Talk:Manchu people/Archive 1

Merge with Manchu language
The language paragraph should be merged with Manchu language article. olivier 07:56 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I agree, but in general, when should there be one article and when should there be two on this kind of thing? (e.g. Khitan) mgmei

Whoah, WHAT? USA?
Shouldn't the United States regiment part be put in another article? I do not think that American GIs have anything to do with the Manchu people. If nedd be, create another article or something. That paragraph is kind of an eye sore. -- User:Kangy
 * I agree. -- ran (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Banner system?
Can someone explain what the banner system is? Banner in English means "flag", but if that is the meaning here I can't make head or tail of some of the statements. For instance, A woman born to the White Banner was presumed to be spiritually gifted.. I cannot decipher what it means to be "born to the white flag".

I assume there is some greater astrological significance here, that banner refers not to flag, but to some other grouping, like "Year of the Horse" or "In the house of Aquarius". However the article does not explain any of this, nor is there an article on the topic that I can find.

Maury 13:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Banner system does not have anything to do with astrology. The Manchurians grouped their people into 8 Qi's ( qi is "flag" in Chinese) for military purposes. Each banner was named by a color - such as Prime Yellow, Prime Red, etc. The Prime Yellow Banner is the one to which the royal family belonged.--Manchurian Tiger 15:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So what determines which flag you get? Maury 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The banner status is inherited. If one family was originally assigned to be a Prime Yellow, all the offsprings of this family will be Prime Yellow "Qi Ren (banner person)". Although originally designed as a military system, it later on became more of aa symbol of aristocracy. All Qi Ren enjoyed many priviliges including stipends from the royal court. The "upper three banners",which were under the direct command of the emperor, are considered higher of class than others: Prime Yellow, Prime White and "Xiang" Yellow (the yellow flag with red border strips).--Manchurian Tiger 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Manchu Infobox
Can someone knowledgeable about the relevant info/stats construct an infobox? Thanks! Fsotrain09 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier History
Koreans have existed alot longer then Manchurians or Mongolians. In Korean History Manchurians and Mongols began to appear from Koryo Dynasty in 12th century. Koreans have been living in Manchuria before Manchurians calling themselves Manchurians or Mongolians. This probably the main reason Koreans consider Manchurians and Mongols as Koreans. Korean Ko-Chosun, Korguryo, Parhae Kingdom, Korean Kando-Chosun land boundary. Manchuria was part of Korean land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1KoreaData (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL Korean nationalists for some odd reason love to fight for ownership of the Manchus as if it were some pot of gold. Unfortunately for them China owns that land today and there's nothing they can do about it but troll the internet. Manchus are assimilated, Manchuria is a part of China today so please get over it.

The informations posted by Breathejustice has nothing to do with the people called "Manchu". It is not even about "Earlier History" of the manchu people. It is rather just a bunch of nationalistic Korean perspectives on how early Manchuria was ruled by Korean kingdom from time to time. What does that have to do with Manchus anyway? --Godardesque 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the above. If the information needs to be included, it shouldn't be in this article and should be noted as a minority (very minor I hope) Korean perspective.  Tortfeasor 05:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jurchens and Malgal are subjective to Goguryeo. Every chinese and korean and japanese knows it. When Goguryeo attack Sui, Goguryeo went to china with Malgal and Jurchens. This fact is written in Manchu history book(滿洲原流考). why dont you read carefully (滿洲原流考). If you dont have, I can give it to you. this book is a bible to study the history of Manchu.

From the article "Manchu Yuanliu Kao and the formalization of the Manchu Heritage" by Pamela Kyle Crossley: "In pursuing the question of the local continuity of political tradition, Hongli raised the Bohais to central importance. On the issue of the Bohai script, however, Hongli's speculations were too obviously connected with his unstated insistence on autochthonous literary development in the the Northeast; there were in fact no relationship between Bohai, Kitan, or old Jurchen scripts, all derived from Chinese ,and the later Mongolian-Manchu script that ultimately derived from a Syriac script via Central Asia." While the Manchu Yuanliu Kao is an important source of information one should remember that it is not perfect document and was written with the pressures from the Qianlong court. More importantly it doesn't explain your map that has Paekjae(who's only recorded with Jin is the investure of the Paekjae King the rank of General Garrison the East and Prefect of Lelang and later again to his son) territory in the area that includes the Eastern Jin Capital and a large of portion of Japan. Buyeo should be in the Northwestern Part of Goguryeo, while Malgal(Mohe) territory should overlap with that of northern Goguryeo(and it should not be considered part of Goguryeo anymore than Paekjae should be considered part of Eastern Jin).

Therefore I believe that the map is a candidate for deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cal guy (talk • contribs).

(REmoving comment per WP:SOAP)

(REmoving comment per WP:SOAP)

Therefore, the figure is right.

Yeah, could you provide an electronic link to the the Chinese history book? (Hopefully it doesn't came from an Korean portal) I just think that this Korean nationalism is out of control, and these Wikipedia articles are doomed. --Godardesque 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont have electronic version of chinese history book. You can find it in your library of university via offline. I borrow the chinese history book in my university library. Why dont you carefully read it first, and then discuss with me. You even dont read any history book of your chinese stuffs. And I am not nationalist. You are nationalist because you remove the right article blindly without any survey. Do not vandalize.

If you can't provide an electonric link, the least you can do is to give an proper reference (MLA style or any others), which you have failed to do so. I called you a nationalist because the earlier references you gave came straight out of the Korean government agency, which is true, and then later on you or one of your allies delinked it.--Godardesque 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Godardesque: Maybe a sock puppet request?  Although from my experience the check user people will just tell you that its a "content dispute" which means we just have to live with this kind of ridiculousness and fix it.  And to be fair this sort of behavior isn't just limited to Koreans.


 * That being said, these additions should 1) not be in this specific article. And, 2) if it is included in the appropriate article, it should be noted as an extreme minority theory.  And the map should probably go.


 * Also, primary sources are great. But, for Wikipedia to function, the encyclopedia doesn't accept personal interpretations of primary sources.  Instead, reputable scholarly sources are needed.  If not, than any nationalist could rewrite articles to fit their need.  Thanks.  Tortfeasor 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why I should provide it electronic link. China dont support their history book online. Why dont you go to library and find it. I remove korea.net because you consider it as government site, and I want to let you know there is another website that describe such like that. Saying as nationalist because of that is attacking the pernality. And korea.net and asianinfo.org are not government site. See domain name. there are networking company or no-profit organization. if they are government site, they should be "org"


 * According to the About Korea.net page, Korea.net is "Run by the Korean Overseas Information Service (KOIS) of the Government Information Agency" in Korea. Also, 滿洲原流考 (Manchu Yuanliu Kao) may be consulted, but it is NOT a primary source of the 4th Century.  The Twenty-Four Histories of China must be given higher priority regarding general topics of the time.  宋書 (Book of Song) is, of course, a primary source.  Also the map details are unsourced and have Korean names in China and Japan (may violate Wikipedia naming conventions).
 * Details related to Korea, Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Buyeo (Fuyu), and Balhae (Bohai), if properly sourced, should be in those respective articles, and not in Manchuria-related articles.--Endroit 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * About the korean.net, it is my misunderstanding. I agree. So, I changed the reference.

(REmoving comment per WP:SOAP) (REmoving comment per WP:SOAP)
 * oh man, if you don't know, 24 histories is not written in Ming dynasty. Every Chinese dynasties wrote history of its previous one, if they think their previous dynasty is a "legal" one. How could Ming wrote its own history? Thus ming's history 明史 was written by Qing. And Qing's emperor regarded themsevles as Chinese emperor. They, like every Chinese dynasties, had a "legal" system which claimed that they were the direct heir of Xia/Shang/Zhou dynasties. Emperor Qianlong even prefer Song over Jin(Jurchens) as the "legal" one, even if Jin was created by his ancestors, know who he was? he had written many books/articles, do you want to have a look? Sure some manchus has some Goguryeo ancestors, but don't some Han Chinese also have Goguryeo ancestors? What you want, this article is about Manchu, not Goguryeo or Korea, why you dump here with these? 124.29.34.43 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the History of Goguryeo and History of Balhae links (experiencefestival.com) in the Manchu article came directly from the Wikipedia itself. (See their bottom copyright section) They should not be considered as sources for this article, as themselves used the same wikipedia articles. --Godardesque 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there are some Korean nationalists that try to claim the Manchus or the Jurchens as their own? It's obvious they are trying to claim a piece of Chinese civilization by claiming they conquered them but still I fail to see how that kind of logic works in the first place. The Manchus were very specific about themselves being descendants of the Jurchens. If they were supposedly Korean, why wasn't Korea included? Also both the Jurchens and Manchus warred against the Korean peninsula during their times. The Jurchens made numerous invasions into Koryo for example and the Qing with Joseon. For these Korean nationalists to claim the Manchus or Jurchens, they might as well as claim that Koreans conquered the world in the form of the Mongols or that they created the Ottoman Empire. Samarkand was a Korean city and the modern day Kazahks, Uighurs, and Hungarians are also Korean. It is as silly as listening to white nationalists arguing that Caucasoid peoples founded every great civilization in the world.


 * Well, this user just keeps coming back isn't it. He just changed a user name and came back to re-vandalize.  --Godardesque 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to talk about why you keep adding these informations into the article, Breathejustice? They are just irrelevant to the informations presented here. --Godardesque 07:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You have change the text,but you cannot change the history.--Wmrwiki (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Manchuria was part of Korean land."

OH great here we go again. Allow me to retort, not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Koreans have been living in Manchuria before Manchurians and Mongols existed.

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't be alarmed if this article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.


 * -->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner Ethnic groups that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Population numbers
According to the 1990 census 9,821,180 ethnic Manchus live in China.

Taikonaut Yang Liwei
After extensive searches I can find no mention of China's first astronaut/taikonaut Col. Yang Liwei being registered as a 'Manchu' in any credible source. I have removed this segment due to its dubious credibility. I challenge anyone to find a source stating his registered ethnic group as 'Manchu'. It's dubious that a country would send a member of a minority group as its first space traveller as a 'solidarity exercise' and not advertise the fact. His name does not appear consistent with any Manchu language patterns. -Roswell Crash Survivor 07:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously the problem is how "Manchu" is defined. If you define it as anyone who has a Manchu ancestor then a significant proportion of the population in NE China can be called "Manchu", but if you only include people who are registerd as Manchu then that number would much much smaller. Re his name, the Manchu have virtually completely assimimated with the Han Chinese and use only Han type names. LDHan 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection to your arguments. The issue is only one of semantics. but since the item in question is of 'biograhpical' nature of a living person (and also as a manufactured national 'hero') we should be more cautious. To call him a notable Manchu would be like calling a Jewish-American person a Jew (exclusively) rather than an Jewish-American. Roswell Crash Survivor 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P. Huang. who?
Who is this P. Huang person? Either there should be some description of his authority or a link to his page on Wikipedia so people can see who he is. At the very least his full name should be used in the article so that more information can be found about him. Lenneth 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

are the last toe of manchu people splitted in 2 pieces?

Manchus and political football
The first section contained the following passage:


 * Some recent scholarship in ethnic identity emphasizes that ethnic categories are often not static, objective category, but rather fluid, subjective ones. This may apply to the notion of a Manchu ethnicity which some recent scholarship suggests was strengthened in the early 19th century to distinguish members of the Qing military elites from the peoples they ruled. 

This is fine, but the idea of "imagined communities" applies to ALL ethnic categories, and it seems strange that only the Manchu ethnic identity needs to be qualified in this way. The main problem, of course, is that any attempt to highlight a Manchu ethnic identity conflicts with the standard Chinese version of history and ethnicity, which holds that the Manchus assimilated totally to the Han and turned into "Chinese". This particular version of history is convenient for Chinese who want to lay claim to the entirety of Manchu history and territory, but scholars have since proved that it was not as simple as that. Manchu assimilation to Chinese culture did not equate to the loss of identity as an ethnic group.

The above is relevant to a paragraph added without any kind of supporting evidence in November 2007 by User:Breakfasttea:


 * Over the course of centuries the Manchus were gradually assimilated into the Han Chinese culture and eventually they became a de facto integral part of China with their culture, history and territory.

This is a pretty bald statement of modern Chinese attitudes and the official state ideology (the Manchus and everything to do with them are an inalienable part of China), but that does not make it "correct", no matter how fervently it is believed by modern Chinese.

At any rate, I've removed both the point that "ethnic categories are often ... fluid, subjective ones", which reads like a lame apology for suggesting that the Manchus were a valid ethnic group, and the dogmatic assertion of Chinese official ideology which lays claim to the Manchus and their entire history as an integral part of China.

User: Bathrobe 17 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.161.144 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Boo-i
The section on Boo-i appears to be somewhat fragmentary and frankly misleading. See this link for some clarification:. Also.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @Bathrobe, thanks for your research on boo-i. Is 奴才(in Chinese,zh:奴才, pinyin:Nu Cai) a Manchu word? Could you help to verify its origin? I saw somewhere that Nu Cai is Manchu word, but I feel that is wrong, because Nu 奴(slave) is a Han word, so Nu Cai couldn't be a Manchu word, at least 50% is Han.


 * For your information, in popular Chinese culture, under the context of Manchu, Nu Cai is being used much more widely than boo-i. Also, please check page 57 for your 'neutrality template'. |Chinese boo-i VS Manchu booi Arilang1234 (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem is that you are ignoring the overall argument found in the book and taking one small part to support your polemic. The book concluded that there were two main differences between the Chinese and Manchu institutions: Manchu bondservants' condition was hereditary and more stable, and the state played a larger role in controlling and punishing Manchu bondservants who were subordinate. You ignore this scholar's conclusions and take one part of his argument to prove that "The Manchu masters treated their slaves in much harsher terms than their Chinese counterparts, and punished their slaves with much more stiffer terms". Your basic point, which is found right throughout your polemic, is very simple: The Manchus were "worse" than the Chinese. That is why I inserted the neutrality tag.


 * If you read the source that I linked to above (and you don't appear to have done so), you will find that it says there was no corresponding status in Chinese society for boo-i, who were 'nominally "slaves -- that is, of "unfree" status -- but who often served in powerful positions and were sometimes intimates of the emperor". You ignore anything that doesn't support your own preconceptions and your own argument. That is why I accuse you of POV.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I found some interesting reading, regarding the names booi and nucai in The Manchu Way By Mark C. Elliott page 82. According to that book, booi or boo-i is the Manchu word, boo-yi is a chinese redition of the Manchu as there is no direct translation in Chinese. The word nucai is a Chinese word for slave but the Chinese concept of slave and the Manchu concept of booi are not identical so the words booi and nucai are not truly interchangeable. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Manchu" and "Jurchen"
The term "Manchu" was not used until 1635 when Hung Taiji proclaimed it would replace the term "Jurchen." This is clear in the wikipedia page on Jurchens but such is not the case here. This is important since the term was originally a political construct of the Jurchen elites in the 17th century headed by the aisin gioro, ultimately inextricable from the rise of the Qing state. Harpthespoon (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just face the truth; you can't escape it!
'''Manchus are not ethnically Chinese! Editors who think otherwise can stop adding misleading information to the article! 219.149.102.34 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)'''


 * What is "ethnically Chinese"? According to the current ideology of China, which is almost universally accepted within the country, Manchus are just as much Chinese as Han Chinese are. The above comment fails to take into account the fact that times change, ethnic perceptions change, history keeps moving. Countries absorb other races and ethnic groups until their originally different origins are almost completely forgotten. Ask a Manchu in China now whether they are different from the Han and you'll find that most don't see any difference at all. Historically they may be quite different, but in modern China it doesn't mean that much to be Manzu any more. People who come on here claiming that the Manchus are not ethnically Chinese are historically correct, but in the contemporary situation they are quite wrong.


 * In addition, I would challenge the anonymous editor to come up with a satisfactory definition of "ethnically Chinese". Presumably the meaning is "Han Chinese", but as a racial category "Han Chinese" is virtually meaningless (as DNA studies of North and South Chinese demonstrate), and as an ethnic category, it is very fuzzy. If it means "a person of Mongoloid race who uses one of the Chinese dialects (or is that languages?) and adheres to certain cultural norms and traditions", then the modern-day Manchus are almost indistinguishable from "Han Chinese". I would also like to ask how much barbarian blood is mixed in with the Chinese from past invasions -- Xianbei, Rouran, Mongol, etc. etc. Ethnicity is too fluid and tricky a concept to take the anonymous editor's comment seriously.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, "ethnically Chinese", as stated above, is an oxymoron. Chinese is a nationality, not an ethnicity. As for Chinese as an ethnicity, well, it would be incorrect to associate it with all Manchu as a broad category. The so-called "Chinese ethnicity", usually called Han, is a fluid term, because the Chinese have a definition for it of you can actually be, ancestrally anything, but if you learn the Chinese language and assimilate into Chinese culture, you are Chinese. However, while this is the "official" definition of the Chinese ethnicity (often called "Han", but as I will get to later, using that is also incorrect here), the Chinese themselves often break the rule, and thus, the definition changes. For example, when the Manchu Qing dynasty ruled China, towards the end of their rule, they became unpopular, and one of the main reasons used by Sun Yat-sen to dethrone them was that they were not "true Chinese" ethnically. As used by Sun Yat-sen and countless other Han Chinese, apparently, Manchu and Chinese are mutually exclusive; you can only be one. Of course, that's not the general consensus, but just putting it out there.


 * Now, as for "Han" Chinese... I don't know whether it was the Chinese or rather, Westerners who started using the term as it's used now, but Han Chinese is generally used (a) genetically, (b) linguistically (speak a Sinitic language natively), (c) appearance-wise (which is why I suspect that its current usage was first used by Westerners...), and (d) culturally; with occasional (e) geographically. If a white person was adopted by Chinese parents, grew up in China, and was thus Chinese culturally/linguistically, they would be Chinese, but they would NOT be Han by its current definition. They would fall under the category that those Japanese kids who were orphaned at the end of the second world war. As for genetic differences between North and South Chinese, yes, they are there. But Han Chinese applies to all peoples who natively speak (when I say natively, I am using it somewhat incorrectly; what I mean is that they aren't speaking it as a result of a linguistic conversion, all their ancestors, or a majority at least, have been speaking it as a native language for many generations) a Sinitic language, and just like the genetic definition, Sinitic language is a broad term. The South and North Chinese have the same ethnicity; and are about as close genetically as the Frisians and the Swedes, that shouldn't surprise us. Yes, of course, the South Chinese probably intermingled with the so-called "barbarians", but they are Han Chinese because it has been a very long time that all their ancestors have spoken Chinese and been Han culturally. Furthermore, it can't really be denied that while the South Chinese are genetically distinct, they are much closer to their northern counterparts than they are to most of their other neighbors. The South and North Chinese are Han, but unless we're talking Manchu with mixed ancestry that identify as Han, the Manchu are not, just like Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons are all Celts, but Poles are not. Ethnicity is not strictly genetic anyways. If a Manchu person marries a Han and acts and looks very Han, they can still be Han, because their culture is overwhelmingly Han and not Manchu. As for physical appearance, while it is tempting to lump them Han, Manchu, Koreans, Japanese, Yi, Rong, Hani, Khitan, Mongols and so on into the same category, they aren't. I, at least, can pick out differences between teh Manchu and the Han, but as usual, they are not black and white, it is, like all ethnicities more of a spectrum. The same goes for culture. While Manchu culture has been heavily influenced by Chinese recently, some of them still preserve much of their old characteristics in a similar method to what we see in teh US with all the different ethnicities. They have become very culturally similar, but there are still very subtle differences, and it also varies from person to person. As such, its pretty silly to say "MANCHU DEFINITELY ARE NOT HAN IN ANY WAY" or "MANCHU ARE HAN", because neither is really correct. We do not have some sort of written official criteria for what is Manchu and what is Han; one Han may be closer to another Manchu than each is to their own ethnicity. I would pretty much oppose any statement about their relation to Han being in the article, because it is somewhat a matter of opinion, really... it is more or less some percent correct to call them Han, but the only perfectly correct word would be "Manchu". --Yalens (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

BSing by Bathrobe
The reason that northern and southern chinese have different genetics is EXACTLY the reason why chinese is an ethnic group. historical documents show mass migrations of the original chinese to the south, so therefore southern chiense genetic markers should be used to determine chinese, therefore, manchus are not chinese. the Xianbei, rouran, and jurchen invaders are all in north china, thats the "northern chinese DNA". end of story case closed, manchus aint chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.163 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

nevermind, chinese is not an ethnic group term

So many psychotic nationalists and trolls here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"historical documents show mass migrations of the original chinese to the south, so therefore southern chiense genetic markers should be used to determine chinese,"

Here's the problem with your reasoning. You say the original "Chinese" (Whatever that means) migrated south? Right and those "Chinese" mixed with southern natives south of the Yangtze. In case, you didn't know the south was populated by many aboriginal peoples that the "Chinese" from the north mixed with. Therefore why should Southern Chinese genetics be the sole basis of determining Chinese genes. Under your logic and reasoning, Southern Chinese are no more "Pure" than Northern. The history of Chinese civilization is of gradual expansion and Northern Invaders more than often facilitated Chinese Expansionism. This is a hard pill for many Anti-Chinese nationalists mostly Koreans and other Pan-Altaic nationalists to swallow but it's the truth. Most of them are so willing to boast about these Northern Conquests without accepting what the long term conquests/consequences were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.160.165 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Assimilating neighbors is a part of Chinese tradition, why stop now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.150.78 (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

About Origin
I myself is a Manchu, I think many historians think Manchu are formed from Mongol, Korean and Han Chinese, mainly, if any Korean would like to claim us, do that in a proper way, say we are formed from Mongol Korean and Han Chinese (In this order please)Ocikat3 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Ocikat3 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Rty9485 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

About Origin: Koreans, Manchurians, Mongols, Japanese, Asian (Turkish) are related as " Altaic Group". Koreans genetically closer to Mongols, Japanese, Manchurians. Koreans lived in Kando/ Manchuria thousand years before Mongols and Manchurians. Proven fact.

Another proven fact, Korea does not own Manchuria today, China does. Get over it and stop complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Korean culture is long and venerable, but the current nationalist tendency is just tiresome. The basic fallacy in all these propagandistic arguments is that they view only Korean as a distinct ethnicity, to the exclusion of all others.  The fact is: Korean, as a distinct ethnicity, did not really come into being until the era of nationalism in the 19th century.  In the past, much like the Manchu, Korean were quite happy to think of themselves as part of the east Asian people, contiguous with Mongols, Chinese, Siberians, etc.  Yes, ancestors of modern Korean did live in Manchuria, but Gojoseon and Balhae are about as "Korean" as Dal Riata is "American".  Korean nationalists wishes to lay exclusive claim to everything they can trace back to, but the simple truth is that these are histories and ancestries shared by many modern peoples. o (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ma Zhanshan manchu?
I would say he was Hui Muslim. Well, mostly based on his family name.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Inside Asia - 1942 War Edition says hes a muslim, not a manchu.Дунгане (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

useless info in opening paragraph
In the opening paragraph there is "Sonny Darji climbed mt everest!" twice, in between the various versions of Manchu in other languages. Who the hell is Sonny Darji, & what does his climbing mt Everest hsve to do with the Manchu people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

assimilation? genocide?...
What accounts for the rise to 10 million self-identifying Manchus, but less than 100 remaining native speakers? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Assimilation? Yes. Genocide? No. The Manchus chose to integrate themselves into China not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not genocide. Nonetheless, let's not speak as if the Manchu somehow chose to lose their customs. It was not a choice, and much more a grievance. However, much of the process was not even realized, and furthermore, other issues often took precedence. But its not as if they chose it. --Yalens (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While it may not be a very deliberate decision to assimilate, the Manchu most certainly _did_ choose to lose their customs. They chose this by adapting Chinese fashion, lifestyle, literature, and philosphy.  Yes, they didn't set out to lose their own culture, but let's not speak as though the Manchu were not the agent of their own loss of identity.  o (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conquering and ruling an empire kind of leads to an inevitable assimilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't give up what you are and choose to be a han(changed to Chinese names), you would not even get a job in the society after Ching Dynasty collapsed. So it is all about the discrimination.

I know many Manchus Chinanized themselves during Ching Dynasty, but at least saved their family names. However, after Xinhai Revolution, there was a threat and also a possibility that Manchus could be massacred. That is truely why they changed their name in a large number. They did this with a fear, not voluntarily. So, this could be considered as an ethnic persecution and I agree with the viewpoint, "genocide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.134.191 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, China's majority is Han. The Manchus chose to get involved with China and in turn suffered the inevitable fate of assimilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.150.78 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP labelling everyone who comes from Manchuria as manchu
General Ma Zhanshan was a Hui Muslim, not a manchu, as it is source on the article. He was just born in manchuria However, some people are assuming that everyone from manchuria is a manchu person. This is incorrect. This is like saying everyone from Spain is Spanish, even though Basque also live there. Zhang Zuolin's ancestors were also from Zhili region, not from manchuria, yet someone also labeled him as a manchu.

DO NOT label someone from manchuria as a manchu unless you've got a source.Дунгане (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean nationalists are so amusing. It takes nothing short of the most insecure of insecurity complexes to take credit for the achievements of others based on supposedly genetic relations. Let me ask you something, how many Irishmen claim ownership of the British Empire? After all Irish people are even closer genetically and linguistically to their British Brethren than Koreans are to the Mongols and Manchus yet how many Irish people claim "We owned India, Hong Kong, Australia and colonized the America's". None, you want to know why? Because Irish people are not shameless, their pride is real and authentic. They dislike the British more than anyone despite their close links because they too were victims of British imperialism throughout history. It amazes me that Korean nationalists take pride being related to groups that were very antagonistic and brutal to them throughout history. The Mongols and Manchus also invaded and brutalized the Korean peninsula yet certain Korean nationalists like to claim links to them as if it was anything to be proud of.

Perhaps they should learn from the Irish people. Being genetically related means zilch if your genetic brethren were unkind to you for most of history. Taking credit for their triumphs of imperialism is even more amusing when your own people were victims of it. Also Korean nationalists are the ONLY people on earth that fantasize about this greater Altaic label. Do British, Italians, Spaniards and Russians talk about how they are part of a great Indo-European tribe? Do Hindi speaking people in India find affinity with Europeans? Do Vietnamese people claim affinity with the Munda speaking tribes of India? Do Chinese claim relations with Burmese? NO! The only people that have these fantasies are Korean nationalists when ironically they're language is considered isolate and not even part of this greater language family. They are basically trying to gain membership of a fantasized cool club in order to up their reputation. It's no different than a lame high school story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.150.78 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cao Xueqin
I plan on figuring out how to edit the "notable manchus" part of this page, unless someone else does it form me. Cao Xueqin, author of "Dream of the Red Chamber" was a Han Chinese man whose family, though wealthy, were merely slaves of the Manchus. His ethnicity was not in any way Manchu, nor were any of his works written in the Manchu language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.251.86 (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cao Xueqin has a far from simple ethnicity. He could be claimed legitimately as both Han and Manchu. If you read the article at Cao Xueqin it explains his ethnic background. His ancestors were Han, pre-dating Manchu existence as an entity. However, on creation of the Manchu ethnicity, Cao Xueqin's ancensters were incorporated in as Manchu. To quote "Cao belonged to a Han Chinese clan, which later became part of the Plain White Branch (正白旗) of the Manchu Eight Banners. Although forced into slavery (包衣) to Manchu royalty in the late 1610s, his ancestors distinguished themselves through military service and subsequently held posts in officialdom." So Cao Xueqin could be listed as a notable Manchu. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Manchu people → Manchus relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC) – REASONS:
 * First, this article is different from British people, Japanese people and Chinese people. We cannot add "s" after the word British, Japanese and Chinese as plurals. It's pretty much the reason we have to put "people" after that to clarify what the articles are talking about. But the word "Manchu" CAN absolutely be added "s" as its plural just like the article Germans and Mongols.
 * Otherwise, the academic monographs which introduce "Manchu people" are actually a lot more often to use the word "Manchus". For example, the Manchus by Pamela Kyle Crossley,Manchus and Han by Edward J. M. Rhoads, China and the Manchus by Herbert Allen Giles etc. So why not use the name which is more formal, brief and commonly used?
 * Last but not least, let's check out the Wikipedia pages of other Indo-European languages please (Manchuer in Danish Wikipedia, Mandchous in Spanish Wikipedia, Manchú in French Wikipedia, Manciù in Italian Wikipedia, Mantsjoes in Dutch Wikipedia, Manchu in Portuguese Wikipedia and so on). None of them put "people" in their own languages. Then why English Wikipedia HAS TO make the exception???
 * So, no doubt, "Manchus" is obviously a better title of the article.--Šolon (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I think that it is desirable to emphasise that this is about a people. It would need to be The Manchus if changed, but I think WP does not like the definite article in article titles.  I see no reason why categories should not use "manchus", however.
 * Well, I don't think it is necessary to emphasize it this way. For anyone who is well-educated should know Manchus are a certain type of people firstly. Also, there are many disambiguation in Germans and Mongols, too. Why does this article need to be emphasized and why only English Wikipedia?--Šolon (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to move this article to [Manchu People]. Just like the article Germans and Mongols Potatohai (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Although I see no harm with the current title, the proposal is both more concise and is the normal practive at Wikipedia as the nominator pointed out.  —  AjaxSmack   21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I wasn't aware the "norm" was plurals, but was under the impression it was always people, e.g. Arab people, Berber people, Wolof people, Tupi people, etc. rather than "Arabs", "Berbers", "Wolofs" or "Tupis". Nor was I aware that the plural of Manchu was necessarily "Manchus", given the frequent appearance of "the Manchu" itself as plural, e.g. "the Manchu came", "the Manchu invaded", "the Manchu defeated x", etc. Walrasiad (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Machus" is also used to refer to the people of China under the Qing dynasty (last dynasty), where the ruling class were Manchurians. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Looking around, it appears that the unofficial article title policy for ethnic groups is to just use the plural noun (i.e. Germans, Danes, Russians) unless forced to do otherwise by awkward or ambiguous language (i.e. French people, Dutch people, Japanese people). As the former, it seems that the "Manchus" is the more correct title. BlindMic (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia has usually preferenced the form ' people' for article titles. Plural forms can only be applied to some articles, whereas the 'people' form can be applied to all of them. One of our naming criteria is consistency. Further, Italians is a bad example because it was unilaterally changed by an editor without discussion in December last year, who then went on to try to similarly force a change of Spanish people to Spaniards, which was rejected. WP:COMMONNAME, mentioned indirectly in the move request, doesn't apply to descriptive titles which the existing title is. The request also mentions what other Wikipedias do, which is of course an invalid argument as each Wikipedia has its own community with its own policies and rules, and none of them answer to any other. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as per the common namings on Wikipedia (eg: Jutes) --Extra999 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no consistency in this so far as English usage goes, and Wikipedia has other considerations that make us even less consistent, see Scots, Bulgars, Swiss people. So it must be case by case. Manchus is not common English usage. Andrewa (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent blanking
The above was blanked by User:Šolon as shown in this diff with no reason given and by this other diff  with that it was containing "racial slander" (I find that more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason for the most part). First paragraph is restored as it's sufficiently cited by reliable sources, second paragraph I'm willing to say it may be stereotyping (though presented npov) and thus not restored by me, and third paragraph is not sufficiently cited and thus not restored by me. --Cold Season (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph is once again blanked, although it's an incontrovertible and verifiable fact cited to many reliable sources that this custom was reported repeatedly. Disliking it (so far as calling it racial slander) is not an useable arguement for deletion. Since the user has specifically claimed that "these are not part of our culture" (not really giving much distance there, I presume the user ment "Manchu culture") in his edit summary, I'd like to see sources for it and then that info be added too by all means. --Cold Season (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is removed because it is not an important part of Manchu culture which does not afffect Manchu people any longer. Also, it is not difficult at all to find "weird thing" in any culture such as "Chinese eat baby", but other articles of ethnic people never menationed this kind of information, so it is meaningless to emphasize it in Manchu people, either. Also, User:Cold Season is only interested in reverting this part. It simply shows he has problems with Manchus.-Šolon (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Great" facade; "great" ad hominem attacks on my character here and worse on my talkpage. No, I'm interested in reverting unexplained blanking of reliable cited information, which was coincidentally hidden in a cluster of edits and an unrepresentative edit summary. The numerous authors are sound, such as Weston La Barre who is properly reliable for his field in anthropology amongst others, and the publishers are sound. It is a plain and simple info backed up by academic sources, nothing less. You are just pulling the old WP:IDONTLIKEIT card for your deletion. --Cold Season (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologize if you never meant to be a hater. I did not mean to be rude. I just could not understand why you insist to put these information which do not represent the mainstream of Manchu clture and no influence at all nowadays. And I got to make this clear that I am not pulling the WP:IDONTLIKEIT card. The information you revert again and again is also on the "culture" part of the article, fellatio, which I never removed, not even once. Because that's the page it talks about it. It's just like "Foot binding", "Chinese eat baby" are not in the "culture" part of the article of Han Chinese. Even though that is more like a culture. Also, I am not being disruptive to the article. Actually, I did the most of contributions with full of reliable citations of real Manchu study resources. So please try not to misunderstand me first since you are not happy with what I am saying--Šolon (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just found that it was not originally reported by Weston La Barre. He was cited from Social organization of the Manchus: a study of the Manchu clan organization by S. M. Shirokogoroff in 1924. So do other authors. Thus, that's just simply one source from Shirokogoroff. Fortunately, I have the book in both English and Chinese simplified version. If you ever read the book by following the context, you would know Shirokogoroff was talking about the Manchus of Amur river. Moreover, it is not difficult to see from his books that Shirokogoroff's research of Manchus is more based on northern Manchuria which cannot represent all Manchu people. It's just like some Chinese eat babies, but more don't, so it would not be fair to add an "Eat baby" section as important as other real influential culture of Chinese people. Also, according to many articles of ethnic groups, such as Germans and Greeks, the culture parts are always their most influencial ones. Therefore, I do not see a problem to delete the ones which could seriously mislead the readers. And I like to make things clear once again that my deletion is nothing related to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I helped to improve the same information on fellatio with no problem. If I don't like it, I remove it everywhere. Also, my editing is not disruptive. Most of contributions on this page was mine by not only adding informations, also many pictures which I have no reason to disrupt.--Šolon (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Falconry
This is kazakh eagle hunter from western Mongolia. They compactly live in Bayan Olgiy province. Kazakh people are turkic. You must correct it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.64.179 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, look at this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-morgan/kazakh-eagle-hunters-phot_b_1246421.html and this http://www.boojum.com/extras/eaglehunt.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.64.177 (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you show me your proof? I will make the correction if it is true.--Šolon (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. I removed it and won't be added again. Thank you for the reminding.--Šolon (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Quality of Writing in this Article
I am struck by several awkward phrases, subject-verb disagreements, and tense-shift errors throughout this article. It seems to me that its authors lack the firm grasp of the English language that is usually held by native-born English speakers. The information in the article, however, is quite comprehensive. 64.83.186.156 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and copy-edit, provided you don't change the intended meaning of anything. GotR Talk 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, go ahead. You are always welcome to copy-edit. As the main author, I apologize for the inconvenience. Since most of native speakers do not have the ability to read the sources in Chinese and Manchu language which are the most important to Manchu study, there have to be non-native linguistic contributor come to edit. However, words and grammar problems are unavoidable in this situation. Thus, I always like to see native speakers fix my mistakes. That is very helpful to the article.--Šolon (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Three definitions of manchu
There should be included in this article the fluxing of what it meant to be "Manchu", as at several times to be a bannerman (qiren) was synonymous with being manchu and at other times it was not.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA290#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA292#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tgq1miGno-4C&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

History of the early jurchen tribes

http://books.google.com/books?id=_qtgoTIAiKUC&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Maps
User:Bodinmagosson.Why you delete my edits in article manchu people?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bodinmagosson (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Hej, I deleted some of your edits on the "Manchu People" page, because they are incorrect.

Taking Liaoning province as an example:

1 Fengcheng and Beizhen are both administrated under the same policies as the manchu autonomous counties, though they are both titled as "county-level city" rather than "autonomous county". This is not reflected in the picture nor the table.

2 There is a manchu autonomous township called "Lejia" in Pulandian, Dalian, however, this is not reflected by the picture or the table.

3 The picture says there are two towns/townships in Zhuanghe, while the table says there are four. I find only three in google map Taipingling is a manchu autonomous township but is not listed in the table; Taling doesn't seem to be a manchu autonomous township; Gaoling is not found; Guiyunhua and Sanjiashan are there as the table suggested.

4 Why are the islands all coloured white?

5 The "Xibo" people you referred are better called "Sibe". This is my opinion because "Sibe" is the transliteraion of their name in their own language. "Xibo" is how the han chinese call them.

I'm just taking some examples to clarify that the information in the picture and the table is incorrect. More similar deficiencies might be found in the other part of Liaoning province and other provinces like Jilin and Hebei.

In fact, many regions in China are administrated under the ethnic autonomous policies but are not titled as "autonomous XXXX". Therefore, the title "autonomous XXXX" basically reflects nothing valuable. It is unnecessary to seek for the autonomous regions and show them in the pic or the table. That is why I suggest the pic and the table are removed.

Bodinmagosson (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not reason to delete the maps. You can upload new correct version of this maps.--Kaiyr (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)