Talk:Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

China To-do: edit purge Project Maintenance Recruit more members Tag relevant articles Article content New articles Lingnan architecture Unit 1855 Unit 2646 Gao Jin Su Mei Song-Tangut Wars Qiandao Lake Incident Article expansions China Western Development Chinese classical music Chang'an Great Wall of China Heaven worship Sport in China Min Bei Revitalize Northeast China Rise of Central China Plan Sino-African relations Zhang Daqian Islam in China Translations zh:评弹 zh:嶺南 ja:2005年沖縄近海における台湾漁船の抗議行動 zh:功夫茶 zh:孟尝君 ja:孟嘗君 zh:战国四公子 ja:戦国四君 zh:金陵灯会 zh:南水北调工程 Current disputes Falun Gong Portal:Taiwan naming Peer reviews FA candidates Tofu Image Requests Cleanup Siege of Tuyen Quang Battle of Tzeki

Under "Posthumous Names" why does it read: "We don't care". This is hardly NPOV and rather presumptous to boot (who is we? Is the author speaking for all wikipedians? That's what it sounds like.). Wouldn't "No noted name" or something similar be better? --maveric149

Okay I'll change that. I intended to mean the posthumous names were way too tedious thus not worthy to be mentioned. They were also not used when referring to emperors. -- Ktsquare

OK, then how about simply saying "name to lengthy to list" or something similar. --maveric149

What you said is better. :) --maveric149

---

• The table didn't look good on my browser, so I inserted some <br>s in the entries; I hope it is an improvement for other readers too.
• I also turned "too tedious..." and "did not exist" entries into numbered table footnotes.
• I changed "too tedious" to "quite long". (While "too tedious" is probably more accurate, when I first saw this page I had the same reaction as maveric149, and presumably many other readers will feel the same.)
• I added "(second)" in header line to warn reader that there is more than one "Jin Dynasty". Jorge Stolfi 03:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 korean invasion 2 Kaifeng as the Jin capital, 1157 or 1214? 3 Jin and Silla 4 欽定 滿洲源流考 5 Straw Poll 5.1 Discussion 6 Sucker Punch!

[edit] korean invasion

im trying to figure out when the koreans successfully invaded china. jin sounds like a korean name to me because its the same as kim.

I'll answer the question. Koreans of Goryo dynasty (918 - 1392) didn't invade China. At most they recaptured some territory near nothern border several times, and tried to occupy Liaodong(Liaotung) peninsula in the last period(1388). Dynasties which invaded China after unified song dynasty established were Liao (907 - 1125), Jin (1115 - 1234), and Yuan(1271 - 1368). But there might be relationship between royal families of Shilla (57 BCE - 935) and Jin (1115 - 1234). According to History of Jin (金史), one of 24 histories,

The first ancestor of Jin, whose name was 函普, came from Korea, when he was more than 60. His elder brother, 阿古 liked buddhism, and wanted to stay in Korea, and said "Our descendants may meet together in the future.", so only younger brother, 保活里 followed him. ... (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, 曰: "後世子孫必有能相聚者, 吾不能去也." 獨與弟保活里俱.)

The royal family name of Shilla(新羅) is Kim(金) and that of Jin(金) is Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅), and you can find Shilla(新羅) at the second and fourth letter of Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅). I know Aisin means gold(金) in Manchu language, but if they had had no relationship they would have used different letters to represent their family name not to be confused with Shilla. --- there are lots of alternatives to represent it --- And the meaning of Aisin Gioro(愛新覺羅) literally may be "Love and perceive(remind) Shilla". So 函普 might be one of the royal family members of Shilla dynasty, who could not stay in Goryo dynasty and moved to Manchuria after Shilla collapsed, and that might be why his elder brother became a buddhist priest.

So Kim and Jin's similarity is not related to invasion at all. --J.H. Yeom 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like something a nationalistic school teacher would tell his students to justify some terriotirial claims. While it may very well be the case that the Manchus had close relationship with the Koreans, the interpretation of the name Aisin Gioro is a bit farfetched. The sentence "...if they had no relationship they would have used different letters..." is asking the reader to prove the negative. Please quote a source! --Niohe 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm too late. I do not mean and claim close relationship between Manchus and Koreans. I don't know about it. But what I just said was about close relationship between royal families, nothing else. And I am sorry I don't have any source about that. I didn't even write an article. What I meant was Kim and Jin similarity is, AT MOST, close relationship between royal families but not related to invasion. --J.H. Yeom 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Aisin Gioro (Manchu: ) which is transliterated into as 愛新覺羅 (àixīn juéluó) is a Chinese transliteration, nothing more than that. "Gioro" is a clan name and "Aisin" means "gold". You have to be really reading these characters out of context in order to get "love Silla" since 愛新覺羅 is only a transliteration. The name "Aisin Gioro" did not come about 1616 when Nurhaci proclaimed himself khan of the Later Jin Dynasty, that is when he added "aisin" to his original clan name of "Gioro". Abstrakt 15:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaifeng as the Jin capital, 1157 or 1214?

I've come across two websites ([1], [2]) which say Jin Emperor Wanyan Liang moved the "southern" capital from Beijing to Kaifeng in 1157. However, later in the article, it is said the Jin capital was moved to Kaifeng in 1214. This bit of info only has one website with corroborating info ([3]). Now I'm not saying this didn't happen, it's just I've never seen this mentioned on any other site. A lot can happen in 57 years! If both times are going to co-exist on the same article, then the time between 1157 and 1214, when the capital was moved from Kaifeng to wherever, needs to be addressed. Right now both seem like conflicting views. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

I figured out what the problem was:

"Genghis Khan first led the Mongols into Xi Xia territory in 1205 and ravaged them four years later. In 1211 about 50,000 Mongols on horses invaded the Jin empire and began absorbing Khitan and Jurchen rebels. The Jin army had a half million men with 150,000 cavalry but abandoned the western capital. The next year the Mongols went north and looted the Jin eastern capital, and in 1213 they besieged the central capital. The next year the Jin made a humiliating treaty but retained the capital. That summer Emperor Jin Xuanzong (r. 1213-24) abandoned the central capital and moved the government to the southern capital."[4]

This means that after the Mongols sacked the Jin's Western, Eastern, and Northern capitals (in order), they finally brought their central government to Kaifeng, the "southern" capital. End of story.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jin and Silla

I find the remarks on supposedly Korean origins of the Jin dynasty wide of the mark. First, the claims about the similarity between Aisin Gioro and Silla sound extremely speculative. Second, strictly speaking, Nurhaci was not the founder of the Qing, but of the later Jin. One of his sons, later changed the name of the dynasty to Qing and created the name Manchu. Third, what is ethnic homogeneity between Manchus and Koreans supposed to mean? They don't even speak the same language.

In sum, these claims like they were taken from the works of Sin Chae'ho, who wanted to claim Manchuria for Korea. If no credible source is quoted, I suggest that this paragraph be deleted.--Niohe 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard of the correlation between Korean and Manchus. However, I feel the aforementioned info needs a serious rewrite with some sourly needed citations. It seems the original author “assumes” more than s/he can proove with citations. I didn't initiate the Jin Dynasty page, but I can proudly say I've rewritten or drastically expanded the article by at least 60%. What's funny is that I mention in the bottom of the article, just as you said, that Nurhaci founded the Latter Jin and that his 8th son and heir renamed the entire tribe and Dynasty later. I can see how that is confusing because wikipedia's article on the Manchus even states:

"The name Manchu was formally adopted by Nurhaci of the Jianzhou Jurchens in 1635, though it may have been in use as early as 1605."

(This can't be since he died in 1626. And in a later sentence it says his son later adopted the name. So they are both conflicting views. The "origins" part of that page needs to be rewritten as well!)

I personally don't think the paragraph should be deleted, but moved to the Jurchen page. The reason I say this is that this article is about their Dynasty and not the tribe itself. The "Korean" info describes the possible origins of the Jurchen tribe, so it should be there. I feel that every area of Jurchen history should be covered. If the original author can provide a credible source for the info, and if this contrary view is widely enough known, then a "controversy" section should be made to show this. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Though straw poll had already ended, I add one more to against. Simply, citation does not imply his/her conclution at all. So I don't need to think about that anymore. It should be deleted.

[edit] 欽定 滿洲源流考

OK. I have read the text and I do not agree that it constitutes sufficient proof for your thesis that Jurchen and Koreans are basically the same. Moreover, this text was written almost seven hundred years after the Jin fall and should be taken with great caution. Finally, we are not supposed to engage in our own research here and making our interpretation of primary sources, Wikipedia is not the venue to advance original research. Please quote a respectable secondary source which supports your argument, otherwise you will have to accept that we will delete your edits. I added a reference to a work of one reputable scholar in the field of Jin history, and it seems that you have deleted that. Please refrain from such behavior. --Niohe 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

Well, its been about two weeks and I think we have a consensus that the info (which hasn't been on the page for a while) doesn't belong, so I'm officialy ENDING the straw poll. Now if I could just get this guy to stop posting this stuff on the "China History Forum" site!!! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm tired of Breathejustice, under the guises of 67.38.247.32 and 69.210.209.211, reverting and re-reverting this page and the Jurchen page. So I'm taking the first step towards arbitration. This step is known as a straw poll. I will be placing this poll on the Current surveys page. After a week or two, if not resolved, I will request mediation.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Should the following paragraph be allowed to stay on this page?

"However, Jin dynasty's history books, which was published under the Yuan dynasty, records that Aguda’s ancestor had originally come from Goryeo that is an ancient Korean dynasty (BC 57∼AD 935). The history book records that“金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十余矣。兄阿古乃好佛，留高麗不肯從." ^[1], which is translated that "The name of Qing dynasty founder was Hambo. When he came from Goryeo, he was about 60 years older or more. His brother, Agonae liked Buddhism, and didn't follow Hambo. But he stayed in Goryeo." Especially, the history book written at Qing dynasty named with 欽定滿洲源流考 records that the founder of Jin(金) is originally the same family with the Kim who are the Royal family of Silla^[2]. There are many historical texts testifying the ethnical homogeneity between Korean and Jurchen, one of the most powerful expansionist in East Asian history."

THIS POLL HAS ENDED!

• FOR

----

• AGAINST

1. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)) - Even though the paragraph is cited, it has incorrect info. This "Hambo" never founded the Qing or Jin Dynasties. Plus it overshadows the subject of the article: the "History" of the Jin Dyansty, not the Jurchen people.
2. Niohe 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC) - I have made my point of view clear elsewhere.
3. Godardesque 15:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) - These contents added by Breathejustice are inaccurate, nationalistic, un-encyclopedia like and very badly written, I don't even think a poll is necessary for this.
4. Abstrakt 17:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Strongly against The content that has been repeatedly inserted and reinserted by Breathejustice and his sock puppets is nothing more than ultra-nationalistic drivel that is nowhere close to being accurate and has no encyclopedic value at all.
5. Sumple (Talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC). I (assuming good faith) think that User:Breathejustice is perhaps being misled as to the authenticity or reliability of his sources.
6. UberCryxic 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) - This user should not be allowed to ruin Wikipedia based on his personal historical tastes.

Thanks to everyone who voted.

• UNDECIDED

----

[edit] Discussion

Breathejustice feels the info should stay to tell the origins of the Jin's founder. But the info is wrong. Unless this "Hambo" is Wanyan Aguda it needs to go. It would be like me writing a huge "incorrect" paragraph about the Chinese people on EVERY SINGLE Chinese dynasty page. Too much repeated info! If a person wants to read about Wanyan Aguda in depth, they can click on the thread. I concede that the opening sentence mentioning his name could be expanded, but not so much that it would overshadow this article just like the above paragraph does.

However, I feel the info should stay on the Jurchen page. The reason I say this, despite it being wrong, it shows a "possible origin" of the Jurchen. Since it is not widely accepted by the academic community, it should be put under the heading "Origin Controversy". Or since it is wrong, it could be used to show a line of thought that goes against the widely accepted view.

Besides, the english grammar is horrible (please forgive me for any grammatical mistakes!). If it stays, it needs a huge rewrite! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 05:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't think English is Breathejustice's or his sock puppets' (User:69.210.209.211, User:68.250.52.50, User:68.252.34.42, and 68.252.33.163) first language. I think we already know that from the Manchuria discussion page.--Godardesque 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I informed Breathejustice of this poll and s/he has yet to respond. I think they realize their info is wrong.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

THIS POLL HAS ENDED!

[edit] Sucker Punch!

Did anyone notice how Breathjustice (under a sock puppet) put that Korean info back in the article as soon as I ended the straw poll survey? Now that the article is protected from "anonymous users", any changes he makes have to be under his real account. I don't think he is ever going to learn. The Info is not cited, nor is it accepted at all. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC))