Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive 1

message: 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:
# A power (whether tribal or state) --
# That controlled a substantial part of modern Manchuria --
# Where "Manchuria" is defined by definition 4 in Manchuria's "Extent of Manchuria" section --
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification on Nlu's inclusion criterion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposition of diving in sectors 

message: 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.
* I will now focus my efforts on Manchu Wikipedia. Thank you for your comprehension. Whlee 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timetable of Manchuria  from 300 BC to the 20th century 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest to move the name to "History of Sushen-Wuji-Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu" 

message: In fact Donghu is the one of the aborigines in Manchuria.--Ksyrie 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hope someone can add Donghu

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  Assault11 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable source in Qing Dynasty showing Northeast (China) was used in 1885 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Assault11 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another Background Knowledge about the disputation