Jump to content

Talk:Jurchen people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture

[edit]

What is this picture? It certainly dominates the small article it's associated with. -- Zoe

Korean origin

[edit]

Part one

[edit]
金之先，出靺鞨氏。靺鞨本号勿吉。勿吉，古肃慎地也。元魏时，勿吉有七
部：曰粟末部、曰伯咄部、曰安车骨部、曰拂涅部、曰号室部、曰黑水部、曰白
山部。隋称靺鞨，而七部并同。唐初，　有黑水靺鞨、栗末靺鞨，其五部无闻。
粟末靺鞨始附高丽，姓大氏。李绩破高丽，粟末靺鞨保东牟山。后为渤海，称王，
传十余世。有文字、礼乐、官府、制度。有五京、十五府、六十二州。黑水靺鞨
居肃慎地，东濒海，南接高丽，亦附于高丽。尝以兵十五万众助高丽拒唐太宗，
败于安市。开元中，来朝，置黑水府，以部长为都督、刺史，置长史监之。赐都
督姓李氏，名献诚，领黑水经略使。其后渤海盛强，黑水役属之，朝贡遂绝。五
代时，契丹尽取渤海地，而黑水靺鞨附属于契丹。其在南者籍契丹，号熟女直；
其在北者不在契丹籍，号生女直。生女直地有混同江、长白山，混同江亦号黑龙
江，所谓“白山黑水”是也。
金之始祖讳函普，初从高丽来，年已六十余矣。兄阿古乃好佛，留高丽不肯
从，曰：“后世子孙必有能相聚者，吾不能去也。”独与弟保活里俱。始祖居完
颜部仆干水之涯，保活里居耶懒。其后胡十门以曷苏馆归太祖，自言其祖兄弟三
人相别而去，盖自谓阿古乃之后。石土门、迪古乃，保活里之裔也。及太祖败辽
兵于境上，获耶律谢十，乃使梁福、斡荅刺招谕渤海人曰：“女直、渤海本同一
家。”盖其初皆勿吉之七部也。

Translated:

"The Mohe are the ancestors of the Jin. the Mohe were called Wuji, the Wuji lived on the land of the Sushen people. There are seven Wuji tribes: Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie, Haoshi, Heishui, Baishan. During the early Tang dynasty, the Sumo Mohe was a vassal of Koguryo and surnamed 'Da'. Tang destroyed Koguryo, and the Sumo Mohe retreated to the to eastern mountains and estabilishes the state of Bohai, calling itself king and has writing, music, established five capitals, five governments, sixteen provinces. The Heishui (Blackwater) Mohe were also vassals of Koguryo and sent 150,000 troops to aid Koguryo against the Tang, but they were defeated at Anshi. During the Five dynasties period the Khitans destroyed Bohai, and the Heishui Mohe became a vassals of the Khitans. The southern ones became citizens of Liao [the Khitan state] and were known as "cooked" [meaning assimilated] Jurchen, while the northern ones were not citizens of Liao and thus were called "raw" [unassimilated] Jurchens. The "raw" Jurchen lived between the Heilongjiang River and Changbai Mountains, and so were called 'white mountain, black water.' The ancestor of Jin, Hanpu 60 years old came from corea ( today's south korea) . His older brother Agunai was interested in Buddhism and thus did not come with him and remained in Koryo. Their decendants were Shitumen and Digunai. When Taizhu [Wanyan Aguda] defeated Liao, Wodaci proclaimed to Bohai people "Bohai, Jurchen were originally one family" both were from seven tribes of Wuji."

--Yuje 10:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The ancestor of Jin, Hanpu 60 years old came from corea ( today's south korea) .
it dose not mean he is a korean , back then , lots of Mohe people lived and occupied on the soil , which today became morden north korea's territory, , but in the originally, it owned by Mohe people, while, korean only own small territory in far south korea .
can you please explain then why they used the word korea/silla/etc if they considered them as occupiers/invaders? can you imagine a refugee from japanese occupied korea saying that he comes from japan, or a person from a british occupied india to say that he comes from britain, or a person from tibet/hongkong/taiwan to say that he's from china? this obviously doesn't make sense Hxbaoli (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't say they were occupiers/invaders. The issue comes down to the difference between being from a political state and being of an ethnic group. Modern examples aren't the best examples because of differences in the way people conceived of themselves in ancient vs. modern periods, but even using modern examples, it's easy to see that people who say they come from Russia are not necessarily ethnic Russians, people who say they come from China are not necessarily ethnic Chinese, etc. There were, further, political benefits for the Wanyan clan to state that they came from the lands of Silla/Goryeo and Balhae, given that their initial state was located in the territory of Balhae and they were attempting to forge an alliance with Silla/Goryeo against the Khitans. This is no different from the Khitans saying that they were 'also Jizi's people' while fighting over territory with Goryeo, and later saying that they were the descendants of Huangdi/Yandi while ruling a portion of China. Lathdrinor (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. First, we know the Jurchen language, and it is not related to Korean, it is Tungusic and it's the ancestor of the Manchu language. See, for example, Gisaburo N. Kiyose on that topic. Second, there's no evidence that the Barhae state was a Korean state that ruled over a Mohe population. It was founded by refugees from Koguryo together with Mohe people, but we don't know that one group was dominant over the other. We also don't know for certain that the Koguryo people spoke Korean--they may have spoken a continental language related to Japanese (c.f. Koguryo: the language of Japan's continental relatives). Third, the supposed translation from Chinese above is too wrong to bear. The translator has read Qing dynasty where the Chinese text says Jin dynasty. The translator has read "founder" where the Chinese text says "ancestor". As for "Hambol", the ancestor of the founder of the Jin dynasty, according to Gibert (Dictionnaire de la Mandchourie, pg 207), "According to the Chinese annals, under the reign of the emperor Renzong of the Song (1023-1063), this Han-pu [Chinese version of Hambol], originally from the Heishui horde of the Mohe, after having sojourned for a long time in Korea, regained the country of the wild Jurchens." So even in the Chinese records he isn't considered to be Korean.24.218.25.42 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say that the Korean rulers of the past came geographically from today's China?
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

Part Two

[edit]

Because someone said that history book of Qing is unverifiable, I put the website that have original text of the history book of Qing (Jinshi)[1], [2]. In the Chinese history book, it is said that the ancestor of Jurchen came from Korean dynasty, Koryeo.

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 Qing dynasty 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.

Jinshi is one of the reputable 25 history books of China. If anyone do not argue about this, I will put this content in the article.

Draft History of Qing and History of Jin are two different works. Your use of "Qing" will cause others to believe that you are referring to the Draft History, which was never declared official. Further, "Qing" and "Jin" are two different states; your text does not distinguish them properly. --Nlu (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to quote the Book of Jin, might as well quote the entire section.
金之先，出靺鞨氏。靺鞨本号勿吉。勿吉，古肃慎地也。元魏时，勿吉有七
部：曰粟末部、曰伯咄部、曰安车骨部、曰拂涅部、曰号室部、曰黑水部、曰白
山部。隋称靺鞨，而七部并同。唐初，　有黑水靺鞨、栗末靺鞨，其五部无闻。
粟末靺鞨始附高丽，姓大氏。李绩破高丽，粟末靺鞨保东牟山。后为渤海，称王，
传十余世。有文字、礼乐、官府、制度。有五京、十五府、六十二州。黑水靺鞨
居肃慎地，东濒海，南接高丽，亦附于高丽。尝以兵十五万众助高丽拒唐太宗，
败于安市。开元中，来朝，置黑水府，以部长为都督、刺史，置长史监之。赐都
督姓李氏，名献诚，领黑水经略使。其后渤海盛强，黑水役属之，朝贡遂绝。五
代时，契丹尽取渤海地，而黑水靺鞨附属于契丹。其在南者籍契丹，号熟女直；
其在北者不在契丹籍，号生女直。生女直地有混同江、长白山，混同江亦号黑龙
江，所谓“白山黑水”是也。
金之始祖讳函普，初从高丽来，年已六十余矣。兄阿古乃好佛，留高丽不肯
从，曰：“后世子孙必有能相聚者，吾不能去也。”独与弟保活里俱。始祖居完
颜部仆干水之涯，保活里居耶懒。其后胡十门以曷苏馆归太祖，自言其祖兄弟三
人相别而去，盖自谓阿古乃之后。石土门、迪古乃，保活里之裔也。及太祖败辽
兵于境上，获耶律谢十，乃使梁福、斡荅刺招谕渤海人曰：“女直、渤海本同一
家。”盖其初皆勿吉之七部也。
Translated:
"The Mohe are the ancestors of the Jin. the Mohe were called Wuji, the Wuji lived on the land of the Sushen people. There are seven Wuji tribes: Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie, Haoshi, Heishui, Baishan. During the early Tang dynasty, the Sumo Mohe was a vassal of Koguryo and surnamed 'Da'. Tang destroyed Koguryo, and the Sumo Mohe retreated to the to eastern mountains and estabilishes the state of Bohai, calling itself king and has writing, music, established five capitals, five governments, sixteen provinces. The Heishui (Blackwater) Mohe were also vassals of Koguryo and sent 150,000 troops to aid Koguryo against the Tang, but they were defeated at Anshi. During the Five dynasties period the Khitans destroyed Bohai, and the Heishui Mohe became a vassals of the Khitans. The southern ones became citizens of Liao [the Khitan state] and were known as "cooked" [meaning assimilated] Jurchen, while the northern ones were not citizens of Liao and thus were called "raw" [unassimilated] Jurchens. The "raw" Jurchen lived between the Heilongjiang River and Changbai Mountains, and so were called 'white mountain, black water.' The ancestor of Jin, Hanpu 60 years old came from Koryo. His older brother Agunai was interested in Buddhism and thus did not come with him and remained in Koryo. Their decendants were Shitumen and Digunai. When Taizhu [Wanyan Aguda] defeated Liao, Wodaci proclaimed to Bohai people "Bohai, Jurchen were originally one family" both were from seven tribes of Wuji."
Yuje 10:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, quoting the entire section would have damaged Hairwizard91's POV -- but what's new about his/her taking things out of context? --Nlu (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, quoting entire section make my saying more solid. Doesn't it? If you see the history book of Balhae or Bohei, you can find that the royal family of Bohei, which may be the Sokmal Malgal or Sumo Mohe, returned to Koryeo when it was Destroyed by Khitan. Eventually, the ancestor of Jin can be Sumo Mohe among the several Mohe if you read the context of history books of Jin and Balhae(Bohei). If you cannot find the sentence of the history bookf of Balhae, I can show you. The history book of Jin does not say anything which Mohe directly corresponds to the ancestor of Jin or Hampo.--Hairwizard91 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, according to the last sentence of the quotation (渤海本同一家) Koguryeo, Balhae and Koryeo are same family. Furthermore, about the ancestor of Koguryeo, the founder of Koguryeo was Joomong, and he came from Buyeo. Buyeo was a succession of Gojoseon by Haemosoo. Eventually, Gojoseon is the firstly states of Korean without no doubt. Consequently, even though Jin was not the state of Korea because of their people, language and so on, its founder came from Koryeo or its founder is Korean.--Hairwizard91 12:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire history is significant, because it shows that the Jurchens had a clearly claimed ethnic descent that wasn't ethnic Korean. Quoting that single line out of context to prove that the Jin and Qing dynasties are actually Korean and ignoring the rest of the passage to advance that point is dishonest. As for Hanpu, the passage doesn't state his ethnicity, but Hanpu looks like a Buddhist name, while his brother's name, Agunai (阿古乃), lookes like a phonetically spelled name, and not an ethnic Korean name. --Yuje 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More details, see [3]
Another history book 欽定滿洲源流考
From the history book of 欽定滿洲源流考 (卷七 部族)
In chapter 7 about races, there is a setnece like this
"金始祖 本從 新羅來 號完顔氏 所部稱完顔部 新羅王金姓則金之遠派出"
Rough translation says that...
"The ancestor of Jin originally came from [[Silla], and is called 完顔. Their place is called 完顔部. The royal family name of Silla or 金 came from very old ancestor of Jin"
It also says that the ancestor of Jin founder came from Korea.

Correcting the name of dynasty

[edit]

I should modify the pronunciation and as follows: The website of "History of Jin" (金史):

Table of content: [4]
The chapter describes the ancestor: [5]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
Anybody has different opinion about the origin of Jin's founder?--Hairwizard91 04:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I found something interesting in this page 金朝始祖函普族属考辨--Ksyrie 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Singular

[edit]

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

re: Khorchin

[edit]

The Khorchin are a Mongolian clan who were in close contact with the Jurchen-Manchu people throughout history. In fact, Emperor Kangxi's beloved grandmother was a Khorchin Mongol. -Andrew

Steppe Culture? Nomads?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Jurchens made the Han shave like the Manchus did ...

[edit]

I have found evidence that the Jurchen made the Han, under the control of the Jin Empire, shave the front part of their heads.[6] 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))[reply]

Jurchen Hair-Dress

[edit]

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))[reply]

The card

[edit]
  1. 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.
  2. 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)[reply]
Professionals use the word "stupid"? That in itself seems unprofessional. --Ghostexorcist 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese statue

[edit]

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)[reply]

This statue does not represent the culture of the Jurchens as an ethnic group unless it was made by Jurchen hands with Jurchen soul. I have to remove it as nobody has objected. Please restore it in this article only if it is proven that it was made by a Jurchen person. If it represents the culture of the conqured Han ethnic group, then this statue would be more relevant in an article corresponding to culture of Han ethnic group. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion

[edit]

Jurchen wars with Korea and rebellion against the Liao

[edit]

[Raw URLs commented out below:]

Jurchen lifestyle

[edit]

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

Nurhaci described Jurchen way of life

[edit]

Nurhaci described the Jurchen way of life as farming land and eating grain, as opposed to Mongols livestock nomadic pastoralism and eating meat. [Raw URLs commented out below. Kindly use them to expand the article's coverage on this topic:]

Jurchen hairstyle

[edit]

[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)[reply]

eight banners, manchu identity and han bannermen

[edit]

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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3][4][5][6]

The geographical, political, and cultural division was between the Ming Liaodong and the Jurchen dominated Nurgan, which traded and interacted with Liaodong through Fushun.[7]

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.[8] 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".[9] 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.[10]

[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)[reply]

[More:]

Three definitions of Manchu/Bannermen

[edit]

[A ridiculous number of unformatted URLs commented out below. Kindly use them to expand the article's treatment of the banners:]

Jurchen relations with Korea

[edit]

[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)[reply]

Rajmaan, with thanks for your time and effort, don't do that. — LlywelynII 07:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Crossley 1999, p. 98.
  2. ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 89-90.
  3. ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56.
  4. ^ Rawski 1998, p. 72.
  5. ^ Rowe 2010, p. 11.
  6. ^ Watson, Ebrey 1991, p. 180.
  7. ^ Crossley 1999, p. 58.
  8. ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 55-56.
  9. ^ Crossley 1999, pp. 291-292.
  10. ^ Crossley 1999, p. 293.

Don't use these on talk pages. — LlywelynII 07:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sources from the article

[edit]

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)[reply]

These "sources" were listed in the bibliography but not actually used:

Kindly reinclude them when they are, yknow, being used. — LlywelynII 08:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Attribution"

[edit]

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

  •  This article incorporates text from The Manchus: or The reigning dynasty of China; their rise and progress, by John Ross, a publication from 1880, now in the public domain in the United States.

and note it in an inline cite. — LlywelynII 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelliot

[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:RS and WP:VERIFY

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jurchen_people&oldid=1206367132"