| Revision as of 03:25, 28 May 2007 editJiejunkong (talk | contribs)1,713 edits →Relationship between Jurchen/Manchu and Koreans is tenacious at best← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:05, 29 May 2007 edit undoDefenseofChina (talk | contribs)15 edits work togetherNext edit → | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
| ::: One more thing, I know some Japanese scholars even argued that all Wanyan ancestors before ], including ], were forged by Wanyan Xu. But it would be hard for ], the author of the original Jurchen Jin records, forged people like ] and their ancestral lines toward Wanyan Hanpu. Go back to the language issues, even if Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Mohe, as he had lived in ] for quite a long time as an adult, it shows that at least there was an area in ] using similar language with ] so that Wanyan Hanpu can communicate with people in both areas. I am not going to make more conclusions and leave this conservative statement as a feasible remark.--] 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ::: One more thing, I know some Japanese scholars even argued that all Wanyan ancestors before ], including ], were forged by Wanyan Xu. But it would be hard for ], the author of the original Jurchen Jin records, forged people like ] and their ancestral lines toward Wanyan Hanpu. Go back to the language issues, even if Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Mohe, as he had lived in ] for quite a long time as an adult, it shows that at least there was an area in ] using similar language with ] so that Wanyan Hanpu can communicate with people in both areas. I am not going to make more conclusions and leave this conservative statement as a feasible remark.--] 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == work together == | |||
| Jiejunkong, I share your viewpoints in ]. We need to drive out the POV pushers and nationalists and make the article fair. ] 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:05, 29 May 2007
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
/Archive1
Counter Systemic Bias
Misplaced Pages has a systemic bias caused by the demographic of the editors. It cannot be eliminated but can be mitigated by the conscious effort of fellow wikipedians. That is done by increasing coverage on topics that are important and extensively covered in other encyclopedias but not by suppressing or deleting coverage on topics outside the "ideal". --Jiejunkong 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Heishui Mohe redirection to Jurchen
Dear Junkong, I've seen that you added a redirection from Heishui Mohe to Jurchens on Chinese Misplaced Pages. I think the descendant of the Heishui Mohe are most probably the Yeren Jurchens but having few informations and sources concerning the direct lineage between the Jurchens and the Mohe, i will leave that from now. Zaijian. Regards.Whlee 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- According to Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1, there were 7 Wuji tribes at the time of Northern Wei Dynasty. At the beginning time of the Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived. At the time of Khitan Liao Dynasty, Mohe turned into Jurchen. Those, including descedent of Sumo Mohe and part of Heishui Mohe, conquered by Khitan Liao Empire are called "Well-done Jurchen" (Shu Jurchen). Otherwise, they are called "Raw Jurchen" (Sheng Jurchen). Raw Jurchens are mostly descedents of Heishui Mohe. It includes Wanyan Tribe, the founding tribe of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. From political perspectives, Heishui Mohe descedents took the most powerful positions (e.g., Bojilies) in the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, then on the ladder there were Sumo Mohe descedents from Balhae, then Xi and Khitan people from Khitan Liao Dynasty and Han Chinese people from Northern Song Dynasty. It is valid to say that Heishui Mohe defined the Jurchen Jin. This is supported by Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Fortunately, this book is fully available now on zh.wikisource.--Jiejunkong 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now Heishui Mohe in zh.wikipedia is redirected to Mohe directly.--Jiejunkong 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Goguryeo
Could you write up what you drew in the picture in paragraph form with citations throughout? I think it is worthwhile to summarize the version described in the Twenty-Four Histories, since it represents an "authoritative source of traditional Chinese history". You might be able to add it as a section. Given this section is there, a summary picture might be more well received. There are unfortunately few Wikipedians on en.wikipedia who are able to do this task. It is a shame that older works of history, which the authors went to great pain and effort to record, are becoming lost now because of their age.
Perhaps you still have the quotations handy that let you draw the picture. Let me know if I can help, but keep in mind my ability to read ancient Chinese is almost zero. --Cheers, Komdori 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will do it as soon as possible. As quoting Chinese texts is inevitable in this case, I will also do an English translation for every Chinese sentence quoted. The only thing I worry about is that there are some guys who don't respect authoritative canonical history records and insist on deleting the contents.--Jiejunkong 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is the best thing you can do, give the quotes using Chinese and English and the source. No rational person will say the Twenty-Four Histories is unusable. These books are indeed canonical in terms of traditional Chinese history. When it's summarized, as long as it says that it is according to traditional Chinese history, is relevant to the article, and is not horribly unbalanced in terms of length (that is, as long as you don't turn a one page article into four pages of Chinese quotes and one page of other stuff) people will protect the quotes against revision. One more note: be sure not to interpret the text (that is, don't draw conclusions from it that aren't obvious to everyone). I don't think you've done this so far, but it's something to keep in mind.
- Don't worry about your work being wasted, en.wikipedia has plenty of people who will make sure legitimate sources are not eliminated. --Cheers, Komdori 13:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Some guys even call "Twenty-Four Histories" as something under PRC government. You look like a reasonable person who is aware of certain standard we are talking about here. I equally respect Samguk Sagi and "Twenty-Four Histories". They are surely not perfect, but their quality speaks. From my experience, the ancient authors of these canonical records may avoid to say some negative things due to some reasons (shutup is not a lie), but I haven't found intentional lies for the purpose of cheating.--Jiejunkong 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo
It seems you are involved in the Goguryeo disputes. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about Chinese history, it would help if you joined the mediation. The following is a quote from User:Daniel, from the mediation committee, explaining how to join:
- "If you are involved in this dispute, and feel you should be a 'party' to the Mediation, please add yourself to the list of participants, agree to mediation, and contact Armed Blowfish to arrange an account on the private Wiki. Armed Blowfish (mail) and Daniel, 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"
Whenever we have disagreements, mediation is an important part of WP:DR. I'll look forward to seeing you there.--Endroit 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Please do not allow your content disputes to spill over onto the Administrators' noticeboard for 3 revert rule violations. The complaint is not moot. Please use the two days for which the article is protected as an opportunity to work out a version satisfactory to all parties on Talk:Goguryeo. Do not discuss the article content further on WP:AN3. --Selket 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. I don't want my filed 3RR reports to be diluted and smeared by some kind of vandalism behaviors you are warning against. So next time, can I delete the redundant followups that are not directly related to the 3RR reports? Please give me a direct answer.--Jiejunkong 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
RE: Be careful about deletion
The reason behind my deletion was based on (what seems to be) an agreement to merge most of the information into Gaogouli controversies . A lot of the information in the article is twisted to suit Korean arguments (e.g. application of Zhonghua Minzu). Ironically, this seemingly "Chinese" project - as of this posting - so far has no Chinese sources. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. Assault11 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then you should leave a {{Main}} article link on the page for the users to find the deleted contents in the main article. With good faith.--Jiejunkong 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit: Nevermind, it seems that Cydevil has just reverted my recent NPOV edits/clean ups of the article. Apparently, he insists on using highly controversial/insulting terms like "Turkestan" in the article. Not only that, many of his sources does not support his points (e.g. application of Zhonghua Minzu) or are in Korean, thus unverifiable. Assault11 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Goguryeo
We need to prevent User:Good friend100, User:Cydevil38, User:219.253.79.115 (Seoul IP address) from making mass reverts and blanking of our objective edits on the Goguryeo et al. articles. It appears the bulk of malicious activity is coming from these three users (who might in fact be the same person). --JakeLM 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Relationship between Jurchen/Manchu and Koreans is tenacious at best
Manchu founder Nurhaci have specifically wrote that they are not related to the Korean peoples. It is very apparent from history that the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu line have always kept a distinction between itself and that of the indigenous peoples of the Korean peninsula (this distinction was also recognized by Chinese historians at the time). The names Joseon and Jurchen are only similar in English transliteration, but radically different in pronunciation in the Archaic and Middle Chinese pronunciations. Joseon/Chosun (朝鮮) starts with a voiceless consonant /tS/ (朝 = tSAu), while Jurchen (女真) is a voiced consonant /dZ/ (女 = dZnjo). Chinese transliterations at the time (pre-Yuan Dynasty) were acutely aware of the difference between voiced and voiceless consonants and would have never mixed them up. The Japanese language still retains a lot of Archaic and Middle Chinese voiced consonants and you see clearly that in Japanese 朝鮮 = Chousen (ちょうせん) and 女真 = Joshin (じょしん). --JakeLM 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am open to listening to any information from reliable source. What you have said could be useful, and if you can provide reliable source (books and publications from internationally recognized academic places), you may consider writing a language section of Jurchen. My previous statement was based on Twenty-Four Histories, according to the "Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", Wanyan Hanpu, the first recorded ancestor of Wanyan Aguda, was from Goryeo, and there was no record that he had serious language problem after he moved into the Wanyan Tribe (of Heishui Mohe) at that time. So I think the language gap between Heishui Mohe and Goryeo may not be too big to block communication between these two groups of ancient people.--Jiejunkong 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just came across this discussion after briefly checking up on yesterday's message, hope you don't mind if I add in a few points. About Wanyan Hanpu, the primary source Jinshi does not state exactly what his ethnicity is, just where he comes from. If anything, he could be an ethnic Mohe from Gao Li considering there used to be a considerable Mohe population in the area. There is no conclusive evidence (as far as primary sources are concerned) that Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Gao Li, so the relationship between NuZhen and Koreans (Silla) is highly questionable at best. Assault11 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing, I know some Japanese scholars even argued that all Wanyan ancestors before Wanyan Shilu, including Wanyan Hanpu, were forged by Wanyan Xu. But it would be hard for Wanyan Xu, the author of the original Jurchen Jin records, forged people like Bao Huo Li and their ancestral lines toward Wanyan Hanpu. Go back to the language issues, even if Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Mohe, as he had lived in Goryeo for quite a long time as an adult, it shows that at least there was an area in Goryeo using similar language with Heishui Mohe so that Wanyan Hanpu can communicate with people in both areas. I am not going to make more conclusions and leave this conservative statement as a feasible remark.--Jiejunkong 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
work together
Jiejunkong, I share your viewpoints in Goguryeo. We need to drive out the POV pushers and nationalists and make the article fair. DefenseofChina 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)