text:
Manchuria

Manchuria is a term that refers to a region in Northeast Asia encompassing the entirety of present-day Northeast China, and historically parts of the modern-day Russian Far East, often referred to as Outer Manchuria. Its definition may refer to varying geographical extents as follows: the Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning but broadly also including the eastern Inner Mongolian prefectures of Hulunbuir, Hinggan, Tongliao, and Chifeng, collectively known as Northeast China; the aforementioned regions plus the homelands of ancient Jurchen and their descendant Manchus, parts of these region were ceded to the Russian Empire by the Manchu-led Qing dynasty during the Amur Annexation of 1858–1860, which include present-day Amur Oblast, Primorsky Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai, and the eastern edge of Zabaykalsky Krai, collectively known as the Outer Manchuria or Russian Manchuria.

The name Manchuria is an exonym (derived from the endonym "Manchu") of Japanese origin. The history of "Manchuria" (Manzhou) as a toponym in China is disputed, with some scholars believing it was never used while others believe it was by the late 19th century. The area was historically referred to by various names in the Qing dynasty such as Guandong (East of the Pass) or the Three Provinces referring to Fengtian, Heilongjiang, and Jilin. Manchuria as a geographical term was first used in the 18th or 19th centuries by the Japanese before spreading to Europe. The term was promoted by the Japanese Empire in support for the existence of its puppet state, Manchukuo. Although the toponym is still used, some scholars treat the term with caution or avoid it altogether due to its association with Japanese colonialism. The term is deprecated in China due to its association with Japanese imperialism and ethnic connotations. As a result, areas once considered part of Manchuria are simply referred to as the Northeast. The Three Provinces and the Northeast were also in concurrent use among the Japanese along with Manchuria until the Mukden Incident of 1931.

Boundaries

Manchuria is now most often associated with the three Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning. The former Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo further included the prefectures of Chengde (now in Hebei), and Hulunbuir, Hinggan, Tongliao, and Chifeng (now in Inner Mongolia). The region of the Qing dynasty referenced as Manchuria originally further included Primorskiy Kray, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the southern parts of Amur Oblast and Khabarovskiy Kray, and a corner of Zabaykalʼskiy Kray. These districts were acknowledged as Qing territory by the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk but ceded to the Russian Empire due to the Amur Annexation in the unequal 1858 Treaty of Aigun and 1860 Convention of Beijing (the People's Republic of China indirectly questioned the legitimacy of these treaties in the 1960s, but has more recently signed agreements such as the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship, which affirm the current status quo; a minor exchange nonetheless occurred in 2004 at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri rivers). Various senses of Greater Manchuria sometimes further include Sakhalin Island, which despite its lack of mention in treaties was shown as Qing territory on period Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and French maps of the area.

Origins
The geographical term "Manchuria" was first used in the 18th or 19th century by the Japanese. "Manchuria" – variations of which arrived in European languages through Dutch – is a calque of Latin of the Japanese placename Manshū (, "Region of the Manchus"), which dates from the 18th century.

According to the American researcher Mark C. Elliott, the term Manshū first appeared as a placename in Katsuragawa Hoshū's 1794 work Hokusa Bunryaku in two maps, "Ashia zenzu" and "Chikyū hankyū sōzu", which were also created by Katsuragawa. According to Junko Miyawaki-Okada, Japanese geographer Takahashi Kageyasu was the first to use the term Manshū as a toponym in 1809 in the Nippon Henkai Ryakuzu, and it was from that work that Westerners adopted the name. By the 1830s, various Indo-European forms of Manshū could be found. However, according to Li Narangoa, the term was introduced to Japan in the 18th century through European maps following Jesuit conventions.

Manshū then increasingly appeared on maps by Japanese cartographers such as Kondi Jūzō, Takahashi Kageyasu, Baba Sadayoshi, and Yamada Ren. Their maps were brought to Europe by Philipp Franz von Siebold. According to Japanese scholar Nakami Tatsuo, Siebold was the one who brought the usage of the term Manchuria to Europeans after borrowing it from the Japanese, who were the first to use it in a geographic manner in the 18th century.

China
The history of the use of "Manchuria" as a toponym in China is uncertain. According to one stream of thought, it was not used by the Manchus or the Chinese. The name Manchu was given to the Jurchen people by Hong Taiji in 1635 as a new name for their ethnic group. However neither the name Manchu or the Chinese rendering of Manshū as Manzhou ever acquired geographical connotations, while in Japanese, both Manchuria and Manchu are rendered as Manshū. According to Nakami Tatsuo, Manzhou was used to refer to Manchu people or one of their states rather than a region: "Originally, Manzhou was the name of the Manchu people or of their state; it was not the name of a region. In fact, neither Manchus nor Han Chinese have ever called China's Northeast 'Manzhou'." Even advocates of an independent Manchuria such as Inaba Iwakichi acknowledged this. In 1912, British diplomat and sinologist Herbert Giles stated in China and the Manchus that "'Manchuria' is unknown to the Chinese or to the Manchus themselves as a geographical expression". According to Owen Latimore, during his travels in China during the late 1920s, he found "no single Chinese name for Manchuria as a unit". Historical geographer Philippe Forêt concurred, noting that there is no word for Manchuria in either Chinese or Manchu languages.

Another perspective delineated by scholars such as Mark C. Elliott and Li Narangoa argues that Manchu consciousness of their homeland as a unique place contributed to the creation of Manchuria as a distinct geographical entity, and that "Manchuria" (Manzhou) was used as a toponym by the Chinese. According to Elliott, the Manchu imperial lineage believed that their original homeland was the Changbai Mountains. The Qing court endeavored to create a regional identity focused on the Changbai Mountains, which gradually became a symbol of Manchu identity. However, it is uncertain whether that notion was shared among ordinary Manchus, and there is evidence that part of that effort was to combat widespread acculturation among Manchus, resulting in the loss of their language. As part of this effort, Jesuits were commissioned to create maps that enhanced Manchu conceptualization of their homeland, which Elliot believes to have been the original impetus to label the region as Manchuria in European and Japanese maps. In 1877, Manzhou was used as a toponym in an essay by Gong Chai, a scholar from Ningbo. The description of Manzhou located it to the northeast of Beijing and identified it as the birthplace of the dynasty. Manzhou was used as a place name again 20 years later by Qing officials. Manzhou began to appear on Chinese maps in the first decade of the 1900s. Maps that used Manzhou were in the minority during the early Republican period but the name remained in common use among the Chinese Communist Party into the 1930s. Names for the region were relatively fluid before the Mukden Incident of 1931, after which alternative names in Japanese were discarded for Manshū, and Dongbei (Northeast) and Dongsansheng (Three Eastern Provinces) became the orthodox names for the Chinese. According to Mark Gamsa, Manzhou was not widely used among the Chinese but the People's Republic of China disapproved of it regardless. By the 1950s, Manzhou had virtually disappeared as a toponym although some still used it out of habit.

Japan
The term Manchuria has been described as "controversial" or "troublesome" by several scholars including Mark C. Elliott, Norman Smith, and Mariko Asano Tamanoi. The historian Norman Smith wrote that "The term 'Manchuria' is controversial" based on reasons outlined by Mariko Asano Tamanoi in the "Introduction" of Crossed Histories: Manchuria in the Age of Empire (2005). According to Tamanoi, "'Manchuria' is a product of Japanese imperialism, and to call the area Manzhou is to accept uncritically a Japanese colonial legacy." Japan used the name "Manchuria" to convey the idea of a contested region distinct from China while China insisted on its ownership of the region by rejecting the name "Manchuria". Japanese colonists who returned to Japan from Manchukuo in the post-war period used terms such as Manshu (Manchuria), Man-mō (Manchuria-Mongolia), and Mō-man (Mongolia-Manchuria) almost interchangeably. Hyphenated terms such as Man-sēn (Manchuria and Korea) and Man-mō (Manchuria-Mongolia) emerged in Japanese media and traveler writings during the first three decades of the 20th century, implying that these regions were extensions of each other. Tamanoi notes that the name "Manchuria" cannot be found on Chinese maps and acknowledged that she "should use the term in quotation marks" even though she did not.

Historian Bill Sewell denies that Manchuria is "a genuine geographic term", claiming the Japanese never viewed Manchuria as a discrete entity and it was Europeans who first started using the name Manchuria to refer to the location. Others such as Forêt described Manchuria as a solely geographical term without indicating a political connection and used it in that capacity despite acknowledging its imperialistic overtones. The historian Gavan McCormack agreed with Robert H. G. Lee's statement that "The term Manchuria or Man-chou is a modern creation used mainly by westerners and Japanese", with McCormack writing that the term Manchuria is imperialistic in nature and has no "precise meaning" since the Japanese deliberately promoted the use of "Manchuria" as a geographic name to promote its separation from China at the time they were setting up their puppet state of Manchukuo. In the 1920s, Japanese media still presented Manchuria as part of China, albeit as a distinct region, and sometimes called it the "Garden of China". However, in 1932, the puppet state of Manchukuo was founded covering not only the northeastern three provinces but also parts of eastern Inner Mongolia. In 1933, the Bureau of Information and the Publicity Department of Foreign Affairs of the Manchukuo Government published a Handbook of Information of Manchukuo stating that Manchuria did not belong to China, had its own history and traditions, and was the home of the Manchus and Mongols. Elliot notes that one scholar considered the use of "Manchuria" as not only inaccurate but giving approval to Japanese colonialism.

Nurgan
During the Ming dynasty the area in which the Jurchens lived was referred to as Nurgan.

Three Provinces
During the Qing dynasty, the region was known as the "three eastern provinces" (Manchu, Dergi Ilan Golo), which referred to Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Fengtian since 1683 when Jilin and Heilongjiang were separated. However, Jilin and Heilongjiang did not receive the full function of provinces until 1907. The Japanese also used the name "Three Eastern Provinces" (Tōsanshō) during the 1920s and 1930s along with Manshū. However, after the Manchurian Incident of 1931, Tōsanshō was completely replaced by Manshū in Japanese usage while the Three Provinces and Northeast became the orthodox name for the same region in Chinese usage.

Guandong
Manchuria has been referred to as Guandong, which literally means "east of the pass", and similarly Guanwai , a reference to Shanhai Pass in Qinhuangdao in today's Hebei, at the eastern end of the Great Wall of China. This usage is seen in the expression Chuǎng Guāndōng (literally "Rushing into Guandong") referring to the mass migration of Han Chinese to Manchuria in the 19th and 20th centuries. The name Guandong later came to be used more narrowly for the area of the Kwantung Leased Territory on the Liaodong Peninsula. It is not to be confused with the southern province of Guangdong.

Northeast Region

The term "Manchuria" is deprecated among people of the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to its association with Japanese imperialism, the puppet state of Manchukuo of the Empire of Japan, and Manchurian nationalism. Official state documents use the term Northeast Region (东北; Dōngběi) to describe the region. Northeast China is predominantly occupied by Han Chinese due to internal Chinese migrations and Sinicization of the Manchus, especially during the Qing dynasty. It is considered the original homeland of several historical groups besides the Manchus, including the Yemaek the Xianbei, the Shiwei, and the Khitans. The area is also home to many Mongols and Hui.

In present-day Chinese, an inhabitant of the Northeast is a "Northeasterner". "The Northeast" is a term that expresses the entire region, encompassing its history and various cultures. It is usually restricted to the "Three East Provinces" or "Three Northeast Provinces", excluding northeastern Inner Mongolia. In China, the term Manchuria is rarely used today, and the term is often negatively associated with the Japanese imperial legacy and the puppet state of Manchukuo. The Northeast (Tōhoku) was also used as a name for Manchuria by the Japanese during the 1920s and 1930s.

Geography and climate

Manchuria consists mainly of the northern side of the funnel-shaped North China Craton, a large area of tilled and overlaid Precambrian rocks spanning 100 e6ha. The North China Craton was an independent continent before the Triassic period and is known to have been the northernmost piece of land in the world during the Carboniferous. The Khingan Mountains in the west are a Jurassic mountain range formed by the collision of the North China Craton with the Siberian Craton, which marked the final stage of the formation of the supercontinent Pangaea. No part of Manchuria was glaciated during the Quaternary, but the surface geology of most of the lower-lying and more fertile parts of Manchuria consists of very deep layers of loess, which have been formed by the wind-borne movement of dust and till particles formed in glaciated parts of the Himalayas, Kunlun Shan and Tien Shan, as well as the Gobi and Taklamakan Deserts. Soils are mostly fertile mollisols and fluvents except in the more mountainous parts where they have poorly developed orthents, as well as in the extreme north where permafrost occurs and orthels dominate.

The climate of Manchuria has extreme seasonal contrasts, ranging from humid, almost tropical heat in summer to windy, dry, Arctic cold in winter. This pattern occurs because the position of Manchuria on the boundary between the great Eurasian continental landmass and the huge Pacific Ocean causes complete monsoonal wind reversal.

In summer, when the land heats faster than the ocean, low-pressure forms over Asia and warm, moist south to southeasterly winds bring heavy, thundery rain, yielding annual rainfall ranging from 400 mm, or less in the west, to over 1150 mm in the Changbai Mountains. Temperatures in summer are very warm to hot, with July average maxima ranging from 31 C in the south to 24 C in the extreme north.

In winter, however, the vast Siberian High causes very cold, north-to-northwesterly winds that bring temperatures as low as −5 C in the extreme south and −30 C in the north where the zone of discontinuous permafrost reaches northern Heilongjiang. However, because the winds from Siberia are exceedingly dry, snow falls only on a few days every winter, and it is never heavy. This explains why corresponding latitudes of North America were fully glaciated during glacial periods of the Quaternary while Manchuria, though even colder, always remained too dry to form glaciers – a state of affairs enhanced by stronger westerly winds from the surface of the ice sheet in Europe.

Early history
Manchuria was the homeland of several ethnic groups, including Manchu, Mongols, Koreans, Nanai, Nivkhs, Ulchs, Hui, possibly Turkic peoples, and ethnic Han Chinese in southern Manchuria. Various ethnic groups and their respective kingdoms, including the Sushen, Donghu, Xianbei, Wuhuan, Mohe, Khitan and Jurchens, have risen to power in Manchuria. Koreanic kingdoms such as Gojoseon (before 108 BCE), Buyeo (2nd century BCE to 494 CE) and Goguryeo (37 BCE to 688 CE) also became established in large parts of this area. The Chinese Qin (221–206 BCE), Han (202 BCE–9 CE and 25 CE–220 CE), Cao Wei (220–266), Western Jin (266–316), and Tang (618–690 and 705–907) dynasties controlled parts of Manchuria. Parts of northwestern Manchuria came under the control of the First Turkic Khaganate of 552–603 and of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate of 581–630. Early Manchuria had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing, livestock, and agriculture.

With the Song dynasty (960-1269) to the south, the Khitan people of Inner Mongolia created the Liao dynasty (916-1125) and conquered Outer Mongolia and Manchuria, going on to control the adjacent part of the Sixteen Prefectures in Northern China as well. The Liao dynasty became the first state to control all of Manchuria.

In the early 12th century, the Tungusic Jurchen people, who were Liao's tributaries, overthrew the Liao and formed the Jin dynasty (1115–1234), which went on to control parts of Northern China and Mongolia after a series of successful military campaigns. During the Mongol Yuan dynasty rule of China (1271–1368), Manchuria was administered as Liaoyang province. In 1375 Naghachu, a Mongol official of the Mongolia-based Northern Yuan dynasty of 1368–1635 in Liaoyang province invaded Liaodong, but later surrendered to the Ming dynasty in 1387. In order to protect the northern border areas, the Ming dynasty decided to "pacify" the Jurchens in order to deal with its problems with Yuan remnants along its northern border. The Ming solidified control over Manchuria under the Yongle Emperor ((r. 1402 – 1424)), establishing the Nurgan Regional Military Commission of 1409–1435. Starting in the 1580s, a Jianzhou Jurchen chieftain, Nurhaci (1558–1626), started to unify Jurchen tribes of the region. Over the next several decades, the Jurchen took control of most of Manchuria. In 1616 Nurhaci founded the Later Jin dynasty, which later became known as the Qing dynasty. The Qing defeated the Evenk-Daur federation led by the Evenki chief Bombogor and beheaded Bombogor in 1640, with Qing armies massacring and deporting Evenkis and absorbing the survivors into the Banners.

Chinese cultural and religious influence such as Chinese New Year, the "Chinese god", motifs such as the dragon, spirals, and scrolls, agriculture, husbandry, methods of heating, and material goods such as iron cooking-pots, silk, and cotton spread among the Amur natives including the Udeghes, Ulchis, and Nanais.

In 1644, after peasant rebels sacked the Ming dynasty's capital of Beijing, the Jurchens (now called Manchus) allied with Ming general Wu Sangui and seized control of Beijing, overthrowing the short-lived Shun dynasty (1644–1649) and establishing Qing-dynasty rule (1644–1912) over all of China. The Manchu conquest of China involved the deaths of over 25 million people. The Qing dynasty built the Willow Palisade – a system of ditches and embankments – during the later 17th century to restrict the movement of Han civilians into Jilin and Heilongjiang. Only bannermen, including Han bannermen, were allowed to settle in Jilin and Heilongjiang. After conquering the Ming, the Qing often identified their state as "China" (中國, Zhongguo; "Middle Kingdom"), and referred to it as Dulimbai Gurun ("Middle Kingdom") in Manchu. In the Qing shilu the lands of the Qing state (including Manchuria and present-day Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Tibet) are thus identified as "the Middle Kingdom" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages in roughly two-thirds of the cases, while the term refers to the traditional Chinese provinces populated by the Han in roughly one third of the cases. It was also common to use "China" (Zhongguo, Dulimbai gurun) to refer to the Qing in official documents, international treaties, and foreign affairs. In diplomatic documents, the term "Chinese language" (Dulimbai gurun i bithe) referred to the Chinese, Manchu, and Mongol languages, and the term "Chinese people" (中國人 Zhongguo ren; Manchu: Dulimbai gurun i niyalma) referred to all Han, Manchus, and Mongol subjects of the Qing. The Qing explicitly stated that the lands in Manchuria belonged to "China" (Zhongguo, Dulimbai gurun) in Qing edicts and in the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk.

Population change
Despite migration restrictions, Qing rule saw massively increasing numbers of Han Chinese both illegally and legally streaming into Manchuria and settling down to cultivate land – Manchu landlords desired Han Chinese peasants to rent their land and to grow grain; most Han Chinese migrants were not evicted as they crossed the Great Wall and Willow Palisade. During the eighteenth century Han Chinese farmed 500,000 hectares of privately owned land in Manchuria and 203,583 hectares of lands which were part of courier stations, noble estates, and Banner lands; in garrisons and towns in Manchuria Han Chinese made up 80% of the population.

The Qing resettled Han Chinese farmers from north China to the area along the Liao River in order to restore the land to cultivation. Han Chinese squatters reclaimed wasteland, and other Han rented land from Manchu landlords.

By the 18th century, despite officially prohibiting Han Chinese settlement on Manchu and Mongol lands, the Qing decided to settle Han refugees from northern China – who were suffering from famine, floods, and drought – into Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, so that Han Chinese farmed 500,000 hectares in Manchuria and tens of thousands of hectares in Inner Mongolia by the 1780s. The Qianlong Emperor ((r. 1735 – 1796)) allowed Han Chinese peasants suffering from drought to move into Manchuria despite his having issued edicts in favor of banning them from 1740 to 1776. Han Chinese then streamed into Manchuria, both illegally and legally, over the Great Wall of China and the Willow Palisade. Chinese tenant farmers rented or even claimed title to land from the "imperial estates" and Manchu Bannerlands in the area. Besides moving into the Liao area in southern Manchuria, Han Chinese settled the path linking Jinzhou, Fengtian, Tieling, Changchun, Hulun, and Ningguta during the Qianlong Emperor's reign, and Han Chinese had become the majority in urban areas of Manchuria by 1800. To increase the Imperial Treasury's revenue, the Qing sold formerly Manchu-only lands along the Sungari to Han Chinese at the beginning of the Daoguang Emperor's 1820–1850 reign, and Han Chinese filled up most of Manchuria's towns by the 1840s, according to Abbé Huc.

The demographic change was not caused solely by Han migration. Manchus also refused to stay in Manchuria. In the late 18th century, Manchus in Beijing were sent to Manchuria as part of a plan to reduce the burden on the court, but they tried to return by every means possible. With the exception of 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and their families and a military colony established in the 1850s, Manchuria was devoid of Manchus. By 1900, 15 million of Manchuria's 17 million inhabitants were Han Chinese.

Russian invasions
The Russian conquest of Siberia was met with indigenous resistance to colonization, but Russian Cossacks crushed the natives. The conquest of Siberia and Manchuria also resulted in the spread of infectious diseases. Historian John F. Richards wrote: "... New diseases weakened and demoralized the indigenous peoples of Siberia. The worst of these was smallpox "because of its swift spread, the high death rates, and the permanent disfigurement of survivors." ... In the 1690s, smallpox epidemics reduced Yukagir numbers by an estimated 44 percent." At the behest of people like Vasilii Poyarkov in 1645 and Yerofei Khabarov in 1650, Russian Cossacks killed some peoples like the Daur people of Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang to the extent that some authors speak of genocide. The Daurs initially deserted their villages since they had heard about the cruelty of the Russians the first time Khabarov came. The second time he came, the Daurs decided to do battle against the Russians instead, but were slaughtered by Russian guns. The Russians came to be known as "red-beards". The Amur natives called Russian Cossacks luocha (羅剎), after demons in Buddhist mythology, because of their cruelty towards the Amur tribespeople, who were subjects of the Qing. The Qing viewed Russian proselytization of Eastern Orthodox Christianity to the indigenous peoples along the Amur River as a threat.

In 1858 Russian diplomacy forced a weakening Qing dynasty to cede Manchuria north of the Amur to Russia under the Treaty of Aigun. In 1860, with the Treaty of Peking, the Russians managed to obtain a further large slice of Manchuria, east of the Ussuri River. As a result, Manchuria became divided into a Russian half (known as Outer Manchuria or Russian Manchuria), and a remaining Chinese region (known as Manchuria). In modern literature, "Manchuria" usually refers to Manchuria in China. As a result of the Treaties of Aigun and Peking, Qing China lost access to the Sea of Japan.

History after 1860

Manchuria in China also came under strong Russian influence with the building of the Chinese Eastern Railway through Harbin to Vladivostok. In the Chuang Guandong movement, many Han farmers, mostly from the Shandong peninsula moved there. By 1921, Harbin, northern Manchuria's largest city, had a population of 300,000, including 100,000 Russians. Japan replaced Russian influence in the southern half of Manchuria as a result of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904–1905. Most of the southern branch of the Chinese Eastern Railway was transferred from Russia to Japan, and became the South Manchurian Railway. Japanese influence extended into Outer Manchuria in the wake of the Russian Revolution of 1917, but Outer Manchuria had reverted to Soviet control by 1925. Manchuria was an important region due to its rich natural resources including coal, fertile soil, and various minerals. For pre–World War II Japan, Manchuria was an essential source of raw materials. Without occupying Manchuria, the Japanese probably could not have carried out their plan for conquest over Southeast Asia or taken the risk of attacking the United States and the British Empire in 1941.

There was a major epidemic known as the Manchurian plague in 1910–1911, likely caused by the inexperienced hunting of marmots, many of whom are diseased. The cheap railway transport and the harsh winters, where the hunters sheltered in close confinement, helped to propagate the disease. The response required close coordination between the Chinese, Russian and Japanese authorities and international disease experts held an 'International Plague Conference' in the northern city of Shenyang after the disease was under control to learn the lessons.

It was reported that among Banner people, both Manchu and Chinese (Hanjun) in Aihun, Heilongjiang in the 1920s, would seldom marry with Han civilians, but they (Manchu and Chinese Bannermen) would mostly intermarry with each other. Owen Lattimore reported that during his January 1930 visit to Manchuria, he studied a community in Jilin (Kirin), where both Manchu and Chinese Bannermen were settled at a town called Wulakai, and eventually the Chinese Bannermen there could not be differentiated from Manchus since they were effectively Manchufied (assimilated). The Han civilian population was in the process of absorbing and mixing with them when Lattimore wrote his article.

Around the time of World War I, Zhang Zuolin established himself as a powerful warlord with influence over most of Manchuria. During his rule, the Manchurian economy grew tremendously, backed by the immigration of Chinese from other parts of China. The Japanese assassinated him on 2 June 1928, in what is known as the Huanggutun Incident. Following the Mukden Incident in 1931 and the subsequent Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese declared Manchuria an "independent state", and appointed the deposed Qing emperor Puyi as puppet emperor of Manchukuo. Under Japanese control, Manchuria was brutally run, with a systematic campaign of terror and intimidation against the local populations including arrests, organised riots and other forms of subjugation. Manchukuo was used by Japan as a base to invade the rest of China. At that time, hundreds of thousands of Japanese settlers arrived in Manchuria.

At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Joseph Stalin had agreed that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan within three months after Germany surrendered. Accordingly, in August the Soviet Union issued its declaration of war and launched the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Soon afterwards, the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) started fighting for control over Manchuria. The communists won in the Liaoshen Campaign and took complete control over Manchuria. With the encouragement of the Soviet Union, Manchuria was then used as a staging ground during the Chinese Civil War for the Chinese Communist Party, which emerged victorious in 1949. Ambiguities in the treaties that ceded Outer Manchuria to Russia led to disputes over the political status of several islands. The Kuomintang government in Taiwan (Formosa) complained to the United Nations, which passed resolution 505 on February 1, 1952, denouncing Soviet actions over the violations of the 1945 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance.

As part of the Sino-Soviet split, this ambiguity led to armed conflict in 1969, called the Sino-Soviet border conflict, resulting in an agreement. In 2004, Russia agreed to transfer Yinlong Island and one half of Heixiazi Island to China, ending an enduring border dispute.

title: Manchuria


text:
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was an organization founded on March 15, 1995, by the United States, South Korea, and Japan to implement the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework that froze North Korea's indigenous nuclear power plant development centered at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, that was suspected of being a step in a nuclear weapons program. KEDO's principal activity was to construct two light water reactor nuclear power plants in North Korea to replace North Korea's Magnox type reactors. The original target year for completion was 2003.

Since then, other members joined:
 * 1995: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
 * 1996: Argentina, Chile, Indonesia
 * 1997: European Union, Poland
 * 1999: Czech Republic
 * 2000: Uzbekistan

KEDO discussions took place at the level of a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, South Korea's deputy foreign minister, and the head of the Asian bureau of Japan's Foreign Ministry.

The KEDO Secretariat was located in New York. KEDO was shut down in 2006.

History

Formal ground breaking on the site for two light water reactors (LWR) was on August 19, 1997, at Kumho, 30 km north of Sinpo. The Kumho site had been previously selected for two similar sized reactors that had been promised in the 1980s by the Soviet Union, before its collapse.

Soon after the Agreed Framework was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement. KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".

Arranging project financing was not easy, and formal invitations to bid were not issued until 1998, by which time the delays were infuriating North Korea. Significant spending on the LWR project did not commence until 2000, with "First Concrete" pouring at the construction site on August 7, 2002. Construction of both reactors was well behind the original schedule.

In the wake of the breakdown of the Agreed Framework in 2003, KEDO largely lost its function. KEDO ensured that the nuclear power plant project assets at the construction site at Kumho in North Korea and at manufacturers' facilities around the world ($1.5 billion invested to date) were preserved and maintained. The project was reported to be about 30% complete. One reactor containment building was about 50% complete and another about 15% finished. No key equipment for the reactors had been moved to the site.

In 2005, there were reports indicating that KEDO had agreed in principle to terminate the light-water reactor project. On January 9, 2006, it was announced that the project was over and the workers would be returning to their home countries. North Korea demanded compensation and has refused to return the approximately $45 million worth of equipment left behind.

Executive Directors

 * Stephen W. Bosworth, 1995–1997
 * L. Desaix Anderson, 1997–2001
 * Charles Kartman, 2001–2005

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization

Untitled
The following info is quoted from a Washington Times article (April 4, 2002):

 * The KEDO talks focus on two light-water reactors it is building in North Korea. In the 1994 deal, known as the Agreed Framework, the United States agreed to help fund the modern atomic power plants and send yearly shipments of fuel oil until the plants are completed.
 * The $4.6 billion project was supposed to be finished by next year, but delays have pushed back completion until at least 2008.
 * The International Atomic Energy Agency has been monitoring the facilities shut down in 1994: an experimental gas-graphite power reactor, a fuel-fabrication facility and a reprocessing plant. But Washington is concerned that Pyongyang hasn't provided a record of plutonium — the primary fuel needed to make atom bombs — and that it may be hiding nuclear bomb-making materials.
 * Two weeks ago, Mr. Bush decided not to certify Pyongyang's compliance with the framework — in a first for a U.S. president — but still ship 500,000 tons of fuel oil, as required by the accord.
 * The White House insisted that the decision didn't mean the United States had evidence that North Korea was violating the agreement, only that Washington did not have enough information to make a judgment.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310042628/http://www.icasinc.org:80/bios/bosworth.html to http://www.icasinc.org/bios/bosworth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824204606/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/005th_issue/97082102.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/005th_issue/97082102.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908091709/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908091709/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.case.edu/artsci/asia/AsiasSecurityChallenges.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327125138/http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200511/200511230021.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200511/200511230021.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620200549/http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-20T232107Z_01_KRA084049_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112090018/http://www.usip.org/events/2005/0310_cibkedo.html to http://www.usip.org/events/2005/0310_cibkedo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Unconscious

Unconscious may refer to:

Physiology

 * Unconsciousness, the lack of consciousness or responsiveness to people and other environmental stimuli

Psychology

 * Unconscious mind, the mind operating well outside the attention of the conscious mind as defined by Sigmund Freud and others
 * Unconscious, an altered state of consciousness with limited conscious awareness
 * Not conscious

Philosophy, spirituality

 * Unconscious spirit, the supposed part of the human spirit or soul operating outside of conscious awareness

Media

 * Unconscious (2014), UK release title of Amnesiac, an American mystery film

title: Unconscious


text:
Simple group

In mathematics, a simple group is a nontrivial group whose only normal subgroups are the trivial group and the group itself. A group that is not simple can be broken into two smaller groups, namely a nontrivial normal subgroup and the corresponding quotient group. This process can be repeated, and for finite groups one eventually arrives at uniquely determined simple groups, by the Jordan–Hölder theorem.

The complete classification of finite simple groups, completed in 2004, is a major milestone in the history of mathematics.

Finite simple groups
The cyclic group $$G=(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z},+)=\mathbb{Z}_3$$ of congruence classes modulo 3 (see modular arithmetic) is simple. If $$H$$ is a subgroup of this group, its order (the number of elements) must be a divisor of the order of $$G$$ which is 3. Since 3 is prime, its only divisors are 1 and 3, so either $$H$$ is $$G$$, or $$H$$ is the trivial group. On the other hand, the group $$G=(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z},+)=\mathbb{Z}_{12}$$ is not simple. The set $$H$$ of congruence classes of 0, 4, and 8 modulo 12 is a subgroup of order 3, and it is a normal subgroup since any subgroup of an abelian group is normal. Similarly, the additive group of the integers $$(\mathbb{Z},+)$$ is not simple; the set of even integers is a non-trivial proper normal subgroup.

One may use the same kind of reasoning for any abelian group, to deduce that the only simple abelian groups are the cyclic groups of prime order. The classification of nonabelian simple groups is far less trivial. The smallest nonabelian simple group is the alternating group $$A_5$$ of order 60, and every simple group of order 60 is isomorphic to $$A_5$$. The second smallest nonabelian simple group is the projective special linear group PSL(2,7) of order 168, and every simple group of order 168 is isomorphic to PSL(2,7).

Infinite simple groups
The infinite alternating group $$A_\infty$$, i.e. the group of even finitely supported permutations of the integers, is simple. This group can be written as the increasing union of the finite simple groups $$A_n$$ with respect to standard embeddings $$A_n \rightarrow A_{n+1}$$. Another family of examples of infinite simple groups is given by $$PSL_n(F)$$, where $$F$$ is an infinite field and $$n\geq2$$.

It is much more difficult to construct finitely generated infinite simple groups. The first existence result is non-explicit; it is due to Graham Higman and consists of simple quotients of the Higman group. Explicit examples, which turn out to be finitely presented, include the infinite Thompson groups $$T$$ and $$V$$. Finitely presented torsion-free infinite simple groups were constructed by Burger and Mozes.

Classification
There is as yet no known classification for general (infinite) simple groups, and no such classification is expected. One reason for this is the existence of continuum-many Tarski monster groups for every sufficiently-large prime characteristic, each simple and having only the cyclic group of that characteristic as its subgroups.

Finite simple groups
The finite simple groups are important because in a certain sense they are the "basic building blocks" of all finite groups, somewhat similar to the way prime numbers are the basic building blocks of the integers. This is expressed by the Jordan–Hölder theorem which states that any two composition series of a given group have the same length and the same factors, up to permutation and isomorphism. In a huge collaborative effort, the classification of finite simple groups was declared accomplished in 1983 by Daniel Gorenstein, though some problems surfaced (specifically in the classification of quasithin groups, which were plugged in 2004).

Briefly, finite simple groups are classified as lying in one of 18 families, or being one of 26 exceptions:
 * $$\mathbb{Z}_p$$ – cyclic group of prime order
 * $$A_n$$ – alternating group for $$n\geq5$$
 * The alternating groups may be considered as groups of Lie type over the field with one element, which unites this family with the next, and thus all families of non-abelian finite simple groups may be considered to be of Lie type.
 * One of 16 families of groups of Lie type
 * The Tits group is generally considered of this form, though strictly speaking it is not of Lie type, but rather index 2 in a group of Lie type.
 * One of 26 exceptions, the sporadic groups, of which 20 are subgroups or subquotients of the monster group and are referred to as the "Happy Family", while the remaining 6 are referred to as pariahs.

Structure of finite simple groups
The famous theorem of Feit and Thompson states that every group of odd order is solvable. Therefore, every finite simple group has even order unless it is cyclic of prime order.

The Schreier conjecture asserts that the group of outer automorphisms of every finite simple group is solvable. This can be proved using the classification theorem.

History for finite simple groups
There are two threads in the history of finite simple groups – the discovery and construction of specific simple groups and families, which took place from the work of Galois in the 1820s to the construction of the Monster in 1981; and proof that this list was complete, which began in the 19th century, most significantly took place 1955 through 1983 (when victory was initially declared), but was only generally agreed to be finished in 2004. By 2018, its publication was envisioned as a series of 12 monographs, the tenth of which was published in 2023. See for 19th century history of simple groups.

Construction
Simple groups have been studied at least since early Galois theory, where Évariste Galois realized that the fact that the alternating groups on five or more points are simple (and hence not solvable), which he proved in 1831, was the reason that one could not solve the quintic in radicals. Galois also constructed the projective special linear group of a plane over a prime finite field, PSL(2,p), and remarked that they were simple for p not 2 or 3. This is contained in his last letter to Chevalier, and are the next example of finite simple groups.

The next discoveries were by Camille Jordan in 1870. Jordan had found 4 families of simple matrix groups over finite fields of prime order, which are now known as the classical groups.

At about the same time, it was shown that a family of five groups, called the Mathieu groups and first described by Émile Léonard Mathieu in 1861 and 1873, were also simple. Since these five groups were constructed by methods which did not yield infinitely many possibilities, they were called "sporadic" by William Burnside in his 1897 textbook.

Later Jordan's results on classical groups were generalized to arbitrary finite fields by Leonard Dickson, following the classification of complex simple Lie algebras by Wilhelm Killing. Dickson also constructed exception groups of type G2 and E6 as well, but not of types F4, E7, or E8. In the 1950s the work on groups of Lie type was continued, with Claude Chevalley giving a uniform construction of the classical groups and the groups of exceptional type in a 1955 paper. This omitted certain known groups (the projective unitary groups), which were obtained by "twisting" the Chevalley construction. The remaining groups of Lie type were produced by Steinberg, Tits, and Herzig (who produced 3D4(q) and 2E6(q)) and by Suzuki and Ree (the Suzuki–Ree groups).

These groups (the groups of Lie type, together with the cyclic groups, alternating groups, and the five exceptional Mathieu groups) were believed to be a complete list, but after a lull of almost a century since the work of Mathieu, in 1964 the first Janko group was discovered, and the remaining 20 sporadic groups were discovered or conjectured in 1965–1975, culminating in 1981, when Robert Griess announced that he had constructed Bernd Fischer's "Monster group". The Monster is the largest sporadic simple group having order of 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000. The Monster has a faithful 196,883-dimensional representation in the 196,884-dimensional Griess algebra, meaning that each element of the Monster can be expressed as a 196,883 by 196,883 matrix.

Classification
The full classification is generally accepted as starting with the Feit–Thompson theorem of 1962–63, largely lasting until 1983, but only being finished in 2004.

Soon after the construction of the Monster in 1981, a proof, totaling more than 10,000 pages, was supplied that group theorists had successfully listed all finite simple groups, with victory declared in 1983 by Daniel Gorenstein. This was premature – some gaps were later discovered, notably in the classification of quasithin groups, which were eventually replaced in 2004 by a 1,300 page classification of quasithin groups, which is now generally accepted as complete.

Tests for nonsimplicity
Sylow's test: Let n be a positive integer that is not prime, and let p be a prime divisor of n. If 1 is the only divisor of n that is congruent to 1 modulo p, then there does not exist a simple group of order n.

Proof: If n is a prime-power, then a group of order n has a nontrivial center and, therefore, is not simple. If n is not a prime power, then every Sylow subgroup is proper, and, by Sylow's Third Theorem, we know that the number of Sylow p-subgroups of a group of order n is equal to 1 modulo p and divides n. Since 1 is the only such number, the Sylow p-subgroup is unique, and therefore it is normal. Since it is a proper, non-identity subgroup, the group is not simple.

Burnside: A non-Abelian finite simple group has order divisible by at least three distinct primes. This follows from Burnside's theorem.

Textbooks

 * 2007 preprint.

title: Simple group


text:
Talk:Subject–verb–object word order

Russian in the example (table)
The example may be a bit confusing. While the default word order (without emphasis) in Russian is indeed SVO as shown in the table, the example is faulty. "She loves him" typically translates to SOV in Russian ("she him loves"), not SVO as shown in the table (SVO is possible but sounds artificial and is usually found in bad translations from English where the translator lazily copies the English word order without caring about how it actually would sound like in real life). That's because "him" is a clitic-like word and so it still tries to follow Wackernagel's law (a vestige of the old grammar). So, I think, the examples in the table should be changed to have personal names instead of pronouns like "him" because pronouns across languages often have special grammar rules unique to them (for instance, they are the only group of words in English which can have oblique case applied) 217.118.93.101 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this is where wiki is bad. Russian language belongs to SVO, because most common use is SVO - not because other placements are possible. Unlike english language most of IE languages also change words, depending on their placement in sentence - basically placement is not important, but word changes - are. This is something, that english language lacks and it is rather hard to explain properly in english. Also "She loves him" is a very stupid example, because it is not trivial - it also have submeaning, that Subject can become Object: he can love her, too. To avoid misconception it would be advisable to use subject, where object can't do verb to subject. "Я читаю wiki". You can still use other arrangements, but it would not be considered normal answer to "что ты делаешь?", if word order would be different from SVO.

There are limits for everyone (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Change Log
I moved this from Subject-verb-object to Subject Verb Object because that was the format the other five permutations were in, and it was silly to have this one have a title with different punctuation and capitalization. -Branddobbe 04:54, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Klingon and Yoda because it was totally unrelated to SVO. (In fact, the inclusion of the note assumed that SVO is 'normal' against Klingon's 'abnormal' order, when in fact SVO is only the second most common order, if we are to believe the article.) -Bathrobe

 * Which is the most common order? The SVO and SOV articles have SOV on top, while the others have SVO on top.

There were untitled sections at the top of this page, from contributions spanning at least three years. I've taken the liberty to title these. I also changed the resulting sort order to put change notifications at the top (this and the next two sections). Please feel free to remedy my edits! Robbiemuffin (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed move
I propose moving all six word-order articles, changing the word 'subject' to 'agent'. There are two motivations for this: Not all languages have subjects (ergative languages, for example), and among those that do, not all order A the same way they order S (Russian, for example, which if I remember correctly has fixed transitive AVO order but fluid intransitive SV~VS order). kwami 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, 5 days, no comments, here goes. kwami 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are AVO, AOV, etc. common terms? It's all right to rename them if they are common (or becoming common) among linguists.  By the way, according to SIL's glossary, predicator may be a preferred term to verb because the latter is a part of speech rather than a function in a sentence.  Do linguists use the former?  In fact, in my native language Japanese, both verbs and adjectives can be predicators.  - TAKASUGI Shinji 10:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SVO etc are most often seen, but AVO or AVP (P for 'patient') is becoming more widespread, especially when people are trying to be rigorous.
 * Yes, terms like 'predicator' (there are others) may be preferable in some situations, but they're not important here. Every language has verbs, especially in the highly transitive clauses this typology is based on.
 * By the way, I don't think I'd say adjectives can predicators in Japanese. I can think of only one word that behaves as an adjective, onazi, and it requires a copula as predicate. I'd consider words like aoi to be verbs. They certainly act like verbs. kwami 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to treat those Japanese words ending with -i as verbs just because they don't look like English adjectives. Adjectives are something between nouns and verbs, and in European languages they are more like nouns and in East Asian languages (at least in Japanese and Chinese) they are more like verbs.  They in fact have several features in common: they are more commonly used as noun modifiers, they can be often converted to adverbs, and they inflect differently from both nouns and verbs. Onaji is considered an irregular word.  - TAKASUGI Shinji 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's hard to define something that won't keep still. kwami 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You might be interested in the following book: Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald.
 * This pioneering work shows, among other things, that the grammatical properties of the adjective class may be similar to nouns or verbs or both or neither; that some languages have two kinds of adjectives, one hard to distinguish from nouns and the other from verbs; that the adjective class can sometimes be large and open, and in other cases small and closed.
 * Japanese has verb-like noun-modifiers such as ao-i (blue) and taka-i (high) and noun-like noun-modifiers such as yutaka-na (rich) and kirei-na (beautiful). The former is commonly called adjectives.  Japanese does have stative verbs too, such as iru (to be necessary).
 * According to Katsumi Matsumoto, transition between noun-like adjectives and verb-like adjectives is found among Tibetan languages, whose location is between Western languages (Indo-European, Dravidian, Afro-Asiatic, Uralic, Altaic, etc.), which have noun-like adjectives, and Eastern languages (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Ainu, Miao-Yao, Austro-Asiatic, Austronesian, New Guinean, Na-Dene, etc.), which have verb-like adjectives. - TAKASUGI Shinji 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is definitely an areal feature involved.
 * However, that's an extremely POV book. It was based on a roundtable discussion D&A convened for the purpose of establishing adjectives as a universal category in the world's languages. Everyone was to write an article showing how adjectives worked in the languages they worked on. The problem is that some of their languages clearly lacked an adjective category, and those articles were excluded from the book. That is, Dixon censored the data to bolster his hypothesis! Although there is some interesting data, the book can hardly be taken seriously. kwami 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. - TAKASUGI Shinji 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure.
 * I'm thinking I should have worded that differently. If challenged, I wouldn't say that Japanese either has or does not have a category 'adjective', just that it's unclear what 'adjective' means cross-linguistically. And I'm sure many of the articles in the book are very good. Several of them, however, were rewritten under pressure from Dixon, so that what some people said at the conference (things like 'it is not clear if the concept of adjective is applicable') and what they ended up publishing ('X are adjectives') were two very different things. kwami 01:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you use the term patient instead of object? I've seen both agent-object-verb and agent-patient-verb, and the latter seems more consistent. A subject and an object form a pair syntactically, and an agent and a patient form a pair semantically. - TAKASUGI Shinji 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That would be fine. Go ahead and change it if you wish. It would also avoid the ambiguity of direct vs indirect objects. I only left it as is because 'object' is a more familiar term.

 * I wonder if it might not be a good idea to merge all these articles into a single article, maybe constituent order. This might forstall objections to the 'new' terms. What do you think? kwami 05:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid the term constituent order is too broad. We would then discuss all the constituent orders, not only agent-patient-verb and agent-verb-patient but also time-manner-place vs. place-manner-time, genitive-noun vs. noun-genitive, adjective-noun vs. noun-adjective, and so on.  That would be a great article if we include all of them, of course. - TAKASUGI Shinji 11:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move back to SOV
This article has been moved to Agent Verb Object from Subject Verb Object. I suggest undoing this move for the following reasons:

- It is not attested in the literature on word order (The terminology is attested in the literature on case, but that is another matter. Note that Comrie-style discussion of case (SAP) is more common than RMW Dixon-style (SAO))

 * Either SAO or SAP would be acceptable. kwami

- The reasons for this is that the agent can be moved around quite freely in the sentence by various morphosyntactuc means, while the subject cannot. Compare

1) the girl hits the ball

and

2) the ball is hit by the girl

The order is SOV in both sentences, but AVP in the first and PVA in the second.

 * Word-order typology looks at "basic" phrase order. Therefore passives are not usually considered. But in any case, in your examples the word orders are AVP and SV; a passive is intransitive by definition. kwami

- The original motivation that ergative languages have no subject is clearly wrong. Ergative languages are defined by the fact that their subjects are marked by the absolutive, in distinction to the object, which is marked by the ergative

 * No, there is no clarity about this at all. Erg langs are defined by their treating S and O similarly in opposition to A, not by what they do to "subjects". A large amount of the lit claim that the subject is the argument marked by the ergative rather than the absolutive, while others claim that there is no subject at all in such languages. Certainly there is no agreement as to what the subject should be. kwami

- I am aware of no language that has a fixed order of A, whereas there are tons that have a fixed order of S. In the original claim for the move, Russian was said to only allow AVO in transitive sentences. I am no expert in Russian, but as a good IE-language, it should have a passivization strategy to demote the agent to object. This would make the agent surface after the verb.

Jasyjatere 11:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You can only have AVO in transitive sentences because you can only have A or O in transitive sentences. Not sure what your point is. And again, few langs have rigid word orders, but the lit still discusses langs based on their "basic" word order. (That's often problematic, of course.) kwami 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think there at least should be uniformity, within the article and similar articles. I think this is the only article in the series using "agent" looking rather silly and distracting. 惑乱 分からん 08:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Not to mention that 'agent' has a very specific meaning with regard to thematic roles, and is thus potentially quite confusing. I think I'll move this back now.  BovineBeast 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, please move it back pronto. The AVO title satisfies only certain linguists. The most common term in basic linguistic literature is still SVO. Not to mention that the most common linkage here is SVO, not AVO.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's move it back to SVO, the above reasons seem good enough. --Cameltrader 06:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections so far, so I'm restoring it. --Cameltrader 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved, following the consensus apparent on this page. If anyone disagrees with this, please instigate a move request to enable a full discussion to clarify what the consensus position is. --Stemonitis 16:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific Languages
If Chinese (I know it is so for Mandarin at least) is cited on the talk as SVO, shouldn't it also be in the article?

 * English, German, Kiswahili and Chinese are examples of languages that follow this pattern.

German is mixed SVO / SOV, certainly not a typical SVO language. --Taw

ISTR that German main clauses are more precisely V2 ("verb second"), that is, Tv{SO}V, where T is a "topic", v is a single verb, S and O are any nouns left over, and V is any part of the verb phrase left over from v. --Damian Yerrick - what about french? any french grammar buffs?

 * French is SVO.

Is the paragraph on Hebrew really necessary? It starts out by saying that Hebrew isn't of this gorup, so it seems pointless to then go on and describe why not. Tev 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

All Bantu languages are SVO. And Swahili is one of them. So it's inclusion here is unnecessary. 102.1.150.48 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Use in Poetry, etc
Is it worth mentioning that, in addition to being used for effect in fiction, such sequences are found in poetry? Vicki Rosenzweig

 * Yes. Could all these OSV / SVO / etc pages be merged to one general article? They seem to all cover common ground. (not sure what we'd call it though)-- Tarquin

 * I concur. Having a 'mother page' listing the possible permutations and giving some general information on this kind of linguistic typology is a good idea, I think. I propose Constituent order - that seems to me to be the general notion. However, I'm not a syntactician so I won't carry out the move. - Strangeloop (talk)  09:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I also agree. Perhaps Word order would be the right place -- it already exists and has this kind of content.  In particular, duplicating the ranks of the various orders is a dead giveaway that something needs mergine, because over time they will diverge. I won't do it for the same reason. -- Dwheeler

 * This still might be a good idea. Constituent order is the normal cover term. kwami 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * A Yoda example, need we. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.77.98 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of these languages, such as English, can also use an OSV structure in certain literary styles, such as poetry. Can we get an example or reference for this? I can easily envision OVS but OSV is fairly abstract in English. Robbiemuffin (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"I played a game of Go yesterday."

I found this confusing as 'Go' can be a verb. Couldn't it be 'football', 'chess' or something?

SOV vs SVO
The article and Subject Object Verb state that SOV is more popular than SVO. What's the source of this claim ? Taw 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Second most common???
The article says:

"This sequence is the second most common." But no source is given to support this assertion. Moreover, none of the articles for the other sequences claim to be the most common. Also, there's not a definition for what "most common" means. Does this mean that there are the most total languages (no matter how few speakers they might have) which use this sequence, or that there are the most total speakers of the languages in this group. I haven't done any sort of detailed population analysis, but I'm pretty sure that the SVO sequence is the most common by the latter definition. Since the languages which use this sequence include Chinese, the Maylay-Indonesian languages, several other Asian languages with a lot of speakers, English, the Romance languages, Russian (and presumably most of the other Slavic languages), and a number of others (including some major African languages), I'm pretty certain that this adds up to at the very least a plurality, if not an outright majority of the world's population!

So I'm going to change it to "the most common" unless someone can give a good reason as to why it's not. 172.160.184.114 07:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It's as silly to call it the most common as it is to call it the second most common. We don't even know how many languages there are in the world, let alone exactly what percentage of languages are of which word order type. (Even the ones we do know a lot about can be controversial!) I've read in more than one place that SOV seems to have a slight edge over SVO, but the first relevant reference book at hand (David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, second edition) takes a decidedly agnostic approach, saying only that "over 75% of the world's languages use SVO... or SOV", and not taking a stand on which of those two is the more popular. Barring a typological breakthrough, I think Crystal's is the only defensible position to take on the matter, and am editing accordingly. (And of course "most popular" means "number of languages using the order", not "number of speakers" - the fact that a couple of the SVO languages have, through accidents of history, gained large numbers of speakers tells us nothing useful about language.) 69.140.12.199 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 'Most common' is generally understood to mean 'greatest number of languages'.

 * Can't dig up a ref, but it's been estimated that, of languages which even have a basic constituent order, approx. 1/2 are AOV, 1/3 AVO, and 1/6 VAO. However, that doesn't seem to account for the large number of Austronesian languages which are basically OVA, perhaps because this O is (or at least was) routinely called the "subject" of the "passive voice". There are also languages, such as the Kru and Mande languages of West Africa, which are AXOV, where X is an auxiliary verb and V is a lexical verb. It's debatable whether these languages should be considered AVO, or AOV, or if they don't fit into either category. kwami 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Jae Jung Song' introductionary book Linguistic Typology: Morphology and syntax (2001, p.106)says:

 * "''(...) Tomlin (1986) provides the following frequency hierarchy of the six clausal word orders:
 * (62)  SOV = SVO > VSO > VOS = OVS > OSV"''

 * But also(same book, p.24):

 * "Dryer (1989: 269-270) demonstrates that there s indeed a linguistic preference for SOV over SVO, and that the lack of a statistical difference between SOV and SVO in Tomlin's investigation is due to the distinction between linguistic preferences and actual frequencies of different linguistic types not being maintained. For example, in Tomlin's sample about 40 per cent of the SVO languages come from Niger-Congo, and there is also a large contigent of SVO languages fron Austronesian (Dryer 1989: 260, 270)"

 * Are you people discussing the same question here? Are you trying to find out which word order is the most frequently found in the world's languages, or which of the basic word orders is the linguistically preferred one? This may seem as one and the same thing, but isn't. Some language families are larger than others, not because of the languages themselves, but because of different historical, and linguistically -or at least typologically- irrelevant factors, such as migration, colonialization etc.

 * The linguistically preferred types are the ones that are preferred by human languages; that is, preferred by the largest number of languages that are unrelated, with the distribution of the types not being due to crosslinguistic contact. Linguistic univerals is about "what human languages (tend to) have in common because they are human languages", and not "what human languages (tend to) have in common because we all know English", so to say.

 * Two more things:
 * 1: Why are you dragging the poetic word orders and the derived word orders (questions etc) into this article? Shouldn't it be about basic word order?
 * 2: Of course this article can't list all SVO languages as examples. There may be plus/minus 7000 languages in the world, and the majority of them are SOV/SVO. ("Wow, my language is SVO too! Cool, I'll put it on the list of examples!")

 * I don't know how to edit articles, so I won't try to edit this article. Hope some of you other guys will, though. 129.240.183.108 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Elisabeth Holm

AOV in AVO article?
Why does this article even mention the AOV order? Then, it gives so many examples of languages the use the AOV order. As I was reading this article, I got confused and thought it meant AVO, since that is the title. Does anyone else feel that the mention and examples of AOV should be removed?--El aprendelenguas 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that should clarify it. The examples are all AVO. kwami 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian
I'm no linguist, but would greatly appreciate if someone could clarify something for me. In Russian, while "Sam ate (the) oranges" is certainly proper, it can be said "Sam (the) oranges ate" - this emphasizes "who", or "Ate (the) oranges Sam" - this also emphasizes "who", or "(The) oranges Sam ate" - this emphasizes "what", or even "(The) oranges ate Sam" - this, again, emphasizes "what", and so on. It seems to me that, unlike in English, this structure (SVO) is very flexible in Russian. Are there other languages with such flexibility? With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Definitely, for instance Latin, Finnish, and Hungarian (see word order). I am no linguist either, but I believe all Slavic languages (Russian included) have the that flexibility as well. --Cameltrader 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know about Finnish, but neither does the article. First Finnish is listed as an SVO-ordered language in the beginning part, then listed as a Russian-like language where every word order is possible. Which one is false? 157.181.100.63 (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that's true for all Slavic languages. In Slovene language the sentence "A dog chases a rabbit" can be said in 6 diferent ways: Variants 1 and 2 are very often. Var 1 is used to stres the word zajca (A dog chases a RABBIT), var 2 to stress the word pes (''A DOG chases a rabbit'). Variants 3 and 4 are less often but they can be both used when someone wants to stress the verb lovi (A dog CHASES a rabbit). Variants 5 and 6 are rare, but they can be used (mostly in poetry).
 * 1) Pes lovi zajca.
 * 2) Zajca lovi pes.
 * 3) Pes zajca lovi.
 * 4) Zajca pes lovi.
 * 5) Lovi pes zajca.
 * 6) Lovi zajca pes.

The sentence "A rabbit chases a dog" is formed by changing the form of the nouns:
 * 1) Psa lovi zajec.
 * 2) Zajec lovi psa.
 * 3) ... 6. etc

I think that Slavic languages shouldn't be classified as SVO (neither as OSV,...) - they should be treated simply as languages with flexible word order. Difficult to understand for speakers of English? Marino-slo (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even in languages with flexible word order (often due to case, such as this exemple), there tend to be a "standard" word order when no particular word is stressed. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends. For example, "She went home" will normally, in the most neutral form, be "Она поехала домой", which is SVO. But "She loves him" would normally be "Она его любит" (SOV) instead of "Она любит его" (SVO). I'd say both of these forms are equally popular, but specific form depends on particular situation. Hence, someone saying "Она любит его" (SVO) in a neutral situation would be immediately singled out as non-native speaker. Mikus (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You I love
The entry says that romance languages use a SVO word order, but when using a pronoun as an object they use SOV. The entry then shows some examples: from French Je t'aime (I you love), and from Spanish Te amo (you I love). But, "you I love" isn't SOV, it's OSV. Thus contradicting the point. Te amo is just a form of, "Yo te amo" (I you love) but since Spanish is a null subject language the, "yo" (I) is optional. I edited the entry to say that, "te amo" is literaly, "I you love" instead of, "you I love", but this edit has been reverted. Am I wrong? Which literal translation is correct?

And on a completely unrealated note: are romance languages the only type of languages that do this? I recall reading that Greek is normaly SVO but becomes SOV with pronouns. Is this right?--Fantastic fred (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "te amo" is better likened to "te yo amo" than "yo te amo", but "I you love" sounds very confusing in English. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I just saw this after I added my opinion to the preceding section. Now thinking about it, I'd say that this rule - to prefer SOV for pronouns for objects, while preferring SVO to other cases - is very much true for Russian. Mikus (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"This has not been scientifically examined"
I know nothing about linguistic pyschology, but imagine that it has been researched, but no consensus has been reached, or perhaps that results are still inconclusive. Again, I am ignorant on this subject so I will let someone else change if neccessary.86.42.169.184 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arabic language can have SVO(look to qoran)typology,for example: al qittu qata' nawatan=the cat(-nominative suffix)cutted a nut(-accusative suffix)القطُ قطعَ نواةً.
Arabic language can have SVO(look to qoran)typology,for example: al qittu qata' nawatan=the cat(-nominative suffix) cutted a nut(-accusative suffix).القطُ قطعَ نواةً

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian typology
This statement in the lede appears to be a typo:
 * Some languages are more complicated: Russian allows all possible combinations SVO, OVS, SOV, OSV, VSO, VOS. Changing the word order influences the nuance of the meaning. Usually the last word in a sentence is emphasized. But other implications are possible. Varying word order is very common in Russian."

Understanding what word order/typology is well enough to know that 1) there can be some flexibility in a language, and 2) there cannot be all-flexibility in a language: Should this passage just be nuked or is the writer getting at something valid, but using the wrong terminology? In any case, I think its both 1) out of place for the lede, and 2) so interesting, if true, that requires its own article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm native Polish speaker and I know Russian as well. I think this is about more general feature about languages with no strict word order. But I can only tell about Polish and Russian. The sentence structure is in principle build using word flexion and not word position so in theory all positional permutations should be grammatically correct. However for instance the basic, neutral sentence order in Polish is definitely SVO. So sometimes there exist some "natural" order. A sentence acts like a micro-story. Its order can be for instance introduction, important actors, their interactions, and then details (neutral in Polish), can be the most interesting information first and then the rest or context, can be overall picture followed by a surprise or conclusion or something to be remembered, etc. Just patterns that can be found in a larger part of speech make sense for a single sentence, too. Spoken sentence intonation should correspond to the speaker intention. I think that SVO order is a part of a larger set of rules saying which word order is "natural" or neutral. I would call them affinities since they are not strict and some are stronger and some are weaker. My experience is that SVO affinity is stronger in Polish than in Russian. In Russian OV order is quite typical and in this case a verb at the end acts like "turning on the light" on the stage built by previous sentence parts. Head-final order in Polish is frequently used in a poetry but in a neutral context it would sound "foreign". Breaking affinities is a normal way of speaking but it cannot be random. It should correspond to a logic of a sentence micro-story. Too many broken affinities would make a sentence grammatically correct but just strange and not comprehensible. I perceive sentence being rather a set of pieces of information describing different aspects than a single "structure". It acts more like a story than a structure and the sentence order in Polish and Russian is related more to the logic of that story than to a grammatical tree structure. And also there are some natural affinities or patterns with different strengths and their intentional violation is used to provide additional context or hints. By the way I suspect that nonpositional language structure is related to a negative concord (Double negative), at least in my language. Negation should be applied, depending on the situation, to all relevant pieces of information (story aspects) and there is no monolithic "sentence" which is to be negated. Would be nice if someone could more professionally extend information about that. --Rikki tikki (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I love you language choices
In the box showing the frequency distribution of word order in languages surveyed by Russell S. Tomlin. The examples give Latin (rather than French/Spanish) and Hebrew/Irish (rather than Arabic). These may be the languages used in the original work however it is my opinion that the examples provided are not the best choices. Latin is spoken by no native speakers, Irish by next to no native speakers while Arabic, French and Spanish are languages of the UN and have hundreds of millions of speakers.

That's just my opinion though 114.77.196.32 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

German: Maybe another good example...
...to add to the article is conditional clauses as well as (generally) temporal clauses. I am German and I notice that this is---by far---the most difficult thing for foreigners. Ich besuche dich heute abend, sobald ich Zeit habe. (I'll visit you tonight, as soon as I have time.) And you might already have guessed what they usually say: Ich besuche dich heute abend, sobald ich habe Zeit. -andy 77.190.44.126 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Classification of Hebrew
Hebrew is definitely SVO language. it sounds better to say "she loves him" rather than "loves she him". SVO stracture is the correct pattern in Hebrew, which is learnt in schools.

(actually, it's more likely to say "him she loves" than "loves she him".) can someone fix it? i don't have an account. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Malay Isn't SVO?
The table lists Malay as SVO, but the Malay article states that "OVA, commonly but inaccurately called "passive", is the basic and most common word order". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.78.40 (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

,, etc., claim that it is SVO. The sentence "Sambil berdiang nasi masak" (while toasting, cook the rice, i. e., kill two birds with one stone) is clearly in that order. 89.173.232.70 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

SVO in French, Italian, Spanish
SVO generally pertains to French, Italian and Spanish, but the example used by Russell S. Tomlin is wrong is this case. It would be "She him loves" in all three languages. --Explosivo (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:VO language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

German is not an "SVO language"
German and Dutch should be removed from the list of "SVO-languages". It is true that in some sources they are classified in this way. But this is today a minority view and is only possible if you define: "a language that has S-V-O as the statistically most frequent order in clauses which only consist of S, O, and one single verb". As soon as you have an auxiliary, the German and Dutch order is S-Aux-O-V. In almost all aspects, the German clause behaves different from English or other true SVO languages. It is better not to apply the category to German at all (this is how the typological database WALS, chapter 81 goes about it. Alazon (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Meanwhile, I've found out how to correct the template and brought it back.--Alazon (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Subject–verb–object word order


text:
Talk:All your base are belong to us

Archived

 * Almost all references have been removed from the main page and archived here due to the near-infinite possible number of references that had been or could be added to the page.

I google translated it and it was gone wrong
-- 05:19, 9 September 2019 109.201.38.56

Recent deletion
Is the section below that has just been deleted notable enough to be included under the "Mentions in media" section of the article? -Justiyaya (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On January 19, 2019, American Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat from New York) tweeted "All your base (are) belong to us" in response to a poll by Hill–HarrisX that 45% of the polled Republicans approved of Ocasio-Cortez's suggested implementation of a 70% marginal tax rate for individuals making over $10 million per year.

The deletion is reverted by another editor -Justiyaya (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I think it's about as relevant as can be. It shows that the meme has escaped well beyond the traditional confines of video games and even made it into political discourse. It's cited in a reputable source by a celebrity politician. This isn't some backwoods obscure personal blog it was cited in. If this isn't noteworthy, I don't know what is. JordiGH (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's relevant enough. A throwaway remark isn't a notable reference. Orpheus (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had similar questions when I came across the page. I wavered over deleting it, but decided that it was worth keeping as a notable use of the meme in a context that is possibly farther reaching than it has ever been used before. Basically I have much the same feelings that @JordiGH has. We have to be careful how we think about what's worth noting; the meme isn't worth mentioning on AOC's page, but it is worth mentioning on this one. — HTGS (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this conversation is old, but should any new readers come along, like me, who are just now seeing this, I would like to confirm my belief that the AOC content is very relevant and an excellent add. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s only still here because the Woke Revolution controls Wikipedia. Alexandermoir (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn. You're on to us. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm making a change to the text for clarity, as the existing phrasing may perpetuate a misunderstanding of what marginal tax rates are.

On January 19, 2019, American Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat from New York) tweeted "All your base (are) belong to us" in response to a poll by Hill–HarrisX that 45% of the polled Republicans approved of Ocasio-Cortez's suggested implementation of a 70% marginal tax rate for individual income over $10 million per year.

The marginal tax rate is on the income in excess of the cutoff, not on the individual as a whole, as stated in the original text, and this is a common misunderstanding used for anti-tax propaganda. The linked description of marginal tax rates is also unnecessarily confusing; I may tackle that next. JohannVII (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

GAN
Let's see if we can get this back to GA. I've overhauled the article to ensure it's ready. If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to reply a ping me or post a message on my talk page. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible “Fat Princess” addition
In the game “Fat Princess” for the PSP, if your team captures every outpost on the map, the announcer proudly says, “All your base are belong to us!” Would this be a relevant reference to include? Semicolin1 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi @Semicolin1, inclusion of certain references has been a hot topic on this talk page since the article's creation. The consensus was to only include references that received widespread media attention (like the AOC tweet or the YouTube maintenance message) and that other references would be included in a "list of references to "All your base are belong to us". That list was deleted years ago, so unless the reference in "Fat Princess" received widespread media attention, I think it's ok to not mention it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Warcraft III cheat code
In the 2002 Blizzard game Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, and the expansion game Frozen Throne, there is a cheat code built into the game that allows the player to instantly beat a level. The code is “allyourbasearebelongtous”.

Sources: https://www.ign.com/wikis/warcraft-3/PC_Cheats_and_Secrets_-_List_of_Warcraft_3_Cheat_Codes

https://classic.battle.net/war3/cheatcodes.shtml 108.35.145.233 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Terrible Secret of Space" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrible_Secret_of_Space&redirect=no Terrible Secret of Space] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:All your base are belong to us


text:
Eleanor of Castile (disambiguation)

Leonora of Castile or Eleanor of Castile may refer to:

 * Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile (1162–1214), wife of Alfonso VIII, who brought the name into the Castilian Royal Dynasty
 * Eleanor of Castile (died 1244), queen consort of Aragon, wife of James I of Aragon
 * Eleanor of Castile (1241–1290), queen consort England, wife of Edward I, daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile and Joan, Countess of Ponthieu
 * Eleanor of Castile (1307–1359), queen consort of Aragon, wife of Alfonso IV of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand IV of Castile
 * Eleanor of Aragon, Queen of Castile (1358–1382), wife of John I of Castile, daughter of Peter IV of Aragon and Eleanor of Sicily
 * Eleanor of Castile, Queen of Navarre (fl. 1363–1416), queen consort of Navarre, wife of Charles III, daughter of Henry II of Castile, mother of Blanche of Navarre
 * Eleanor of Austria (1498–1558), wife of Manuel I of Portugal and Francis I of France, daughter of Joanna of Castile and Philip the Handsome of Austria-Burgundy

title: Eleanor of Castile (disambiguation)