Talk:Manchukuo/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have information on the historical administrative divisions used in Manchukuo?--Yuje 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a list at the Chinese version. --Menchi 17:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative Divisions 

message: What were the thoughts and feelings of the Manchus on the occupation? Did they believe this was good for their country? Did they resent the invasion? Furthermore, do they thank the Japanese for the rapid development, or hate them? I'd really like to see this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikastis (talk • contribs) 
:They weren't the ones who benefitted from "rapid development". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feelings 

message: Shouldn't it be Imperial Emblem since Manchukuo had an emperor? Or is this some grotesque permutation of the old Chinese "Only One Emperor Allowed" theory? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It should be Imperial Emblem.--Manchurian Tiger 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Emblem 

message: Stop deleting the images and the sections!--Manchurian Tiger 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to Dong Bei 

message: Manchukuo is really nothing to do with Korea. Just as American has nothing to do with the WPKorea, even there are many Korean roaming around the town. I would recommend to remove it from WPKorea. It is really not relevant. I guess Korean nationalist want put finger on it. Really not very wise. Japan is relevant, since they essentially control it, and its resource from short period of time. Sometime I just wondering, someday, these korea may claim America is theirs, just maybe. Quite scary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bay lobster (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's nothing to do with korea as a nation 

message: Is this a fake website? I thought somebody was just playing around until I stumbled on here, where that website was provided in outside source. If this is a true website, are Manchurians serious about independence? I'm just confused, any help?
--Naranja18she 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the website www.manchukuo.org 

message: What were the thoughts and feelings of the Manchus on the occupation? Did they believe this was good for their country? Did they resent the invasion? Furthermore, do they [now, or then] thank the Japanese for the [forced] rapid development, or hate them? I'd really like to see this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikastis (talk • contribs) 
:They weren't the ones who benefitted from "rapid development". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feelings 

message: I have made a pointer here from Zionism, I recall having heard about a Japanese proposal to ask Nazi Germany to transfer the Jews to serve as colonists in Manchukuo. Does anybody know more? -- Error
It happened - My 100 year old Great Uncle and his family escaped the Nazis that way.
:: Did they go to Harbin? I know that there was a Manchurian diplomat in Europe who issued hundreds of visas to European Jews, most of whom ended up in Harbin. --Manchurian Tiger 01:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably Sugihara Chiune.--Niohe 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Jewish colony 

message: Is this the spelling by which most searchers would expect to find the name?  I did a Google search and came up with 6,990 hits for Manchukuo and only 187 for Manzhouguo.  -- Zoe
:"Manchukuo" is probably better.  The change in transliterations came after Manchukuo ceased to exist, so the English-speaking world would never have seen much effort to change it. Stan 13:49 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
Seconded. But I cannot move because there is already an article Manchukuo. I will put this to vote for deletion. -- Taku 05:33 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Hi, I don't get it. Why is there an article "Manchukuo" at Manchuria Crisis and an identical at Manchukuo? ben 02:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::"Manchukuo" is the official term used by the Manchukuo government as well.--Manchurian Tiger 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanizations 

message: I added the following to the education: "Confucius's teachings also played an important role in Manchukuo's public school education. " and Eventually, Japanese "in addition to Chinese language" became the official language taught in Manchukuo schools... " --Manchurian Tiger 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  education 

message: "included 29,510,000 Han Chinese" is wrong--This number should be checked. The census counted citizens of China, including the local Manchus and Mongols citizens of China (as opposed to Mongols citizens of newly independent Mongolia or the Soviet Union). The number of Han Chinese, while still a majority, was less than what is stated here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.38.39 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: =POPULATION in 1934

message: In the fourth paragraph down from the first header, the link to http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=330 appears to be down. Another source of that information may be required. Cowman109Talk 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Manchukou only shakily lasted for 13 years. It is totally ridiculous to refer it as a country and there is no need to have administrative division in this article for this puppet state. Also eatern Inner Mongolia is just part of Manchuria. It shouldn't be singled out. Manchukou also includes Jehol, which is part of Hebei province. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manzhouri (talk • contribs) .
:The cited source there clearly states that Pu Yi served as 'regent and emperor'. Could you please provide a source that explains where Manchukuo was? Also, I'm not familiar with Manchukuo myself and I say this as a neutral third party, but Manchukuo did have some sort of administrative division and it was labeled as a country in several sources (though as a state in others). However, the extensive administrative division listing does seem a bit unneeded, I agree, though soley because it is a hard to read table. Could you please explain why you removed the cited information (and the source) from the opening, though? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not have a reason for why you changed Cowman's writing "Pu Yi served as 'regent and emperor" which most agreed on in the previous discussions. "Pulicly known" again does not sound right. Do you imply there is also a "privately known" head of state for Manchukuo? As far as I know, Pu Yi was the only emperor of Manchukuo. What is your source of evidence of this kind of statement? Please do not change the content that was written through many's efforts for a long time, just because you don't like it. you're welcome to discuss, but before most people agree, don't not delete other's work. Thanks a lot.--Manchurian Tiger 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sourced information did state that Pu Yi was 'regent and emperor', so it would be best to find a source that says otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you questioning the validity of Manchukuo being referred to as a country? There's plenty of sources from earlier discussions that clearly state Manchukuo did have a form of government, though the notion that it was a puppet state is also clearly stated. I don't think it's our place as editors to question the existence of a country, but instead we should focused on sourced information. Could you please respond, Manzhouri? It's probably best to discuss such edits before changing the content as this article is still clearly a source of some debate. Essentially, regent and emperor may be the same thing as head of state, though the key here is citations. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what we see as a country. Some see it as something with a long culture, some see it just as any a sovereignty. Again, I suggest simply using the word 'state' once and for all, for those many reasons I stated. Its much simpler, easier, and we can put the rest of our time to good use. Aranherunar 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Manchurian Tiger, I do not agree with your comments on the user. Could you please use a more friendly way to treat other contributors trying to help instead? Though Manzhouri may be too quick and extreme in his edits, it doesn't need a 'Just because you don't like it' in response. From what I have gathered in experience every user who happened to stumble upon here disagreed with you, and obviously it is not written by many's effort for a long time. Rather it had been under your absolutism from the beginning to the end, and you simply scare away any possible contributor. Yes, he should discuss, and that is what the people I have seen did. Yet most of the times you simply stop all discussion and start reverting madly. When someone comes and tries to stop you, you say "That has been discussed already. Now just because you don't like it...Good, I'm back to my reverting". Please stop that. I would suggest you give up on editing this article because you simply cannot do it without any bias. There are much, much more other contributors in Wikipedia that can help put this article in a healthy way without you. Thank you. Aranherunar 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Manzhouri, please do not make any edit during the discussion. I have reverted your five edits. Three of them are disputed, and two of them are what I believe either vandalism or mistakes. You deleted the whole chunk of administrative divisions - and that isn't a result of the discussion. Then you re-added the 'See also' section, which I have actually merged with the other 'See also' section down below - simply shows that you did not even bother to read my edit summary. If you want to make a good contribution, please pay some attention to what other users are doing and trying to say, and read the article itself. Thank you. Aranherunar 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaky 13 years 

message: Please try to avoid editing the article during the mediation.  It is not productive to simply change it back and forth.  If someone else makes an edit, do not respond in kind.  --Ideogram 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do partly agree about the administrative divisions point in terms of it not being necessary, though I'll leave that to others to decide. As to it being demolished by force, I wasn't aware of that (I'm not familiar with Manchukuo's history until coming to this article) and it may be best to find a citation that states that. Could you also please try to refrain from making controversial edits before they are discussed, though? I would ask the same for people that disagree with you - sometimes the best edit is the lack of an edit to prevent an edit war. Cowman109Talk 15:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. Manchukuo was defeated by the Soviet Russia only not by any Chinese forces. All the major or small scale battles were between Kuntung Army/Manchukuo Army and the Red Army. There is no record showing that any Chinese forces committed any offense against Manchukuo. They arrived well after the Russians occupied the whole country. The Russian Red Army then handed Manhukuo over to the Nationalists and Communists except Dalian and Port Arthur.--Manchurian Tiger 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As we have a conflict concerning what the facts are, a source would be best. Cowman109Talk 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that article Operation August Storm does agree with the point that it was demolished by the Soviets. However, I do not understand why "demolished by force" could not be included. As said, it is quite basic and Manchurian Tiger in the above reply does not seem to have said anything against it. All he is arguing is whether it is demolished by the Chinese or by the Soviets. Aranherunar 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not get it. How can user Manzhouri claim his edit to be 'neutral and necessary' when his edit is no different from his last edits, which were reverted and disputed? And how is it necessary when it simply repeats a point in the article in the introduction and delete a bunch of administrative regions that, yes, are not necessary, but had no necessity to be deleted? Aranherunar 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be said that the government of Manchukuo is destroyed/demolished. That would be a more accurate description. Aranherunar 11:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any objection to specifying that it was the government, so I'll go ahead and add that to add clarification. There still seems to be the issue of the specifics, though, which are questioned above. Citations to verify the situation would be most helpful if they can be found. Cowman109Talk 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid editing 

message: Aranherunar, you scold Manchourian tiger but without any reasons you have deleted the sections about slave labor and baterilogical weapons. Have you any motivation for this ?
Second, is the article better without the picture of the cute actress Li Xianglan ?
--Flying tiger 13:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave labor-bacteriological weapons 

message: There are too many photos of Puyi. The article is better off with only one or two Puyis. Zhang Qiang 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since mikkalai is having trouble understand my question here. I will rephrase here. There are too many pictures of Puyi ( one magazin, one photo, one stamp). I think the stamp is something to keep. We need to choose one from the other two to delete. They are using too much space and not informative. Zhang Qiang 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Picture from Times is not informative, portrait is informative. Times deleted. If you want people to understand you, please write clearly. "Better off" is not an argument. `'mikka (t) 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photos of Puyi 

message: I've added something about the manchukuo independence movement, please don't remove them because if you go to the website i have indticated in the article, there is really such movement going on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revenge king (talk • contribs).
:Your posting here on talk implies that your edits were in earnest, and are not vandalism. But, the opposite seems to be the case, since you have titled the new section "Stupid Manchukuo Independence Movement", among its other defects.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really such movement going on. If you go to the website i have indicated in the article it will tells you. But that movement is ridiculous because it regard Japanese as their saviour and in fact Japaneses are completely opposite to them back in WW2. THat's why i added "stupid" in the title. I'll add the section back if no one comments this. 
Revenge king (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Revenge king|contribs </sup> 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge king 

message: Well Since no one really disputes this section I just put this section back on again, as i said, the reason why i add "stupid" in the heading because this movement is really stupid since it regard japs as their saviour and didn't know the truth in WW2. You can see the website I said on the link.
Revenge king (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Revenge king|contribs </sup> 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Manchukuo Independence Movement 

message: I have removed the section because it lacks any support of notability. One website does not notability make.
You are right that it "exists" - and all the evidence for that is one website. Wikipedia does not document things which "exist", it documents things which are notable.
If you believe this "Movement" is notable, please supply some verifiable evidence of this notability. By verifiable evidence, I mean some scholarly work or some reliable media report which refers to this "Movement". --Sumple (Talk) 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll revert no more on this article. If the unsubstantiated passage is restored without discussion again, I'll ask for protection for this article. Xiner (talk, email) 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it not notable, but the user's sole reason for including it appears to be a desire to attack it, which is also not allowed under Wikipedia's policies. Barring new evidence of notability, mention of this movement can not go in the article, and further attempts to add it will result in blocks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchukuo Independence Movement - notability 

message: I have completed National Anthem of Manchukuo, mixing Japanese Wiki material and also materials I read from Manchukuo official sources. Please use it where appropriate. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Anthem of Manchukuo]] 

message: I lately found Wei Huang Gong, and found its historical description similar to Salt Rates Palace. Can anyone here check if they refer to the same place, ie where Puyi lived in Hsinking when he ruled Manchukuo? If yes, I'd nom a merge.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Salt Rates Palace]] and [[Wei Huang Gong]] 

message: I have nominated a WP:RM for Bank of Manchukuo to Central Bank of Manchukuo, because the former name bring little GHits outside of Wikipedia; the proposed name is a direct translation of its kanji name 滿洲中央銀行 and has the most GHits in a list of possible candidates. Please discuss at Talk:Bank of Manchukuo#Requested move.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Move [[Bank of Manchukuo]] to [[Central Bank of Manchukuo]] 

message: in this article one states that they are not welcomed in Japan because of their lowlevel of japanese language efficiency,But I thought it was not true,there are many foreigners who don't speak japanese but welcomed in Japan--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese orphans in China 

message: It seemed that the dispute on Manchukuo is a puppet state resurfaced here. May all parties start reconciling their differences; I have no desire to bring the Chinese edit wars here. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a user has used multiple proxy IPs (from Germany and India) and newly registered multiple sock puppets to remove the term "puppet" from the article's content.  The editing war can be easily prevented by disallowing anonymous IPs and newly registered users from editing, because such behavior pattern itself is very questionable.--Jiejunkong 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see as of now is there's only 1 IP doing that kind of thing. Maybe he has a username that I would report as sock, but I doubt if this would fall into semi-protection.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently I'd assume good faith on User:Odzer as WP:SOCK is concerned.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit war 

message: Was Manchukuo entirely within what is now the People's Republic of China? That should be in the introduction. Also, when did the area change to Chinese control after the Soviet invasion? That should be in the history section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In China? 

message: The rationale is as follows:
The so-called "Manchukuo Temporary Government"'s website appears to be nothing more than a hoax. It encourages terrorism, blatant historical revisionism, rabid anti-Communism and sinophobia, racism comparable or even exceeding that of the KKK, and uses language you'd have trouble finding on that one North Korean government website.
Strangely enough, the English version appears far more "civilized" than the Chinese version. Not entirely sure why that is, but it can't be good.
I'm not opposed to having that link elsewhere in the article, but to present it as an "External Link", which is usually reserved for links of a more reputable nature, is simply misleading, as it creates the impression that it is one of the sources of information for this particular Wikipedia article.
If we're going to have that link, I think it'd be best to at least create a section in the article regarding this so-called "Temporary Government".
In any case, according to their website, it looks like they're affiliated with the Japanese right-wing extremists (extremely militant ones at that), the FLG, and certain "民运" activists in the West. So if we were to make a section on this "Temporary Government", it'd certainly be an interesting one.
But to be honest, it just seems too insignificant to write about. Shimo1989 (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the first link.