Talk:Manchuria/Archive 1

message: "Manchuria" is offensive to people in China. There is no need to use this word at all.
* Meople would only refer to this by the aboe mentioned name. I, for instance, wouldn't have thought of looking up for any other  term, so I don't think the term "Manchuria" should be avoided, considering that it's the English wikipedia, and English speaking people often refer to it by that name. --Pfc432 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: I think the definition of "東北三省" (literally "the Three Northeastern Provinces") nowadays and the historical "東北九省" (literally "the Nine Northeastern Provinces") should be added to the article. The article "东北九省" in the Chinese Wikipedia may help. - Alanmak 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about "東北三省" and "東北九省"

message: #It that correct to state that "Northeast" = "Manchuria". I have the impression that Shandong is also considered as a part of "Northeast".
#What happened in 1956, which makes the region as being comprised of the Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning provinces?
olivier 12:38 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
:Shandong is not considered part of the "Northeast". As for 1956 -- nothing happened in that year really. Rather, in 1954-55, the present three provinces were created out of about six provinces and five municipalities that existed in the region at the time.
ran 06:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
What is the relationship of opium with Manchuria? Was it cultivated there? -- Error
----
Fixed an error.  The PRC has never asserted sovereignty over the Russian Far East.  The shooting in 1969 was over disputed islands.  The Chinese attitude toward the RFE is similar to Mexican attitudes over California.  Bad thing that it was lost, but no serious suggestion of retaking it. Roadrunner 06:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: In contrast to Outer Manchuria, the part of Manchuria that is still part of China, usually called simply "Manchuria", can also be referred to as "Inner Manchuria".
*The above is clear as mud in the given article. If nothing else, the terms inner and outer M are so common that the cognizatti ought to make their meanings plain.  The Outer arty seems clear enough, but this one seems to need clarified.  (Sorry, I'm editting three majors at the moment!)Fabartus 02:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup request: Stolen Excerpt

message: I am a native Manchurian. I never feel insulted by being called "Manchurian". As a matter of fact, I feel more Manchurian than Chinese.
Manchurian Tiger July 6, 2005
Wait, are you Manchu? (满族) That makes a pretty big difference.
There's a confusion of terms here. "Manchuria" usually refers to "Northeast China" (东北), so when I said that people from Manchuria don't like being called that, I meant that Northeast Chinese (东北人) don't like to be called Manchurian (满洲人). This is definitely true for the majority of Manchuria's population, which is Han (汉族).
When you say you feel more Manchurian than Chinese, do you mean you feel more Manchu (满族) than Han (汉族), or do you mean you feel more like a person of Manchuria (满洲人) than a person of China (中国人)? -- ran (talk) July 7, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Hi Ran. I'm a Manchurian (满洲人), although I'm not a Manchu. My ancestors were Koreans (Chao-Xian-ren) according to inscription found in the ancestry temple. However, growing up in Manchuria, I used to identify myself as Han because my residential certificate was signed up as Han for my ethnicity. A Han Dong-bei-ren is also a Manchurian. Just as an American does not have to be a native Amerian, i.e. an American Indian; a Manchurian does not have to be a native Manchu. 
The whole thing about Manchuria was totally overtaken by the Chinese nationalist fanatics and international politics. There is very little voice heard from true Manchurians.
By the way, how do you post your message here besides using "edit"?
Manchurian Tiger July 8, 2005
Well, your view seems to be the minority in Dongbei 东北. Most Han Chinese Dongbeiren (汉族 东北人) seem to be opposed to the term "Manchuria" (满洲) probably because of Manchukuo (满洲国).
To post a message, just use Edit... or the plus sign (+) which adds a new topic. -- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Manchurian Tiger: when you sign your name, please don't give a link to an article (Manchurian Tiger)... the link should point to your user page (e.g. User:Manchurian Tiger). -- ran (talk) 18:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why suck up to Red Chinese hyper-nationalism? Wikipedia should not be the Chinese version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, if some Han nationalists are offended by minorities, so what. What I (and many users) miss is a detailed number--how many Manchus lived in Manchuria in 1934? They were a "minority" but how big, how small. How large were the other non-Han groups?
:Don't be so quick to stereotype either Chinese communism or Chinese nationalism. A lot of ultra-nationalists detest the current government. The Chinese version of Falun Gong-run Epoch Times, for example, denounced the government when it signed recent border agreements with Russia. Here's a direct quote: 
:江泽民政府已通过和俄国签约，对沙皇时代通过不平等条约从中国获得的多达一百四十四万平方公里的土地（相当四十个台湾）全部一次性地法律性认可。那次签约意味著，今后千秋万代的中国人都失去了追索这些领土的法律根据，
:I translate:
:"The Jiang Zemin government has already signed an agreement with Russia, legally acknowledging Russia's acquisition of 1.44 million square km of territory (equivalent to 40 Taiwans) from China via unequal treaties during the Tsarist era. This agreement means that all future generations of Chinese have lost the legal basis to reclaim this territory."
:Reclaim Outer Manchuria eh? I wonder what exactly happens to the self-determination of the millions of Russians who currently live there? (Wait... Manchuria was originally inhabited by Manchus, right? That appears to be what you care about the most. Well, it doesn't look like Epoch Times gives a hoot about their self-determination either...) Keep in mind that Epoch Times is Falun Gong-run and spends most of its time denouncing the Communist Party of China as an evil force. So why is it spreading "Red Chinese hyper-nationalism", in your own words?
:Incidentally, this kind of "Blame the Communists for losing Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh, etc." game is very trendy among Chinese nationalists online nowadays. The Arunachal Pradesh issue is especially popular, since China claims it as a little slice of Tibet (indeed it is culturally Tibetan) but India controls it; China actually took in the Sino-Indian War, but gave it back later, a fact that Chinese ultranationalists get infuriated about. (I wonder what they would say to you if you went to them and suggested that, well, no part of Tibet should belong to China?) Of course the moderators get nervous and sometimes tell them not to be too obvious — because they're spreading anti-government, dissenting opinions!
:In short, the world is a lot more complicated than you think. This is why we have the NPOV policy, so that no one can turn Wikipedia into the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, or any other type of biased encyclopedia that may or may not fit your tastes. -- ran (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manchurian

message: :Manchuria is a translation of the Chinese word Manzhou (Simplified Chinese: 满洲; Traditional Chinese: 滿洲; Pinyin: Mǎnzhōu).
Is this statement really true? I always thought Manzhou was a Chinese transcription of the Manchu language name: Manju. --Yuje 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchuria is either a translation of Manzhou, or a 'place name' for Manchu, similar with the naming of China from Chin (Qin, 秦). Herunar 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchuria = Manzhou? 

message: Someone is insisting on adding Hmong to the list of ethnic groups that have dominated Manchuria.  Apparently there is a theory that the Hmong did pass through Manchuria.  However, this seems to be just one among a set of theories which involve the Hmong potentially having come from more or less every region of Asia.    Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything in the known history of Manchuria which would seem to correspond to the Hmong.  -- Visviva 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any possibility that Hmong are from Manchuria. They are obviously not the native Tungus people in Manchuria.--Manchurian Tiger 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmong 

message: This map seems to offend a few people, like Manzhouri.  I'm not sure idea why, but maybe people don't like that it's presenting four alternate definitions on one map.  Could someone either change the map or the caption so that everyone's happy -- or maybe even explain why this map is fine as is?  I firmly believe that all geography articles are incomplete without maps. 
--M@rēino 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: 1. 後漢書 東夷列傳
前言《王制》云:[東方曰<夷>.] 夷者, 　也, 言仁而好生, 萬物　地而出.{事見《風俗通》.} 故天性柔順, 易以道御, 至有<君子>·<不死>之國焉.
Buyeo: <夫餘國>, 在<玄　>北千里. 南與<高句驪>, 東與<　婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>. 地方二千里, 本<濊>地也.
Goguryeo: <高句驪>, 在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 地方二千里, 多大山深谷, 人隨而爲居. 
2. 三國志卷 魏書 東夷傳
Buyeo:  <夫餘>在<長城>之北, 去<玄　>千里, 南與<高句麗>, 東與<　婁>, 西與<鮮卑>接, 北有<弱水>, 方可二千里. 戶八萬, 其民土著, 有宮室·倉庫·牢獄. 多山陵·廣澤, 於東夷之域最平敞. 土地宜五穀, 不生五果. 其人　大, 性彊勇謹厚, 不寇　. 國有君王, 皆以六畜名官, 有馬加·牛加·　加·狗加·大使·大使者·使者.
Goguryeo: <高句麗>在<遼東>之東千里, 南與<朝鮮>·<濊貊>, 東與<沃沮>, 北與<夫餘>接. 都於<丸都>之下, 方可二千里, 戶三萬.
3. 宋書 列傳
Baekje: <百濟國>, 本與<高驪>俱在<遼東>之東千餘里, 其後<高驪>略有<遼東>, <百濟>略有<遼西>. <百濟>所治, 謂之<晉平郡><晉平縣>.
-->The state of Baekje is originally Goguryeo, and they are located in the area of Liaodong Peninsula. After Goguryeo governed the area of Liaodong Peninsula, Baekje governed the west side of Liaodong Peninsula, and they are called as <晉平郡><晉平縣>.
and so on...
I must say this page has been vandalised by some Korean nationalists that obviously use biased maps that have no historical backing... since when was Japan a colony of Korea, and since when did a Korean kingdom take over Taiwan and the yellow river areas that were obviously Chinese lands?
Someone needs to really fix this
This chinese text is quoted from "Chinese history book" without any modification. The text is exactly same with the original "chinese history book". Therefore, it is not written by korean nationalists. If these texts, quoted from "chinese history book", are said to be vandalism, that saying is also "vandalism" because they are considering the quotation from the orignal history books as vandalism.
:My word to this user Breathejustice (or User:69.210.209.211, User:68.250.52.50):  please just sign your name so we'll know who are we responding to.  This makes the discussion look very confusing. Also, taking some grammatical English course shouldn't hurt either.--Godardesque 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Chinese History book about [[Goguryeo]] and [[[buyeo]]

message: Due to the number of reverts on this article, it's been protected until things calm down a bit. Any admin may unprotect without consulting me. Thanks! :D ~Kylu (u|t)  05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The currently locked version is essentially a "Breathejustice version" from 08:42, 20 July 2006.  See the diff's here.  Isn't this against consensus already?--Endroit 05:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one of the admins could help with that. --Yuje 10:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Barely 48 hours after removal of protection, ultranationalist revisionists have returned to push their POVs into a wide variety of Manchuria- and Korea-related topics.
This situation is getting a bit out of hand. These revisionists insist on extending the scope of Korean civilization, both in space and time, far beyond what is generally agreed upon. The analogy I can think of would be revisionists trying to portray Huangdi as a real figure ruling a massive proto-China stretching from Lake Baikal to Sumatra, or Emperor Jimmu as a real figure ruling a massive proto-Japan stretching from Kamchatka to Guam, based on nothing more than centuries-old mythological literature twinned spuriously with archaeological finds of a pre-literate bronze age culture.
I think we need to ask the wider Korean community on Wikipedia for help. Perhaps a notice on the Korean noticeboard is needed? -- ran (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be worth a try.  However, looking at the history of this article, I'm not sure if I know exactly what you're talking about (although I have had to revert some Baedal-pushing in other articles recently).  Can you specify the articles where these problems have arisen? -- Visviva 15:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, I see your point.  I reverted that one all the way back to the edit in which protection was removed.  -- Visviva 16:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation getting out of hand 

message: The above-linked page seems to have a life of its own.  It might be possible to create a sensible article at that title -- perhaps a survey of Korean people who have lived in or passed through Manchuria through the centuries -- but the current version seems to be a Korean nationalist POV fork of the "History" section here.  I don't think this is constructive, and would like to redirect that article once again to this one.  If there is a good reason for the  KHiM article to exist as a separate article, please advise.  Cheers, -- Visviva 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did was simple copy and paste from history of Korea page. I also looked at history of china pages. What's wrong with my editing? Any Chinese dynasties besides han, yuan and qing ever claimed Manchuria as its territory?  Whoamiwhoami 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd; it looked like a copy-and-paste from Manchuria#History.  Either way, I don't see the purpose of this content forking.  If you have content to add regarding Manchurian history, why not add it here?  -- Visviva 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Korean History in Manchuria]] 

message: Since Manchuria can refer to different things. This article should be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Wikipedia's policy to create a disambiguation page for an ambiguous term. Since I posted this suggestion, there has been no objections to my suggestion. So I will probably go ahead and change this article to a disambig, if there is no objections coming up. Disambiguation 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Snle, welcome back. I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea. It is better to clarify things in the article itself.--Niohe 15:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the meaning of Manchuria referred to in this article is overwhelmingly the most common, I would suggest that you create Manchuria (disambiguation) and add  to the top of this article.  -- Visviva 16:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Visviva.  Please read Wikipedia:disambiguation carefully, on how it can be done.--Endroit 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The existing article Manchuria is the most common usage.  What are the other usages?--Endroit 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're trying to disambiguate "the term Manchuria", without talking about the Manchuria article itself?  You must be a troll.--Endroit 17:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This material is already covered in the Extent of Manchuria section of the Manchuria article.  There's no need to disambiguate this material.--Endroit 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions."  Keeping that in mind, go ahead and create Manchuria (disambiguation) and make your edits there.--Endroit 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Some editor here doesn't know what a disambig page look like. Here is an example: English. It is a list of bullets and each bullet has it own defition of the term concerned. Since nobody can point out wich Manchuria is overwhelmingly the common (there is no such one actually), the disambiguation page should look like this
“Manchuria” can refer to any one of several regions :
# Northeast China: generally defined as the three provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning
# The above, plus part of northeastern Inner Mongolia
# The above, plus the Jehol region of Hebei province. The part of Manchuria in China is commonly called Inner Manchuria to contrast it with Outer Manchuria (see below)
# The above, plus Outer Manchuria or Russian Manchuria, a region in Russia that stretches from the Amur and Ussuri rivers to the Stanovoy Mountains and the Sea of Japan. Russian Far East comprises Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. These were part of Manchu China according to the Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689, but were ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Aigun (1858);
# The above, plus Sakhalin Oblast, which is generally included on Chinese maps as part of Outer Manchuria, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Nerchinsk.
If there is no disagreements, I'll make the above disambig page. Of course, if you think any of the above bullets is inaccurate, you can edit it. Disambiguation 18:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are essentially only two meanings provided: "Inner" Manchuria, and "Outer" Manchuria. The rest is just variation in the borders of same.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't push this thing too far, "Disambiguation". You have tried to delete the contents of this page and in so doing violated WP:3RR once. Also, the fact that you seem to have opened a Wikipedia account solely for the purpose of fundamentally changing the contents of Manchuria is not going to help your cause.--Niohe 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to respond to the arguments raised above, I don't think English is a particularly good example. English is both an adjective, a proper noun and a surname of several people. Manchuria is the name of a region, the precise borders of which are disputed. A better example would be Mongolia, which is a similarly ambiguous geographical term. There are separate articles for Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia, but no disambiguation page as such. The case for deleting the contents of Manchuria and replacing it with a disambiguation page is even weaker, since Inner and Outer Manchuria are far less commonly used terms than its Mongolian counterpart. I think the principle of least astonishment should be applied here and preserve Manchuria page. --Niohe 00:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does a disambiguation page look like 

message: To continue, from your comments above it seems that you have not understood the difference between disambiguation page and disambiguation link. If you wish, you can create a disambiguation link, as suggested, i.e. Manchuria (disambiguation).--Niohe 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation links

message: I just want to bring to the attention of other editors of this page that The discussion with User:Disambiguation has been confirmed as a sock puppet of User:Snle. This editor has been using sock puppets and single purpose accounts for a while in order to make aggressive edits on Manchuria related topics and has been blocked indefinitely. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. --Niohe 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent case of sock puppetry on this page 

message: The actual spelling should be "Ko-Chosun" not Gojoseon. The actual territory was covering all Manchuria as far north as the Amur and Argun rivers and as far inland as the Greater Khingan range. Korean political division between North and South makes research difficult. That was Ko-Chosun actual size.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korea4one (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gojoseon]] 

message: As part of the discussion in trying to reach a consensus on , the idea of a  template has been proposed.  A tentative template has been created at User:Nlu/History of Manchuria, but as I am not good at designing templates, and particuarly hope to see (but cannot design) a template similar in format to , I'd like help from interested editors here.  Please take a look at the page and dig in.  For background information, please see Talk:Goguryeo.  As I wrote there, I'd like to do this in the next 120 hours if possible, so that we can hopefully reach a compromise on that article.  --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed History of Manchuria navigation template 

message: There is a poll at this link and we are requesting other editors to join our discussion regarding the name. Good friend100 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help 

message: The text states:
:"The Japanese finally succeeded on June 2 1928, when a bomb exploded under his seven-carriage train a few miles from Mukden station.[2]"
:"Following the Mukden Incident in 1931 and the subsequent Japanese invasion of Manchuria,..."
This seems to me to be a source of confusion.  I think readers unfamiliar with the subject will infer from this that the "Mukden Incident" refers to the bomb which exploded under the train in the previous paragraph.  Would  someone more qualified than I edit this to: either make a distinction between these two unrelated events, or to distance the two references to Mukden in such a way that the context does not make it seem as if the two events are related?  Please?  User:Pedant 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mukden Incident:  contextual confusion 

message: These are clearly typos of the Treaty of Aigun (1858) and Convention of Peking (1860). The Qing ceded the territories north of the Amur in the 1800s with these treaties not during the time of the PRC.
Do you see anywhere that the PRC COULD give up? By the time of the 1911 Revolution, China had lost control of all land north of the Amur. If I am wrong, please provide a source of the two such 1900s treaties.  70.254.213.240 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey I was on your side. The page previously stated that the two treaties were in 1958 and 1960. I changed it to 1858 and 1860 and some people kept changing it back to 1958 and 1960. 68.93.3.230 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaties of 1958 and 1960? 

message: Who were water tatars that settled in northern Manchuria. I found that Mongols conquered them in 1232 but they revolted against Yuan rule in 1341 and defeated.--Enerelt (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Tatars 

message: Manchuria was independent up until the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. It had its own distinct food, culture, language and history for centuries. It has no mentioned whatsoever of how it was invaded by Japan or China and the resulting power transfers between those 2 countries. What is most disturbing is that this article completely ignores many important aspects of this country and is now nothing more than Chinese propaganda in order to destroy and assimilate the Manchurians.
: This is joking, Manchus consider they are Chinese! There are Some Korean nationalists trying to steal Chinese territory by forfeiting Chinese history! 203.218.26.247 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the Manchus assmiliation was because they invaded and conquered China and then got melted into the population. How is that China's fault?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.240.20 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I am half Manchu and I don't feel any different from Han Chinese!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.20.108.30 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mired in Propaganda 

message: :"The region is commonly referred to as Northeast China (Chinese: 東北; pinyin: Dōngběi), and historically referred as Guandong (Chinese: 關東; pinyin: guāndōng), which literally means "East of the (Shanhaiguan) Pass/Mountain"."
But I thought Guandong is near Hong Kong & nowhere near Japan/Korea/Russia?? This article would need to clarify this point.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong
edit: I just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Leased_Territory. Reddirt (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a clarification to the article, which should help.  I had the same confusion when I first read the article as well.  I hope I did it right, I'm rather new to this, but it looked right. Shautora (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And I see I also managed to mess up the description of the edit, which I'm sure can't be changed---doh! >.< Shautora (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @TheLeopard--Oh! They are spelled differently, I hadn't even noticed that before.  Despite this, I still feel that for most English speakers they would be easily confused.  I would also like to point out that at the top of the article Thetis, it is cautioned in similar fashion that Thetis should not be confused with Themis.  This article is indeed where I got the idea.  So, I do not contest the reversion, only the statement "they would be hard to confuse." Shautora (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical Location: Guandong?

message: The term Outer Manchuria seems to have been coined by Juha Janhunen in 1996 in his Manchuria: an ethnic history. Janhunen is probably the foremost expert on the Manchus, but the term 'Outer Manchuria' is problematic. It was not used historically because the Manchus inhabited only the area south of the Nen and Songhua Rivers. The Manchu ethnic group was created by Nurhachi in the 17th century from Jurchen speakers in what is now Liaoning and Jilin province. The communities to the north included other Jurchen speakers, but they retained their separate identies (Solon, Daur etc.) and were not assimilated to the Manchus (although some Manchus were later settled south of the Amur River.  The area north of the Amur and east of the Ussuri was under loose Manchu hegemony, but it was no more 'Manchuria' than any region in China that the Manchus ruled.
The 'Inner'-'Outer' distinction has a special meaning in the case of the Mongols, and it muddies the water to extend the term so loosely to another region. Atla5Atla5 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The other Tungisic Jurchen speakers like Solon were enrolled into the Manchu Eight Banners as the "New Manchus", while the Jianzhou Jurchens of Nurhaci were the "Old Manchus", and both groups were most definitely under Qing rule. The Qing encouraged teaching of Manchu language and culture to these "New Manchus" and resettled them around during the clashes with the Russian Cossacks.Rajmaan (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outer Manchuria 

message: Nurgan was the name for Manchuria during the Ming dynasty. Crossley 1999, p. 58.</ref>
* 
10:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ming dynasty used Chinese, which doesn't have the syllable nur. — LlywelynII 05:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurgan and Liaodong 

message: *
Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries
Loretta E. Kim 金由美
Central Asiatic Journal
Vol. 56, (2012/2013), pp. 169-202
Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/centasiaj.56.2013.0169
Rajmaan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saints for Shamans? Culture, Religion and Borderland Politics in Amuria from the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries