Talk:Jin dynasty (1115–1234)

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Just a notice if people try bringing up this garbage in the future- the Wanyan Imperial family of the Jin and the Aisin Gioro family of the Qing are not related at all. Aisin Gioro has an entirely separate origin story and claim to be descended from a virgin who was fed a red fruit by a magpie, ans gave birth to Bukuri Yangson, the founder of Aisin Gioro. They never claimed to be relatives of the Wanyan and in fact there was an entirely separate Manchu Wanyan who claimed to be descendants of the Jin Wanyan. The fact that you are claiming that Aisin Gioro is descended from Hanpu (the founder of Wanyan) shows that you studied zero about the history of the region and are only trying to push a nationalist narrative. Also just because Hanpu was born in Goryeo territory does not make him Korean. There were ethnic Jurchens living in northern Korea at the time.Rajmaan (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised that no one is making a claim, that based on the meaning of surnames, that these people were descended from a lost tribe of Israel; the surname "Gold", as in "Goldstein", "Goldberg", could also be Jewish!!! 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is LEGAL historic record that Hambo came from Korea. It is written in the book "the history of Jin". This book is one of the Chinese history textbooks supported by the current Chinese government.

If wikipedia doesn't include this information, it is clearly biased policy hiding the important record. No matter what you believe it or not, anyway people can read the history book, and people will find Wikipedia is biased hiding information.

Now, those history books are online, you can read it directly. Followings are the links

in Chapter 7, of "the origin of Manchu(滿洲源流考)", publish by Qing government in 1777:

新罗王金姓则金之逺派

"The name of Jin(金) was originated from the surname of King of Silla(新羅, Korea) "

You can read this book in the website: http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%BB%BF%E6%B4%B2%E6%BA%90%E6%B5%81%E8%80%83

in Chapter 7, of "the origin of Manchu(滿洲源流考)", publish by Qing government in 1777:

金之始祖讳哈富(旧作函普)初从髙丽来

"The founder of Jin(金) was not interested in making money, and He(whose name is hampu(函普)) came from Korea (髙丽)"

You can read this book in the website: http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%BB%BF%E6%B4%B2%E6%BA%90%E6%B5%81%E8%80%83

in the second paragraph , 1st chapter of the history of Jin(金史):

金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十餘矣

"The name of the founder of Jin(金) is Hampu(函普). He came from Korea(高麗). His age was 60"

You can read this book in the website: http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E5%8F%B2/%E5%8D%B71

But all this shows is that "Korean" people of the time used Chinese writing to make their names. Does this then make them one of the Chinese peoples? 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

imao your all claiming the manchu royal family was korean because they somehow took control of china. the name of the chinese characters for aisin gioro are a "transliteration", not a translation, so your entire theory about the jin dynasty being korean, and koreans invading china is what it is. a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.151.117 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

And how is possible that Aisin Gioro is Chinese? Isn't this clan is Jurchen tribe? Which is now officially dead clan. And he was born is now parts of North Korea. If your Chinese theory of deducting someones history being Chinese just because of territory is under China, then Nurhaci must be Korean origin then. Nurhaci's home town is now located in North Korea.

WRONG. i never said he was chinese, plus show me your source that hes located in north korea? the aisin gioro clan is still living, and sign your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.244.229 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

and show me where, korean, did i claim aisin gioro was chinese fool? wikipedia is not a place for korean fantasies on how they conquered china. and show me where did i say someones history is chinese because territory is within china? your manufacturing claims.

the point is not the origin of the race, or where they are born,or that sort of shit, but the whole dynasty and the ppl in it(including emporers) are all obeying the chinese culture,speaking chinese, writing chinese, using chinses systems and call/consider/believing themselves students of confucianism and chinese ancestors,etc. Just like the Yuan dynasty and the Qing dynasty(in which many Han are also officials doing things in 100% chinese way). KonW (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

chinese han dynasty succesfull invaded korea and there is solid evidence for that. there is not evidence for a korean invasion of china, other than fantisies cooked up in your minds.

(Suppressed soapboxing by soapboxer)

(Suppressed soapboxing by soapboxer)

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)Reply

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)Reply

Look, there was no "Korea" back then. They were east Asian peoples speaking different languages. 86.145.35.138 (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've come across two websites ([2], [3]) 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 ([4]). 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))Reply

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."[5]

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))Reply

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)Reply

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))Reply

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.

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)Reply

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))Reply

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."

Here's what the entire section of the Book of Jin says.

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

Translated:

"The Mohe are the ancestors of the Jin. the Mohe were called Wuji, the Wuji lived on the land of the Sushen people. There are seven Wuji tribes: Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie, Haoshi, Heishui, Baishan.

During the early Tang dynasty, the Sumo Mohe was a vassal of Koguryo and surnamed 'Da'.

Tang destroyed Koguryo, and the Sumo Mohe retreated to the to eastern mountains and estabilishes the state of Bohai, calling itself king and has writing, music, established five capitals, five governments, sixteen provinces.

The Heishui (Blackwater) Mohe were also vassals of Koguryo and sent 150,000 troops to aid Koguryo against the Tang, but they were defeated at Anshi.

During the Five dynasties period the Khitans destroyed Bohai, and the Heishui Mohe became a vassals of the Khitans. The southern ones became citizens of Liao [the Khitan state] and were known as "cooked" [meaning assimilated] Jurchen, while the northern ones were not citizens of Liao and thus were called "raw" [unassimilated] Jurchens.

The "raw" Jurchen lived between the Heilongjiang River and Changbai Mountains, and so were called 'white mountain, black water.'

The ancestor of Jin, Hanpu 60 years old came from Koryo. His older brother Agunai was interested in Buddhism and thus did not come with him and remained in Koryo.

Their decendants were Shitumen and Digunai. When Taizhu [Wanyan Aguda] defeated Liao, Wodaci proclaimed to Bohai people "Bohai, Jurchen were originally one family" both were from seven tribes of Wuji."

I think when the entire passage is quoted, it's pretty clear that he took the passage out of context. It gives a clear ethnic history for the Jurchens, which he doesn't mention. It also doesn't state his ethnicity. Hanpu sounds possibly like a Buddhist name. Agunai, the name of his brother, however, is clearly not a Korean name.--Yuje 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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.Reply
2. Niohe 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC) - I have made my point of view clear elsewhere.Reply
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.Reply
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.Reply
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.Reply
6. UberCryxic 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) - This user should not be allowed to ruin Wikipedia based on his personal historical tastes.Reply

Thanks to everyone who voted.

• UNDECIDED

----

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))Reply

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)Reply

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))Reply

THIS POLL HAS ENDED!

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))Reply

The article should be renamed as Jin Dynasty (1115–1234). The beginning and ending years should be put into brackets for disambiguation. The current form, Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234, is not correct. --Neo-Jay 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concur. --Nlu (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I support the change as well. --Ghostexorcist 17:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given that there is no opposition, I'll go ahead and move it. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. But please notice the difference between hyphen (-) and dash (–). Here dash, not hyphen, should be used. --Neo-Jay 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. The thread should be moved.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

they constitue soapboxing, which is against wiki rules, so there is no legitimate excuse on my deletion of their comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.151.117 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

"" From the last poll and information from the historical records of the "Book of Ji"n have already shown that the rulers from Jin Dynasty are NOT from Korea and WILL NOT BE MENTIONED that Jin Dynasty rulers are from korea in this page. Recent vandalism by some users are unjustified and unethical.

I propose a lock for this page from vandalism.

Whoever wrote the previous message: hi! Instead of locking the page because of "Korean nationalist claims," I propose to change the translations in the section called The controversy of the Jin's royal family and insert some scholarly references. The current translations are completely ludicrous. For one thing, the third passage claims the opposite of what the translations says! Let me try to make a few changes that will at least reflect what the quoted passages say. --Madalibi (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here are my new translations.

Original A: 金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十餘矣 (Jinshi 金史, ch. 1)

• Old translation: "The name of the first man of the Jin(金)'s royal family is Hampu(函普). when he came from Goryeo(高麗), his age was 60."
• New translation: "The name of the primal ancestor of the Jin was Hanpu; when he came from Goryeo, he was already sixty years of age."

Original B: 金之始祖讳哈富(旧作函普)初从髙丽来 (Manzhou yuanliu kao 满洲源流考, ch. 7)

• Old: The founder of Jin(金) was not interested in making money [?!], so he(whose name is hampu 函普) came out from Goryeo(髙丽).
• New: "The primal ancestor of the Jin, whose name was Hafu (formerly written 'Hanpu'), originally came from Goryeo."

Original C: 新罗王金姓则金之逺派 (Manzhou yuanliu kao 满洲源流考, ch. 7)

• Old: "The name of Jin(金) was originated from the surname of Kings of Silla(新羅)"
• New: "The surname 'Jin' [金, pronounced 'Kim' in Korean] of the Kings of Silla is a distant branch of the Jin (金) [dynasty]."

The third passage seems entirely irrelevant to the issue of the origin of the Wanyan clan, since it simply claims that the Silla Kim family was distantly descended from the Jin imperial clan. (Pai 派 literally means "branch of a river," but it was used in genealogical language to refer to descendants, not just blood relations.) Manzhou yuanliu kao is actually not a reliable source for the history of the Manchus (See Pamela Crossley, "Manzhou yuanliu kao and the Formalization of the Manchu Heritage, Journal of Asian Studies 46.4 [1987]: 761-790), let alone the Jin, so I propose to leave it out of the discussion.

Now I think the Jinshi story deserves discussion, both because it makes a claim about the origin of the Wanyan clan, and because it has been discussed in the scholarly literature. I tried to compose a fair paragraph concerning the relevant passage. Feedback welcome! --Madalibi (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moved these information to the the Hanpu article as the paragraph tagged on breaks the overall structure of this article. These information is perhaps more relevant to the other article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know there was already a wiki on Hanpu! (Though I should have checked...) The move seems like the best solution, and it adds references to that badly written and unreferenced article. Thank you, Madalibi (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Korean nationalists like the dickheads on this page make me glad China is feeding the Kim regime. Keep killing your population, KJI! You're doing a wonderful job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.247.154 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The logic of these Korean nationalists here so utterly absurd, it's laughable. According to Korean logic, Koreans are related to the Jurchens and Manchu, therefore they can claim conquest of China. Really? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Koreans and Japanese also genetically related? Most scholars agree that they are. So according to their logic, Japan never annexed or attacked Korea. The Japanese annexation of Korea from 1910-1945 was nothing more than Koreans colonizing and attempting cultural genocide against themselves. Nintendo, Sony, Toyota, Honda and Nissan are all Korean companies. The Imjin Wars (Japanese invasion of Korea under Hideyoshi) was just a prolonged Korean civil war. Why not? After all, Koreans being related to the Japanese means they are one in the same according to Korean nationalist logic. Modern day Hindi speakers in India are linguistically related to Europeans today and probably trace the same ancestry thousands of years ago, do you hear any Indians today claiming/taking credit for European colonialism or the Rise of the Western civilizations?

Intermarriage and sinicization was common during the later period of the Jin dynasty

http://books.google.com/books?id=9GGR3V4zJzwC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nCIPD1V39QkC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2EtCTP7v8K0C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

https://books.google.com/books?id=YukVl8fUr48C&pg=PA138f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false

Pre-Modern East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political ... - Page 138 https://books.google.com/books?id=BZ8WAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1285546237 Patricia Ebrey, ‎Anne Walthall - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions In 1191 an emperor even outlawed referring to the Jurchens as “border people,” a relatively polite Chinese term, seeing no reason that their country should not be viewed as the Central Kingdom (the common Chinese term for China). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, ... - Page 138 https://books.google.com/books?id=CWE8AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1111808155 Patricia Buckley Ebrey, ‎Anne Walthall, ‎James B. Palais - Preview In 1191 an emperor even outlawed referring to the Jurchens as “border people,” a relatively polite Chinese term, seeing no reason that their country should not be viewed as the Central Kingdom (the common Chinese term for China). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, ... - Page 138 https://books.google.com/books?id=sV48AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1111808147 Patricia Buckley Ebrey - Preview In 1191 an emperor even outlawed referring to the Jurchens as “border people,” a relatively polite Chinese term, seeing no reason that their country should not be viewed as the Central Kingdom (the common Chinese term for China). East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History - Page 138 https://books.google.com/books?id=QfkWAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1285528670 Patricia Ebrey, ‎Anne Walthall - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions In 1191 an emperor even outlawed referring to the Jurchens as “border people,” a relatively polite Chinese term, seeing no reason that their country should not be viewed as the Central Kingdom (the common Chinese term for China). China: A Cultural, Social, and Political History - Page 127 https://books.google.com/books?id=L9gvAQAAIAAJ&q=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&dq=border+people+relatively+polite+no+reason+central+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA

https://books.google.com/books?id=L9gvAQAAIAAJ Patricia Buckley Ebrey - 2006 - ‎Snippet view https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Patricia+Buckley+Ebrey%22&sa=X&ei=2_1gVbiODMGYyASsioC4BA&ved=0CDoQ9AgwBA In 1191 an emperor even outlawed referring to the Jurchens as "border people," a relatively polite Chinese term, seeing no reason that their country should not be viewed as the Central Kingdom (the common Chinese term for China).

Rajmaan (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jin Dynasty (265–420) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's a move request to decapitalize "dynasty" in the Chinese dynasty articles, as in Han Dynasty → Han dynasty. For more information and to give your input, see [6]. --Cold Season (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-worldlook-1146639-1.shtml

《元好問集》

http://wenxian.fanren8.com/08/01/493/16.htm

中国之有至仁，无思不服；圣人之得大宝，咸与维新。

http://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=967751

http://book.e4to.com/detail.php?nid=2597&p=39

http://mbook.fa-shion.net/detail.php?nid=2597&p=39

http://www.360doc.com/content/12/0115/22/946779_179620897.shtml

公大夫士仕于中国全盛时，立功立事，易于取称，故大定、明昌间多名臣。

Zhao 2006, pp.

• Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" (PDF). Volume 32 (Number 1). Sage Publications. doi:10.1177/0097700405282349. JSTOR 20062627. Archived from the original on 25 March 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2014. {{cite journal}}: |number= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

https://books.google.com/books?id=04S4YdDarD0C&pg=PA154&dq=1115+10,000+700,000+jurchen+khitan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wbpgVdS7PNGVyAT22oOABQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=1115%2010%2C000%20700%2C000%20jurchen%20khitan&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

This statement was stuck in the 'Wanyan Aguda' section in the middle of an origins discussion - it was quite jarring as it is out of context. What makes the most sense as far as restoring it to the article? --> " Song princesses committed suicide to avoid rape or were killed for resisting rape by the Jin. Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (2014). Emperor Huizong (illustrated, reprint ed.). Harvard University Press. p. 468. ISBN 978-0674726420. " 50.111.33.214 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to Liu Pujiang(Chinese:刘浦江)'s essay 'Doubts about truthfulness of the history of foundation of (Jurchen) Jin Dynasty' (Chinese: 关于金朝开国史的真实性质疑), maybe the era name 'Shouguo' didn't exist and the year 'Tianfu 1' is 1118AD instead of 1117AD. (The link of the essay is: https://wap.cnki.net/touch/web/Journal/Article/LSYJ806.004.html) Therefore, we should consider edit the starting time of the era name 'Tianfu' and the era name 'Shouguo'. According to the same passage, probably the name of the regime 'Jin' started to be used in 1118, so we should move the article to 'Jin dynasty (?-1234)'. John Smith Ri (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The state began to exist from the moment when its ruler began to claim to be the ruler. Although the Chinese called him a rebel. The moment China recognizes the state as a state is important. However, it is not exceptional.

For example, Bohai was recognized by China only in 714. And the state was formed in 698. Suffice it to describe China as a rebel. And not the date of recognition of the existence of the state.Ulianurlanova (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

but I would assume the 1194 Yellow River flood that shifted the river from north of the Shandong Peninsula to south of it along the course of the Si and wrecking the middle stretches of the Grand Canal would have had some (large) negative effect on the Jin and their subjects' opinion of them and any mandate they might've been claiming. Timing certainly seems to line up. — LlywelynII 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

See the discussion and sources in our Song/Jin Wars article. — LlywelynII 00:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply