Talk:Outer Manchuria

message: Can someone please explain where this comes from? Without a source indicated, I have to suspect copyvio + machine translation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:See Talk:Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905-1940) for all these pages in this style. Charles Matthews 16:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: source

message: Remove irrendendist claims.  There isn't an active irrendenist movement over these territories.
Roadrunner 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: irrendendist claims

message: This needs to be sourced
:Meanwhile, some Chinese both at home and abroad have criticized the treaty as an official acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Russian rule over Outer Manchuria, which was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to Imperial Russia under a series of Unequal Treaties, which included the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Convention of Peking in 1860, in order to exchange exclusive usage of Russia's rich oil resources. As a result of these criticisms, news and information regarding the border treaty were censored in Mainland China by the PRC government.
Roadrunner 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best English source that I can find is from the Epoch Times that I just added, but I could not find the exchange exclusive usage of Russia's rich oil resources. The Chinese irrendendist claims are unofficial.--Jusjih 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Epoch Time is a joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: Should this supposed micronation really be mentioned in the article? Even if it exists, a "state" controlling no territory, recognised by nobody and with a national income consisting of Paypal donations is not exactly notable... Moyabrit (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchukuo Temporary Government 

message: , while purporting to make the article more neutral, appears quite suspicious: at best it simply exchanges one (the pro-Chinese) for another (the pro-Russian) POV, at worst it introduces a Russian POV. It also removes some parts without explanation, nor any apparent reason. Revert? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert if you want. You may want to actually edit some sections rather than just revert the whole thing. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to fix the article myself. That's why I'm mentioning my suspicion here so that more competent users can undo the truly inappropriate changes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: The redirect Amurland points here, and a fair number of articles link to that redirect. Is it accurate to say that Amurland is a (probably archaic) name for this area? If so, this article would ideally say that. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amurland 

message: I believe, based on original research from collecting sources at Wiktionary's Citations:Outer Manchuria entry, that 'Outer Manchuria' (as a reference to the territories ceded by China to Russia in 1858/1860) did not exist before this English Wikipedia article was created in 2004, and grew into an instance of citogenesis, with Americans like Kissinger and Bolton and others in the foreign policy establishment using the term. I'm not sure what the correct thing to do at this point is. Note: I'm not denying that the area was considered part of Manchuria. That's fine. But I'm only denying that the term "Outer Manchuria" ever meant "the areas ceded by China to Russia in 1858 & 1860" until the year 2004. (). I have attempted to add a kind of stop-gap fix to the entry with the wording "so-called" and two cites from Kissinger and Bolton. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Outer Manchuria]] 

message: * Merge changed to Oppose – I propose merging Outer Manchuria into Treaty of Beijing) (see also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Outer_Manchuria.) I think the content in Outer Manchuria can easily be explained in the context of Treaty of Beijing, and the terminology 'Outer Manchuria' is not a common academic term. I propose this merge because there are only five references on this page (three of which I myself added to show the problems with this term), most of the content is uncited, and I think the whole topic could be dealt with in an academic and professional way on the Convention of Peking/Treaty of Beijing page. I also believe that the exact term 'Outer Manchuria' did not exist before 2004 (regardless of whether the area was part of 'Manchuria' in some sense- I'm saying the exact sense of the word 'Outer Manchuria' referring to the areas annexed by Russia in 1858 and 1860 didn't exist.) I believe that 'Outer Manchuria' referring to this region is a case of citogenesis. (See my above comment: Talk:Outer_Manchuria#Outer_Manchuria and a 2011 discussion Talk%3AOuter_Manchuria#Neologism?). Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hey, thanks for looking at this! I would say your statement "'Amur Annexation' gives the background of the treaty." is EXACTLY my point- that is EXACTLY my argument for merging. And your statement "'Outer Manchuria' is not a standard term,but is an interesting way of looking at the problem." is exactly my point yet again- why not discuss a non-standard term on that treaty's page rather than in an nearly 2 decades old yet totally uncited Wikipedia article that's generating citogenesis content? I'm thinking that a redirect from 'Outer Manchuria' to 'Treaty of Beijing'/'Convention of Peking' will be a perfect way to deal with Outer Manchuria. All points of view will be discussed there. But right now, we have a page for a neologism that's using the voice of Wikipedia to spread uncited content. Yikes x 1,000,000. Please let me know if any of this makes you reconsider your vote! Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I just want to say that what I see as the modern neologism is entirely dependent on the Treaty, which is why I think the topic would be better served if this were made a part of the Treaty page. Of course the region is different from the treaty. But the modern concept of Outer Manchuria could not exist without that treaty. Thanks for your input! Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: See . 8 placenames are required to display both Russian and (historial) Chinese names by modern Chinese Map standard. For all of them see Template:Chinese historical placenames in Outer Manchuria. Sakhalin is one of them. ibicdlcod (talk)  14:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sakhalin is indeed coloured as Qing territory in Tan Qixiang's The Historical Atlas of China (in the map showing the situation of 1820). It is also drawn as such in this 1821 French map. Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Sakhalin Island not part of Outer Manchuria baffles me 

message: Thank you for your edit. I made a rewording- see if you like it. In this edit:  you remove "so-called" from the beginning of the article. You note that "No article starts with "so-called", explain nuances in article itself at a later point." But the very issue is that this is not a legitimate academic term and is a Wikipedia citogenesis. The term itself is prejudiced toward one party and this sense of this term did not exist before this article was created on Wikipedia. So it's something that needs to be addressed FAST so that the reader is on guard that this is a concept of dubious academic merit. Let me know what you think of my justification, and let me know if you have alternative suggestions for making it clear to the reader that they are reading about a dubious geographical conceptualization. To not have a preface or clarification of this sort immediately reads those bolded words "Outer Manchuria" in the voice of Wikipedia in a way that is disingenuous, because it acts as if the term is a bona fide legitimate geographical term, like "West Texas". Outer Manchuria does not appear in atlases, it does not appear on maps, it does not appear in academic papers. It is not anywhere, except here, at the citogenesis source. I have removed a lot of filler text that was uncited and was related to other articles. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called