Talk:Manchukuo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why is the article so negative on the Manchus--don't they have the right to be free? So Japan manipulated them--so what? Was it the first 20th century artificial creation (just think of all those Czechoslovakias & Yugoslavias)? The article should include more data about the number of Non-Han in 1932, to provide some HARD DATA (instead of Chinese nationalist propaganda), so readers can see if Manchukuo had an ethnic basis--even if Japan manipulated it.

I think it's because this article is written by Mainland CHinese, and as NPOV as they try to be, the brainwashing effects of official Chinese history textbooks is too strong to let these authors write it in a totally NPOV. Besides, Japanese lost WW2, so anything they did is necessarily evil. Let me ask you, could an article about Hitler truly be written in the NPOV sense without the use of words like "Evil" or "Satanic", (particularly if it's the German wikipedian entry regarding him?) 70.50.238.47 20:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting how you say that the Manchus "have a right to be free". Is being used by foreigners as an excuse to invade your idea of "freedom"? By your logic, if Islamic fundamentalists defeated the Western countries, set up an "Independent State of Native Hawaiians" in Hawaii, and controlled it as a puppet state, then the natives Hawaiians would now be "free"? What about the whites, Asians, and other inhabitants of Hawaii? How do they factor into your equation? What about the Hawaiians themselves -- how tragic would it be for their self-identity to be tainted and polluted in this way by foreign occupiers?
The article isn't remotely negative about the Manchus. Manchus and Han Chinese alike suffered under the yoke of Japanese military occupation, and Manchukuo was an instrument of that occupation. -- ran (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
What you said is what you learned from the Chinese brain-washing propaganda textbooks which are full of lies. --Manchurian Tiger 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Vraiment! Even Nazi officials were complaining about Japanese treatment. Mind you, my Chinese isn't that strong either, and I learn mostly in English - but then I need to point out the current Japanese textbooks have some major whitewashing as well. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

Administrative Divisions

Does anyone have information on the historical administrative divisions used in Manchukuo?--Yuje 17:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a list at the Chinese version. --Menchi 17:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A former nation

Manchukuo is a former nation. It is just a fact. No matter like it or not, you can't change history. If you can't give the evidence that Manchukuo never existed, keep your hand off from sabotaing other's work. --Manchurian Tiger 18:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Manchurian Tiger: Your writing is not NPOV at all. By first describing Manchukuo as an independent country, then saying that "some people" feel that it was a puppet state, you are implying that the issue is controversial, without actually giving any reasons. That is poor NPOV writing, because it slants the writing in your favour with no justification at all.
If you want to write in this way, you must:
  1. Say who thinks Manchukuo was a puppet state, and why;
  2. Say who thinks Manchukuo was not a puppet state, and why;
  3. Say what the consensus is, and why.
Also note that "nation" is a very POV term to use with Manchukuo. In the article Nation, nation is described as the starting point of nationalism, a focal point of national identity, etc. Such a loaded term is inappropriate when you want to describe a regime that most Chinese people today (including most Manchurians) would consider as a puppet state set up by foreign invaders. A more neutral term for "guojia" in English is "state".
I know that you have great pride in Manchuria. But Manchukuo is not Manchuria. Similarly, a German can love Germany without loving Nazi Germany. Germany is a nation; Nazi Germany was a state.
-- ran (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nazi Germany was not even a state, but a government, a régime.. a period of a state. Meanwhile I'm interested to know if "Manchurians" specifically refers to Manchus, or all inhabitants of Manchuria. At the time of Manchukuo the majority of the population in Manchuria was Hans instead of Manchus. — Instantnood 19:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Manchurians include Manchus and other native Tungus peoples, Han, Koreans, Janpanese, Russians, Mogols, and whoever call Manchuria their homwland, pretty much like Americans.--Manchurian Tiger 01:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ran: Many people in Manchuria don't not hold the total negative views you are trying to promote here regarding Manchukuo. Calling it a "puppet state" is pretty much a propaganda machine products during the war. Now the war was way over, it's time to give some truth back to history. I didn't delete your "puppet state" claim, so please don't delete my line "is a former nation." which is a very matter-of-fact plain statement without any bias. You represent those very intolerant minds toward things you so dislike that even a very nuetral statement of fact will bother you.--Manchurian Tiger 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nation is not a neutral term at all. Also, you are introducing weasel terms into the article without justification. It is obvious that you have not read my comments or responded to my concerns. So instead of reverting again and again and being difficult in general, why don't you actually read the conversation in the talk page?
Let me reiterate: Nation在英文里不只是“国家”的意思，而是一个带有褒义含义的词语，有民族自决、民族自主、民族认同感的含义。（Nation一文中另有详解。）就算你认为满洲是一个“nation”，就算我同意并支持你对满洲nation的认同，你也不能把满洲国不加解释地就形容成一个“nation”。你可以把满洲国形容成state，因为state一词很中立，指的是客观存在的行使独立国家政府职责的政权，大陆的中华人民共和国、台湾的中华民国、二战时期的满洲国等都毫无争议地是state。但是nation就不中立了，nation带有民族认同感的含义：既然有人认为满洲国是傀儡国，那么就算他们是满洲nation最忠实的支持者，他们又怎么可能认为日本所扶持的满洲国政权是一个自决、自主的、代表满洲nation的利益、值得满洲人民认同的国家呢？所以Nation和puppet state是互相矛盾的概念，你不能用中立的口气把满洲国形容成nation，然后又用旁观者清的口吻说“某些人认为满洲国是傀儡国”，连“某些人”是谁都没有解释，这是很不中立的。
你可以到People's Republic of China和Republic of China，甚至China跟Taiwan这四篇文章去看一看，这几篇文章都刻意避免不加解释地使用nation一词，用到的时候都要多加解释一番nation的含义和各方的说法。既然中华人民共和国、中华民国、五千年中华和美丽岛台湾都如此，你又为什么偏要把Manchukuo说成是nation呢？-- ran (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with either your definition of "nation" or your negative views regarding Manchukuo, I'm gonna compromise to settle our debate as decent Wiki users: I will replace it with a 100% neutral word "country" as in some other sources. I don't look at the Chinese sources as my only references because I understand that one has to open up his mind to all other ideas. Furthermore, the Wikipedia is not a forum only reserved for your Chiense views. However, I tolerate your views and hate to kick them out as you did to my lines. Thank you. --Manchurian Tiger 03:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
No one said that Wikipedia is for "Chinese views" only. Would you like to look at some of my contributions to articles like Xinjiang and Tibet and judge if I contributed "only" Chinese views? I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and have constantly striven for NPOV, balanced writing. This is also why I remove biased, unjustified contributions whenenver I can. -- ran (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Please use English here.--Manchurian Tiger 19:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
没办法啊，我都用英文写过了一遍，你却像完全没看似的，我不知道你到底是没看还是看不明白，尽管我中文写作没有英文顺畅，最终只好用中文再讲一遍了。But if any English-speaker desires a translation, I'd be very happy to provide one. -- ran (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Population

Obviously the numbers refer to Chinese citizens (or former Chinese citizens), not to Han Chinese. Could someone find and add the number of non-Han ex-Chinese citizens, so one gets an idea how large the non-Han local people were?

Here's a link: [1]
It's in Chinese, but the author is given as 山根幸夫, a Japanese name. I suppose we can assume that it was written in Japanese and translated into Chinese.
It says:
当时在东北居住的民族有汉、满、蒙古、朝鲜、白俄及日本人。但大部分是汉族，占总人口的九层。东北的原住民满族不足一百万，而且绝大多数已不懂自己的母语棗满语，几乎已被汉族同化。
"At the time, ethnicities living in Manchuria included Han Chinese, Manchus, Mongols, Koreans, Russians and Japanese. Most were Han Chinese, who were 90% of the population. The original inhabitants, Manchus, had a population of less than one million, and most did not understand their mother tongue, Manchu; they had nearly been assimilated by the Han Chinese."
Here's another one: [2]
This one is in Japanese. It says:
満州事変当時の「満州」地域の人口は約3千万人と言われていました。しかしその9割、約2千7百万人は漢民族で、満州族は約2百万人に過ぎませんでした。
My Japanese isn't that great, but I can roughly translate it to:
"At the time of the Mukden Incident, Manchuria was said to have a population of about 30 million. 90%, or 27 million were Han Chinese, while Manchus numbered less than 2 million."
-- ran (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know Manchuria has been inhabited by Hans and other non-Manchu groups before the foundation of Later Jin (later renamed Qing). When Later Jin was established Manchus weren't the majority. — Instantnood 08:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Later Jin is Jurchen, 後金 exist at the same time of Song China and Kublai Khan Mongols, Qing is Qing, although also a Jurchen state (Manchurian), but was establish after China was occupied by the Jurchen people (Manchurian) after the Ming and Shun falled. Because of the intense historical hatred of the Han Chinese to the Jin, they rename it to Qing, which sound about the same but using different Chinese Character.
Anyway, the news say that wikipedia change the rule so that you have to login before editing pages. How come I can do this now? Look at this CNN report:-
24.238.68.106 - the article you quote states, "Wikipedia will now require users to register before they can create articles, Jimmy Wales, founder of the St. Petersburg, Florida-based Web site, said Monday. People who modify existing articles will still be able to do so without registering." (My emphasis) Monkey Tennis 11:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Feelings

What were the thoughts and feelings of the Manchus on the occupation? Did they believe this was good for their country? Did they resent the invasion? Furthermore, do they thank the Japanese for the rapid development, or hate them? I'd really like to see this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dikastis (talk • contribs).

They weren't the ones who benefitted from "rapid development". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Royal Emblem

Shouldn't it be Imperial Emblem since Manchukuo had an emperor? Or is this some grotesque permutation of the old Chinese "Only One Emperor Allowed" theory? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It should be Imperial Emblem.--Manchurian Tiger 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

to Dong Bei

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

Puppet state twice in intro?

The lead is currently grammatically awkward and biased. To say that it "was a former" [my emphasis] anything is to be redundant. To declare it a "puppet state" when in the very same paragraph it is mentioned that this is the view of "successive Chinese governments and their allies" is to violate WP:NPOV in that it presents only one view of the subject as fact. Will Natalinasmpf please justify these changes? 141.153.114.88 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous IP address, 70.96.188.35 (talk • contribs) has once again inappropriately removed the descriptions "former puppet state" from the article. The lead is not biased, it is a fact that Manchukuo doesn't exist anymore so "former" is an appropriate description. The lead does not violate NPOV, as Manchukuo is widely regarded by many to be a puppet state. RevolverOcelotX
The phrase "is widely regarded" consists of weasel words; those who regard Manchukuo as a puppet state are named; therefore, the inclusion is not only non-NPOV but makes the intro redundant. This was explained before you even decided to say anything and yet, unfailingly, you do not account for it. Neither do you account for the redundancy of saying "was a former", and merely repeat discredited assertions. Is Natalinasmpf going to reply here or simply rely on ROX's non-starters? 72.65.80.217 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of "Chinese governments" is POV. Both the PRC and ROC considers Manchukuo as a puppet state. The words "former" is only mentioned once in the paragraph and it is appropriate to describe it as such. RevolverOcelotX
There is nothing wrong with saying "former", there is something wrong with saying "was a former". That is redundant and bad phrasing. Furthermore, there is nothing "POV" about linking to the ROC, which was the entity which fought Japan. Chinese government is a mere disambiguation page and is inadequate in informing the reader as to who opposed Manchukuo and Imperial Japan. 151.205.37.254 00:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Then stop deleting the description "former" in your version. Both the ROC and the PRC fought Japan and today both the ROC and PRC regard Manchukuo as a puppet state. RevolverOcelotX
If you want the word "former", you need to include it in a way which is linguistically and functionally appropriate. As for your other remark, the PRC was not even in existence during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The PRC's view can be stated in a way without linking to a disambiguation page with no information as to what the government at the time was, i.e. the one most directly relevant. 151.205.37.254 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The edits are simply ridiculous. First, yes, PRC did not exist, but it's founders, the CPC, did. Second, to say that its allies during the Second Sino-Japanese War regarded it as a puppet state, while not saying most historians regarded it as a puppet state, is, again, nonsensical, as the Second Sino-Japanese War is regarded as part of World War II, which means most of the countries in the world are "allies" with ROC and CPC, anyways. Third, Manchukuo is OBVIOUSLY a puppet state. The emperor held no power, and was controlled by the Japanese government: See Politics of Manchukuo. Herunar 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the paragraph saying it being a puppet state and added few lines about it in the first paragraph - A whole paragraph about it in the introduction is too long, and also changed the wordings into being regarded by most as a puppet state - Any sensible objective person who has read about the politics of Manchukuo will know that. Herunar 05:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Also see: Puppet_state#Imperial_Japan As most references to Manchukuo 100% agreed that it is a puppet state, at least, I think, we should say MOST people regarded it as a puppet state, in the main article. Herunar 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Talk%7EManchukuo_Archive_1_ef00.html"