it seems the Wikipedia article for it has been deleted, redirecting it to the main "Manchuria" page) - like "Manchuria" (or Man Zhou) - is not officially recognized and has never served as a geographic entity in Chinese historiography. It has never been used by the Qing or any of its successors To this day. In fact, many Northeasterners consider the term "Manchuria" or "Man Zhou" as an insult, due to the connection with the former Japanese puppet regime and possible separatist connotations. This is why "Manchuria" is gradually being replaced by "Dongbei." As well, if you notice the Outer Manchuria article, the Chinese term for it is NOT "Outer Man Zhou," but "Outer Dongbei." This is because Dongbei is synonymous with the term "Manchuria," and historical Dongbei (refer to the Gaogouli talk page) did indeed encompass the last territories to Russia.
1) Someone warned you previously but seemingly you "refuse to cooperate" :
User:Assault11, I would like to ask you to drop the Chinese point of view and familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV policy, because this is the English Wikipedia. It is only us Chinese that use the term "Northeast" or "Dongbei", please keep that in mind.
2) I got of several questions to you :
A) Do you consider peoples living in Manchuria (Hezhen/Goldi/Nanai, Harbin Russians,Russians living in Primorye, Udeghe, Oroch or Ulchs) as "Northeasterners" as well ?
B) I'm working on a project called Manchu Wikipedia do you consider that Manchu/Manchu language as an insult?? I am very upset.. Manchu peoples can be proud of their culture and their history.
C) What about Uighurs and Tibetans do you call them "Northwesterners" and "Southwesterners"? Once again i qualify that as Sinocentrism.

With this in mind, I will be reverting the template again, if you have any further questions, please talk first. Assault11 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We have to find a solution and drop ou nationalistic (Chinese for instance) point of view
Therefore i will revert it and add a template.
In addition to that repating Northeast China is redundant, and incompatible with Primorye or Russian Far EastWhlee 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, it was a request - not a warning. I have done nothing wrong. And regarding your questions:

A) Yes, they are "Dongbei Ren" (or Northeasterners) as along as they are born within modern Northeast China - regardless of ethnicity, however this definition does not encompass "historical" Dongbei (lost territories to Russia).

B) Again, you seem to be missing my point here. I myself, am a native Dongbei Ren (Northeastern Chinese) and I do have some Manchu ancestry (according to the family Jia Pu). I would certainly not consider the Manchu language as an insult, but the use of "Man Zhou" in place of Dongbei as a geographic entity is a grave insult to us Northeasterners. Keep in mind that a lot of Chinese tend to associate "Man Zhou" with the Japanese puppet regime of "Man Zhou Guo," and this is why this term generally gets a bad rap from us Northeasterners. Not only that, it is historically inaccurate in that it has never existed in official Chinese historiography as a geographic entity. I have repeated this several times, I recommend that you RE-READ this over again in case you misquote me again.

I am partially agree with you : Manchuria is not an insult terms BUT Manchukuo. Chinese people have to make efforts not associate Manchuria/manchu with the Japanese puppet regime of "Man Zhou Guo". Northeasterners is almost meaningless towards peoples who live outside China. For instance i am French and i never say Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians as "Northeasterners" because there are living in the "Northeast of Europe".
If some people consider ManZhou as an insult, a better and peaceful solution is to then not use Manzhou, instead of asking them to accept it as not an insult and live with it. Any decent person would do that. It is peoples right not to want to use ManZhou anymore but prefers Dongbei. Maybe to satisfy everybody, we can use "Northeast China/Manchuria" or in Goguryo case "Northeast China/Inner Manchuria"


C) No, they are not considered "Northwesterners" or "Southwesterners" because the region of Xinjiang and Xizang (Tibet) are well-defined geographic entities in Chinese historigraphy. As well, unlike "Dongbei," there is no such thing as "Xibei Ren" or "Xinan Ren." Modern Dongbei does not include the lost territories to Russia, however historic Dongbei does - refer to the Outer Manchuria article (note that the Chinese name for it is Wai Dongbei - or Outer Dongbei). If you scroll back up, the Encarta encyclopedia I referred to also use Dongbei in place of Manchuria because both terms are used interchangeably (only that Dongbei is more within a historical context).

Really ? then have a look at Southwest China and Northwestern China. I only consider Dongbei is a modern term designating one of the nine Chinese macro-regions. But this template is related to History of Manchuria.
I see it strange to have to stopped Goguryo association with later history at Manchuria. How about the period from end of Manchuria to TODAY? Today that is Northeastern China. Goguryo is within yesterdays Inner Manchuria and within todays Norhteastern China.

I have explained this many times before and my actions regarding this issue are all done in good faith and in accordance with the NPOV policies of Wikipedia. Please do not accuse me of anything that I am not guilty of. Thanks. Assault11 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not accuse you personnally, I accuse policies reducing knowledge via "simplistic" point of view. For instance, I prefer Traditional Chinese rather than Simplified Chinese.Whlee 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Goguryo even occupy the entire Manchuria? From the map I see it only occupy parts of Inner Manchuria, which is today Northeastern China. It is therefore more accurate to link Goguryo to only Inner Manchuria/Northeastern China instead of the entire Manchuria. The template should use the title "History of Inner Manchuria/Northeastern China" to better reflect the Goguryo historical extension to present day. I wonder if Russia ever occupy Inner Manchuria. If not then Russia could be taken out to simplfy thing even more.

I am going to change the template title to "History of Northeast China (Previously Inner Manchuria)" with Northeast China and Manchuria link to its respective page. I will also exclude Russia from the template. I am doing this because Goguryo in found only within Northeast China (Previously Inner Manchuria), and Russia is found only in Outer Manchuria.

That's wrong there was also a Russian protectorate in Northeast Chinaat the dawn of the 20th century.
Whlee, if you understand Chinese, you would realize the similarities between the terms "Manchuria" and "Manchukuo" in the Chinese context (Key word: "Man Zhou"). Allow me to make it clear that you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find ANY Northeasterner introducing themselves as "Man Zhou Ren" or from "Man Zhou." This is something only native Dongbei Ren would understand, so please be a bit more understanding.
Allow me to rephrase my statement. Yes, geographically, "Xibei/Xinan" exists, but you don't call refer to the people of the region as "Xibei Ren" or "Xinan Ren" (at least thats something I've never heard of before). This is because their respective provinces/autonomous regions (e.g. Xinjiang/Xizang) are already well-defined. And unlike Xibei/Xinan, the people located within the Northeast are known collectively as "Dongbei Ren," mostly due to the relatively homogeneous regional culture (another reason why "Dongbei" is viewed synonymously with "Manchuria" since it encompasses all the areas - whether it be historic or modern - as in the English definition).
Lastly, regarding the person above. I agree that we should be using "History of Dongbei" or "History of Northeast China" as the title of the template (additions in brackets can help clarify things too), for reasons explained above. This, in theory would be the best possible outcome. Any exclusion of "Dongbei/Northeast China" on the title of the template would be of great disservice to not only us Northeasterners, but the readers in general. Assault11 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would accept to allow the use of Northeast China on the title on ONE condition : adding Russian Far East as well. If both are used i wont add a veto again.Whlee 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Whlee, you have objection to Northeast China because it covers only part of Manchuria. But now you have added Russian Far East which is a lot bigger than Manchuria. I will leave the template for now. However I still think in the discussion of Goguryo, this template should just use Northeast China and not Manchuria. This is because it is only in Northeast China that Goguryo had its presence felt. It will make the template simple, tidy, up-to-date and accurate.
Dear 208.106.25.153, Thank you for leaving Russian Far East on that template If you look at what it was written below and if you link at the following link then you will understand my point of view. I prefer using Russian Far East because parts of its territory especially Amur Oblast, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai, and Primorye have tight links with the history of that part of Asia, have a look at Ussuriysk : does is belong to North East China? not really it belong to Russian Far East Ussuriysk was created 1866 in but archeoligcal sites are found at its vicinity which was previously called Shuaibin in Chinese and Solbin in Korean.

Now we're back to square one. I have said this many times, and I'll say it again: "Northeast China" is synonymous with the modern geographic concept of "Manchuria" (e.g. reference to popular online encyclopedia Encarta supports this [5]), only that these "lost" territories are part of historic Dongbei (do not confuse with historic and modern Dongbei - and this is why terms such as "Outer Manchuria" are referred to as "Outer Dongbei" in Chinese [6]). On the other hand, there is no Russian term that refers to the region of NE China/Manchuria as a whole, so I see no reason why it should be added. Assault11 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Assalut11, i would like to thank you for gving that link, i read carefullly, but this article is a little bit biased at several times :

  • Dongbei (also formerly known as Manchuria), historical region of north-eastern China, comprising the provinces of Heilongjiang (Heilungkiang), Jilin (Kirin), and Liaoning. Traditionally the region included a much larger area extending west to what is now the Republic of Mongolia. => They forget Primorye, Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Oblast. In modern literature, “Manchuria” usually refers to Inner (Chinese) Manchuria while the remaining (Russian ) part of that historic region is known as “Outer Manchuria”.
  • The Chinese Han dynasty (206 bc-ad 220) maintained a military presence and colonies in much of the region, but after its collapse succeeding dynasties had only limited control over southern Dongbei. => that is wrong the northern part of that region (including Heilongjiang) have never been under the control on any of the four commanderies (Xuantu/Hyeondo; Lelang/Nagnang, Lindun/Imdun or Zhenfan/Jinbon)
  • The Ming dynasty, which threw off Mongol rule in 1368, re-established Chinese control of Dongbei. => that's wrong they controlled only Jinzhou region corresponding to the actual Liaoning
  • The Manchu rulers at first refused to permit development of Dongbei and even forbade Chinese immigration into the region until the late 18th century, but eventually Chinese colonists began flooding in to take advantage of its natural wealth. By the end of the 19th century the Chinese composed approximately 80 per cent of Dongbei’s population. => The weaken Qing Empire fearing that this region would passed through Russian sphere of influence allow the migration of Chinese settlers originated from Shnadong to face that situation.
  • After Japan's defeat in World War II, Dongbei was briefly occupied by Soviet troops (1945-1946), who looted it on their withdrawal. It remains China's industrial heartland.=> biaised point of view.
  • They didn't forget it. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice the following: "Continual Russian encroachments on the northern frontier resulted in agreements between China and Russia in 1689, 1858, and 1860, fixing the Sino-Russian frontier along the Amur River to the Ussuri River."
  • Read it carefully, "presence" does not necessarily mean "control."
  • There wasn't even the existance of a "Manchu" ethnicity then. This was even before Huang Taiji declared the transition from Hou Jin to Da Qing and Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu. Jianzhou Nuzhen were also "vassals" of the Ming - the same people who united all Northeastern Chinese tribes (mostly Nuzhen) and created the Qing Dynasty. In short, the term could be used to refer to the region as a whole.
  • Whats your point? The Manchus are Chinese.
  • How exactly is that biased? I can tell you for a fact that the Russians were certainly no angels in the eyes of Northeast Chinese. In fact, the dismantling of Northeast China's industrial equipment is very well documented [7] [8].
(...) Chiang Kai-shek came to the painful realization that he lacked the resources to prevent a CCP takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure. He therefore made a deal with the Russians to delay their withdrawal until he had moved enough of his best-trained men and modern materiel into the region. Nationalist troops were then airlifted by the United States to occupy key cities in North China, when the countryside had been already dominated by the Communist Party of China. The Soviets spent the extra time systematically dismantling the entire Manchurian industrial base (worth up to 2 billion dollars) and shipping it back to their war-ravaged country (...) They were not angels but they were more tolerant than Japanese (no war crimes/genocides) towards the Chinese but not the Polish (Katyn massacre)

What you just quoted is exactly what Encarta paraphrased. There is nothing POV in the excerpt, you just contradicted yourself. Assault11 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, I have been repeating myself for quite a while now, not only that, I have been answering all your questions. Now, I would like you to reciprocate my persistant replies by answering the questions I had asked you:
1) Do you have anything to disprove the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria?
No for two reasons :
- Not yet
- because disproving the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria, is not adopting a NPOV attitude. and addition to that I agree to consider Northeast China as a one of the Chinese macro-regions in economic and social terms.
2) Do you have anything to prove that "Manchuria" was used by Chinese to refer to the region of what is now Northeast China and the former Chinese territories in the Russian Far East?
Manchuria is written like 滿洲 in Chinese and Manju in Romanized Manchu but the problem with that is a matter of interpretation between Manju (= Manchuria/满洲) and Manju (=Manchu/滿族 well defined by Hung Taiji).
3) Do you have anything to prove that the concept of "Manchuria" as a geographic entity existed prior to the 20th century?
- Not yet. what about you?

Northeastern China is defined by the government of the People's Republic of China to include the three northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning and, thus, the region is sometimes called the Three Northeastern Provinces (东北三省/東北三省; Dōngběi Sānshěng)[1].

Do you have anything to prove that the concept of "Dongbei" (excluding the term Guandong) as a geographic entity corresponding to "Manchuria" existed prior to the 20th century?
4) Do you have anything to prove the existance of the terms "Inner Manchuria" and "Outer Manchuria" in official terminology (whether it be Chinese, Russian, etc.)?
- No. Not yet.
5) Do you have anything to prove Dongbei only refers to - assuming it even exists - "Inner Manchuria" (if yes, then your answer contradicts this article)

Outer Manchuria (Chinese: 外滿洲), known in China as Outer Northeast [China] (Chinese: 外東北), is the territory ceded by China to Russia in the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860. The area comprises the present-day Russian areas of Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. Another interpretation also adds the island of Sakhalin. In contrast to Outer Manchuria, the part of Manchuria that is still part of China is referred to as "Inner Manchuria".

I agree completely those sentences written in this article. I dont see any objections on it.Whlee 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Nothing that you have provided in previous discussions disproves the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria. Disprove by points (by addressing the above questions), and I will accept your proposal. (I'm almost sure that if i were able to disprove them one by one you will maybe find other points, it is a kind of "balkanization" of that talk page, i refuse the challenge you know my point of view as i wrote previously and i will be entrenched on it even though you are not agree). Keep in mind RFE encompasses not just Outer Dongbei or Wai Dongbei in Chinese language, but other areas as well, thus inappropriate. Whereas Dongbei in the Chinese context refer to the entire region of Manchuria (whether it be historic or modern present-day Dongbei - or "Dongsansheng" during the Qing). Assault11 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming really tiring now, Whlee. You seem to ignore all the previous points I have made and keep making redundant statements that have already been thoroughly refuted.

  • "Whlee, Huang Taiji changed the name of Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu (this was later shortened to Man Zu during the ROC), and Later Jin (Hou Jin) to the Great Qing. This name corresponds to the Man Zu (Manchu) ethnic group - NOT the region of Northeast China."
  • "Dongbei was based off of the Three Provinces of the East (Dong San Sheng and includes the lost territories from the Treaty of Aihui/Aigun and the Convention of Beijing), comprised of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Fengtian (Shengjing). The Governor General of the region was known as the Viceroy of Dongsansheng - one of the eight during the Qing.[9]"

So far, you have provided zero explanation on the official uses of the geographic "Man Zhou" in Chinese historiography (not even the Qing called this place "Man Zhou). This area has never been geographically defined until the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo. In contrast, I have provided several explanations on the uses of Northeast China (Dongbei Sansheng), ever since the Qing Dynasty. I have provided sources explaining that Dongbei is synonymous with the term "Manchuria" [10] and that Dongbei also encompasses the lost territories to Russia as a result of the Unequal Treaties [11]. Assault11 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Timetable of Manchuria from 300 BC to the 20th century

It starts voluntarily at 300 BC with the extension of Yan Kingdom in Liaoning thanks to general Qin Kai under King Zhao (311 BC-279 BC) and at the same time the creation of Mukden/Shenyang.

  • I have just finished to create a timetable of the History of Manchuria. There are still cells which remained uncomplete because i am not a specialist of the history of the Tungusic peoples. The borderlines in red are NOT poltical borders :they are geographical and cultural borders. The "postulate" which helped me to achieved that painful task was : most of the civilizations have been generated on valley regions (Indus valley for India, the Huangho and Yangze plain for China the Naktong River plain for Silla, the Yalu banks for Goguryeo etc...). Hence i divided that region in 5 parts which later become roughly the 5/6 provinces of modern Manchuria Inner Mnachuria (Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang) Outer Manchuria (Amur Oblast, Khabarosk Krai and Martime/ Primorye).

We have to keep that in mind that this timetable's aims consist in being a mediated outcome and have to reduce as much as possible nationalistic point of view without forgetting the autochtones inhabitants of that region.


Proposition of renaming template

Having not found any compromise with the definition of Manchuria, I accept to follow 208.106.25.153 's idea in creating/renaming the template into northeast China but on ONE condition deleting Manchuria for two reasons :

1) Manchuria is going to be an obsolete terms according to some point of view [12]. It was also used at the beginning to designate Manchu peoples and not a geographic part of Asia.
2) Chinese Northeasterners prefer to banish/prevent the use of that term because of remembering Manchukuo (a Japanese puppet-state), and assimilating that term to Manchuria.
3) There will not be any ambiguity/confusion on it and as said Assault11, we are back to square one.

On the others cases (leaving Manchuria close to Northeast China on the title as a headline) i would be strongly entrenched on my positions because i would never accept Paleosiberians and Tungusic peoples as being assimilated as "Northeasteners" because of belonging to historic "Dongbei" or "Outer Dongebi" : Nivkhs, Ulchs, Negidals, Evenks, Nanais, Orochs and Udeghe. Otherwise it can be considered as an offense to people philologists and scholars (linguist, Manchurist) interested in everything related to Manchu peoples by spending time and energy on it... Whlee 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This template webpage name is History of Manchuria. It is also used in Manchuria. To avoid conflict I have create a new History of Northeast China template. I will remove History of Manchuria template from Goguryo page and add the new History of Northeast China template. Whlee you are welcome to edit this template you see fit to address "Manchuria" history.

I mean you are free to edit the History of Manchuria template according to your interpretation of "Manchuria".
Thank you Wiki pokemon.Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain more clearly so I know what you're trying to get across. Also, Manchus are Chinese. If you want to create a History of the Russian Far East or History of Siberia template, then by all means, feel free to do so. But whatever the case is, I will certainly not accept anything that would compromise Dongbei.

I will not compromise the existence of the term Dongbei i am agree with Wiki pokemon to create History of Northeast as a template.

Also, there is absolutely NO need for a "History of Manchuria" and a "History of Northeast China" template because they refer to the same thing (refer to above sources). Whoever created it, please have it deleted. Assault11 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with you and i will give you a proof : a Chinese website containing maps written in English dating from 1935. I will therefore support the "History of Northeast China" template. It is interesting to note that both term "Modern Northeastern China-Political" and "Manchuria" are used.　 Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What? A History of Northeast China in place of a HoM template is what I am trying to convey here. How are you disagreeing with me? Assault11 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all Manchus are Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree Nlu point of view.Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If you go by nationality, that can apply to any of the official 56 ethnic groups of China. But generally, Manchus are Chinese. In modern times, they were also one of the first five ethnic groups to be recognized. Assault11 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Therfore, if you consider Manchu and any of the official 56 ethnic groups of China as Chinese : Then it means from you that Tibetans, Uighurs, Koreans living in China as Chinese. Following and extending your reasonement to other place in the world we can compare China as a "continent" like Europe and Manchu as an ethnical minority like Italian, French, British, German on their respective "continent".Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
So the Qing was not a "Chinese" dynasty? Why don't you take this issue up in the Qing Dynasty talk page, request that the History of China template be removed on the grounds that the Qing was not Chinese. Let's see well you'd fare with that proposal. Assault11 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Northeast China and Manchuria are not EXACTLY the same thing. I created "History of Northeast China" template to differentiate the two, and thus allowing flexibility in meeting peoples different need : 1. "History of Manchuria" template allows people to pursue the history of Manchuria = Northeast China/Inner Manchuria/Dongbei + Outer Manchuria/Russian Maritime. 2. "History of Northeast China" template allows people to pursue the regional history of the northeastern provinces of China. Wiki pokemon 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. If you regard Northeast China as only "Inner Manchuria" (refer questions above), then please explain why Chinese also use the term "Wai Dongbei" [13] [14]. Northeast China is not subject to just its modern day borders, in the past, this area was known as Dongsansheng (essentially what Northeast China derives from, per above) and it includes the territories ceded to Russia under the Treaty of Aihui and Beijing Convention. There is absolutely no need for two separate templates that mean the exact same thing. It is only the naming of the template that I am trying to fix here. Assault11 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not you but WE are trying to fix together.Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
When we use Northeast China and Dongbei today without any other qualification, should we be talking about "historic" Northeast China/Dongbei or "today" Northeast China/Dongbei? I think it should be "today" Northeast China/Dongbei. [15][16]. "History of Historic Northeast China" is equal to "History of Manchuria" might be what you are trying to say. Anyway is there any other label for the region Manchuria? Wiki pokemon
We are making a history template, are we not? Therefore we should take into consideration both the present borders of Dongbei as well as historic Dongbei. The main problem with the use of "Manchuria" (which I pointed out who knows how many times now) is that it has never registered in Chinese historiography or official terminology.This is because "Manchuria" is rendered as "Man Zhou" in Chinese, but has never been used to officially/commonly refer to the geographic region of Northeast China.
Maybe it have never been registered in Chinese historiography or official terminology, but in European historiography or official terminology it was. See User:Endroit researches.Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Are you going to change Myanmar back to Burma for the same reason then? Assault11 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a geographic "Man Zhou" only existed during the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (Chinese: Man Zhou Guo), which explains why there are many negative connotations associated with the term. So far, no one has proved it otherwise on this subject, and this is why I am opposed to any mention of Manchuria outside the context of Dongbei or that Manchuria and Dongbei are separate entities. Assault11 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I will correct you sentence : The concept of a geographic "Man Zhou", according to Chinese historiography or official terminology, only existed during the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (Traditional Chinese/Kyujitai: 滿洲國 Simplified Chinese/Shinjitai:満洲国 pinyin : Mǎnzhōu Guó)lit. "Manchu country" (although it was not because more than 90% are consiered as Chinese).Whlee 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, I am deeply insulted. If you consider Manchus as separate from "Chinese," that is strictly your POV. As far as the modern construct of "Chinese" is concerned [17] [18], Manchus are Chinese. The definition of "Chinese" is not limited to the Han ethnicity. In fact, the creation of the "Manchu" ethnicity (Huang Taiji) itself is composed of not just Nu Zhen tribes, but also ethnic Han and Mongols in the Northeast region as well. Again, as far as NPOV is concerned, Manchu is a Chinese entity, period. Assault11 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Present day Manchus in China are Chinese, quite universally accepted. Assault11 is right, most all sources I come across define Manchuria = Northeast China/Dongbei. The old Manchuria = the old Northeast China/Dongbei = 3 NE province + RFE. Current Manchuria = Current Northeast China/Dongbei = just 3 NE province, no RFE. So if this template wants to include RFE the title should be "History of Historic Manchuria/Northeast China" or "History of Manchuria/Northeast China + History of RFE". If does not include RFE then the title should be "History of Manchuria/Northeast China". Given the negative feeling of many people about the word Manchuria, plus Manchuria being a word falling out of favor in todays world, plus Assault11 explanation about the dubious origin of the word Manchuria, I would support using Norhteast China instead of Manchuria in the title. Wiki pokemon

This page is on the template of History of Manchuria, not that of Northeast China or any modern political entities. Take your issues to template: History of Northeast China and leave this template be what it is supposed to be. Also, the consensus on Goguryeo was for a History of Manchuria template, not Northeast China. Cydevil38 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria is a more recent concept than Northeast China. As explained countless times above, Northeast China = Manchuria, only that NE China is a more "legitimate" definition. The other template is currently not in use and refers to the same thing. The so-called "consensus" was based on a survey, but according to the official policies of Wikipedia [19] on resolving disputes (under conduct a survey), a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Technically, it does not qualify to be a consensus, but I have made it clear that "I will go along with the decision for now," on the condition that the title of the template is to be addressed. Not only that, this template is not limited to the Gaogouli article. Assault11 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

As the above thread indicates, there is clearly no consensus to retitle the template, and the edit warring on this is not acceptable. Please continue the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Continue Discussion : Manchuria = Northeast China

What is a consensus on wiki? If people are editing and reverting then there is no consensus. A consensus has been reached only when everybody is satisfied and stop editing and reverting. This topic is hard to reach a consensus, discussion would be helpful. I would advice editors to edit in a respectful, open minded, reasonable and accurate way. Wiki pokemon 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The three parties - Whlee[20], Wiki pokemon and I - currently involved in this discussion (or debate, if you will) are already trying to work out a solution. I have repeatedly made my rounds on the discussion page explaining the reasons behind my edits. In fact, we have been getting rather close towards a general sense of consensus with what looks like Whlee supporting a "History of Northeast China" template (minor problems notwithstanding) [21].
I am all for further discussion, but at least address my points precisely. I have made my responses above, if there's no objections then there should be no reason why this template should not be re-opened and changed accordingly. Assault11 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharp Electronic Dictionary PW-E550, New Oxford American Dictionary
[22] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[23] Encarta Dictionary
[24] American Heritage Dictionary
[25] Collins Dictionary
[26] Answer.com
[27] Columbia Encyclopedia
[28] Britannica Encyclopedia
[29] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[30] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[31] Catholic Encyclopedia
[32] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[33] AncientWorld.net
[34] Nuttall Encyclopedia

Below is the summary of the descriptions of Manchuria from the references above:

  • All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire or province of China. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China.
  • 5 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region.
  • 3 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive.
  • A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants.
  • Note that none mentioned Russia or Primorsky Krai or Khabarovsk Krai.

Wiki pokemon 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The information above provides the rationale if not the legitimacy and mandate for the use of the word "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". "Northeast China" is a natural choice because it is more up-to-date, use more often, less offensive and causes less confusion. "Manchuria" on the other hand causes lots of confusion because people use it in a variety of subjective, vague, conflicting and sometimes sinister concepts. These concepts include: 1)territory covering just northeast China versus also including Russian Maritime, 2)homeland legitimate only for the Manchu versus also for multi ethnic population, 3)a historical geographic only name versus a permanent, unchanging and timeless one like one would use the word "Mariana Trench" for example and last but not least, 4)it is used in a sinister manner[35] to stealthily suggest the region's separateness from Northeast China or to avoid using the word Northeast China altogether. I therefore vote and urge others to do the same to use the better word "Northeast China" to better inform readers on Wikipedia.Wiki pokemon 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did you people respect NPOV sources?

  • "Koguryo: Largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient Korea was divided until 668." Koguryo (Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • "Koguryo style: Korean visual-arts style characteristic of the Koguryo kingdom (37 BC–AD 668) of the Three Kingdoms period." [36] (Britannica)
  • "Three Kingdoms period: in Korean history, the period (from c. 57 BC to AD 668) when the country was divided into the kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Paekche. [37] (Britannica)
  • "Koguryŏ, also known as Goguryeo, an indigenous Korean kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc."[38] (Encarta)
  • "Chinese culture filtered into the indigenous Korean kingdoms of Koguryŏ (Goguryeo), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)."[39] (Encarta)
  • "The earliest extant example of landscape painting in Korea is found in a Koguryô tomb"[40] (Metropolitan Museum, "Korea, 1-500 A.D.)
  • Korea - The Three Kingdoms Period (U.S. Library of Congress)
  • "Koguryo, a native Korean kingdom, arose in the north on both sides of the Yalu River"[41] (Columbia Encyclopedia) Cydevil38 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What is "you people"?Wiki Pokemon 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussion of "Northeast China" and "Manchuria" within this section. It should continue above. And other discussion please use another section. Thanks. Wiki Pokemon 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Manchuria" is so bad? Why is the word such a jab to your side? We are using "Manchuria" as a geographic term. Good friend100 00:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not about personal taste or preference or side, discussion should be conducted at a more professional level. I and others have shown why "Northeast China" is more appropriate than "Manchuria". You should be explaining why "Manchuria" is more appropriate than "Northeast China" instead of asking strange and even personal questions.Wiki Pokemon 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And so what if it is a "historical name" What does that have to do with anything? If its historical, then we can't use it? Good friend100 00:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More strange unhelpful questionings. Let me give you a simple example of how historical name is used versus current name. We use the "History of Singapore" instead of the "History of Temasek". We say "Singapore" has the busiest port in the world, not "Temasek" has the busiest port in the world. We say tiger roams freely in "Temasek", not tiger roams freely in "Singapore". Historical name should be used in the context of its relevent period else it will mislead and confuse readers. This is how historical name is used for all respectable references and journals. Wikipedia should be of the same standard. Its readers do not deserve anything less. Now you should explain why historical name should be used out of the context of its relevent period.Wiki Pokemon 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please do us all a favor and read the previous discussions before asking questions that may have been answered already. Secondly, it - Manchuria - is neither a geographic term nor a historical entity (Manchukuo aside). Also, this topic clearly has nothing to do with the Gaogouli dispute, so please be a bit more considerate of those involved in this discussion. Thanks. Assault11 04:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Here i found a map of Asia dating from 1890 by Rand, Mc Nally & Co.
I also found a map mentionning the "Northeastern provinces"
A map of the Japanese Army invading Manchuria which later became "Manchukuo"
a map of Manchukuo. This page contain a Manchuria Timeline and clearly mentionned : On January 2nd 1932, Japanese forces in Manchuria set up a puppet government known as Manchukuo.
I also found a recent map mentionning Manchukuo.
Conclusion : peoples can make the distinction between Manchuria (Simplified Chinese : 满洲利亚) and Manchukuo (Chinese : 滿洲國 the shameful Japanese puppet state).
PS: 满洲利亚 I havent invented that term it is already mentionned in Search Engines such as Google and Yahoo, I will remain neutral on that discussion. Regards. Whlee 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a case of phonetic transcription. 满洲利亚 is rendered as "Man Zhou Li Ya" in Chinese (like in Australia, or "Au Da Li Ya"/"Au Zhou"), basically the Chinese transliteration of the English term "Manchuria." Think of it as the common Chinese term for Seoul "Han Cheng 漢城/汉城" and the uncommon Korean version of "Shou Er 首爾/首尔." Personally, I've never heard of 满洲利亚 before and its certainly not very common. Either way, Manchuria is still known as "Man Zhou" in Chinese and is often viewed synonymously with the Japanese puppet regime "Man Zhou Guo" (Manchukuo). Assault11 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest to move the name to "History of Sushen-Wuji-Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu"

Manchuria was a name used in late 19th century and early 20th century. It typically refers to the puppet state supported by Japan militarists. It doesn't make sense to use this modern name to describe historical events occurred a thousand years ago. It also doesn't make sense because, at most dynasties listed in this template, Manchu was actually in its ancestral forms of Sushen, Wuji, Mohe and Jurchen. This template is really about the lands conquered by the Sushen-Wuji-Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu line, not about the Manchuria which doesn't exist at that time.--Jiejunkong 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This template is about the entire chronological history of the lands conquered by the Sushen-Wuji-Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu line, plus closely related people that came before and after them on that lands, from ancient time to modern 2007. It is not just about Sushen-Wuji-Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu, it about from ancient tribes to todays Northeast China, and Northern Korea(which had their own history template already) and Russia Maritime.Wiki Pokemon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this template be unprotected now? Any reason to still keeping it protected?Wiki Pokemon 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Will an admin please respond to the above? Please unprotect or explain the reason for not unprotecting. RSVP!Wiki Pokemon 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope someone can add Donghu

In fact Donghu is the one of the aborigines in Manchuria.--Ksyrie 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right because Donghu the eastern Barbarians as Chinese chronicles said were involved with the extension of Yan Kingdom in Liaoning (300BC) thanks to general Qin Kai under King Zhao (311 BC-279 BC)(see my timetable of the History of Manchuria) but at the same time additional sources also wrotes that Ancient Choson lost territories located on the right bank of the Liao River. Therefore i added both of them. can we say that Donghu and Ancient Choson are in relationship each other sharing a common history? I have no idea... maybe.Whlee 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
About Donghu and Ancient Choson sharing common history, better be very cautious here, trying to make anything exclusive or absolute black and white or decidedly biased to one side, will eventually lead to the kind of arguments now raging on the Goguryo topic.Wiki Pokemon 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right, that the reason why i mentionned that i have no idea yet. But there is one thing that i'm sure that Donghu should be added in that template like Ancient Choson is.Whlee 07:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New Approach

Cydevil38 has made a bold and reckless move which resulted in a meaningless revert war. And what did he accomplish? A title which is only half the accuracy of the previous title. I hope he will change it back, but is it up to him. Anyway I think we need a new approach. Some editors here vehemently do not accept the strictly wikipedia rules formula only. I am flexible to accomodate a little rule bending to reach consensus. But Cydevil38 needs to be flexible too and not ask for too much rule bending. I will think about it and get back.
Wiki Pokemon 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold and reckless? All I ask is that the title within the template should be coherent with the title of the template. Through extensive revert warring, numerous compromises has been made, but now it seems obvious that those compromises are not working and you and some of the other editors will continue to dispute the title as long as it's titled "Manchuria". I have repeatedly asked for you to establish your preferred version through evidence and file a request for move to work by consensus, because I no longer see a point in continuing discussion with you, Jiejunkong and Assault11. Cydevil38 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether bold or reckless. But it did cause a revert war. The best would be to have the template name matches the template title, but contents must also matches the template title. I have said above that I am willing to bend the rules for you, but seemed like you are not interested. I think it has been mentioned before that we are not moving this template. Once the content has been corrected to 1635 to 1945, the title will be switch back to History of Manchuria.
Wiki Pokemon 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you call me and Assault11 when you are replying to WikiPokimon? You think WikiPokimon is related to me? I can tell you that I don't know him in real life. My point of view was made clear to you several times: according to the latest consensus, this template should be cut to the ending date 1945 while the starting date is still being disputed. Whlee's template User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template is a different one, which is clearly about the history of the geographic drainage regions. If you want to block the creation of this template, fine with me because I see no factual error in existing wikicontents.--Jiejunkong 01:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"History of Beijing", not "History of Beiping"

There is another similar case in en.wikipedia. "History of Beijing", rather than "History of Beiping", must be the title. It is important to note that the name "Beiping" was changed to "Beijing" at year 1949, roughly the same time (or even later) when the name "Manchuria" (the China part, not including the "Outer Manchuria" in Russia) was changed to "Northeast China". I consider this case as a clear discrimination against Northeast Chinese, because Beijing Chinese can use their modern name in all geographic contexts, but Northeastern Chinese cannot. In terms of Manchu, many upper-class Beijing Chinese are Manchu. The ratio of Manchu population is nearly the same when we compare Beijing and Northeast China. Then why we have a fierce disputation on Northeast China, but not on Beijing??? Okay, time to expose some users' hidden agenda.--Jiejunkong 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that both Beijing and Manchuria are widely accepted English words, but "Northeast China" is not. I said again and again, if you feel Northeast China is a widely accepted English word for the corresponding historical periods, please provide evidence per the recommended criteria given by WP:NCGN and file a request for move. Cydevil38 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether Northeast China is a widely accepted English word for the corresponding historical periods. As long as Northeast China is a widely accepted English word is good enough. Remember not to invent personal wikipedia rules. Again we are not moving, we are going to correct the contents.
Wiki Pokemon 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I was told that liars can never make their statements consistent. Let me copy the physical proofs here to let you see the evidence provided by yourself
  1. Fact: In [42], User:Cydevil38 did a personal investigation to compare the popularity between "Manchuria" and "Northeast China". This investigation was done within 2 weeks from now. According to his own search, searching "Manchuria" returns 1,130,000 results, and searching "Northeast China and its variants" returns 1,090,000.
Per your own investigation 2 weeks ago, we can see "Manchuria" and "Northeast China" are widely accepted in a comparable manner. Like Jason Bourne, it seems that you cannot remember what you did two weeks ago.--Jiejunkong 00:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For other concerned editors, this is the link to the original text based on which Jiejunkong is accusing me of being a liar. As for the inaccuracy of my google search(or rather, inconsistency within the google search engine itself), I have explained myself here. Please look at those links and decide for yourselves. Thank you. Cydevil38 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I still see nothing that can justify your arithmetic quibble or amnesia quibble. Are you saying that 1,000,000 and 1,000,001 are very different in terms of scale? Sure, they are two different numbers and one is bigger than the other. However, are they comparable in terms of scale? BTW, I was also told that liars are full of absurd quibbles to justify their inconsistent statements.--Jiejunkong 01:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We have already established above that "Northeast China" and "Dongbei" are by far, more common than "Manchuria" and/or "Manzhou":
1) Northeast China and Dongbei: [43]
Result: 1,340,000
2) Manchuria and Manzhou: [44]
Result: 1,210,000
So "History of South Korea" is unacceptable, but "History of Korea" is? How about naming pre-ROK history with the title of "History of Joseon" (or Goryeo, Silla) so it would reflect the same situation faced by Northeast China? Otherwise, this would clearly be a double standard.
The naming for Beijing and Northeast China are good examples. Technically, Beijing was not always the "Northern Capital" of China, so how is this name any different from Dongbei? Also, how is Northeast China not an established name in the English language? Cydevil38, you live in South Korea, so I doubt you are in a position to comment on that. Do note that the term "Northeast China" is adopted by almost all major English language media/news corporations, e.g. ABC, CNN, New York Times etc. [45][46][47][48][49][50] [51][52] (Note: same event reported in all these news articles). Assault11 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Assault11 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source in Qing Dynasty showing Northeast (China) was used in 1885

Tingjie CAO (1850--1926) was an officer and author in Manchu Qing Dynasty. He published "Brief of the Border Defense in Northeast China" (zh:東北邊防輯要, original texts in s:zh:東北邊防輯要) in year 1885. This shows that Northeast China was already a well-known concept in 1885.(Otherwise, if the concept was not well-known at that time, the author would know that his book title does not make sense to the audience.)--Jiejunkong 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: this reliable source is presented as a source for background knowledge, which is needed to avoid uncyclopedia articles in wikipedia. As some users present error-prone web search results to confuse the audience, more professional sources are needed to illustrate historical and geographic facts. Those authors who move Shanghai and JiangSu to northeastern China are considered amateurs with no credit in the subject being studied.--Jiejunkong 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Background Knowledge about the disputation

This is the technical(note:User:Mr. Killigan complained he is confused by the word "technical". I am sorry I didn't make it clear that "technical" means presenting Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Verifiable proofs in the arguments, and provide such proofs upon other user's requests for any presented contents. "Technical" basically means "nothing personal".--Jiejunkong 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)) reply to User:Mr. Killigan's claim that "Manchuria" is not an offensive term to him:

  1. Offensiveness is identified by the subject being offended, typically the subject described by the offensive term, not by any outsiders. For example, the offensiveness in the N-word describing African American is identified by the African American people, not by third parties like European or Asian (Of course, the N-word doesn't offend you European and Asian. Why are you coming out to deny the offensiveness?). Likewise, the offensiveness in the term "Manchuria" and "Manchurian" describing northeast China geographic region and local residents is identified by the local residents living in the region, not by people from the nearby Korean peninsula, pacific islands or even another remote continent (Of course, the terms do not offend you. Why are you coming out to deny the offensiveness?). "Manchuria" has no offensive meaning before year 1932, when Puyi's puppet state "Manchukuo" (romanized name of the "State of Manchuria", which is controlled by Japanese militarists) selected the term to name itself. Horrible things happened in the "State of Manchuria"---even Zaifeng, father of Puyi, refused to stay in this so-called "State of Manchuria" and immediately went back to Beiping (nowadays Beijing) after seeing what this "State of Manchuria" really is. Many Manchu Chinese and nearly all Han Chinese at the moment were against this puppet state. Since Japanese militarists surrendered in 1945, this term "Manchuria" has become a negative one amongst Chinese. In particular, after 1980s, when Unit 731, General Shiro Ishii, etc. were exposed by mass media, we really know how horrible this "State of Manchuria" was (I think it is necessary to mention General Shiro Ishii's response to human vivisection recorded by Nicholas D. Kristof, and the recent documentary film "Nanking" made by Ted Leonsis, Bill Guttentag and Michael Jacobs). But Japanese and Korean sources keep on using the offensive term for some reasons (In the "State of Manchuria", many Koreans were recruited as policemen by Japanese militarists). It is arguably impolite for ja.wikipedia and ko.wikipedia to keep on using the historical terms to name modern geographic entities in China. But since I cannot read Korean or Japanese language, I am fine with whatever they write there. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable for Korean and Japanese users to push these offensive terms in en.wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Also worth noting is that the region was officially known as Dong San Sheng. The last governor-general (Dongsansheng Zongdu/東三省總督) of the region was Zhao Erxun, the official responsible for the compilation of the Qing Shi Gao (Draft History of the Qing Dynasty) in 1927. [53] Assault11 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That is true. Reliable sources also show that Tingjie CAO (1850--1926) wrote a book "Dongsansheng Cartographic Explanations" between 1887 and 1898.--Jiejunkong 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria/Archive_1&oldid=1137529056"