Talk:Jin dynasty (1115–1234)

message: Under "Posthumous Names" why does it read: "We don't care". This is hardly NPOV and rather presumptous to boot (who is we? Is the author speaking for all wikipedians? That's what it sounds like.). 
Wouldn't "No noted name" or something similar be better? --maveric149
Okay I'll change that. I intended to mean the posthumous names were way too tedious thus not worthy to be mentioned. They were also not used when referring to emperors. -- Ktsquare
:OK, then how about simply saying "name to lengthy to list" or something similar. --maveric149
::What you said is better. :) --maveric149
----
* The table didn't look good on my browser, so I inserted some s in the entries; I hope it is an improvement for other readers too.
*I also turned "too tedious..." and "did not exist" entries into numbered table footnotes.  
* I changed "too tedious" to "quite long". (While "too tedious" is probably more accurate, when I first saw this page I had the same reaction as maveric149, and presumably many other readers will feel the same.)  
* I added "(second)" in header line to warn reader that there is more than one "Jin Dynasty". Jorge Stolfi 03:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled comments

message: im trying to figure out when the koreans successfully invaded china. jin sounds like a korean name to me because its the same as kim.
:I'll answer the question. Koreans of Goryo dynasty (918 - 1392) didn't invade China. At most they recaptured some territory near nothern border several times, and tried to occupy Liaodong(Liaotung) peninsula in the last period(1388). Dynasties which invaded China after unified song dynasty established were Liao (907 - 1125), Jin (1115 - 1234), and Yuan(1271 - 1368). But there might be relationship between royal families of Shilla (57 BCE - 935) and Jin (1115 - 1234). According to History of Jin (金史), one of 24 histories,
:The first ancestor of Jin, whose name was 函普, came from Korea, when he was more than 60. His elder brother, 阿古 liked buddhism, and wanted to stay in Korea, and said "Our descendants may meet together in the future.", so only younger brother, 保活里 followed him. ... (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, 曰: "後世子孫必有能相聚者, 吾不能去也." 獨與弟保活里俱.)
:The royal family name of Shilla(新羅) is Kim(金) and that of Jin(金) is Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅), and you can find Shilla(新羅) at the second and fourth letter of Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅). I know Aisin means gold(金) in Manchu language, but if they had had no relationship they would have used different letters to represent their family name not to be confused with Shilla. --- there are lots of alternatives to represent it --- And the meaning of Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅) literally may be "Love and perceive(remind) Shilla". So 函普 might be one of the royal family members of Shilla dynasty, who could not stay in Goryo dynasty and moved to Manchuria after Shilla collapsed, and that might be why his elder brother became a buddhist priest.
:So Kim and Jin's similarity is not related to invasion at all. --J.H. Yeom 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this sounds like something a nationalistic school teacher would tell his students to justify some terriotirial claims. While it may very well be the case that the Manchus had close relationship with the Koreans, the interpretation of the name Aisin Gioro is a bit farfetched. The sentence "...if they had no relationship they would have used different letters..." is asking the reader to prove the negative. Please quote a source! --Niohe 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm too late. I do not mean and claim close relationship between Manchus and Koreans. I don't know about it. But what I just said was about close relationship between royal families, nothing else. And I am sorry I don't have any source about that. I didn't even write an article. What I meant was Kim and Jin similarity is, AT MOST, close relationship between royal families but not related to invasion. --J.H. Yeom 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aisin Gioro (Manchu: ) which is transliterated into as 愛新覺羅 (àixīn juéluó) is a Chinese transliteration, nothing more than that. "Gioro" is a clan name and "Aisin" means "gold". You have to be really reading these characters out of context in order to get "love Silla" since 愛新覺羅 is only a transliteration. The name "Aisin Gioro" did not come about 1616 when Nurhaci proclaimed himself khan of the Later Jin Dynasty, that is when he added "aisin" to his original clan name of "Gioro".  Abstrakt 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a notice if people try bringing up this garbage in the future- the Wanyan Imperial family of the Jin and the Aisin Gioro family of the Qing are not related at all. Aisin Gioro has an entirely separate origin story and claim to be descended from a virgin who was fed a red fruit by a magpie, ans gave birth to Bukuri Yangson, the founder of Aisin Gioro. They never claimed to be relatives of the Wanyan and in fact there was an entirely separate Manchu Wanyan who claimed to be descendants of the Jin Wanyan. The fact that you are claiming that Aisin Gioro is descended from Hanpu (the founder of Wanyan) shows that you studied zero about the history of the region and are only trying to push a nationalist narrative. Also just because Hanpu was born in Goryeo territory does not make him Korean. There were ethnic Jurchens living in northern Korea at the time.Rajmaan (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I am surprised that no one is making a claim, that based on the meaning of surnames, that these people were descended from a lost tribe of Israel; the surname "Gold", as in "Goldstein", "Goldberg", could also be Jewish!!! 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  korean invasion 

message: It is LEGAL historic record that Hambo came from Korea. It is written in the book "the history of Jin". This book is one of the Chinese history textbooks supported by the current Chinese government. 
If wikipedia doesn't include this information, it is clearly biased policy hiding the important record. No matter what you believe it or not, anyway people can read the history book, and people will find Wikipedia is biased hiding information.
Now, those history books are online, you can read it directly. Followings are the links
in Chapter 7, of "the origin of Manchu(滿洲源流考)", publish by Qing government in﻿ 1777:
新罗王金姓则金之逺派
"The name of Jin(金) was originated from the surname of King of Silla(新羅, Korea) " 
You can read this book in the website:
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%BB%BF%E6%B4%B2%E6%BA%90%E6%B5%81%E8%80%83
in Chapter 7, of "the origin of Manchu(滿洲源流考)", publish by Qing government in﻿ 1777:
金之始祖讳哈富(旧作函普)初从髙丽来
"The founder of Jin(金) was not interested in making money, and He(whose name is hampu(函普)) came from Korea (髙丽)" 
You can read this book in the website:
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%BB%BF%E6%B4%B2%E6%BA%90%E6%B5%81%E8%80%83
in the second paragraph , 1st chapter of the history of Jin(金史):
金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十餘矣
"The name of the founder of Jin(金) is Hampu(函普). He came from Korea(高麗). His age was 60" 
You can read this book in the website:
http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B71
::But all this shows is that "Korean" people of the time used Chinese writing to make their names. Does this then make them one of the Chinese peoples? 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of Hambo 

message: imao your all claiming the manchu royal family was korean because they somehow took control of china. the name of the chinese characters for aisin gioro are a "transliteration", not a translation, so your entire theory about the jin dynasty being korean, and koreans invading china is what it is. a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.151.117 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder to all the koreans on this page 

message: chinese han dynasty succesfull invaded korea and there is solid evidence for that. there is not evidence for a korean invasion of china, other than fantisies cooked up in your minds.
(Suppressed soapboxing by soapboxer)
(Suppressed soapboxing by soapboxer)
::Sorry, but this sounds like something a nationalistic school teacher would tell his students to justify some terriotirial claims. While it may very well be the case that the Manchus had close relationship with the Koreans, the interpretation of the name Aisin Gioro is a bit farfetched. The sentence "...if they had no relationship they would have used different letters..." is asking the reader to prove the negative. Please quote a source! --Niohe 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aisin Gioro (Manchu: ) which is transliterated into as 愛新覺羅 (àixīn juéluó) is a Chinese transliteration, nothing more than that. "Gioro" is a clan name and "Aisin" means "gold". You have to be really reading these characters out of context in order to get "love Silla" since 愛新覺羅 is only a transliteration. The name "Aisin Gioro" did not come about 1616 when Nurhaci proclaimed himself khan of the Later Jin Dynasty, that is when he added "aisin" to his original clan name of "Gioro".  Abstrakt 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, there was no "Korea" back then. They were east Asian peoples speaking different languages. 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese invasion 

message: OK. I have read the text and I do not agree that it constitutes sufficient proof for your thesis that Jurchen and Koreans are basically the same. Moreover, this text was written almost seven hundred years after the Jin fall and should be taken with great caution. Finally, we are not supposed to engage in our own research here and making our interpretation of primary sources, Wikipedia is not the venue to advance original research. Please quote a respectable secondary source which supports your argument, otherwise you will have to accept that we will delete your edits. I added a reference to a work of one reputable scholar in the field of Jin history, and it seems that you have deleted that. Please refrain from such behavior. --Niohe 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 欽定 滿洲源流考

message: Breathejustice feels the info should stay to tell the origins of the Jin's founder. But the info is wrong. Unless this "Hambo" is Wanyan Aguda it needs to go. It would be like me writing a huge "incorrect" paragraph about the Chinese people on EVERY SINGLE Chinese dynasty page. Too much repeated info! If a person wants to read about Wanyan Aguda in depth, they can click on the thread. I concede that the opening sentence mentioning his name could be expanded, but not so much that it would overshadow this article just like the above paragraph does. 
However, I feel the info should stay on the Jurchen page. The reason I say this, despite it being wrong, it shows a "possible origin" of the Jurchen. Since it is not widely accepted by the academic community, it should be put under the heading "Origin Controversy". Or since it is wrong, it could be used to show a line of thought that goes against the widely accepted view. 
Besides, the english grammar is horrible (please forgive me for any grammatical mistakes!). If it stays, it needs a huge rewrite! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think English is Breathejustice's or his sock puppets' (User:69.210.209.211, User:68.250.52.50, User:68.252.34.42, and 68.252.33.163) first language.  I think we already know that from the Manchuria discussion page.--Godardesque 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Did anyone notice how Breathjustice (under a sock puppet) put that Korean info back in the article as soon as I ended the straw poll survey? Now that the article is protected from "anonymous users", any changes he makes have to be under his real account. I don't think he is ever going to learn. The Info is not cited, nor is it accepted at all. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sucker Punch!

message: The article should be renamed as Jin Dynasty (1115–1234). The beginning and ending years should be put into brackets for disambiguation. The current form, Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234, is not correct. --Neo-Jay 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  --Nlu (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change as well. --Ghostexorcist 17:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. But please notice the difference between hyphen (-) and dash (–). Here dash, not hyphen, should be used. --Neo-Jay 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The thread should be moved.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: they constitue soapboxing, which is against wiki rules, so there is no legitimate excuse on my deletion of their comments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.151.117 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  my removal of korean comments 

message: Intermarriage and sinicization was common during the later period of the Jin dynasty
http://books.google.com/books?id=9GGR3V4zJzwC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=nCIPD1V39QkC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=2EtCTP7v8K0C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinicization and intermarriage during the Jin dynasty 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jin Dynasty (265–420) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see . --Cold Season (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request to decapitalize all Chinese dynasty articles 

message: http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-worldlook-1146639-1.shtml
《元好問集》 
http://wenxian.fanren8.com/08/01/493/16.htm
中国之有至仁，无思不服；圣人之得大宝，咸与维新。
http://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=967751
http://book.e4to.com/detail.php?nid=2597&p=39
http://mbook.fa-shion.net/detail.php?nid=2597&p=39
http://www.360doc.com/content/12/0115/22/946779_179620897.shtml
公大夫士仕于中国全盛时，立功立事，易于取称，故大定、明昌间多名臣。
Zhao 2006, pp. 
*
https://books.google.com/books?id=04S4YdDarD0C&pg=PA154&dq=1115+10,000+700,000+jurchen+khitan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wbpgVdS7PNGVyAT22oOABQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1115%2010%2C000%20700%2C000%20jurchen%20khitan&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: This statement was stuck in the 'Wanyan Aguda' section in the middle of an origins discussion - it was quite jarring as it is out of context.  What makes the most sense as far as restoring it to the article?   --> " Song princesses committed suicide to avoid rape or were killed for resisting rape by the Jin.  " 50.111.33.214 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs insertion elsewhere in the article 

message: According to Liu Pujiang(Chinese:刘浦江)'s essay 'Doubts about truthfulness of the history of foundation of (Jurchen) Jin Dynasty' (Chinese: 关于金朝开国史的真实性质疑), maybe the era name 'Shouguo' didn't exist and the year 'Tianfu 1' is 1118AD instead of 1117AD. (The link of the essay is: https://wap.cnki.net/touch/web/Journal/Article/LSYJ806.004.html) Therefore, we should consider edit the starting time of the era name 'Tianfu' and the era name 'Shouguo'. According to the same passage, probably the name of the regime  'Jin' started to be used in 1118, so we should move the article to 'Jin dynasty (?-1234)'. John Smith Ri (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The state began to exist from the moment when its ruler began to claim to be the ruler. Although the Chinese called him a rebel. The moment China recognizes the state as a state is important. However, it is not exceptional.
For example, Bohai was recognized by China only in 714. And the state was formed in 698. Suffice it to describe China as a rebel. And not the date of recognition of the existence of the state.Ulianurlanova (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move and edit 

message: but I would assume the 1194 Yellow River flood that shifted the river from north of the Shandong Peninsula to south of it along the course of the Si and wrecking the middle stretches of the Grand Canal would have had some (large) negative effect on the Jin and their subjects' opinion of them and any mandate they might've been claiming. Timing certainly seems to line up. — LlywelynII 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Obviously needs sourcing