Talk:Jurchen people

message: I should modify the pronunciation and as follows: The website of "History of Jin" (金史):  
:Table of content: 
:The chapter describes the ancestor: 
Jinshi or History of Jin Dynasty (1115-1234) is one of the reputable 25 history books of China. 
:金之始祖諱函普. 初從高麗來，年已六十餘矣. 兄阿古好佛，留高麗不肯從
:The ancestor's name of Jin dynasty's founder is Hambo. When he came from Goryeo, he is about 60 years older or more. Because his brother, Ago(阿古) liked Buddism, he did not follow, but stayed in Goryeo.
All this showed was that the Jurgens and Koreans originated from Chinese soil. Even the record of their history was written in Chinese.
:If you are not, I'm sorry in advance. But are you User:Breathejustice with a different account? You have the exact same theories and grammar. Plus, you work on the exact same articles, with the same persistency as well! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have little doubt that they're the same person.  However, as long as he/she sticks to a single account and reforms his/her behavior (and I think there has been a bit of an attitude improvement), he/she is OK.  --Nlu (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many people to insist that the ancestor of Jin came from Korea. Some nationalists insist that Jin and Qing are Korean history, but I do not agree with the nationalists. Actually, I cannot interpret Chinese literature, so I did copy and paste from other sources, which you makes  feel the same person. I have found in his or her webpage that User:Breathejustice is blocked--Hairwizard91 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, User:Ghostexorcist may agree with me, or he or she may have no opposing argument--Hairwizard91 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anybody has different opinion about the origin of Jin's founder?--Hairwizard91 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put in a qualifier that it is in accordance with the History of Jin, and I would have no objections.  --Nlu (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced by the judges,while the ancient leader of Jin maybe come from Silla,but it doesn't mean they are Korean.Many Jurchen tribes once lived in the nowadays Korean penisula,but finally they were consolidated and later became Manchu.Only if we enlarge the definition of Korean to other Tungusic peoples.--Ksyrie 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "while the ancient leader of Jin maybe come from Silla,but it doesn't mean they are Korean" - this sounds a bit silly to me. why would they want to use the word 'Silla' and make an association with korean state if this can lead to such ambiguities? it would be similar to a person from a colonized india to say that he's british...or a person from occupied korea to say that he comes from japan...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxbaoli (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found something interesting in this page 金朝始祖函普族属考辨--Ksyrie 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if qing were korean, why did they attack korea, make it pay tribute, force it into hermit kingdom, force them to erect a humiliating stelea in their honor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.241.53 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting the name of dynasty

message: The name of this article should be singular under the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Alan 12:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular 

message: I wonder if it is proper to compare the Jurchens so closely to the Mongols.  The Jurchens were not nomads, nor did they live predominantly on the steppe, though the article makes reference to "nomadic institutions" and "steppe peoples".  The Jurchen/Manchu language doesn't have much indigenous terminology for things related to the nomadic lifestyle...they even borrowed their words for "horse" and "sheep" from Mongol fairly recently.  It is true that they were heavily influenced by the Mongols, but they were also quite distinct in many other respects.  I also wonder if it is accurate to say "decades of a settled lifestyle eroded their pastoral identity," given that they were predominantly a sedentary people prior to the establishment of the Jin dynasty.
:Could we have more details of the Jurchen society please?
::yes they are nomads like mongols, their lifestyle languege etc. are more similar to the mongols. i'm mongol. and i can understand their script and titel of their Khaan in the late Qing dynastie. The officiel title of Nurhaci in manju says he is the Khaan of geren gurun (this is mongolian words and interprets as  ger state, ger is house of nomads in mongolian and gurun is state, so the ancestor of manju are nomads. the Khaan sayd itself , he is the Khaan of state with people who lived in gers).if they havent mgl ancestor,i couldn't have understand their languege and script. Their description of their state says Ancun gurun (state of hunters, the chinese people maked their names in chinese with false transition (Aisiin Gio??),nomads are hunters too) also what in manju is easy to read for mgl-s. The word Jurchen can be interpreted in mgl-ian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.120.91 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steppe Culture? Nomads? 

message: I have found evidence that the Jurchen made the Han, under the control of the Jin Empire, shave the front part of their heads. However, it is not clear whether they required them to have the queue (braided pigtail). I believe the han living in the Southern Song Dynasty were exempt from this fad.
Since the city of Kaifeng (once again) became the Jin capital in 1157, I wonder if the Kaifeng Jews were also forced to shave their heads, as they too were under control of the Jurchens? This no doubt would have been difficult since Kohen priests are forbidden to shave their heads!!! (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 05:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurchens made the Han shave like the Manchus did ... 

message: I just added information in the "Culture, language and society" section of the main article about how the Jurchen made the Chinese adopt their "Bald-Head" Fashion. (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurchen Hair-Dress 

message: #Fair use only covers illustrating the card itself, not the people who happen to be on it. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Unacceptable images. This is an unacceptable use.
#It's "stupid" because even if it wasn't against copyright, using an illustration from a card for a Chinese general from a boardgame to show Jurchen hairstyle is really, really unprofessional. --Alivemajor 03:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Professionals use the word "stupid"? That in itself seems unprofessional. --Ghostexorcist 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The card 

message: I still doubt about the relevance of the statue of Bodhisattva of a Chinese make in this article. Yes, the Chinese lived in the Jurchen controlled lands, but does this fully describe the genuine Jurchen culture? Chinese and Persians also lived in the Mongol Empire, but who shows a Chinese or Persian statue of the 13th in order to depict the ethnic Mongol culture? Uzbeks lived in Russian controlled land, but who shows an Uzbek statue to depict the ethnic Russian culture? 
This article is solely about the Jurchen ethnic group, it should not go beyond to cover other historically or politically connected ethnic groups. Is it so difficult to find a picture of something that would sample the genuinely Jurchen culture, made by Jurchen hands? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese statue 

message: === Jurchen wars with Korea and rebellion against the Liao ===
[Raw URLs commented out below:]
=== Jurchen lifestyle ===
[Raw URLs commented out below:]
09:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rajmaan, with thanks for your time and effort, don't do that. — LlywelynII 07:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: [Raw URLs commented out below:]
09:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurchen lifestyle 

message: [Raw URLs commented out below. Kindly use them to expand the article's coverage of the Jurchen hairstyle:]
Rajmaan (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurchen hairstyle 

message: Manchu bannerrmen and Han bannermen were not categorized according to blood or ancestry or genealogy, they were categorized by their language, culture, behavior, identification and way of life. Many han bannermen were descended from Sinicized Jurchen who spoke Chinese and served the Ming, while some Manchu Bannermen were of ethnic Han origins who had defected to the Jurchens and lived among them in Jilin early on.
The Qing regarded Han Bannermen (Hanjun) and the non Bannerman Han civilian general population (Han min, Han ren, minren) as separate. People were grouped into Manchu Banners and Han Banners not based on their ancestry, race or blood, but based on their culture and the language they spoke. Han who deserted the Ming and who had moved to Nurgan (Jilin) as transfrontiersmen before 1618 assimilated with the Jurchen, practiced Jurchen culture and spoke Jurchen became part of the ethnic Manchu Banners, while descendants of sinicized Jurchen who had moved to Liaodong, adopted Han culture and surname, and swore loyalty to the Ming and spoke Chinese, eventually became part of the Han Banners after being conquered by Nurhaci after 1618.
Han who actively defected to the Jurchen in Nurgan before 1618 were called "transfrontiersman" since they crossed the frontier over into Jurchen territoty and adopted Jurchen identity and later became part of the Manchu Banners, while Han in Ming ruled Liaodong who only defected after the Qing conquered Liaoding were called "frontiersman" since they only lived on the frontier of Ming territory and they were put into the Han Banners.
Han Chinese defectors who fled from the Ming joined the Jurchens in Nurgan before 1618 were placed into Manchu Banners and regarded as Manchu, but the Ming residents of Liaodong who were incorporated into the Eight Banners after the conquest of Liaodong from the Ming from 1618-1643 were placed into the separate Han Banners (Chinese:Hanjun, Manchu: Nikan cooha or Ujen cooha) , and many of these Han bannermen from Liaodong had Jurchen ancestry and were not classified as Manchu by the Qing.Crossley 1999, p. 98. Geography, culture, language, occupation and lifestyle were the factors used by Nurhaci's Jianzhou Jurchen Khanate to classify people as Jurchen or Nikan, those who were considered Jurchen lived in a Jurchen lifestyle, used the Jurchen language and inhabited the eastern part were considered Jurchen, while those who were considered by Nurhaci as Nikan (Han Chinese) even though some of these Nikan were of Korean or Jurchen ancestry, were the ones who used Chinese language, and inhabited villages and towns on the west.Crossley 1999, pp. 89-90. People from both sides often moved over the cultural and territorial division between the Ming Liaodong and Jurchen Nurgan, Han Chinese soldiers and peasants would moved into Nurgan while Jurchen mercenaries and merchants would moved to Liaodong, with some lineages ended up beind dispersed on both sides, and the Jurchen viewed people as Nikan depending on whether they acted like Han Chinese. People from the same lineage like the Sinicized Jurchen Tong lineage of Fushun in Liaodong served both Ming and the Qing, with some like Tong Bunian staying as diehard Ming loyalists and others having faithfully serving the Qing conquest, after Liaodong was conquered and the Tong were enrolled in the Han Plain Blue Banner by the Qing. Eventually, the Kangxi Emperor even transferred some members of the Tong lineage like Tong Guogang and a few of his close relatives to the Manchu Bordered Yellow Banner after Tong requested the transfer.Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56.Rawski 1998, p. 72.Rowe 2010, p. 11.Watson, Ebrey 1991, p. 180.
The geographical, political, and cultural division was between the Ming Liaodong and the Jurchen dominated Nurgan, which traded and interacted with Liaodong through Fushun.Crossley 1999, p. 58.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wn4iv_RJv8oC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=nurgan+name&source=bl&ots=veM2nRpvpv&sig=jRtDY3VSfsNq4iHdvZquTl2c5z4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=evTiUoCOOOrLsAS80YG4Ag&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nurgan%20name&f=false
It was Qianlong who redefined the identity of Han Bannermen by saying that they were to be regarded as of having the same culture and being of the same ancestral extraction as Han civilians, this replaced the earlier opposing ideology and stance used by Nurhaci and Hong Taiji who classified identity according to culture and politics only and not ancestry, but it was Qianlong's view on Han Bannerman identity which influenced the later historians and expunged the earlier Qing stance.Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56. Qianlong also promulgated an entirely new view of the Han Bannermen different from his grandfather Kangxi, coming up with the abstract theory that loyalty in itself was what was regarded as the most important, so Qianlong viewed those Han Bannermen who had defected from the Ming to the Qing as traitors and compiled an unfavorable biography of the prominent Han bannermen who had defected to the Qing, while at the same time Qianlong had compiled a biography to glorify Ming loyalists who were martyred in battle against the Qing called "Record of Those Martyred for Their Dynasty and Sacrificed for Purity".Crossley 1999, pp. 291-292. Some of Qianlong's inclusions and ommisions on the list were political in nature, like including Li Yongfang out of Qianlong's dislike for his descendant Li Shiyao and excluding Ma Mingpei out of concern for his son Ma Xiongzhen's image.Crossley 1999, p. 293.
[A ridiculous number of unformatted URLs commented out below. Kindly use them to expand the article's coverage on banners:]
Rajmaan (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  eight banners, manchu identity and han bannermen 

message: [A ridiculous number of unformatted URLs commented out below. Kindly use it for future expansion of the article's treatment of Korean issues:]
Rajmaan (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rajmaan, with thanks for your time and effort, don't do that. — LlywelynII 07:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Jurchen relations with Korea

message: Don't use these on talk pages. — LlywelynII 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Further reading sections are almost always a bad idea at Wikipedia since we don't have anyone to curate them and people don't usually gloss why these texts are relevant or how they supplement the sources already being used by the article. Kindly restore these once they are being used to verify statements in the running text:
*Franke, Herbert. 1971. “Chin Dynastic History Project”. Sung Studies Newsletter, no. 3. Society for Song, Yuan, and Conquest Dynasty Studies: 36–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497078.
*Schneider, Julia. 2011. “The Jin Revisited: New Assessment of Jurchen Emperors”. Journal of Song-yuan Studies, no. 41. Society for Song, Yuan, and Conquest Dynasty Studies: 343–404. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23496214.
 — LlywelynII 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unused sources from the article

message: is a lazy kludge left over from when we didn't bother doing inline citations in the first place. Kindly find what text is sourced from this
* 
and note it in an inline cite. — LlywelynII 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Attribution"

message: goes through all the various explanations of the old forms, as well as others in French and German not listed here, with useful commentary .
It really ought to be worked into a restructured name section with more on Persian and Uyghur and the known-incorrect forms removed from the "oddly transcribed" as given now and treated separately with Pelliot's explanations for the errors that gave rise to them. That said, I'm rather burnt out on trying to work through this whole mess... — LlywelynII 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelliot

message: don't mean that anything any book says is fine for inclusion in the articles. Cambridge's guide on China carries a lot more weight and it makes the emphatic point that—while plenty of people claim connection between earlier Manchurian peoples and the Jurchen—there's no solid evidence or agreement on the subject.
:a. We shouldn't cherrypick sources to pretend that the Jurchen's Mohe past is certain, when Franke explicitly denies that point.
:b. If some new evidence has come to light, the article should explain the earlier claims despite uncertainty and walk through what has changed and why.
Thanks, — LlywelynII 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, historical professionals' have a consensus that they are indeed the same nation. There are dissenters, but no college course would ever state that this is more than a minority opinion.50.111.50.200 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RS and WP:VERIFY

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jurchen people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718030231/http://www.amurobl.ru/index.php?m=24596&r=4&c=2697&p=3997 to http://www.amurobl.ru/index.php?m=24596&r=4&c=2697&p=3997
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318135121/http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=885 to http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=885
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jurchen people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927124359/http://www.apu.ac.jp/~yoshim/part2-4.pdf to http://www.apu.ac.jp/~yoshim/part2-4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903021101/http://www.adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/Tourism/ArchaeologicalRus/A1BC40C4DD0B1605CA25730E00193997 to http://www.adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/Tourism/ArchaeologicalRus/A1BC40C4DD0B1605CA25730E00193997
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified