This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A Manual of Korean geographical and other proper names romanized (1883) p. 41 "Paik-du-san" "Ham-gyong-do" At the bottom of this picture: http://i47.tinypic.com/33kvwiv.jpg
Remember that when the Dangun myth was first recorded, Goryeo's northern border was far remote from the mountain. -- Nanshu 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Korean Dangun myth was first recorded, Ko-Chosun which is now Manchuria. Koryo dynasty is much later after Korean three Kindom period. Korguryo-Koryo-Korea.
I have added a map of the location of the mountain. However, I don't this map is NPOV enough. If anyone can replace it with a version that is not completely Korea based, I'd be very grateful. It's just that I didn't have anything at hand. Sorry. Have a nice day! Kokiri 09:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can the name table be restored to this article at this time? -- 68.194.108.16 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
( Wikipedia Bias)
1) Baekdu Mountain is Korean. Baekto Mountain should be called in Korean Baekdu Mountain. 2) Changbai Mountain in Chinese translation it is written in Chinese and Manchu ( No Korean!!!!). 3) Baekdu Mountain ( Wikipedia page should be written in Korean only.) No Chinese or Manchu words. 4) Baekdu Mountain belongs to Koreans not Manchu or Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanempire ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please confirm the height of the mountain? I've changed it to 2750, as found in Britannica and on a page by the
Chosun Ilbo. Also, can somebody check the claim for the deepest mountain lake in the world (from Chosun)?
Kokiri 30 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)
I want to remove the Chinese characters from the opening paragraph, but they somehow look different from those in the name table. Can somebody check this?! Kokiri 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done some searches on the mountain itself, and it turns out that western publications and institutions refer it as mount Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu (Korean variants of the name), not the Chinese variant - Baitou. Examples of such institutions are UNESCO [3], The Guardian [4], Fotosearch [5], American University [6], Encyclopædia Britannica [7], All States Flag [8], Library of Congress (United States) [9] and countless others. Search on Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu on google will reveal about 20,000 to 50,000 pages for each name, while search done on Baitou reveals only 500 pages. It is clear that mount Baekdu is much more commonly used name than mount Baekdu. I'll revert the pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deiaemeth ( talk • contribs) 7:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
I'm interested in the Volcano side of this mountain, and I came to this page based on the Wikipedia page on Supervolcanoes. It was only because I noticed the different language versions in the corner, and this discussion that I realized that the two mountains are in fact one. Regardless of the conclusion about the name - there should be a segment on both pages linking them. (I'm not ready to start doing so.) T Crawford ( talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
actually, per korean naming convention, it seems the article should be named "Paektusan" (in north korean mr romanization). unless it's considered a korean place, not just a north korean place name. or if "baekdu mountain" is a firmly established english name.
Appleby
00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
unless anyone wants to chime in, i think we can go ahead and rename this to Baekdusan, since it is an iconic place for all of korea, not just the modern north korean state. it's in the south korean national anthem and relevant to ancient korean history. so, being a korean topic, per Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Korean) and Revised romanization of Korean, this topic should be romanized Baekdusan. Appleby 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
googling most korean place names will get you more mr, just because rr is more recent, & some publication simply have a policy of using mr, as opposed to wikipedia's choice of rr. e.g. pusan & koryo are more common, but we still use busan & goryeo, following rr. there are very few exceptions, such as taekwondo and kimchi, where korean words have become so firmly established in english as to be loanwords. i don't think baekdusan, in any spelling, qualifies. so it's just a matter of being consistent within wikipedia.
under either rr or mr, and to be consistent with other korean mountain articles in wikipedia, "san" is a part of the word, without space or hyphenation. i'm ok with either baekdusan or paektusan, but would prefer the former, as i said, because i think it's a korean iconic location, rather than just a north korean place. Appleby 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
i see your point too. i'd just like to see consistency, but don't have strong feelings either way. it's really a vague judgment call, but i'd say fuji (unlike fujisan) is established in english; han river (of seoul) is truly a toss-up, though i'd lean slightly against it, & baekdu/paektu (or, for that matter, baekdusan/paektusan) really hasn't entered english to the same level. i don't think baekdu mountain is "wrong," but if i were creating an article now, i'd have chosen baekdusan as the name. Appleby 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that Paektusan is an iconic Korean location, RR should only be applied to places over which the ROK has actual jurisdiction. Paektusan is completely out of its geographic sphere, ergo Paektusan over Baekdusan. Also, the conventions are, on both sides of the DMZ I believe, to include geographic suffixes (e.g., -san) when they are routinely used as part of the name in spoken Korean. Ergo, Paektusan (or Baekdusan) over Paektu Mountain or Baekdu Mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deng Beatles ( talk • contribs).
The Wikipedia naming convention for Korean is unambiguous:
Unless the naming convention is changed, the article should be moved to Mount Paektu (which is the official name used in Enlish-language publications of the DPRK, such as dispatches of the Korean Central News Agency 조선통신사 and publications of the Foreign Languages Publishing House 외국문출판사) or to Paektusan (as suggested by the naming convention for names of mountains). In any case, the South Korean spelling “Baekdu” is not acceptable, nor it is commonly used in western languages: books.google.com gives 24 results for “Baekdu”, 503 for “Paektu”; 142 for “Mt. Paektu”, 116 for “Mount Paektu”, and 139 for “Paektusan”, mostly transcriptions. Results from scholar.google.com are similar. “Baekdu” is a marginal South Korean spelling.
Any further comments or objections? — 198.145.112.147 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The link for the lake (Cheonji) at the summit of Baekdu Mountain is completely incorrect. The lake which is linked to the page is not the lake at the summit of the mountain. Take a look at the picture on the Tianchi Lake page (the lake currently and incorrectly linked to the Baekdu Mountain page). If you notice, there are boats in the picture. How exactly would boats be carried to a lake at the top of a mountain which is 2,750 meters tall? Also Baekdu Mountain is the tallest mountain in all of Korea (North and South); the mountains the background of the picture of Lake Tianchi are taller. Furthermore, the latitude/longitude coordinates of Lake Tianchi and Baekdu Mountain are similar, but not the same. Either the picture is wrong on the Lake Tianchi page (which I tend to doubt), or the link is incorrect and should be removed.
The article says that the border was settled by Japan and the Qing dynasty (China) in 1919. However, the Qing was replaced by the Republic of China in 1912. Is that the correct date for the Gando Treaty? 68.48.166.146 13:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please join Wikiproject Korea! It is very new and we need more help to fully establish the article and to begin working on projects. Good friend100 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
GOOGLE CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. Didn't we go over this already? Why does everyone believe that the Google search engine can be used as evidence that this names is bad and this name is good. There are many sites that are biased and inaccurate, and nearly everything comes up from Google. Then why not use Yahoo as evidence? Or Jeeves? It is always that "number of searches found" is most important. If we must use Google, then we would have to analyze Google Korea or Google china.
And also, why can't we leave Korea alone? Why does an issue of China or Japan always have to come to rule and destroy Korea? Does everybody wish Korea was gone? Dokdo is ours, Baekdusan is ours, Goguryeo is ours...there was no such thing as Goguryeo...there is no such thing as Korea...oh the list goes on and on. Oyo321 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Admit it, Baekdu Mountain is Korean.
Hmm I never rejected google, its just that google cannot be used as a concluding device for everything. It can be Chinese chauvanism because there is no need to move this article in the first place. The article was fine the way it was until an editor decided to pop up with google searches that Changabaishan has more search results. This discussion is underway into a move war. There is absolutely no controversies in the article that requires a move or edit and there simply isn't enough reasons to move this article. Why the hassle suddenly? Good friend100 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there's polling involved with this RM but, if so, I oppose. This is an example par excellance of the weaknesses of trying to use Google to determine encyclopedic usage. Setting aside for a moment that Baekdu has multiple transliterations (e.g. "Baekdu," "Baekdusan," "Paekdu," "Paekdusan," "Paektu," "Paektusan") that are not given in the above results, Google does not weigh the relative importance of the topic under each name. To an English encyclopedic audience, Baekdu's status as Korea's highest mountain and its role in Korean history and culture give the Korean transliteration greater weight. Redirects and a bold mention of Changbai in the first line can solve any other issues.
(And just remember that, in Google, "fuck" [10] polls higher than "sexual intercourse" [11] but it doesn't make it right for Wikipedia.)
It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article on Balhae claims that an eruption of Baekdu Mountain may have precipitated the fall of that empire. The text reads, in part:
"Recent study suggests that the downfall of Balhae is largely due to the catastrophic eruption in the 10th century of Baekdu Mountain located at the center of Balhae territory. Baekdu mountain still has one of the biggest volcanic caldera in the world Chonji."
This article doesn't mention that eruption, or it's supposed consequences, and it attributes the creation of Chonji to a later eruption. It states:
"The crater lake was probably created in 1597, when a recorded eruption took place. Volcanic ash from this eruption has been found as far away as the southern part of Hokkaidō of Japan."
What are the facts, or arguements, what evidence is there on either side, is this controversial, and are their any sources to cite for this info? zadignose 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this page and the Changbai Mountains article each link to their own discussion pages for talking about the merge, so this discussion may take place simultaneously in two places. Anyway, I'm copying my opposition comment here:
Oppose Merge Mt. Paektu, or Baekdu, or Baekdusan, or whatever you prefer to call it, deserves its own article. The very fact that its naming is controversial, that Chinese and Koreans have interest in claims to the mountain, it's outstanding status as the highest mountain in the chain, its large crater lake, and the fact that its eruption may have precipitated the downfall of the kingdom of Balhae all argue strongly that it must stand as a unique article. zadignose 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I agree with all the above points by Zadignose. I believe any of them would be a good reason to have a separate article on the mountain; together, they seem insurmountable. (I will also copy my comment to the other talk page.) -- Avenue 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support the highest moutain should called Changbai Mountain, even Korean call the moutains same name. No one know Baekdu except Korean -- Yeahsoo 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge It says "mountain range" not just one mountain like this article. Good friend100 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge this mountain should be discussed separately from the range. Kappa 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge Per Mount Everest and Himalayas. Cydevil38 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge Only the Chinese people know the mountain as "Changbai Mountain". If you look at all western map printers and organisations (such as National Geographic, World Book, etc.) they will have the mountain as Paektu Mountain. Moreover, even in Asia, mountain is called "白頭山(백두산)" (such as Japan). -- DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: As of April 19, I removed the merge proposal template, as there had been no apparent consensus to merge after three weeks. It seems the new comments support this conclusion. zadignose 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying that 'Paek-tu' is another name for the mountain is deceiving. That is simply another variation of the anglicized name. If is believed that this is absolutely necessary to mention (which I don't think it is), then it should say that 'Paek-tu' is a spelling variation of the name not an other name entirely. -- Bentonia School 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Baekdusan geographically part of the Kaema Plateau? I have found references suggesting such, but I'm uncertain as the Plateau is, well, a Plateau and it seems unual that a volcano would be part of a tableland. Also, disregarding the name, what geological evidence is there that proves that Baekdusan is part of the Baekdudaegan? Can a volcano be part of a mountain range that was formed in a different manner from a volcano? -- Bentonia School 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Baekdoosan geographically part of Korean Peninsula. Baekdoosan geography follows Korean Balhae land crust plate.
Quote: "During the 2007 Asian Winter Games, which were held in Changchun, China, a group of South Korean athletes held up signs during the award ceremony which stated "Mount Baekdu is our territory"."
This has become somewhat of an Internet Meme in China. There are dozens of different photoshopped images of the event, such as one saying (where the athletes hold up the placard banners) “火星也是我们的!” ("Planet Mars is our territory"). -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Here are some examples.
The original image (with Paektusan) and a few photoshopped edits are here: http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/04/t-62104.html
Perhaps information regarding the meme (something like "Response within China"/"Internet Culture in China") could be added somewhere within the article? -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [12]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana ( talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure here are dozens of korean and chinese who know English, and some are ethnocentric. they argue for the page name for a long long time, each can't accept opposite reasons. But this is wikipedia, I hope all people can edit after you understand what is netural view. So I'm going to make a suggestion that both side can accept.
I suggest to make a standard firstly, then according the standard to name this mountain.
We can discuss and decide the standard before June, and then according the standard to collect votes till the end of 2009.
Anyone agree? Newkiomail 16:08, 11 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.31.43.24 ( talk)
why say China side is locally? 66.7.131.197 ( talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Baekdoosan, is official Korean name. Changbai is Manchurian word not Chinese.
IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaBaekDooSan ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE."
Wrong, all primary or secondary sources in China called the mountain Changbai mountain including the manchus. I never heard the chinese call the mountain baekdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.88.14 ( talk) 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In Manchu the mountain was called Golmin Šanggiyan Alin ("Long White Mountain"), and the lake was called Tamun i omo ("Tamun lake"). These names appear in the early pages of the Yargiyan i kooli, together with a drawing of the mountain, showing the sources of the Yalu, Aihū (= Tumen) and Hūntung rivers. It would be nice to include something about this, given the importance of the mountain to the Aisin Gioro origin legend.
-- 68.49.1.69 ( talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, according to a Korean historical source called 李朝肃宗实录 (written in Classical Chinese), Baekdu was originally the name that the "barbarians" (胡人, i.e. non-Koreans) used for the mountain:
长白山,胡人或称白头山,以长白故也 "Changbaishan: The barbarians also call it White Head (Baekdu) Mountain, for it is long and white"
I'm glad to see that the Koreans are open-minded enough to use a barbarian name for such an important national location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.105.147 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
李朝肃宗实录 is made up by chinese. No such book. Don't spread lies chinese 98.203.211.87 ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It said "known locally" as it is referred to as Changbai Mountain only in China. And please don't justify the "popularity" of the name with a simple Google search. -- DandanxD ( talk) 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the cause of Baekdu Mountain/Baitoushan/The Mountain Under Dispute's formation? Is it due to subduction, hotspots or a rift valley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanlongwucaii ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Though a number of eruptions of this volcano have been recorded (one as late as the twentieth century according to list_of_volcanoes_in_Korea ), very little information about the volcanic activity is given in the article. The tenth century eruption is discussed briefly, and beyond that there is mention in passing of records from Joseon. I have to imagine there is enough information in reliable sources to add more about the volcanic activity to the article (as it stands, the article is mostly about its cultural history related to China and Korea). 209.65.62.201 ( talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, especially seeing as South Korea and North Korea recently held its 2nd Joint Conference regarding the possibility of explosion. -- DandanxD ( talk) 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This article should indeed be splitd, in that information about the mountain range will be included in Changbai Mountains (so this should be an article about the "peak"s), while there're currently 2 major peaks of Changbai Mountains: 2691m Baiyun Peak in China and 2750m General Kim Peak in North Korea. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The highest peak on the Changbai Mountain Ranges (also known as Jangbaek Mountain Ranges) is Baekdu Mountain. Removed the Merge Proposal Template accordingly.-- DandanxD ( talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Baekdu Mountain → Paektu Mountain – I the article should be moved from "Baekdu Mountain" to "Paektu Mountain." I've read the discussion and sadly it's apparent that none of the Wikipedians understood the subject. The naming conventions for Korean clearly say that:In this case the South Korean Revised Romanization of Korean is used - under the system approved in 2000 the mountain is spelled "Baekdu.""Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of. Thus, North Korean place names use McCune-Reischauer Romanization (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies), while South Korean place names use the Revised Romanization of Korean."
Under McCune-Reischauer the mountain is spelled Paektu, which is the correct romanization for North Korean place names. There can be no other variants in between aside of added -san, spellings like Paekdu are always incorrect. Moreover, "Mount Paektu" is also used also by Encyclopedia Britannica.-- Kohelet ( talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Its name is Changbai,no Paektu!!Thank you.-- Shiouloo ( talk) 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I find it highly inappropriate that a Korean name is used for a site that is culturally important to a number of peoples in the region, and for the better part of its history is known by other names. This reeks of Korean nationalist historiography and I am surprised that nobody has had a decent discussion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.131 ( talk) 05:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
An stub article entitled Paektusan was created, with the redirect to this article removed. It seems to have been created out of a misunderstanding. "Paektusan" (white head mountain) is the Korean name for this mountain. It is not a name for "North Korea" (and the cited BBC article doesn't say that it is), though it is used in North Korean slogans, as the stub article notes. There should be more information in this article about the symbolism of the mountain in North Korean propaganda, but not a new article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paektu Mountain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the question of what name, given the article is called Paektu Mountain, wouldn't it be better for the article if this spelling was used all through? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with you, the name of the mountain requires consistency Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
i came to this article after seeing the phrase "great persons of Mt Paektu" in a few sites. Not many to be sure. It seems to be in reference to planning anniversaries for next year (the three Kims and Mrs Kim). Is it worth mentioning in this article? http://greatpersonspaektu.blogspot.ca/ -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Paektu Mountain. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070202/610000000020070202150304E1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Garam: The Chinese name for the mountain was quietly removed by an IP in this edit without explanation. As this is a border mountain between North Korea and Chinese, it's standard practice to list the common names in both languages. Please do not remove without justification. - Zanhe ( talk) 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks. -- Garam ( talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In order to resolve this dispute, could you all clarify a few points?
I don't understand Garam's distinction of "main title on article, not the article title
" (are you thinking of the display title, used where the "main-space" name can't accomodate some character?), but perhaps that is only a detail. From the two comments offered so far I take it only the title is at issue.
The reference to
Talk:Paektu_Mountain#Moving_page_name_to_Baekdu_Mountain I find underwhelming. That 2006 discussion had no "debate" to speak of, and only three comments. More pertinent would be the discussion that immediately followed, which seems to build a strong case for "Paektu". Also: that move was declined (see
#Requested move, above) with the comment that the proper procedure "did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined.
" If reference is made to any prior discussion there should be a complete summary of all relevant discussions. As there has been long-running contention of the name to use here, there probably can't be a settled resolution of this without a summary of all previous points and arguments. (And added here for future reference.)
Both Jack Upland and Garam kindly link to articles about romanization of Korean names. However, I would point out that we have WP-specific guidance on this in the form of
WP:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles (a.k.a.
MOS:KO) and
WP:Naming conventions (Korean). The latter clearly states (under "Mountains") that: "Articles about specific mountains should be titled with the mountain's full unhyphenated Korean name ....
", unless it "differs from the common name used in English sources
".
It seems to me the following points are determinative:
1- Does this mountain have a well-established English name? And by this I do not mean a preponderance of usage (and certainly not as counted by Google), but whether, among English speakers, it is known by a particular name? (Like how we know a certain city in Italy as "Florence".)
2- Is this mountain (and the article about it) primarily Chinese or Korean? Or even Manchurian? Possibly an argument can be made that (being the highest point in Korea?) it is more significant for Korea, but this needs discussion.
3- Should the Korean name be romanized by the North Korean method, or by the South Korean method? Should the North Korean method be used on the basis of the mountain being a feature in North Korea?
4- Here we have an odd point. Although
MOS:KO#Romanization allows that North Korea uses a variant of McCune–Reischauer, it states: "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.
" Is this acceptable?
Might there be consensus that these points are the basis for determining the proper name here? And (leaving aside #2 for the moment), would anyone disagree to the answers to #1, #3, and #4 being no, yes, and yes? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
So back to the first point: Is "Paektu" (or any close variant) a well-established name for this mountain in English? Alternately, does anyone dispute that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This closure was rude, as discussion was continuing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I open new section to continue the discussion. Thanks. @ J. Johnson -- Garam ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the expression "North and South Koreans" with "Koreans", because there is no need in this context to refer specifically to which side of the division the people who believe Mt. Paekdu is their spiritual home call their home, and indeed there are Koreans outside of Korea, hence neither North nor South, who also maintain such a belief.
I have removed the notation about the ROC claiming this territory as its own. The ROC claims the entirety of China as its own, so this point is nothing specific, or relevant, to Mt. Paekdu, and there is certainly no need in the article on Mt. Paekdu to cite a lengthy reference about internal ROC rules about defining its territory.
I have changed the description of the Olympic incident. This was not someone speaking as a South Korean claiming that North Korean territory actually belonged to South Korea; rather, the ice skaters were speaking as Koreans, claiming that this was Korean territory, rather than Chinese.
what is meant by the "train" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Антон васильков ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson: How the heck is eliminating traditional characters from the lead qualify as "bold name changes"? It was not mentioned at all (nor had anything to do with) in the RfC and what I was doing is shortening the zh-templates as well as putting the pinyin Changbaishan into the zh template and putting the romanization Paektusan into the lang-ko template. I did not change the fact that the main name of the mountain is Paektu, and kept Changbai Mountain as the secondary alternative name, not changing it whatsoever, which is upheld by the RfC. All I was doing is having the lead only using Simplified Chinese, since all Chinese-based articles use only the writing of their respective regions in their lead zh templates, such as Zhou Enlai (Simplified/mainland China) and Carrie Lam (Traditional/HK), which I was doing. I suggest you try reviewing what I did instead of claiming that I am making BOLD changes to the name of the mountain. - 祝好, Josephua( 聊天) 23:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501513?intcmp=trendmd-adv This might be useful. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 11:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
A Manual of Korean geographical and other proper names romanized (1883) p. 41 "Paik-du-san" "Ham-gyong-do" At the bottom of this picture: http://i47.tinypic.com/33kvwiv.jpg
Remember that when the Dangun myth was first recorded, Goryeo's northern border was far remote from the mountain. -- Nanshu 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Korean Dangun myth was first recorded, Ko-Chosun which is now Manchuria. Koryo dynasty is much later after Korean three Kindom period. Korguryo-Koryo-Korea.
I have added a map of the location of the mountain. However, I don't this map is NPOV enough. If anyone can replace it with a version that is not completely Korea based, I'd be very grateful. It's just that I didn't have anything at hand. Sorry. Have a nice day! Kokiri 09:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can the name table be restored to this article at this time? -- 68.194.108.16 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
( Wikipedia Bias)
1) Baekdu Mountain is Korean. Baekto Mountain should be called in Korean Baekdu Mountain. 2) Changbai Mountain in Chinese translation it is written in Chinese and Manchu ( No Korean!!!!). 3) Baekdu Mountain ( Wikipedia page should be written in Korean only.) No Chinese or Manchu words. 4) Baekdu Mountain belongs to Koreans not Manchu or Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanempire ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody please confirm the height of the mountain? I've changed it to 2750, as found in Britannica and on a page by the
Chosun Ilbo. Also, can somebody check the claim for the deepest mountain lake in the world (from Chosun)?
Kokiri 30 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)
I want to remove the Chinese characters from the opening paragraph, but they somehow look different from those in the name table. Can somebody check this?! Kokiri 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done some searches on the mountain itself, and it turns out that western publications and institutions refer it as mount Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu (Korean variants of the name), not the Chinese variant - Baitou. Examples of such institutions are UNESCO [3], The Guardian [4], Fotosearch [5], American University [6], Encyclopædia Britannica [7], All States Flag [8], Library of Congress (United States) [9] and countless others. Search on Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu on google will reveal about 20,000 to 50,000 pages for each name, while search done on Baitou reveals only 500 pages. It is clear that mount Baekdu is much more commonly used name than mount Baekdu. I'll revert the pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deiaemeth ( talk • contribs) 7:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
I'm interested in the Volcano side of this mountain, and I came to this page based on the Wikipedia page on Supervolcanoes. It was only because I noticed the different language versions in the corner, and this discussion that I realized that the two mountains are in fact one. Regardless of the conclusion about the name - there should be a segment on both pages linking them. (I'm not ready to start doing so.) T Crawford ( talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
actually, per korean naming convention, it seems the article should be named "Paektusan" (in north korean mr romanization). unless it's considered a korean place, not just a north korean place name. or if "baekdu mountain" is a firmly established english name.
Appleby
00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
unless anyone wants to chime in, i think we can go ahead and rename this to Baekdusan, since it is an iconic place for all of korea, not just the modern north korean state. it's in the south korean national anthem and relevant to ancient korean history. so, being a korean topic, per Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Korean) and Revised romanization of Korean, this topic should be romanized Baekdusan. Appleby 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
googling most korean place names will get you more mr, just because rr is more recent, & some publication simply have a policy of using mr, as opposed to wikipedia's choice of rr. e.g. pusan & koryo are more common, but we still use busan & goryeo, following rr. there are very few exceptions, such as taekwondo and kimchi, where korean words have become so firmly established in english as to be loanwords. i don't think baekdusan, in any spelling, qualifies. so it's just a matter of being consistent within wikipedia.
under either rr or mr, and to be consistent with other korean mountain articles in wikipedia, "san" is a part of the word, without space or hyphenation. i'm ok with either baekdusan or paektusan, but would prefer the former, as i said, because i think it's a korean iconic location, rather than just a north korean place. Appleby 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
i see your point too. i'd just like to see consistency, but don't have strong feelings either way. it's really a vague judgment call, but i'd say fuji (unlike fujisan) is established in english; han river (of seoul) is truly a toss-up, though i'd lean slightly against it, & baekdu/paektu (or, for that matter, baekdusan/paektusan) really hasn't entered english to the same level. i don't think baekdu mountain is "wrong," but if i were creating an article now, i'd have chosen baekdusan as the name. Appleby 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that Paektusan is an iconic Korean location, RR should only be applied to places over which the ROK has actual jurisdiction. Paektusan is completely out of its geographic sphere, ergo Paektusan over Baekdusan. Also, the conventions are, on both sides of the DMZ I believe, to include geographic suffixes (e.g., -san) when they are routinely used as part of the name in spoken Korean. Ergo, Paektusan (or Baekdusan) over Paektu Mountain or Baekdu Mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deng Beatles ( talk • contribs).
The Wikipedia naming convention for Korean is unambiguous:
Unless the naming convention is changed, the article should be moved to Mount Paektu (which is the official name used in Enlish-language publications of the DPRK, such as dispatches of the Korean Central News Agency 조선통신사 and publications of the Foreign Languages Publishing House 외국문출판사) or to Paektusan (as suggested by the naming convention for names of mountains). In any case, the South Korean spelling “Baekdu” is not acceptable, nor it is commonly used in western languages: books.google.com gives 24 results for “Baekdu”, 503 for “Paektu”; 142 for “Mt. Paektu”, 116 for “Mount Paektu”, and 139 for “Paektusan”, mostly transcriptions. Results from scholar.google.com are similar. “Baekdu” is a marginal South Korean spelling.
Any further comments or objections? — 198.145.112.147 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The link for the lake (Cheonji) at the summit of Baekdu Mountain is completely incorrect. The lake which is linked to the page is not the lake at the summit of the mountain. Take a look at the picture on the Tianchi Lake page (the lake currently and incorrectly linked to the Baekdu Mountain page). If you notice, there are boats in the picture. How exactly would boats be carried to a lake at the top of a mountain which is 2,750 meters tall? Also Baekdu Mountain is the tallest mountain in all of Korea (North and South); the mountains the background of the picture of Lake Tianchi are taller. Furthermore, the latitude/longitude coordinates of Lake Tianchi and Baekdu Mountain are similar, but not the same. Either the picture is wrong on the Lake Tianchi page (which I tend to doubt), or the link is incorrect and should be removed.
The article says that the border was settled by Japan and the Qing dynasty (China) in 1919. However, the Qing was replaced by the Republic of China in 1912. Is that the correct date for the Gando Treaty? 68.48.166.146 13:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please join Wikiproject Korea! It is very new and we need more help to fully establish the article and to begin working on projects. Good friend100 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
GOOGLE CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. Didn't we go over this already? Why does everyone believe that the Google search engine can be used as evidence that this names is bad and this name is good. There are many sites that are biased and inaccurate, and nearly everything comes up from Google. Then why not use Yahoo as evidence? Or Jeeves? It is always that "number of searches found" is most important. If we must use Google, then we would have to analyze Google Korea or Google china.
And also, why can't we leave Korea alone? Why does an issue of China or Japan always have to come to rule and destroy Korea? Does everybody wish Korea was gone? Dokdo is ours, Baekdusan is ours, Goguryeo is ours...there was no such thing as Goguryeo...there is no such thing as Korea...oh the list goes on and on. Oyo321 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Admit it, Baekdu Mountain is Korean.
Hmm I never rejected google, its just that google cannot be used as a concluding device for everything. It can be Chinese chauvanism because there is no need to move this article in the first place. The article was fine the way it was until an editor decided to pop up with google searches that Changabaishan has more search results. This discussion is underway into a move war. There is absolutely no controversies in the article that requires a move or edit and there simply isn't enough reasons to move this article. Why the hassle suddenly? Good friend100 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there's polling involved with this RM but, if so, I oppose. This is an example par excellance of the weaknesses of trying to use Google to determine encyclopedic usage. Setting aside for a moment that Baekdu has multiple transliterations (e.g. "Baekdu," "Baekdusan," "Paekdu," "Paekdusan," "Paektu," "Paektusan") that are not given in the above results, Google does not weigh the relative importance of the topic under each name. To an English encyclopedic audience, Baekdu's status as Korea's highest mountain and its role in Korean history and culture give the Korean transliteration greater weight. Redirects and a bold mention of Changbai in the first line can solve any other issues.
(And just remember that, in Google, "fuck" [10] polls higher than "sexual intercourse" [11] but it doesn't make it right for Wikipedia.)
It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article on Balhae claims that an eruption of Baekdu Mountain may have precipitated the fall of that empire. The text reads, in part:
"Recent study suggests that the downfall of Balhae is largely due to the catastrophic eruption in the 10th century of Baekdu Mountain located at the center of Balhae territory. Baekdu mountain still has one of the biggest volcanic caldera in the world Chonji."
This article doesn't mention that eruption, or it's supposed consequences, and it attributes the creation of Chonji to a later eruption. It states:
"The crater lake was probably created in 1597, when a recorded eruption took place. Volcanic ash from this eruption has been found as far away as the southern part of Hokkaidō of Japan."
What are the facts, or arguements, what evidence is there on either side, is this controversial, and are their any sources to cite for this info? zadignose 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this page and the Changbai Mountains article each link to their own discussion pages for talking about the merge, so this discussion may take place simultaneously in two places. Anyway, I'm copying my opposition comment here:
Oppose Merge Mt. Paektu, or Baekdu, or Baekdusan, or whatever you prefer to call it, deserves its own article. The very fact that its naming is controversial, that Chinese and Koreans have interest in claims to the mountain, it's outstanding status as the highest mountain in the chain, its large crater lake, and the fact that its eruption may have precipitated the downfall of the kingdom of Balhae all argue strongly that it must stand as a unique article. zadignose 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge. I agree with all the above points by Zadignose. I believe any of them would be a good reason to have a separate article on the mountain; together, they seem insurmountable. (I will also copy my comment to the other talk page.) -- Avenue 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Support the highest moutain should called Changbai Mountain, even Korean call the moutains same name. No one know Baekdu except Korean -- Yeahsoo 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge It says "mountain range" not just one mountain like this article. Good friend100 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge this mountain should be discussed separately from the range. Kappa 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge Per Mount Everest and Himalayas. Cydevil38 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge Only the Chinese people know the mountain as "Changbai Mountain". If you look at all western map printers and organisations (such as National Geographic, World Book, etc.) they will have the mountain as Paektu Mountain. Moreover, even in Asia, mountain is called "白頭山(백두산)" (such as Japan). -- DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: As of April 19, I removed the merge proposal template, as there had been no apparent consensus to merge after three weeks. It seems the new comments support this conclusion. zadignose 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying that 'Paek-tu' is another name for the mountain is deceiving. That is simply another variation of the anglicized name. If is believed that this is absolutely necessary to mention (which I don't think it is), then it should say that 'Paek-tu' is a spelling variation of the name not an other name entirely. -- Bentonia School 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Baekdusan geographically part of the Kaema Plateau? I have found references suggesting such, but I'm uncertain as the Plateau is, well, a Plateau and it seems unual that a volcano would be part of a tableland. Also, disregarding the name, what geological evidence is there that proves that Baekdusan is part of the Baekdudaegan? Can a volcano be part of a mountain range that was formed in a different manner from a volcano? -- Bentonia School 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Baekdoosan geographically part of Korean Peninsula. Baekdoosan geography follows Korean Balhae land crust plate.
Quote: "During the 2007 Asian Winter Games, which were held in Changchun, China, a group of South Korean athletes held up signs during the award ceremony which stated "Mount Baekdu is our territory"."
This has become somewhat of an Internet Meme in China. There are dozens of different photoshopped images of the event, such as one saying (where the athletes hold up the placard banners) “火星也是我们的!” ("Planet Mars is our territory"). -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Here are some examples.
The original image (with Paektusan) and a few photoshopped edits are here: http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/04/t-62104.html
Perhaps information regarding the meme (something like "Response within China"/"Internet Culture in China") could be added somewhere within the article? -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [12]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana ( talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure here are dozens of korean and chinese who know English, and some are ethnocentric. they argue for the page name for a long long time, each can't accept opposite reasons. But this is wikipedia, I hope all people can edit after you understand what is netural view. So I'm going to make a suggestion that both side can accept.
I suggest to make a standard firstly, then according the standard to name this mountain.
We can discuss and decide the standard before June, and then according the standard to collect votes till the end of 2009.
Anyone agree? Newkiomail 16:08, 11 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.31.43.24 ( talk)
why say China side is locally? 66.7.131.197 ( talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Baekdoosan, is official Korean name. Changbai is Manchurian word not Chinese.
IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaBaekDooSan ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE."
Wrong, all primary or secondary sources in China called the mountain Changbai mountain including the manchus. I never heard the chinese call the mountain baekdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.88.14 ( talk) 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In Manchu the mountain was called Golmin Šanggiyan Alin ("Long White Mountain"), and the lake was called Tamun i omo ("Tamun lake"). These names appear in the early pages of the Yargiyan i kooli, together with a drawing of the mountain, showing the sources of the Yalu, Aihū (= Tumen) and Hūntung rivers. It would be nice to include something about this, given the importance of the mountain to the Aisin Gioro origin legend.
-- 68.49.1.69 ( talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, according to a Korean historical source called 李朝肃宗实录 (written in Classical Chinese), Baekdu was originally the name that the "barbarians" (胡人, i.e. non-Koreans) used for the mountain:
长白山,胡人或称白头山,以长白故也 "Changbaishan: The barbarians also call it White Head (Baekdu) Mountain, for it is long and white"
I'm glad to see that the Koreans are open-minded enough to use a barbarian name for such an important national location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.105.147 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
李朝肃宗实录 is made up by chinese. No such book. Don't spread lies chinese 98.203.211.87 ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It said "known locally" as it is referred to as Changbai Mountain only in China. And please don't justify the "popularity" of the name with a simple Google search. -- DandanxD ( talk) 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the cause of Baekdu Mountain/Baitoushan/The Mountain Under Dispute's formation? Is it due to subduction, hotspots or a rift valley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanlongwucaii ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Though a number of eruptions of this volcano have been recorded (one as late as the twentieth century according to list_of_volcanoes_in_Korea ), very little information about the volcanic activity is given in the article. The tenth century eruption is discussed briefly, and beyond that there is mention in passing of records from Joseon. I have to imagine there is enough information in reliable sources to add more about the volcanic activity to the article (as it stands, the article is mostly about its cultural history related to China and Korea). 209.65.62.201 ( talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, especially seeing as South Korea and North Korea recently held its 2nd Joint Conference regarding the possibility of explosion. -- DandanxD ( talk) 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This article should indeed be splitd, in that information about the mountain range will be included in Changbai Mountains (so this should be an article about the "peak"s), while there're currently 2 major peaks of Changbai Mountains: 2691m Baiyun Peak in China and 2750m General Kim Peak in North Korea. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The highest peak on the Changbai Mountain Ranges (also known as Jangbaek Mountain Ranges) is Baekdu Mountain. Removed the Merge Proposal Template accordingly.-- DandanxD ( talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Baekdu Mountain → Paektu Mountain – I the article should be moved from "Baekdu Mountain" to "Paektu Mountain." I've read the discussion and sadly it's apparent that none of the Wikipedians understood the subject. The naming conventions for Korean clearly say that:In this case the South Korean Revised Romanization of Korean is used - under the system approved in 2000 the mountain is spelled "Baekdu.""Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of. Thus, North Korean place names use McCune-Reischauer Romanization (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies), while South Korean place names use the Revised Romanization of Korean."
Under McCune-Reischauer the mountain is spelled Paektu, which is the correct romanization for North Korean place names. There can be no other variants in between aside of added -san, spellings like Paekdu are always incorrect. Moreover, "Mount Paektu" is also used also by Encyclopedia Britannica.-- Kohelet ( talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Its name is Changbai,no Paektu!!Thank you.-- Shiouloo ( talk) 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I find it highly inappropriate that a Korean name is used for a site that is culturally important to a number of peoples in the region, and for the better part of its history is known by other names. This reeks of Korean nationalist historiography and I am surprised that nobody has had a decent discussion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.131 ( talk) 05:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
An stub article entitled Paektusan was created, with the redirect to this article removed. It seems to have been created out of a misunderstanding. "Paektusan" (white head mountain) is the Korean name for this mountain. It is not a name for "North Korea" (and the cited BBC article doesn't say that it is), though it is used in North Korean slogans, as the stub article notes. There should be more information in this article about the symbolism of the mountain in North Korean propaganda, but not a new article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paektu Mountain. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the question of what name, given the article is called Paektu Mountain, wouldn't it be better for the article if this spelling was used all through? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with you, the name of the mountain requires consistency Goodtiming8871 ( talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
i came to this article after seeing the phrase "great persons of Mt Paektu" in a few sites. Not many to be sure. It seems to be in reference to planning anniversaries for next year (the three Kims and Mrs Kim). Is it worth mentioning in this article? http://greatpersonspaektu.blogspot.ca/ -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Paektu Mountain. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20070202/610000000020070202150304E1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Garam: The Chinese name for the mountain was quietly removed by an IP in this edit without explanation. As this is a border mountain between North Korea and Chinese, it's standard practice to list the common names in both languages. Please do not remove without justification. - Zanhe ( talk) 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks. -- Garam ( talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In order to resolve this dispute, could you all clarify a few points?
I don't understand Garam's distinction of "main title on article, not the article title
" (are you thinking of the display title, used where the "main-space" name can't accomodate some character?), but perhaps that is only a detail. From the two comments offered so far I take it only the title is at issue.
The reference to
Talk:Paektu_Mountain#Moving_page_name_to_Baekdu_Mountain I find underwhelming. That 2006 discussion had no "debate" to speak of, and only three comments. More pertinent would be the discussion that immediately followed, which seems to build a strong case for "Paektu". Also: that move was declined (see
#Requested move, above) with the comment that the proper procedure "did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined.
" If reference is made to any prior discussion there should be a complete summary of all relevant discussions. As there has been long-running contention of the name to use here, there probably can't be a settled resolution of this without a summary of all previous points and arguments. (And added here for future reference.)
Both Jack Upland and Garam kindly link to articles about romanization of Korean names. However, I would point out that we have WP-specific guidance on this in the form of
WP:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles (a.k.a.
MOS:KO) and
WP:Naming conventions (Korean). The latter clearly states (under "Mountains") that: "Articles about specific mountains should be titled with the mountain's full unhyphenated Korean name ....
", unless it "differs from the common name used in English sources
".
It seems to me the following points are determinative:
1- Does this mountain have a well-established English name? And by this I do not mean a preponderance of usage (and certainly not as counted by Google), but whether, among English speakers, it is known by a particular name? (Like how we know a certain city in Italy as "Florence".)
2- Is this mountain (and the article about it) primarily Chinese or Korean? Or even Manchurian? Possibly an argument can be made that (being the highest point in Korea?) it is more significant for Korea, but this needs discussion.
3- Should the Korean name be romanized by the North Korean method, or by the South Korean method? Should the North Korean method be used on the basis of the mountain being a feature in North Korea?
4- Here we have an odd point. Although
MOS:KO#Romanization allows that North Korea uses a variant of McCune–Reischauer, it states: "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.
" Is this acceptable?
Might there be consensus that these points are the basis for determining the proper name here? And (leaving aside #2 for the moment), would anyone disagree to the answers to #1, #3, and #4 being no, yes, and yes? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
So back to the first point: Is "Paektu" (or any close variant) a well-established name for this mountain in English? Alternately, does anyone dispute that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This closure was rude, as discussion was continuing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I open new section to continue the discussion. Thanks. @ J. Johnson -- Garam ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the expression "North and South Koreans" with "Koreans", because there is no need in this context to refer specifically to which side of the division the people who believe Mt. Paekdu is their spiritual home call their home, and indeed there are Koreans outside of Korea, hence neither North nor South, who also maintain such a belief.
I have removed the notation about the ROC claiming this territory as its own. The ROC claims the entirety of China as its own, so this point is nothing specific, or relevant, to Mt. Paekdu, and there is certainly no need in the article on Mt. Paekdu to cite a lengthy reference about internal ROC rules about defining its territory.
I have changed the description of the Olympic incident. This was not someone speaking as a South Korean claiming that North Korean territory actually belonged to South Korea; rather, the ice skaters were speaking as Koreans, claiming that this was Korean territory, rather than Chinese.
what is meant by the "train" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Антон васильков ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson: How the heck is eliminating traditional characters from the lead qualify as "bold name changes"? It was not mentioned at all (nor had anything to do with) in the RfC and what I was doing is shortening the zh-templates as well as putting the pinyin Changbaishan into the zh template and putting the romanization Paektusan into the lang-ko template. I did not change the fact that the main name of the mountain is Paektu, and kept Changbai Mountain as the secondary alternative name, not changing it whatsoever, which is upheld by the RfC. All I was doing is having the lead only using Simplified Chinese, since all Chinese-based articles use only the writing of their respective regions in their lead zh templates, such as Zhou Enlai (Simplified/mainland China) and Carrie Lam (Traditional/HK), which I was doing. I suggest you try reviewing what I did instead of claiming that I am making BOLD changes to the name of the mountain. - 祝好, Josephua( 聊天) 23:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501513?intcmp=trendmd-adv This might be useful. Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 11:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)