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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here are several reasons why we use "Manchuria" and not "Northeast China".
I am listing this since some of you editors cannot seem to see why we are using "Manchuria" although other editors have repeatedly said these points. Add anymore if neccessary.
I suspect I'm wrong about that, because I find that most people really do see humans as other humans, once you get past some barriers, but you might want to think... is this the first impression you want a stranger to have of you, saying "none of your Korean business" in a public forum? It's a very negative impression, from where I'm standing. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Assault11 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If this issue is so important, you should take your case to Manchuria. You should also note that Wikipedia uses a map that covers both Russsia and China to describe Manchuria.
Good friend100 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
While i was making researches i found that a northern frontier of Qing Empire existed before 1689 (the famous treaty of Nerchinsk) it was called : THE WILLOW PALISADE (
Wade-Giles: Liu-t'iao-pien-ch'iang) , a natural border which was built by the Qing Empire in 1678 to counter Russian expansionism in the Far East of Asia. In
Qianlong poem we can see that Shenjing (reigion = Liaoning) and Jilin (region present-day Jilin) were divided by this border.
I made further researches, on it and i found that the border streches around 900 kms from Mukden/Shenyang/Shenjing to Mudanjiang via the Sungari/Songhua river. According to Qing Empire official documents in 1680, region located outside that palisade were considered as "foreign land". Maybe Heilongjiang have never been under the direct control of the Qing Empire (in addition to that Qianlong poem never mentionned the term of Heilongjiang) at this time and was officially incorporated in the Qing Empire in 1689 (following the signature of the Treaty of Nerchinsk which was advantageous to the Qing Empire).
In addition that when Nurhaci (who became officially Khan of the aisin gurun in 1616), has "unified" all the Jurchens tribes in 1619, following the surrender of the Yehe clan (the last independant Haixi Jurchen clan), that would only mean Haixi and Jianzhou Jurchens but not necessarily the Yeren Jurchens (Wild Jurchens, the ancestors of the Nanai/Hezhen tribes).
We can also add that Heilongjiangcheng (
Traditional Chinese : 黑龍江城), present-day Aigun, was erected between 1669 and 1684, prior to the Yakesa/Albazin Campaign (1685-1687), which meaning that Qing Empire tried to expand its frontier northward (in the direction of the actual Heilongjiang province).
I'm wondering whether Heilongjiang history prior 1689 have close relationship with Liaoning and Jilin's ones ?
- Balhae/Bohai never really controlled that region
- Liao Dynasty after conquering divided Jurchens into 2 types : the Sheng Jurchens living in Heilongjiang never incorporated within Liao Empire) and the Shu Jurchens the descendant of the Mohe.
Source : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608(197912)69%3A4%3C599%3ATWP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Whlee 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Following what i wrote above i suggest to split it differently:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. What does Northeast China got to do with Koreans? If the term "infuriates" Koreans, then what's it doing in Korean news articles [7]? By the way, have you been to Yan Ji? I can almost assure you that most ethnic Chaoxian Zu people there refer to themselves as "Dong Bei Ren." Assault11 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whlee 07:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think using river basins may be a good idea, such as "History of Liao river basin" or "History of Usuri river basin".
However, the problem is that this will make things very complex and repetative, and will run into some practical problems. For example, in Goguryeo, do we have to include all three history templates? And wasn't the Yalu river basin the main impetus of Goguryeo? And wouldn't that many templates really clutter the article? We should just go with the name that is commonly used in English - Manchuria.
This template itself was a compromise that Korean editors accepted with reluctunce. Further pushing for Chinese POV that has little support from evidence undermine this compromise and will only worsen things.
But again, I think naming the templates with their corresponding river basins is a very good idea. Manchuria lacks a historiography, so river basins, being physical real-world entities, may be a good place to start, but the problem is that there are some practical barriers to achieving this. Cydevil38 22:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
How about changing History of Korea to History of Han River Basin?
Wiki Pokemon
04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "History of Northeast China and Russian Far-east" is good enough. Neutral and objective as it appears.-- Jiejunkong 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a template on History of Manchuria, not Northeast China. The previous consensus on Goguryeo was to place a template of History of Manchuria, which was why this template was created in the first place. Also, as I've said previously, you cannot selectively apply NPOV to push for one POV while denying its application for the other POV. And besides, most of those sources use the word "Manchuria" anyways. Cydevil38 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a simple reason that the proposed formulation of having "Northeast China" as the heading of the template doesn't work: the template, and the article, include a large part of what is now Russia. No matter what is your view on the issue of whether any of the states existing in history were "Chinese" or not in nature, it is clearly not currently accurate. There is not a whole lot that I agree with Cydevil38 on, but this is one thing I agree with, and I think with good reason. I also see that his removal of Xiongnu and Donghu was cited as evidence that he doesn't play by consensus (although he didn't remove them this time). I don't think there's a consensus that Xiongnu, in particular, belongs on this template: there is no real evidence that Xiongnu ruled any part of what is now Manchuria. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this template be titled "History of Manchuria" [11], or "History of Northeast China" [12]? Cydevil38 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my own position previously to claims that Manchuria is an artificial construct created by the Japanese: it wasn't. As a construct, it was created by Huang Taiji. As far as artificial is concerned, "Manchuria," as defined on the article itself, has natural geographic boundaries that makes it a fairly cohesive geographic whole that is more homogenous than heterogeneous -- and, if one takes the position that it is too artificial to constitute a proper unit of historical consideration, it should be noted that "Northeast China" is even more artificial, as those boundaries were not formed until 1900.
If anything, the lack of a current state named "Manchuria" makes it a better term for NPOVness, as using "Northeast China" is really analogous to using, say, "historical Northern Korea," which would be the Korean analog to using "Northeast China" for that same geographic area, if it actually is in common usage. (In any case, "Northeast China" would be historically inaccurate, as it wasn't northeast China until relatively recent times.) -- Nlu ( talk) 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just how is "满洲" NPOV? This term was NEVER used officially by China - not even the Manchus used it to refer to this area. Are you telling me we should go change Myanmar back to Burma for the same reasons being argued for "Manchuria"?
Take a look at the news articles for Manchuria [15], a significant portion of these are connected to the Japanese puppet regime/World War II, and almost all of them refer to events in the early 20th century. In contrast, almost all major news articles today - whether it be the Internet, TV, etc. - use the term "Northeast China" (in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, the mining accident in Liaoning was reported by both the CNN/BBC on TV) [16] (Note, most of them are reported by non-Chinese/foreign news sites).
Fact is, Northeast China is by far more popular than "Manchuria" nowadays. The people of the region call themselves "东北人." The regional accent is something that makes the people stand out. Famous people/comedians like 赵本山 are known to be stereotypical 东北人, with their crude sounding colloquial "Northeasterner" accent. The list goes on. Try going to China and asking where 满洲 is will probably get you in a lot of trouble. Assault11 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But you still haven't addressed the real problem: let's say for a moment that you're right and that the template can and should address only the three northeastern provinces of China. This causes a major problem: the template would no longer do what it was intended to do: to serve as a navigation template dealing with all the peoples/states which are part of the history of the region, because restricting it to the three provinces means that you now have to deal with unverifiable claims of, for example, how much the Mohe were actually within the current confines of the three provinces. (That's leaving aside the problem that the template was created as a compromise.) There simply isn't a way to isolate the history of the three provinces from the rest of the region, and therefore, any template that implies a separate history for the three provinces as opposed to the currently Russian parts of the territory is, to be put bluntly, a historical fraud. (Now, the only part of the territory we're discussing that might justifiably have its own historical navigational template is Liaodong Peninsula, as it really does, in many ways, have a separate traceable and verifiable history of its own, but no one is suggesting that at the moment.) A major point of NPOV is that Wikipedia should not have systematic biases, whether it be U.S.-centric, U.K.-centric, Korea-centric (as I've criticized the many attempts by Korean editors to inject Korea-centric views into East Sea, for example), or, in this case, Sinocentric. Re-read your own writing -- do you realize just how Sinocentric your viewpoint is? Stop thinking in terms of what needs to be stated in the Chinese (or Northeast Chinese) point of view: think about what needs to be stated from a neutral point of view that favors neither the Chinese, the Korean, or the Russian viewpoint on this, whether modern or historical. I think Nurhaci and Huang Taiji would have found your idea that "[t]he Manchus are a Chinese entity" absolutely astounding and ludicrous, and while they may not be around any more, the template, being a historical navigational template, still needs to make itself neither Sinocentric nor revisionist. "[T]he region was 'Chinese' to begin with"? That's simply unbelievably untrue, and I don't know how you can even manage to write that statement with a straight face. In any case, tags don't prove that the articles have a problem; anyone can put tags on. Just as how Koreans don't own the history of Goguryeo by themselves, the Chinese don't own the history of the region, even when you're artificially confining it to the three provinces. (Note also just how fluid the political adjustments were; during the ROC times, the three provinces covered a lot more territory than they currently do.) An ownership mentality is not conduciive to NPOVness, and that's what you've been exhibiting. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You claim that your argument is not solely based on current status, but given that you are confining your argument that "Northeast China" is proper by arguing only about the three provinces, it can only be about the current status, as even status 70 years ago or 120 years ago would not have supported your arguments, as the three provinces' borders were at those times very different than they are now. You are imposing the current man-made borders of only less than 68 years in history into a template that spans thousands of years. The inescapable conclusion is that you are imposing the PRC official interpretation onto this template. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What I don't get from you guys is that nobody else is bothered by the template. Manchuria is simply used to describe the geographic region and I don't see anything wrong with it. Good friend100 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that Manchuria and Russia are mutually exclusive. Manchuria according to all sources only refers to Chinese territory, Russian territory is not included even if Manchuria once occupy it (and we are not even sure when the word 'Manchuria' is invented). If 'Manchuria' (not 満州) is invented (by who? nobody has any sources to support.) before Russia took the Maritime from Qing, then Manchuria once occupy NE China and Russian Maritime, but today Manchuria only refers to NE China (I have provided many NPOV sources above), thus Manchuria has political implication in it's boundary, it is only refers to Chinese territory. If 'Manchuria' (not 満州) is invented after Russia took Maritime, then Manchuria is strictly NE China and might be arguable that it is a geographic term. Whatever the case Manchuria is NE China today (see all NPOV sources I provided, if you want to say otherwise please provide your sources), adding Russia is forcing your own interpretation (unless you can support with NPOV sources), and confliciting with all NPOV sources I provided above.
Wiki Pokemon
18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To
Nlu, you have stated in your talk page that you do not have a strong position on this. It looks like this is not true since you are aruging very strongly on this issue. So you indeed have violated wikipedia policy for reverting changes to a position you favor and immediately protecting the page. You should decide if you want to be an admin, or (exclusive or here) a participant in edit.
Wiki Pokemon
18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of when the term "Manchuria" was coined, the fact is that today it has the most common usage in English sources, as well as those of other languages. Cydevil38 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason why these arguments never stop is because you fail to acknoledge that Manchuria describes China AND Russia. See the picture I put up for the second time? Simply making the same claims over and over again doesn't do anything. Good friend100 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
We should use the contemporary terms of the region detailed:
Neither the Chinese (including ethnic Manchus) nor the Russians refer to the area as "Manchuria" in common usage. The English usage of Manchuria exclusively refers to Northeast China, and thus the more contemporary term Northeast China should be used where applicable (except when dealing specifically with Manchu history). This is the same reason we do not name East Asia in Wikipedia as the " Orient" or the " Far East," though these terms have seen considerable historic use. The term "Manchuria" should be used only for the periods of Manchu-related history, because this region does not exist today. There are no seccessionist movements in this region, nor any debate among Manchus of whether this region should be called Northeast China or Manchuria. Thus the naming of this region as "Northeast China" is absolutely not contested, except by a few Korean users here, for reasons that are beyond logic. Their agenda here on a region in China and Russia should be seriously questioned.
Koguryo, Palhae are kingdoms that have existed in today's Northeast China, Russian Far East and Korean peninsula. These are neutral regional labels. Calling Palhae a "Korean kingdom" is not neutral, neither is calling it a "Chinese kingdom," but calling it a "Manchurian-Korean kingdom" is even more nonsensical. -- Naus 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor [37]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria [38] or History of Northeast China [39] [40] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel that most third opinion expressed here are just too casual and without good understandning of the topic being discuss. To give credit to serious editors who have put in lots of effort in this, we should only take seriously those third opinions whose authors have put in equal amount of effort as those serious editors.
Wiki Pokemon
03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:3O: "This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors."
The people who are involved/have taken sides in the proceedings in the previous discussions include user:Wiki pokemon, user:Naus, user:Cydevil38, user:Nlu, user:Whlee and I. Just a brief examination of the edit history of this article would show that there are more than just two editors involved.
With all due respect for the third parties, most invited to comment probably have no idea what the arguments/counter-arguments really mean. Whatever the case is, the request for third opinion is completely pointless for reasons stated above. As of now, the RfC still stands and possibly, invite some interested individuals from WP:China to discuss the issue. Assault11 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather abide by the article, not the talk page. Assault11 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see where this stands. Please add support or oppose. Please do not bring the discussion here but suggest new names and other options.
I don't think there are enough votes here yet for an answer. Good friend100 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to offer a Third Opinion on this matter. I have read the entire discussion to date regarding this matter, and I must admit that - for a strong disagreement - everyone has managed to maintain more civility than I have seen (and, unfortunately, experienced) in other articles. That is to be commended. Not that it matters in the slightest, but I do have a degree in history, so I am familiar with the matters and terminlology in question.
Now, as I see it - and please correct me if I am over-simplifying the matter - the argument is that the use of the term 'Manchuria' was in the past an derogatory and simplistic term to refer to people of NE China, and that NE China is more appropriately descriptive for the English wiki.
The term 'Manchuria' was indeed a slight to the peoples of northeastern China by its neighbors...a great many years ago. Just as the term negro was offensively applied to certain people of color, the term negroid is currently in use to differentiate those of black African descent from those of other races. This is but one of many instances where a term that was originally vile and cruel had lost much of its power and instead became something infinitely less so.
I would posit that such is the case with the term defining the region of Manchuria. The arguments against its usage in the English wiki are heartfelt, nationalisitic ("We certainly do not need Koreans to tell us what we should call our region"). passionate, and utterly NPOV. There is a significant amount of emotion going on here, and while I am not discounting the rightness of that feeling, it has no place whatsoever in WP.
Also, any arguments utilizing Google as a component are immediately suspect, as China indeed restricts the internet within its borders from without. One cannot utilize search terms to know what is being referred to in both the country itself, or in scholarly literature and journals (which are frequently only available as abstracts if online at all).
Additionally, most non-native Chinese refer to the area in question as "Manchuria". This is not an argument wherein one could make the Peking-Beijing argument, as there is no name offered to replace Manchuria. All that is being offered is a rough geographic locale, and frankly, that is unencyclopedic. Though it may sounds harsh, China exists within the world around it, and unless the government there is prepared to offer a specific alternative to the name Manchuria, it is not our concern to address it. The use of a geographic locale to evade a proper name is unacceptable in that it is both unencyclopedic and a partisan point of view.
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To Nlu. I believe your motivation in this debate is righteous in nature. However I would like to highlight to you how your perspective has clashed with the modern conventional perspectives. As I have already presented earlier and numerous times, almost all modern NPOV references describe ‘Manchuria’ as (1) Manchuria current name is Northeast China (2) Manchuria is a historical term (3) Manchuria is considered offensive to NE Chinese (almost 1/60 of the world population). So far there is not one single modern NPOV references raised by anyone which indicated otherwise. As all modern readers are going to be taking these authoritative references and their explanations as modern standard convention, we should not make any contradictory interpretation of ‘Manchuria’ for the Wikipedia readers. If possible at all, you must reconcile your view with the modern convention. (1) Manchuria boundary is restricted to NE China only, versus your view that it includes Russia territory as well (2) Manchuria is a historical term with current terminology of NE China, which means the region is known to most modern person as NE China (3) How do you take into consideration the feeling of the NE Chinese (almost 1/60 of the world population) who consider Manchuria offensive. Even you don’t care because they are Chinese, and you would only care about feeling of English speakers, then how about those majority of sensitive English readers who do not want to unknowingly learn a word from Wikipedia which they might later use inadvertently to offend other people? Not to mention that you are also infuriating Russians by indirectly referring to them as ‘Manchurians’.
In addition I would like to point out that your willingness to accept using the term Russia or Russian or any word with Russian roots (Primorsky for example) in describing the region would completely destroy your argument of NPOVness for the use of the word “Manchuria’ over ‘NE China’. Russians/Chinese no matter what their ethnicity will not accept the label ‘Manchuria’ put on their land which already suggest it is not NPOV. Insisting of using ‘Manchuria’ is denying NE Chinese/Russian their rights to identify with their current identity of Chinese/Russain AND tracing their ancestral roots to this part of the world. I don’t see any practical and realistic solution to your goal of labeling the region using one single neutral word (because there is none today, plus your argument for it is controversial and inconclusive at best) without conflicting with modern convention. And the solution you proposed might buy you little time, but is already not appropriate today, is getting more and more inappropriate as the seconds tick by, will be impossible in years and decades to come (assuming today status quo).
Wiki Pokemon
18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you saying that, Niu; I already responded to Poke. If my rendering an 3rd Opinion here has bruised anyone's ego, please accept my blanket apology; I thought I was pretty clear and forthright. This argument, with very few exceptions, is being conducted rather civilly. Again, I commend you on this, and hope it shall remain such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, your searches are all in line (though the one for Encarta refers to the Manzhouli city in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) with what I stated. The Encarta article on Northeast China [44] describes Northeast China as Dongbei (Note that in the article, Manchuria is described as the former name used in place of the modern term "Northeast China"). "Dongbei" is the name for Northeast China in Chinese.
As for Dongbei Pingyuan, this term refers to the Northeast China Plain. Assault11 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne (cast a spell), on your first source Encarta you can clearly see another map named 'Manchuria [Dongbei Pingyuan] (historical region), China'. In your second source National Geographic, it clearly refers Manchuria to the region name Dongbei China. And your third source Center for Instructional Media is very interesting. It shows the original boundary of Manchuria to include present Russia Maritime, then as China lost control of the area to Russia, Manchuria shrunk to its present boundary of Northeast China. This clearly indicated Manchuria refers exclusively to China. I am not sure if you are still interested in this discussion. In case you still are, I invite you to read the following dictioinaries and encyclopedias,
Without going into whether Manchuria or Northeast China is more appropriate, and without preconceived ideas about the subject, see if you agree that all these sources explicitly indicated Manchuria to be exclusively NE or Northeastern China, and have not the slightest implication to suggest part of it is currently in Russia.
Wiki Pokemon
18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Af648. However, it is impossible to come to a compromise with these editors who simply want it their own way. Making immature demands like "give me some stuff to back you up" shows how it is not possible to get agreement with them. Unless higher authority comes in to explain to them that Manchuria is the correct term to use, they will not realize that their argument is invalid.
Simply because "Manchuria" insults the Chinese people, "northeast China" must be used. I find this laughable (not to WWII victims) because thats not a neutral viewpoint. Even with a third opinion request, they only repeat their same arguments and shut their ears and scream for northeast China. Good friend100 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, offensive term should be avoided. The term Manchuria was mainly used by Japanese militarists during World War II to refer to the land of Manchukuo, a puppet state controlled by Japanese Kwantung Army, who also did the same thing to Korea/Joseon between 1897 and 1910.-- Jiejunkong 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw no progress in resolving this dispute with Wikipedia:Third Opinion, so I filed a request for mediation. First, I only included editors who engaged in revert warring as the disputants. If anyone else is interested or concerned in this template, please feel free to sign yourself up. Here's the case page [58] Cydevil38 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
please do not edit without consensus. Simply because you and a few others think that Chinese editors will be insulted by "Manchuria", doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Emphasizing that Chinese editors and readers will be insulted is simply POV.
The reason why we cannot get to consensus is because you fail to acknowledge that Manchuria is the right word to use. Simply because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it.
Others have repeatedly said that Northeast China only includes northeast China. The template covers Manchuria which spans into Russia and farther north.
Please don't start repeating what you have already said. Good friend100 19:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering general Chinese presence in Manchuria from dynastic China all the way to present day PRC, thats a very long time.
Again, I'll clarify that Northeast China includes ONLY China. This template covers more than just China. Can you not comprehend why Manchuria is used? Good friend100 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria itself is a historical word, but only when referring to the Manchu ethnic group. The landmass "Manchuria" is a modern invention, more so than the concept of Northeast China. Assault11 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already given up on arguments for the derogatory and historical nature of the word Manchuria, but it is a solid fact that Manchuria refers only to Qing(Manchu)/Chinese territory, Russia absolutely has nothing to do with Qing(Manchu)/Chinese. I and I see that other NE China proponents are ready to have Manchuria up there together with NE China sharing equal status. I hope Manchuria proponents are ready to accept NE China too. In addition we probably should use Russian Priamurye instead of Russian Far East to better fit the original requirements of the template
Wiki Pokemon
21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
For good faith assumption, I can see that everybody is of good faith and is merely arguing that certain term is more comfortable to him/her than the other options.
Reply In mainland China, the term "Korea" is not used until very recently. The term commonly used is Joseon (North Korea is called North Joseon, while South Korea is called South Joseon). I think both Korea and Joseon are neutral terms. But if you insist on using the term Manchuria, which is no longer used in the so-called Manchuria area, as if your honor is on the table, then I believe that it is okay to use Joseon to call the area you are from, even if it is no longer used there. Deal?-- Jiejunkong 05:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I copy a paragraph from above sections: According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, offensive term should be avoided. The term Manchuria was mainly used by Japanese militarists during World War II to refer to the land of Manchukuo, a puppet state controlled by Japanese Kwantung Army, who also did the same thing to Joseon between 1897 and 1910.-- Jiejunkong 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Most Western people don't know the derogatory meaning in the term "Manchuria", so I believe that they use the term in a neutral manner. However, after the derogatory meaning is exposed, if the writer/speaker persists as if nothing has happened, then this writer/speaker is obviously a rude person who is ignoring some facts and wikirules.-- Jiejunkong 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its your problem. You keep arguing that nobody "that live in Manchuria today" think the word is offensive. We can't make everything so that you like it. That Chinese people are insulted from the word is simply a POV. Good friend100 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What are guys going to argue now, that "Manchuria" is a racial slur? Give me a break. Good friend100 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Repeating that "local residents don't like this name" is purely out of your biased viewpoint. How many times do editors have to tell you that Manchuria is not a negative word? Good friend100 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to provide a third opinion quite a while ago, and I see the debate has persisted. I've just read through much of it, and I think I see what the main dispute is. Some editors are arguing that we should use "Manchuria", per WP:COMMONNAME while others oppose "Manchuria" and prefer "Northeast China" per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and the word Manchuria being offensive. That seems to be the crux of the situation; I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I have two questions. For supporters of "Manchuria": is the term "Northeast China" also offensive to someone, or do you prefer "Manchuria" simply because it's a better descriptor? For supporters of "Northeast China" ("and the Russian Far-east" I guess), can you document any kind of effort to replace "Manchuria" with "Northeast China" in English language sources? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38
22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia recommends using the following table for determining the 'right' word to use. Its obvious which name should be used. Let me point it out explicitly, 'NE China' with a score of 3 should be used over 'Manchuria' which a score of 0.5 Wiki Pokemon 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Criterion | NE China | Manchuria |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 1 | 0.5 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 0 |
Total | 3 | 0.5 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
First of all, this table and procedure is fully recommended by Wikipedia and is accepted by most editors, and is considered a standard that all users should follow, please see Wikipedia:Naming conflict for more detail. Your objection to using heuristic should be addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. In the mean time it is legitimate to use this table and procedure considered a standard in Wikipedia. Now to answer your question about the efforts to replace ‘Manchuria’ with ‘NE China’. Below you will find entries in dictionaries and references which indicated that the name Manchuria is 'historical', and has been replaced by the current name 'NE China'.
For some examples of usage of NE China today by US government departments, universities, and news networks see below:
Wiki Pokemon 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Pokemon, thank you for the helpful reply.
Regarding the role of the page WP:NCON, you seem to be placing more weight on it than I've seen it commonly given. I'm not disagreeing with your position; I'm simply advising you that legalistic appeals to that page are unlikely to get you far. Wikipedia is not a strict rule-system, you know. We explicitly allow for judgment to overrule technical readings of the rules. Appeals to common sense regularly trump appeals to the "letter of the law" around here.
Now, I hope we can talk instead about this template. The sources you cite do indeed indicate that Manchuria is an historical name, and that it is considered offensive to modern Chinese. That seems to me to be a strong argument against its use per WP:AVOID, and per precedents such as Gypsies, Eskimo and Lapps. For these groups there is citable evidence that the terms "Romani", "Inuit" and "Sami" are preferred, and that's how we title our articles about those groups. Have we got more sources documenting the controversy over the name "Manchuria", or the offensiveness of that term to residents of mortheast China?
From supporters of the "Manchuria" title, I'm still wondering what the problem is with "Northeast China" that trumps the offending of an ethnic group or two. What's so wrong with calling the template "History of Northeastern China and the Russian Far East"? - GTBacchus( talk) 09:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that on
Wikipedia:Naming conflict article :
Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name (
Northeast China) to refer to a historical place (
Manchuria). For example, there are two distinct articles
Edo and
Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.
In that case this is a historical template.
Wikipokemon , Most commonly used name in English when you put 1 point to NE China and 0,5 point to Manchuria is not correct I'm wondering that your researches have been done on Search Engine like Google, it is not the amount of result which would made the diffeence you know? And as i wrote above : i found reliable map drawn in the end of the 19th century :
therefore Manchuria is not an obsolete term.
North East China is a political-socio-economical term (maybe a little bit Sinocentrist) (see also :
Chinese macro-regions) while Manchuria is an historical term suitable with that historical template.
We can also make the same reasonnement with Southern Mongolia (
Mongolian: Övör Mongolyn Öörtöö Zasakh Oron) and
Inner Mongolia (
Chinese: Nèi Měnggǔ Zìzhìqū 內蒙古自治區), which is also Sinocentrist because Inner Mongolia is closer than
Outer Mongolia to
China proper. Which one is the more used? Inner Mongolia of course, but according to Mongolian chauvinist they would use probably use without hesitation Southern Mongolia
What about
Tibet/Xizang do they consider themselves as
Southwest China or Xinjiang as
Northwestern China? In addition to that
Qinghai having a significant amount of Tibetans and sharing a common history with Xizang, is included in Northwestern China while Tibet is included in Southwest China.
Whlee
09:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This is my conception about
Northeast China :
Northeast China can be compared to
Southern United States which are a kind of
association between modern provinces for the first and modern states for the latter respectively. And "Chinese Northeastern" dialect can be comparable with Southern American English. Northeast China is according to me a Modern administration entity consisting of the 3 Chinese modern provinces of the PRC which are Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. But this is a historical template and can not be suitable with that context. In France, we can compare Northeast China as an macro-region regrouping 3 administrative division we can see analogous thing in French region like Centre (The middle), Rhone-Alpes, or Midi-Pyrenees (have a look of the differences between Provinces of France and Administrative divisions of France.
I can also give you an other example I was born in Strasbourg, Alsace, the term living in the 1/4 (quarter) Northeast of France is usual and people living in the Northeast of France have similar phone code but i still consider myself as a (Korean-born) French citizen or as an Alsatian but certainly not as a Northeasterners. In addition to that, as i gave you a map written in Turkic language containing a cognate of the term Manchuria, Manchuria is a historiographic term widely used by also foreign countries as you can see. If you want me to make further researches in foreign countries i think we will be probably surprised. As Jiejunkong said : "Manchuria, is not used anachronistically, it should be used, for example, in historical articles like Manchukuo, Battle of Khalkhin Gol etc" this is the case of this purely historical template. Whlee 10:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the most common english usage between NE China and Manchuria. I must confessed that I do not have statistical proof which is more commonly used. In addition we have to check the context under which both terms are used. I doubt any side would be able to provide such a statistical proof with reliable information about the usage context. Therefore I must conclude that for either side this point is moot. However just by looking at new reports, usage by international and government bodies, plus academic research papers you can easily see that NE China is now absolutely more prevalent than Manchuria, and that this is the undisputed current term. Regarding the argument that using Manchuria to describe history is approrpiate because the word is historical, it makes perfect sense to me. However it has to be used within its natural context or within its natural historical period. For example when we present history of Qing, we present the history from 1600 to 1900, if we want to present the history from ancient time to present, we present that history using history of China. For Manchuria that would be from 1600 during the emergence of Manchuria, to 1945, at the end of WWII after which the word Manchuria has been abandoned, replaced by Northeast China, and since then internationally, people have been following this trend. This is what I call common sense. If this template is going to use events from 1600 to 1945 as its entries, I would have no objection to History of Manchuria as the title. The entries currently use by this template would most appropriately titled History of NE China. If we can agree to changing the entries to reflect the actual Manchurian history from 1600 to 1945 (which I think is a very good idea because that is the consistent way to present history and therefore will resolve many controversies) I will give my full support to History of Manchuria as the title. This is just the standard way things are presented.
Wiki Pokemon
21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This is what the
Manchuria Timeline should basically look like (although I would trim off Liao, Jin, Yuan, Ming dynasty at the start, and stop at 1949 with PRC Northeast China). This is what I have been saying, the standard way history is labelled and presented. If we adopt a similar timeline, then the template name(template:History_of_Manchuria), the title (History of Manchuria), and the entries (
Manchuria Timeline) would all fall into place harmoniously without any controversy. Let us do this the correct and standard way.
Wiki Pokemon
02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As i said previously, North East China is a political-socio-economical term while Manchuria is an historiographical concept, i therefore suggest that Manchukuo belong to NE China history. Here are my arguments :
- i made further researches concerning Manchukuo : that Japanese puppet state have more than 211 prefectures which are practically identically to the actual one for more than 90% of them.
- Huma was a city created by Russian in 1652 can we say that Huma (
Chinese : 呼玛县) And it existes as a status of county during the existence of Manchukuo. In the 17th century, i'm almost sure that there were not any Huma County at that time.
- What about Balhae/Bohai prefectures are they still corresponding to any of the present prefectures located in Jilin, Liaoning or Heilongjiang? NO
- Conclusion : Manchukuo belong to NE China history while Balhae belong to Manchuria history.
Additional Links : You will probably better understand when you compare those two following map added below :
-
Map of the present-day Jilin province
-
Map of former Kirin province of Manchukuo (1941)
Former Kirin province in 1941 is smaller than actual Jilin province but former Kirin province incorporated all of the county of Changchun and Jilin prefectures, 2 counties of present Siping precfecture, 4 counties of Songyuan precfecture and the Dunhua county of Yanbian/Yeonbyeon Korean Autonomous Prefecture.
But by going deeply further you will remark that the counties have the SAME name.
I'm waiting for your reply.
Whlee
07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki pokemon, I don't think you really understand the background behind the creation of this template and its supposed fuction. This template was created as a compromise in the dispute in Goguryeo. Some editors, such as Assault11, were insisting that the History of China template should be added there, so a compromise has been made to create a History of Manchuria of template. If you want to delete the template, that's fine by me, though, I feel it is better left undisturbed to prevent further conflicts. But as long as this template exists, it should be defined by the most common and politically neutral name, Manchuria, which would be most benefitial for the readers and not offensive to Koreans regarding Goguryeo and others. Cydevil38 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The only concern so far regarding the proposed
History of Manchuria, is related to pages transcluding the template and not directly related to the template itself. Such concern is the concern of the transcluding pages and should be address at the transcluding pages. This template shall be treated independently from the transcluding pages. In addition there is no concern regarding the template name, the title of the template and the accuracy of the new entries
History of Manchuria. I shall then accordingly make the necessary changes to the template to reflect the actual Manchuria history.
Wiki Pokemon
01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:History of Northeast China has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cydevil38 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil, your carpet cencorship of NE China is totally unrealistic. You are the only one who are against NE China. Wangkon even mentioned that Mark Byington has been using NE China instead of Manchuria. By the same token, Manchuria is not the snake oil that is going to solve all your problem. Please start being objective and apply common sense.
Wiki Pokemon
16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
For neutrality and proper English purpose, I support the name "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east", though it is a little bit long.-- Jiejunkong 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
northeast China and Russian Far east are more viewed as a Chinese and Russian macro-region regrouping three modern administratives entities called Liaoning, Jilin and Heliongjiang and several region like Yakutia/Sakha Reupblic for RFE respectively, while history of priamurye is different focus on a region including lower and middle stream of the Amur River regadless the acutal boundaries. I will support that template History of Northeast China if the term Northeast China is correctly used. Manchuria = historiographic region like Amur region (also called Priamurye, Heilongjiang or Sahaliyan-ula region) which semmes to be obsolete to some peoples while Northeast China is a modern entity if you want i can give you once again my explanation with numerous examples:
Unaware of POV fork rule, I now admit I have violated that rule. I will leave the decision to delete
Template:History_of_Northeast_China to the majority. I however continue to argue that current
Template:History_of_Manchuria needs to change the title to Northeast China or the entries to 1635-1945 to be consistent with convention.
Wiki Pokemon
06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you cannot make huge edits without discussion with other editors. The only editors that have responded are Assault11, Cydevil38, and a few others. There have not been any other opinions on your edit.
Also, what did you do? Did you split the Manchuria template and make a new "northeast china" template?
I am reverting your edits. We must discuss first before making large edits that can be contested. The general consensus was that the original template with a subtitle of "northeast china" was enough.
Don't make up stories that everybody agrees that northeast china is the most popular word. You have attempted to suppress any third opinions, including user:Arcayne's and there is almost no favor towards using northeast china only, except several editors. Good friend100 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You keep making it seem like everybody agrees with you but thats not the case. Saying that it offends Chinese people is not fair to other viewpoints. We can't just make articles the way China wants it to. You claim that everybody uses northeast china and that since Chinese people are offended by "Manchuria" it shouldn't be used.
As Cydevil said, "Sea of Japan" is offensive to Koreans but do I care? Nothing can be done about it because this is the english wikipedia and that there must be a neutral point fo view here.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Good friend100 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The title is too long (in my opinion) and you have not a good reason either to move the name. "Manchuria" is also the most commonly used.
And your analogy is not exactly right. You think that "History of Northeast China" should be used, however, that only describes northeast China, while the template includes Russia and Korea. Also, nobody would want to move History of Tokyo to "History of Edo". And it should be moved under the conditions of the english wikipedia and what english people use most. What offends Japanese people doesn't count. And I don't think modern Japanese people would be offended by the usage of "Edo". Good friend100 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria is the most common term used by historians when discussing the histories of the entities listed on this template, hence, it should be titled Manchuria. Cydevil38 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong I am now working towards changing the entries of this template to as follow
History of Manchuria. Currently this template is being held hostage at Goguryeo by Cydevil and company. I am urging editors at Goguryeo to strike this template off from the page so that this template can assume the form
History of Manchuria. The reason is that
History of Manchuria is the natural, basic and conventional form of Manchuria history. We have a similar
Template:History_of_Northeast_China, together with
Template:History_of_the_Priamurye_region present the entire historiography of present region of NE China and Russian Far East. Also I have learned that it is best to avoid argument with
Good friend100 if you value your time.
Wiki Pokemon
04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
All reliable sources listed below state that "Manchuria" is a historical term:
For history of a geographic region, if you think it is improper to rename "History of Tokyo" as "History of Edo", or to rename "History of New York City" as "History of New Amsterdam", then I think it is also improper to use the name "History of Manchuria". Unless "History of Manchuria" is actually referring to the history of the historical Manchuria (year 1635--year 1945), it is anachronistic to call the geographic region with the old name.
In addition, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that "Manchuria" is an offensive term to Chinese today. As a person who lived in the region for 9 years, I can give my witness proof to support MSN Encarta Encyclopedia. Wikipolicies Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided. -- Jiejunkong 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also as far as I know, Manchuria was not an offensive term before World War II. Year 1945 was the division line when the term became quite offensive.-- Jiejunkong 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
All but one of those entries are on Manchuria while they lack entries on Northeast China or Dongbei, attesting to the common usage of the term Manchuria. Also, those entries do not specifically limit the duration of its history, and those that do in fact contradict your conception of "historical Manchuria(year 1635--year 1945)":
FYI, one exception that uses "Dongbei"(English: Northeast China) as the main title of the entry describes Dongbei as a "historical region" as well.
Furthermore, in recent reliable publications from year 2000 to 2007, Manchuria is by far the most common term of the region in relation to the entities listed on the template:
Similar results from scholarly journals:
Regarding the offensiveness of Manchuria to Chinese people today for reminding them of Japanese imperialism, the very same can be applied to Sea of Japan, which Koreans consider offensive for the same reason. However, both Sea of Japan and Manchuria are the most common term in English, and such common usage takes precedence per Wikipedia naming convention. And also, using the term "Northeast China" can be very offensive to Koreans when used in relation to some of the listed entities there, and it can also be very confusing when put under historical context because the extent of "China" shifted throughout history, and Manchuria wasn't always the "northeast" of "China". Cydevil38 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made a draft template User_talk:Jiejunkong/Template:History_of_Northeastern_China_and_Russian_Far-east, which avoids the anachronistic problem in the current template. It is easy to see the period when this geographic region was called Manchuria (thus using the term Manchuria is not anachronistic). The draft template is not a perfect design, but I cherish the hope that wikiusers can better the design rather than denying the draft without improving it.-- Jiejunkong 07:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I partially agree to User:Whlee's comment that "North East China is a political-socio-economical term". On the other hand, Manchuria is a political-socio-historical term. To avoid unwanted implications, a term like "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" indeed reduces the political sovereignty implication to the minimum (as there are 2 different countries involved), and focuses on the geographic nature. Note that the term "Northeastern" rather than "Northeast" is used. This again stresses on the geographic nature of the topic.-- Jiejunkong 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that the template
User_talk:Jiejunkong/Template:History_of_Northeastern_China_and_Russian_Far-east will be used in Goguryeo. If so you have to take this proposal over to Goguryeo as well to get support. Your proposal is more conventional than the current template.
Wiki Pokemon
18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It just seems there cannot be a consensus here as long as some editors here keep pushing for their nationalistic POV. My point stands. Manchuria is the most common term especially when describing the history of this region, and the most common term takes precedence. The majority supports this view. Cydevil38 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100) Please present original texts of any wikipolicy you refer to. And upon request, please also present the context of the original texts of wikipolicy (because some sentences are conditional). I don't see any quote of the original wikipolicy text in your post at all. I file the request because User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 do not have good credits in quoting wikipolicies, which are translated by them to a twisted, unauthentic form. For example, in Talk:Goguryeo-China wars, these two users used ethnic origin to interpret wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which produces a Nazi-style twisted result. In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable sources has never had such ethnic classification contents. Before you present orginal texts of any wikipolicy you refer to, your words are considered as unreliable.-- Jiejunkong 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
To User:Good friend100 and User:Cydevil38, your claim "Manchuria is the most common name" is false if this template is about the history of a geographic region.
Again, many of us believe that this template is about the history of the geographic region (see archived records for details). Since you disagree in some discussions, please answer the question which one you want to describe in this template---the history of the historical entity Manchuria, or the history of the geographic region. These are two different things. Thanks.-- Jiejunkong 05:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Also for a template on history of the geographic region, "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" may not be the best geographic term. I think we should try to find a better geographic term and reach a consensus. Using an out-of-date term like Manchuria in an anachronistic (and offensive when used anachronistically) way is controversial when describing the history of a geographic region. New proposals like "Northeastern Asia", though could be proved as worse options, can at least be discussed.-- Jiejunkong 05:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
One concern is that Russian Far-East is huge. In the geographic region discussed, Far Eastern Krai could be a better name (although it redirects to Russian Far-east, it is only a part of Russian Far-east). Nevertheless, some users here may be against the move because the word "Russian" disappears.-- Jiejunkong 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply I am investigating whether User:Cydevil38 is a sock puppet ID, which was created "23:25, 30 March 2007" and dedicated to editing wars in Goguryeo related articles. If this ID is actually a sock puppet, then this ID's arguments will not be considered because it violates wikipolicy that sock puppet should not be used. Before this is confirmed, let me repeat the current focus: (1) "Manchuria" is the most common name of the historical entity, which was also called "Guan Dong" (關東,East of Shanhaiguan) or "Guan Wai" (關外,Outside of Shanhaiguan). Amongst these names referring to the historical entity, Manchuria should be used due to current wikipolicy. (2) "Manchuria" is NOT the most common name of the geographic region in present tense. I have used the same Google search count on "China Northeastern OR Northeast" to beat your Google search count on "Manchuria". This invalidates your Google search count approach. Moreover, many pages in your Manchuria's googled result refer to a historical entity, not a geographic region in present tense. (3) Your dictionary sources are explaining the historical entity Manchuria, which is clearly shown in the dictionary contents. You cannot ignore the term "historical" in the dictionary contents. Only a blind or malicious person would repetitively ignore the critical content and present such a "proof" to describe a geographic region in present tense (when we are talking about a template of history of a geographic region). (4) If "Northeastern China and Far-eastern Russia" is not the most wiki-conforming name for the geographic region, then what name is the most wiki-conforming one? Consensus is needed here.-- Jiejunkong 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong's google search is flawed. This is a proper general search on google:
Search result from reliable sources:
Search result from recent reliable sources(published after year 2000):
I have also repeatedly provided the evidence that when the region's history is being discussed in reliable sources, especially the listed entities, Manchuria is by far the most common term. Cydevil38 08:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh really, now this is my "personal opinion"? Responses from RfC and Third Opinion have expressed support for Manchuria. The survey also gave results where majority of users, expressed support for Manchuria. And this is a template about history, which should be formatted under a historical context. Constantinople is an exemplary case given by WP:NCGN in this regard.
I have repeatedly provided evidence that not only is Manchuria the most common term in general, especially in reliable sources, Manchuria is also the most common term used in historical context, especially in relation to the listed entities. Unless you somehow can upturn this indisputable evidence, you've got no case. Cydevil38 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38 and company have clearly violated
WP:NCGN. Rfc and Third Opinion who supported the use of Manchuria in the same manner also clearly violated
WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCGN also makes the following provision, "In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." While this template waits to be corrected of
WP:NCGN violation described above, I shall invoke the above provision to the existing template.
Wiki Pokemon
03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
For the history of the geographic region, I personally recommend contents similar to User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, which is quite comprehensive and objective (not including the title). After we verify the correctness of the details of the contents in User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, I vote for updating the contents of the corresponding template. The professionally made contents also show that the term "Manchuria" is not the best term to describe the geographic region. BTW, I also support Whlee's division of regions in terms of Amur River, Ussuri River, Sungari/Nen River, Liao River, Yalu/Tumen River.-- Jiejunkong 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been repeatedly proven and proven that the most common term for this region in historical context going beyond its contemporary use is Manchuria. Also, as a geographic term, Manchuria is still more common than Northeast China, especially in reliable sources. Another point, using "China" or "Russia" under historical context to refer to this region is anachronistic as those are not geograhpic but cultural regions of which borders fluctuated considerably throughout history. I have pointed out many other problems associated with using those descriptors for the title previously. Cydevil38 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidence to common usage under historical context(yet again):
Cydevil38 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And per consensus at Manchuria, this region in modern context should also include the Russian Far East. If you don't like it, then we can simply "divide" the history as in Constantinople and Istanbul, limiting template:History of Manchuria to the history of the region prior to the creation of Northeast China, and limiting template:History of Northeast China to the history of the region after the creation of Northeast China. Same for the Russian Far East. Anyways, so far, the consensus has been Manchuria. Many editors, including neutral parties from RfC and Third Opinion, supported the use of Manchuria, so I suggest some editors here to drop their nationalistic bias and start appreciating the opinion of others. Many problems have been pointed out with regards to usage of Northeast China by multiple editors, such as that it's anachronistic, not a common word(even lacking entires in most dictionaries), sinocenctric, biased, etc. Cydevil38 05:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a snapshot of Whlee's contents at 22:45 29 June 2007. I agree to the contents of the snapshot in general, but there is no guarantee that I agree to a signifcantly changed version.-- Jiejunkong 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Whlee is also maintaining a collection of westerner-made maps of Northeastern Asia at User:Whlee#Maps_of_Northeast_Asia. As this is the English wikipedia, the English-based physical proofs are considered authoritative. I agree to using the names in those maps to name every historical entity (e.g., Eastern Tartary, Manchuria) which appeared in this in-discuss geographic region at various historical periods.-- Jiejunkong 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the KPOV (CPOV & KPOV, just out of convenience) has been taking a wrong approach. It is inevitable that a term like "Japan" would have more search results than a term like "Nuclear somatic transfer". The difference between the two terms is that Japan is used in both historic and modern context, while "Nuclear somatic transfer" is used only in scholarly & scientific articles.
And Manchuria is one of them. Scholars will definitely refer to the region as Manchuria if they want to talk about history of non-Chinese countries/tribes. But they could refer to it as Northeast China within the context of Chinese history. Furthermore, the Chinese government websites are referring to the region as Northeast China.
Therefore it is crucial that you provide a search option that includes only the historical context b/c this is a template on articles that are definitely supported by the Google search in their commonality & include both Korean titles & Chinese titles.
Anyone can clearly see that the same good old CPOV or simply anti-Koreans (well, b/c even on Japan-Korea dispute-related articles, these same old people voted & argued against KPOV) is a move to claim that Manchurian history was Northeast CHiNesE history. Like the good old WP:NPOV#Article naming clearly states (I referred to it in the Goguryeo-China wars, you cannot test ethnic neutrality through name move.
Now, I think the problem is not about the article title neutrality whatever. It's these same people who bring about the same problem, and they need to be rid of. Could somebody file an Rfc, just as they did to user:Assault11? That would be pretty sweet, and would not exhaust me from working on my Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I've been trying to work on that for half a year now, and still haven't gotten it finished thanks to all these disputes. I also highly suspect that these users are sock puppets. A file at WP:SOCK or checkuser might be nice too. Thanks guys. ( Wikimachine 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
Since we should find articles within context of history, I'll use '"X" history' form.
( Wikimachine 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
Jiejunkong and Wiki Pokemon, instead of accusing other people of violating WP:NCGN, why don't you adhere to WP:NCGN yourselves. WP:NCGN has layed out guidelines to proving the widely accepted name as well as a specific definition of "periods". According to WP:NCGN, Northeast China or its variant Northeastern China, assuming that they are the "current name", may only cover the modern era, unless it can be established that those terms are widely accepted for historical periods that this template covers. So go ahead and try to prove that "Northeast China" and "Northeastern China" is the widely accepted name for the historical periods that this template covers, and then file a WP:RM if you think a consensus can be reached. Otherwise, stop misleading other editors by using WP:NCGN abusively. Cydevil38 06:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Historic term "Danzig"<->"Manchuria"; Local geographic name "Gdansk"<->"Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia") Let's have a look at a comparable case " History of Gdansk" (a similar disputation happened in wikipedia to choose the name "Gdansk" or "Danzig" in the title as "X"). Like this disputation, the previous case is within the context of history, and coincidently both Danzig and Manchuria were obsoleted after World War II. So there is no quibble to say that applying a historical term before WWII in a "History of X" article is a valid decision. And by User:Cydevil38 and User:Wikimachine's argument, because Gdansk only returns 4210, while Danzig returns 10500, "History of Danzig" should be used. Nevertheless, the argument is invalid in this previous disputation case. We see that History of Gdansk is used in wikipedia because Danzig is anachronistic and offensive to local residents (Wikipedia respects local names, e.g., see WP:NCGN). In summary, unless the title " History of Gdansk" is changed to "History of Danzig", or the covered period in " History of Gdansk" is cut off as from World War II to present, I would say that the following two requirements from User:Cydevil and User:Wikimachine are baseless in terms of wikipolicies: (1) Refuse to use modern name of the region and prefer a historical name (as the "X" in "History of X" articles/templates); (2) Ask to cut off the contents of "History of modern region name" to be from World War II to present.-- Jiejunkong 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Somebody claimed that " History of Gdansk"/"History of Danzig" is not completely settled, then we can connect the two cases (i.e., the Gdansk/Danzig case and Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia/Manchuria case) and settle them in the same way when History of Gdansk is completely settled. An advantage of this option is that the connection avoids double-standard or multiple-standard.-- Jiejunkong 21:08, 1 July 2007 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Here are several reasons why we use "Manchuria" and not "Northeast China".
I am listing this since some of you editors cannot seem to see why we are using "Manchuria" although other editors have repeatedly said these points. Add anymore if neccessary.
I suspect I'm wrong about that, because I find that most people really do see humans as other humans, once you get past some barriers, but you might want to think... is this the first impression you want a stranger to have of you, saying "none of your Korean business" in a public forum? It's a very negative impression, from where I'm standing. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Assault11 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If this issue is so important, you should take your case to Manchuria. You should also note that Wikipedia uses a map that covers both Russsia and China to describe Manchuria.
Good friend100 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
While i was making researches i found that a northern frontier of Qing Empire existed before 1689 (the famous treaty of Nerchinsk) it was called : THE WILLOW PALISADE (
Wade-Giles: Liu-t'iao-pien-ch'iang) , a natural border which was built by the Qing Empire in 1678 to counter Russian expansionism in the Far East of Asia. In
Qianlong poem we can see that Shenjing (reigion = Liaoning) and Jilin (region present-day Jilin) were divided by this border.
I made further researches, on it and i found that the border streches around 900 kms from Mukden/Shenyang/Shenjing to Mudanjiang via the Sungari/Songhua river. According to Qing Empire official documents in 1680, region located outside that palisade were considered as "foreign land". Maybe Heilongjiang have never been under the direct control of the Qing Empire (in addition to that Qianlong poem never mentionned the term of Heilongjiang) at this time and was officially incorporated in the Qing Empire in 1689 (following the signature of the Treaty of Nerchinsk which was advantageous to the Qing Empire).
In addition that when Nurhaci (who became officially Khan of the aisin gurun in 1616), has "unified" all the Jurchens tribes in 1619, following the surrender of the Yehe clan (the last independant Haixi Jurchen clan), that would only mean Haixi and Jianzhou Jurchens but not necessarily the Yeren Jurchens (Wild Jurchens, the ancestors of the Nanai/Hezhen tribes).
We can also add that Heilongjiangcheng (
Traditional Chinese : 黑龍江城), present-day Aigun, was erected between 1669 and 1684, prior to the Yakesa/Albazin Campaign (1685-1687), which meaning that Qing Empire tried to expand its frontier northward (in the direction of the actual Heilongjiang province).
I'm wondering whether Heilongjiang history prior 1689 have close relationship with Liaoning and Jilin's ones ?
- Balhae/Bohai never really controlled that region
- Liao Dynasty after conquering divided Jurchens into 2 types : the Sheng Jurchens living in Heilongjiang never incorporated within Liao Empire) and the Shu Jurchens the descendant of the Mohe.
Source : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608(197912)69%3A4%3C599%3ATWP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Whlee 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Following what i wrote above i suggest to split it differently:
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. What does Northeast China got to do with Koreans? If the term "infuriates" Koreans, then what's it doing in Korean news articles [7]? By the way, have you been to Yan Ji? I can almost assure you that most ethnic Chaoxian Zu people there refer to themselves as "Dong Bei Ren." Assault11 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whlee 07:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think using river basins may be a good idea, such as "History of Liao river basin" or "History of Usuri river basin".
However, the problem is that this will make things very complex and repetative, and will run into some practical problems. For example, in Goguryeo, do we have to include all three history templates? And wasn't the Yalu river basin the main impetus of Goguryeo? And wouldn't that many templates really clutter the article? We should just go with the name that is commonly used in English - Manchuria.
This template itself was a compromise that Korean editors accepted with reluctunce. Further pushing for Chinese POV that has little support from evidence undermine this compromise and will only worsen things.
But again, I think naming the templates with their corresponding river basins is a very good idea. Manchuria lacks a historiography, so river basins, being physical real-world entities, may be a good place to start, but the problem is that there are some practical barriers to achieving this. Cydevil38 22:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
How about changing History of Korea to History of Han River Basin?
Wiki Pokemon
04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "History of Northeast China and Russian Far-east" is good enough. Neutral and objective as it appears.-- Jiejunkong 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a template on History of Manchuria, not Northeast China. The previous consensus on Goguryeo was to place a template of History of Manchuria, which was why this template was created in the first place. Also, as I've said previously, you cannot selectively apply NPOV to push for one POV while denying its application for the other POV. And besides, most of those sources use the word "Manchuria" anyways. Cydevil38 12:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a simple reason that the proposed formulation of having "Northeast China" as the heading of the template doesn't work: the template, and the article, include a large part of what is now Russia. No matter what is your view on the issue of whether any of the states existing in history were "Chinese" or not in nature, it is clearly not currently accurate. There is not a whole lot that I agree with Cydevil38 on, but this is one thing I agree with, and I think with good reason. I also see that his removal of Xiongnu and Donghu was cited as evidence that he doesn't play by consensus (although he didn't remove them this time). I don't think there's a consensus that Xiongnu, in particular, belongs on this template: there is no real evidence that Xiongnu ruled any part of what is now Manchuria. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this template be titled "History of Manchuria" [11], or "History of Northeast China" [12]? Cydevil38 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I repeat my own position previously to claims that Manchuria is an artificial construct created by the Japanese: it wasn't. As a construct, it was created by Huang Taiji. As far as artificial is concerned, "Manchuria," as defined on the article itself, has natural geographic boundaries that makes it a fairly cohesive geographic whole that is more homogenous than heterogeneous -- and, if one takes the position that it is too artificial to constitute a proper unit of historical consideration, it should be noted that "Northeast China" is even more artificial, as those boundaries were not formed until 1900.
If anything, the lack of a current state named "Manchuria" makes it a better term for NPOVness, as using "Northeast China" is really analogous to using, say, "historical Northern Korea," which would be the Korean analog to using "Northeast China" for that same geographic area, if it actually is in common usage. (In any case, "Northeast China" would be historically inaccurate, as it wasn't northeast China until relatively recent times.) -- Nlu ( talk) 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just how is "满洲" NPOV? This term was NEVER used officially by China - not even the Manchus used it to refer to this area. Are you telling me we should go change Myanmar back to Burma for the same reasons being argued for "Manchuria"?
Take a look at the news articles for Manchuria [15], a significant portion of these are connected to the Japanese puppet regime/World War II, and almost all of them refer to events in the early 20th century. In contrast, almost all major news articles today - whether it be the Internet, TV, etc. - use the term "Northeast China" (in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, the mining accident in Liaoning was reported by both the CNN/BBC on TV) [16] (Note, most of them are reported by non-Chinese/foreign news sites).
Fact is, Northeast China is by far more popular than "Manchuria" nowadays. The people of the region call themselves "东北人." The regional accent is something that makes the people stand out. Famous people/comedians like 赵本山 are known to be stereotypical 东北人, with their crude sounding colloquial "Northeasterner" accent. The list goes on. Try going to China and asking where 满洲 is will probably get you in a lot of trouble. Assault11 00:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But you still haven't addressed the real problem: let's say for a moment that you're right and that the template can and should address only the three northeastern provinces of China. This causes a major problem: the template would no longer do what it was intended to do: to serve as a navigation template dealing with all the peoples/states which are part of the history of the region, because restricting it to the three provinces means that you now have to deal with unverifiable claims of, for example, how much the Mohe were actually within the current confines of the three provinces. (That's leaving aside the problem that the template was created as a compromise.) There simply isn't a way to isolate the history of the three provinces from the rest of the region, and therefore, any template that implies a separate history for the three provinces as opposed to the currently Russian parts of the territory is, to be put bluntly, a historical fraud. (Now, the only part of the territory we're discussing that might justifiably have its own historical navigational template is Liaodong Peninsula, as it really does, in many ways, have a separate traceable and verifiable history of its own, but no one is suggesting that at the moment.) A major point of NPOV is that Wikipedia should not have systematic biases, whether it be U.S.-centric, U.K.-centric, Korea-centric (as I've criticized the many attempts by Korean editors to inject Korea-centric views into East Sea, for example), or, in this case, Sinocentric. Re-read your own writing -- do you realize just how Sinocentric your viewpoint is? Stop thinking in terms of what needs to be stated in the Chinese (or Northeast Chinese) point of view: think about what needs to be stated from a neutral point of view that favors neither the Chinese, the Korean, or the Russian viewpoint on this, whether modern or historical. I think Nurhaci and Huang Taiji would have found your idea that "[t]he Manchus are a Chinese entity" absolutely astounding and ludicrous, and while they may not be around any more, the template, being a historical navigational template, still needs to make itself neither Sinocentric nor revisionist. "[T]he region was 'Chinese' to begin with"? That's simply unbelievably untrue, and I don't know how you can even manage to write that statement with a straight face. In any case, tags don't prove that the articles have a problem; anyone can put tags on. Just as how Koreans don't own the history of Goguryeo by themselves, the Chinese don't own the history of the region, even when you're artificially confining it to the three provinces. (Note also just how fluid the political adjustments were; during the ROC times, the three provinces covered a lot more territory than they currently do.) An ownership mentality is not conduciive to NPOVness, and that's what you've been exhibiting. -- Nlu ( talk) 08:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You claim that your argument is not solely based on current status, but given that you are confining your argument that "Northeast China" is proper by arguing only about the three provinces, it can only be about the current status, as even status 70 years ago or 120 years ago would not have supported your arguments, as the three provinces' borders were at those times very different than they are now. You are imposing the current man-made borders of only less than 68 years in history into a template that spans thousands of years. The inescapable conclusion is that you are imposing the PRC official interpretation onto this template. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What I don't get from you guys is that nobody else is bothered by the template. Manchuria is simply used to describe the geographic region and I don't see anything wrong with it. Good friend100 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that Manchuria and Russia are mutually exclusive. Manchuria according to all sources only refers to Chinese territory, Russian territory is not included even if Manchuria once occupy it (and we are not even sure when the word 'Manchuria' is invented). If 'Manchuria' (not 満州) is invented (by who? nobody has any sources to support.) before Russia took the Maritime from Qing, then Manchuria once occupy NE China and Russian Maritime, but today Manchuria only refers to NE China (I have provided many NPOV sources above), thus Manchuria has political implication in it's boundary, it is only refers to Chinese territory. If 'Manchuria' (not 満州) is invented after Russia took Maritime, then Manchuria is strictly NE China and might be arguable that it is a geographic term. Whatever the case Manchuria is NE China today (see all NPOV sources I provided, if you want to say otherwise please provide your sources), adding Russia is forcing your own interpretation (unless you can support with NPOV sources), and confliciting with all NPOV sources I provided above.
Wiki Pokemon
18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To
Nlu, you have stated in your talk page that you do not have a strong position on this. It looks like this is not true since you are aruging very strongly on this issue. So you indeed have violated wikipedia policy for reverting changes to a position you favor and immediately protecting the page. You should decide if you want to be an admin, or (exclusive or here) a participant in edit.
Wiki Pokemon
18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of when the term "Manchuria" was coined, the fact is that today it has the most common usage in English sources, as well as those of other languages. Cydevil38 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason why these arguments never stop is because you fail to acknoledge that Manchuria describes China AND Russia. See the picture I put up for the second time? Simply making the same claims over and over again doesn't do anything. Good friend100 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
We should use the contemporary terms of the region detailed:
Neither the Chinese (including ethnic Manchus) nor the Russians refer to the area as "Manchuria" in common usage. The English usage of Manchuria exclusively refers to Northeast China, and thus the more contemporary term Northeast China should be used where applicable (except when dealing specifically with Manchu history). This is the same reason we do not name East Asia in Wikipedia as the " Orient" or the " Far East," though these terms have seen considerable historic use. The term "Manchuria" should be used only for the periods of Manchu-related history, because this region does not exist today. There are no seccessionist movements in this region, nor any debate among Manchus of whether this region should be called Northeast China or Manchuria. Thus the naming of this region as "Northeast China" is absolutely not contested, except by a few Korean users here, for reasons that are beyond logic. Their agenda here on a region in China and Russia should be seriously questioned.
Koguryo, Palhae are kingdoms that have existed in today's Northeast China, Russian Far East and Korean peninsula. These are neutral regional labels. Calling Palhae a "Korean kingdom" is not neutral, neither is calling it a "Chinese kingdom," but calling it a "Manchurian-Korean kingdom" is even more nonsensical. -- Naus 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor [37]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria [38] or History of Northeast China [39] [40] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I feel that most third opinion expressed here are just too casual and without good understandning of the topic being discuss. To give credit to serious editors who have put in lots of effort in this, we should only take seriously those third opinions whose authors have put in equal amount of effort as those serious editors.
Wiki Pokemon
03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:3O: "This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors."
The people who are involved/have taken sides in the proceedings in the previous discussions include user:Wiki pokemon, user:Naus, user:Cydevil38, user:Nlu, user:Whlee and I. Just a brief examination of the edit history of this article would show that there are more than just two editors involved.
With all due respect for the third parties, most invited to comment probably have no idea what the arguments/counter-arguments really mean. Whatever the case is, the request for third opinion is completely pointless for reasons stated above. As of now, the RfC still stands and possibly, invite some interested individuals from WP:China to discuss the issue. Assault11 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather abide by the article, not the talk page. Assault11 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see where this stands. Please add support or oppose. Please do not bring the discussion here but suggest new names and other options.
I don't think there are enough votes here yet for an answer. Good friend100 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to offer a Third Opinion on this matter. I have read the entire discussion to date regarding this matter, and I must admit that - for a strong disagreement - everyone has managed to maintain more civility than I have seen (and, unfortunately, experienced) in other articles. That is to be commended. Not that it matters in the slightest, but I do have a degree in history, so I am familiar with the matters and terminlology in question.
Now, as I see it - and please correct me if I am over-simplifying the matter - the argument is that the use of the term 'Manchuria' was in the past an derogatory and simplistic term to refer to people of NE China, and that NE China is more appropriately descriptive for the English wiki.
The term 'Manchuria' was indeed a slight to the peoples of northeastern China by its neighbors...a great many years ago. Just as the term negro was offensively applied to certain people of color, the term negroid is currently in use to differentiate those of black African descent from those of other races. This is but one of many instances where a term that was originally vile and cruel had lost much of its power and instead became something infinitely less so.
I would posit that such is the case with the term defining the region of Manchuria. The arguments against its usage in the English wiki are heartfelt, nationalisitic ("We certainly do not need Koreans to tell us what we should call our region"). passionate, and utterly NPOV. There is a significant amount of emotion going on here, and while I am not discounting the rightness of that feeling, it has no place whatsoever in WP.
Also, any arguments utilizing Google as a component are immediately suspect, as China indeed restricts the internet within its borders from without. One cannot utilize search terms to know what is being referred to in both the country itself, or in scholarly literature and journals (which are frequently only available as abstracts if online at all).
Additionally, most non-native Chinese refer to the area in question as "Manchuria". This is not an argument wherein one could make the Peking-Beijing argument, as there is no name offered to replace Manchuria. All that is being offered is a rough geographic locale, and frankly, that is unencyclopedic. Though it may sounds harsh, China exists within the world around it, and unless the government there is prepared to offer a specific alternative to the name Manchuria, it is not our concern to address it. The use of a geographic locale to evade a proper name is unacceptable in that it is both unencyclopedic and a partisan point of view.
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
To Nlu. I believe your motivation in this debate is righteous in nature. However I would like to highlight to you how your perspective has clashed with the modern conventional perspectives. As I have already presented earlier and numerous times, almost all modern NPOV references describe ‘Manchuria’ as (1) Manchuria current name is Northeast China (2) Manchuria is a historical term (3) Manchuria is considered offensive to NE Chinese (almost 1/60 of the world population). So far there is not one single modern NPOV references raised by anyone which indicated otherwise. As all modern readers are going to be taking these authoritative references and their explanations as modern standard convention, we should not make any contradictory interpretation of ‘Manchuria’ for the Wikipedia readers. If possible at all, you must reconcile your view with the modern convention. (1) Manchuria boundary is restricted to NE China only, versus your view that it includes Russia territory as well (2) Manchuria is a historical term with current terminology of NE China, which means the region is known to most modern person as NE China (3) How do you take into consideration the feeling of the NE Chinese (almost 1/60 of the world population) who consider Manchuria offensive. Even you don’t care because they are Chinese, and you would only care about feeling of English speakers, then how about those majority of sensitive English readers who do not want to unknowingly learn a word from Wikipedia which they might later use inadvertently to offend other people? Not to mention that you are also infuriating Russians by indirectly referring to them as ‘Manchurians’.
In addition I would like to point out that your willingness to accept using the term Russia or Russian or any word with Russian roots (Primorsky for example) in describing the region would completely destroy your argument of NPOVness for the use of the word “Manchuria’ over ‘NE China’. Russians/Chinese no matter what their ethnicity will not accept the label ‘Manchuria’ put on their land which already suggest it is not NPOV. Insisting of using ‘Manchuria’ is denying NE Chinese/Russian their rights to identify with their current identity of Chinese/Russain AND tracing their ancestral roots to this part of the world. I don’t see any practical and realistic solution to your goal of labeling the region using one single neutral word (because there is none today, plus your argument for it is controversial and inconclusive at best) without conflicting with modern convention. And the solution you proposed might buy you little time, but is already not appropriate today, is getting more and more inappropriate as the seconds tick by, will be impossible in years and decades to come (assuming today status quo).
Wiki Pokemon
18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you saying that, Niu; I already responded to Poke. If my rendering an 3rd Opinion here has bruised anyone's ego, please accept my blanket apology; I thought I was pretty clear and forthright. This argument, with very few exceptions, is being conducted rather civilly. Again, I commend you on this, and hope it shall remain such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, your searches are all in line (though the one for Encarta refers to the Manzhouli city in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) with what I stated. The Encarta article on Northeast China [44] describes Northeast China as Dongbei (Note that in the article, Manchuria is described as the former name used in place of the modern term "Northeast China"). "Dongbei" is the name for Northeast China in Chinese.
As for Dongbei Pingyuan, this term refers to the Northeast China Plain. Assault11 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne (cast a spell), on your first source Encarta you can clearly see another map named 'Manchuria [Dongbei Pingyuan] (historical region), China'. In your second source National Geographic, it clearly refers Manchuria to the region name Dongbei China. And your third source Center for Instructional Media is very interesting. It shows the original boundary of Manchuria to include present Russia Maritime, then as China lost control of the area to Russia, Manchuria shrunk to its present boundary of Northeast China. This clearly indicated Manchuria refers exclusively to China. I am not sure if you are still interested in this discussion. In case you still are, I invite you to read the following dictioinaries and encyclopedias,
Without going into whether Manchuria or Northeast China is more appropriate, and without preconceived ideas about the subject, see if you agree that all these sources explicitly indicated Manchuria to be exclusively NE or Northeastern China, and have not the slightest implication to suggest part of it is currently in Russia.
Wiki Pokemon
18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Af648. However, it is impossible to come to a compromise with these editors who simply want it their own way. Making immature demands like "give me some stuff to back you up" shows how it is not possible to get agreement with them. Unless higher authority comes in to explain to them that Manchuria is the correct term to use, they will not realize that their argument is invalid.
Simply because "Manchuria" insults the Chinese people, "northeast China" must be used. I find this laughable (not to WWII victims) because thats not a neutral viewpoint. Even with a third opinion request, they only repeat their same arguments and shut their ears and scream for northeast China. Good friend100 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, offensive term should be avoided. The term Manchuria was mainly used by Japanese militarists during World War II to refer to the land of Manchukuo, a puppet state controlled by Japanese Kwantung Army, who also did the same thing to Korea/Joseon between 1897 and 1910.-- Jiejunkong 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw no progress in resolving this dispute with Wikipedia:Third Opinion, so I filed a request for mediation. First, I only included editors who engaged in revert warring as the disputants. If anyone else is interested or concerned in this template, please feel free to sign yourself up. Here's the case page [58] Cydevil38 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
please do not edit without consensus. Simply because you and a few others think that Chinese editors will be insulted by "Manchuria", doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Emphasizing that Chinese editors and readers will be insulted is simply POV.
The reason why we cannot get to consensus is because you fail to acknowledge that Manchuria is the right word to use. Simply because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it.
Others have repeatedly said that Northeast China only includes northeast China. The template covers Manchuria which spans into Russia and farther north.
Please don't start repeating what you have already said. Good friend100 19:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering general Chinese presence in Manchuria from dynastic China all the way to present day PRC, thats a very long time.
Again, I'll clarify that Northeast China includes ONLY China. This template covers more than just China. Can you not comprehend why Manchuria is used? Good friend100 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria itself is a historical word, but only when referring to the Manchu ethnic group. The landmass "Manchuria" is a modern invention, more so than the concept of Northeast China. Assault11 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already given up on arguments for the derogatory and historical nature of the word Manchuria, but it is a solid fact that Manchuria refers only to Qing(Manchu)/Chinese territory, Russia absolutely has nothing to do with Qing(Manchu)/Chinese. I and I see that other NE China proponents are ready to have Manchuria up there together with NE China sharing equal status. I hope Manchuria proponents are ready to accept NE China too. In addition we probably should use Russian Priamurye instead of Russian Far East to better fit the original requirements of the template
Wiki Pokemon
21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
For good faith assumption, I can see that everybody is of good faith and is merely arguing that certain term is more comfortable to him/her than the other options.
Reply In mainland China, the term "Korea" is not used until very recently. The term commonly used is Joseon (North Korea is called North Joseon, while South Korea is called South Joseon). I think both Korea and Joseon are neutral terms. But if you insist on using the term Manchuria, which is no longer used in the so-called Manchuria area, as if your honor is on the table, then I believe that it is okay to use Joseon to call the area you are from, even if it is no longer used there. Deal?-- Jiejunkong 05:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I copy a paragraph from above sections: According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, offensive term should be avoided. The term Manchuria was mainly used by Japanese militarists during World War II to refer to the land of Manchukuo, a puppet state controlled by Japanese Kwantung Army, who also did the same thing to Joseon between 1897 and 1910.-- Jiejunkong 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Most Western people don't know the derogatory meaning in the term "Manchuria", so I believe that they use the term in a neutral manner. However, after the derogatory meaning is exposed, if the writer/speaker persists as if nothing has happened, then this writer/speaker is obviously a rude person who is ignoring some facts and wikirules.-- Jiejunkong 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its your problem. You keep arguing that nobody "that live in Manchuria today" think the word is offensive. We can't make everything so that you like it. That Chinese people are insulted from the word is simply a POV. Good friend100 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What are guys going to argue now, that "Manchuria" is a racial slur? Give me a break. Good friend100 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Repeating that "local residents don't like this name" is purely out of your biased viewpoint. How many times do editors have to tell you that Manchuria is not a negative word? Good friend100 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to provide a third opinion quite a while ago, and I see the debate has persisted. I've just read through much of it, and I think I see what the main dispute is. Some editors are arguing that we should use "Manchuria", per WP:COMMONNAME while others oppose "Manchuria" and prefer "Northeast China" per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, and the word Manchuria being offensive. That seems to be the crux of the situation; I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I have two questions. For supporters of "Manchuria": is the term "Northeast China" also offensive to someone, or do you prefer "Manchuria" simply because it's a better descriptor? For supporters of "Northeast China" ("and the Russian Far-east" I guess), can you document any kind of effort to replace "Manchuria" with "Northeast China" in English language sources? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38
22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia recommends using the following table for determining the 'right' word to use. Its obvious which name should be used. Let me point it out explicitly, 'NE China' with a score of 3 should be used over 'Manchuria' which a score of 0.5 Wiki Pokemon 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Criterion | NE China | Manchuria |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 1 | 0.5 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 1 | 0 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 0 |
Total | 3 | 0.5 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
First of all, this table and procedure is fully recommended by Wikipedia and is accepted by most editors, and is considered a standard that all users should follow, please see Wikipedia:Naming conflict for more detail. Your objection to using heuristic should be addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. In the mean time it is legitimate to use this table and procedure considered a standard in Wikipedia. Now to answer your question about the efforts to replace ‘Manchuria’ with ‘NE China’. Below you will find entries in dictionaries and references which indicated that the name Manchuria is 'historical', and has been replaced by the current name 'NE China'.
For some examples of usage of NE China today by US government departments, universities, and news networks see below:
Wiki Pokemon 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Pokemon, thank you for the helpful reply.
Regarding the role of the page WP:NCON, you seem to be placing more weight on it than I've seen it commonly given. I'm not disagreeing with your position; I'm simply advising you that legalistic appeals to that page are unlikely to get you far. Wikipedia is not a strict rule-system, you know. We explicitly allow for judgment to overrule technical readings of the rules. Appeals to common sense regularly trump appeals to the "letter of the law" around here.
Now, I hope we can talk instead about this template. The sources you cite do indeed indicate that Manchuria is an historical name, and that it is considered offensive to modern Chinese. That seems to me to be a strong argument against its use per WP:AVOID, and per precedents such as Gypsies, Eskimo and Lapps. For these groups there is citable evidence that the terms "Romani", "Inuit" and "Sami" are preferred, and that's how we title our articles about those groups. Have we got more sources documenting the controversy over the name "Manchuria", or the offensiveness of that term to residents of mortheast China?
From supporters of the "Manchuria" title, I'm still wondering what the problem is with "Northeast China" that trumps the offending of an ethnic group or two. What's so wrong with calling the template "History of Northeastern China and the Russian Far East"? - GTBacchus( talk) 09:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that on
Wikipedia:Naming conflict article :
Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name (
Northeast China) to refer to a historical place (
Manchuria). For example, there are two distinct articles
Edo and
Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.
In that case this is a historical template.
Wikipokemon , Most commonly used name in English when you put 1 point to NE China and 0,5 point to Manchuria is not correct I'm wondering that your researches have been done on Search Engine like Google, it is not the amount of result which would made the diffeence you know? And as i wrote above : i found reliable map drawn in the end of the 19th century :
therefore Manchuria is not an obsolete term.
North East China is a political-socio-economical term (maybe a little bit Sinocentrist) (see also :
Chinese macro-regions) while Manchuria is an historical term suitable with that historical template.
We can also make the same reasonnement with Southern Mongolia (
Mongolian: Övör Mongolyn Öörtöö Zasakh Oron) and
Inner Mongolia (
Chinese: Nèi Měnggǔ Zìzhìqū 內蒙古自治區), which is also Sinocentrist because Inner Mongolia is closer than
Outer Mongolia to
China proper. Which one is the more used? Inner Mongolia of course, but according to Mongolian chauvinist they would use probably use without hesitation Southern Mongolia
What about
Tibet/Xizang do they consider themselves as
Southwest China or Xinjiang as
Northwestern China? In addition to that
Qinghai having a significant amount of Tibetans and sharing a common history with Xizang, is included in Northwestern China while Tibet is included in Southwest China.
Whlee
09:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This is my conception about
Northeast China :
Northeast China can be compared to
Southern United States which are a kind of
association between modern provinces for the first and modern states for the latter respectively. And "Chinese Northeastern" dialect can be comparable with Southern American English. Northeast China is according to me a Modern administration entity consisting of the 3 Chinese modern provinces of the PRC which are Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. But this is a historical template and can not be suitable with that context. In France, we can compare Northeast China as an macro-region regrouping 3 administrative division we can see analogous thing in French region like Centre (The middle), Rhone-Alpes, or Midi-Pyrenees (have a look of the differences between Provinces of France and Administrative divisions of France.
I can also give you an other example I was born in Strasbourg, Alsace, the term living in the 1/4 (quarter) Northeast of France is usual and people living in the Northeast of France have similar phone code but i still consider myself as a (Korean-born) French citizen or as an Alsatian but certainly not as a Northeasterners. In addition to that, as i gave you a map written in Turkic language containing a cognate of the term Manchuria, Manchuria is a historiographic term widely used by also foreign countries as you can see. If you want me to make further researches in foreign countries i think we will be probably surprised. As Jiejunkong said : "Manchuria, is not used anachronistically, it should be used, for example, in historical articles like Manchukuo, Battle of Khalkhin Gol etc" this is the case of this purely historical template. Whlee 10:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the most common english usage between NE China and Manchuria. I must confessed that I do not have statistical proof which is more commonly used. In addition we have to check the context under which both terms are used. I doubt any side would be able to provide such a statistical proof with reliable information about the usage context. Therefore I must conclude that for either side this point is moot. However just by looking at new reports, usage by international and government bodies, plus academic research papers you can easily see that NE China is now absolutely more prevalent than Manchuria, and that this is the undisputed current term. Regarding the argument that using Manchuria to describe history is approrpiate because the word is historical, it makes perfect sense to me. However it has to be used within its natural context or within its natural historical period. For example when we present history of Qing, we present the history from 1600 to 1900, if we want to present the history from ancient time to present, we present that history using history of China. For Manchuria that would be from 1600 during the emergence of Manchuria, to 1945, at the end of WWII after which the word Manchuria has been abandoned, replaced by Northeast China, and since then internationally, people have been following this trend. This is what I call common sense. If this template is going to use events from 1600 to 1945 as its entries, I would have no objection to History of Manchuria as the title. The entries currently use by this template would most appropriately titled History of NE China. If we can agree to changing the entries to reflect the actual Manchurian history from 1600 to 1945 (which I think is a very good idea because that is the consistent way to present history and therefore will resolve many controversies) I will give my full support to History of Manchuria as the title. This is just the standard way things are presented.
Wiki Pokemon
21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This is what the
Manchuria Timeline should basically look like (although I would trim off Liao, Jin, Yuan, Ming dynasty at the start, and stop at 1949 with PRC Northeast China). This is what I have been saying, the standard way history is labelled and presented. If we adopt a similar timeline, then the template name(template:History_of_Manchuria), the title (History of Manchuria), and the entries (
Manchuria Timeline) would all fall into place harmoniously without any controversy. Let us do this the correct and standard way.
Wiki Pokemon
02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As i said previously, North East China is a political-socio-economical term while Manchuria is an historiographical concept, i therefore suggest that Manchukuo belong to NE China history. Here are my arguments :
- i made further researches concerning Manchukuo : that Japanese puppet state have more than 211 prefectures which are practically identically to the actual one for more than 90% of them.
- Huma was a city created by Russian in 1652 can we say that Huma (
Chinese : 呼玛县) And it existes as a status of county during the existence of Manchukuo. In the 17th century, i'm almost sure that there were not any Huma County at that time.
- What about Balhae/Bohai prefectures are they still corresponding to any of the present prefectures located in Jilin, Liaoning or Heilongjiang? NO
- Conclusion : Manchukuo belong to NE China history while Balhae belong to Manchuria history.
Additional Links : You will probably better understand when you compare those two following map added below :
-
Map of the present-day Jilin province
-
Map of former Kirin province of Manchukuo (1941)
Former Kirin province in 1941 is smaller than actual Jilin province but former Kirin province incorporated all of the county of Changchun and Jilin prefectures, 2 counties of present Siping precfecture, 4 counties of Songyuan precfecture and the Dunhua county of Yanbian/Yeonbyeon Korean Autonomous Prefecture.
But by going deeply further you will remark that the counties have the SAME name.
I'm waiting for your reply.
Whlee
07:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiki pokemon, I don't think you really understand the background behind the creation of this template and its supposed fuction. This template was created as a compromise in the dispute in Goguryeo. Some editors, such as Assault11, were insisting that the History of China template should be added there, so a compromise has been made to create a History of Manchuria of template. If you want to delete the template, that's fine by me, though, I feel it is better left undisturbed to prevent further conflicts. But as long as this template exists, it should be defined by the most common and politically neutral name, Manchuria, which would be most benefitial for the readers and not offensive to Koreans regarding Goguryeo and others. Cydevil38 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The only concern so far regarding the proposed
History of Manchuria, is related to pages transcluding the template and not directly related to the template itself. Such concern is the concern of the transcluding pages and should be address at the transcluding pages. This template shall be treated independently from the transcluding pages. In addition there is no concern regarding the template name, the title of the template and the accuracy of the new entries
History of Manchuria. I shall then accordingly make the necessary changes to the template to reflect the actual Manchuria history.
Wiki Pokemon
01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:History of Northeast China has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cydevil38 04:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil, your carpet cencorship of NE China is totally unrealistic. You are the only one who are against NE China. Wangkon even mentioned that Mark Byington has been using NE China instead of Manchuria. By the same token, Manchuria is not the snake oil that is going to solve all your problem. Please start being objective and apply common sense.
Wiki Pokemon
16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
For neutrality and proper English purpose, I support the name "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east", though it is a little bit long.-- Jiejunkong 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
northeast China and Russian Far east are more viewed as a Chinese and Russian macro-region regrouping three modern administratives entities called Liaoning, Jilin and Heliongjiang and several region like Yakutia/Sakha Reupblic for RFE respectively, while history of priamurye is different focus on a region including lower and middle stream of the Amur River regadless the acutal boundaries. I will support that template History of Northeast China if the term Northeast China is correctly used. Manchuria = historiographic region like Amur region (also called Priamurye, Heilongjiang or Sahaliyan-ula region) which semmes to be obsolete to some peoples while Northeast China is a modern entity if you want i can give you once again my explanation with numerous examples:
Unaware of POV fork rule, I now admit I have violated that rule. I will leave the decision to delete
Template:History_of_Northeast_China to the majority. I however continue to argue that current
Template:History_of_Manchuria needs to change the title to Northeast China or the entries to 1635-1945 to be consistent with convention.
Wiki Pokemon
06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you cannot make huge edits without discussion with other editors. The only editors that have responded are Assault11, Cydevil38, and a few others. There have not been any other opinions on your edit.
Also, what did you do? Did you split the Manchuria template and make a new "northeast china" template?
I am reverting your edits. We must discuss first before making large edits that can be contested. The general consensus was that the original template with a subtitle of "northeast china" was enough.
Don't make up stories that everybody agrees that northeast china is the most popular word. You have attempted to suppress any third opinions, including user:Arcayne's and there is almost no favor towards using northeast china only, except several editors. Good friend100 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You keep making it seem like everybody agrees with you but thats not the case. Saying that it offends Chinese people is not fair to other viewpoints. We can't just make articles the way China wants it to. You claim that everybody uses northeast china and that since Chinese people are offended by "Manchuria" it shouldn't be used.
As Cydevil said, "Sea of Japan" is offensive to Koreans but do I care? Nothing can be done about it because this is the english wikipedia and that there must be a neutral point fo view here.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Good friend100 01:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The title is too long (in my opinion) and you have not a good reason either to move the name. "Manchuria" is also the most commonly used.
And your analogy is not exactly right. You think that "History of Northeast China" should be used, however, that only describes northeast China, while the template includes Russia and Korea. Also, nobody would want to move History of Tokyo to "History of Edo". And it should be moved under the conditions of the english wikipedia and what english people use most. What offends Japanese people doesn't count. And I don't think modern Japanese people would be offended by the usage of "Edo". Good friend100 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria is the most common term used by historians when discussing the histories of the entities listed on this template, hence, it should be titled Manchuria. Cydevil38 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong I am now working towards changing the entries of this template to as follow
History of Manchuria. Currently this template is being held hostage at Goguryeo by Cydevil and company. I am urging editors at Goguryeo to strike this template off from the page so that this template can assume the form
History of Manchuria. The reason is that
History of Manchuria is the natural, basic and conventional form of Manchuria history. We have a similar
Template:History_of_Northeast_China, together with
Template:History_of_the_Priamurye_region present the entire historiography of present region of NE China and Russian Far East. Also I have learned that it is best to avoid argument with
Good friend100 if you value your time.
Wiki Pokemon
04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
All reliable sources listed below state that "Manchuria" is a historical term:
For history of a geographic region, if you think it is improper to rename "History of Tokyo" as "History of Edo", or to rename "History of New York City" as "History of New Amsterdam", then I think it is also improper to use the name "History of Manchuria". Unless "History of Manchuria" is actually referring to the history of the historical Manchuria (year 1635--year 1945), it is anachronistic to call the geographic region with the old name.
In addition, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that "Manchuria" is an offensive term to Chinese today. As a person who lived in the region for 9 years, I can give my witness proof to support MSN Encarta Encyclopedia. Wikipolicies Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided. -- Jiejunkong 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also as far as I know, Manchuria was not an offensive term before World War II. Year 1945 was the division line when the term became quite offensive.-- Jiejunkong 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
All but one of those entries are on Manchuria while they lack entries on Northeast China or Dongbei, attesting to the common usage of the term Manchuria. Also, those entries do not specifically limit the duration of its history, and those that do in fact contradict your conception of "historical Manchuria(year 1635--year 1945)":
FYI, one exception that uses "Dongbei"(English: Northeast China) as the main title of the entry describes Dongbei as a "historical region" as well.
Furthermore, in recent reliable publications from year 2000 to 2007, Manchuria is by far the most common term of the region in relation to the entities listed on the template:
Similar results from scholarly journals:
Regarding the offensiveness of Manchuria to Chinese people today for reminding them of Japanese imperialism, the very same can be applied to Sea of Japan, which Koreans consider offensive for the same reason. However, both Sea of Japan and Manchuria are the most common term in English, and such common usage takes precedence per Wikipedia naming convention. And also, using the term "Northeast China" can be very offensive to Koreans when used in relation to some of the listed entities there, and it can also be very confusing when put under historical context because the extent of "China" shifted throughout history, and Manchuria wasn't always the "northeast" of "China". Cydevil38 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made a draft template User_talk:Jiejunkong/Template:History_of_Northeastern_China_and_Russian_Far-east, which avoids the anachronistic problem in the current template. It is easy to see the period when this geographic region was called Manchuria (thus using the term Manchuria is not anachronistic). The draft template is not a perfect design, but I cherish the hope that wikiusers can better the design rather than denying the draft without improving it.-- Jiejunkong 07:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I partially agree to User:Whlee's comment that "North East China is a political-socio-economical term". On the other hand, Manchuria is a political-socio-historical term. To avoid unwanted implications, a term like "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" indeed reduces the political sovereignty implication to the minimum (as there are 2 different countries involved), and focuses on the geographic nature. Note that the term "Northeastern" rather than "Northeast" is used. This again stresses on the geographic nature of the topic.-- Jiejunkong 08:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that the template
User_talk:Jiejunkong/Template:History_of_Northeastern_China_and_Russian_Far-east will be used in Goguryeo. If so you have to take this proposal over to Goguryeo as well to get support. Your proposal is more conventional than the current template.
Wiki Pokemon
18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It just seems there cannot be a consensus here as long as some editors here keep pushing for their nationalistic POV. My point stands. Manchuria is the most common term especially when describing the history of this region, and the most common term takes precedence. The majority supports this view. Cydevil38 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100) Please present original texts of any wikipolicy you refer to. And upon request, please also present the context of the original texts of wikipolicy (because some sentences are conditional). I don't see any quote of the original wikipolicy text in your post at all. I file the request because User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 do not have good credits in quoting wikipolicies, which are translated by them to a twisted, unauthentic form. For example, in Talk:Goguryeo-China wars, these two users used ethnic origin to interpret wikipolicy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which produces a Nazi-style twisted result. In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable sources has never had such ethnic classification contents. Before you present orginal texts of any wikipolicy you refer to, your words are considered as unreliable.-- Jiejunkong 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
To User:Good friend100 and User:Cydevil38, your claim "Manchuria is the most common name" is false if this template is about the history of a geographic region.
Again, many of us believe that this template is about the history of the geographic region (see archived records for details). Since you disagree in some discussions, please answer the question which one you want to describe in this template---the history of the historical entity Manchuria, or the history of the geographic region. These are two different things. Thanks.-- Jiejunkong 05:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Also for a template on history of the geographic region, "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" may not be the best geographic term. I think we should try to find a better geographic term and reach a consensus. Using an out-of-date term like Manchuria in an anachronistic (and offensive when used anachronistically) way is controversial when describing the history of a geographic region. New proposals like "Northeastern Asia", though could be proved as worse options, can at least be discussed.-- Jiejunkong 05:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
One concern is that Russian Far-East is huge. In the geographic region discussed, Far Eastern Krai could be a better name (although it redirects to Russian Far-east, it is only a part of Russian Far-east). Nevertheless, some users here may be against the move because the word "Russian" disappears.-- Jiejunkong 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply I am investigating whether User:Cydevil38 is a sock puppet ID, which was created "23:25, 30 March 2007" and dedicated to editing wars in Goguryeo related articles. If this ID is actually a sock puppet, then this ID's arguments will not be considered because it violates wikipolicy that sock puppet should not be used. Before this is confirmed, let me repeat the current focus: (1) "Manchuria" is the most common name of the historical entity, which was also called "Guan Dong" (關東,East of Shanhaiguan) or "Guan Wai" (關外,Outside of Shanhaiguan). Amongst these names referring to the historical entity, Manchuria should be used due to current wikipolicy. (2) "Manchuria" is NOT the most common name of the geographic region in present tense. I have used the same Google search count on "China Northeastern OR Northeast" to beat your Google search count on "Manchuria". This invalidates your Google search count approach. Moreover, many pages in your Manchuria's googled result refer to a historical entity, not a geographic region in present tense. (3) Your dictionary sources are explaining the historical entity Manchuria, which is clearly shown in the dictionary contents. You cannot ignore the term "historical" in the dictionary contents. Only a blind or malicious person would repetitively ignore the critical content and present such a "proof" to describe a geographic region in present tense (when we are talking about a template of history of a geographic region). (4) If "Northeastern China and Far-eastern Russia" is not the most wiki-conforming name for the geographic region, then what name is the most wiki-conforming one? Consensus is needed here.-- Jiejunkong 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong's google search is flawed. This is a proper general search on google:
Search result from reliable sources:
Search result from recent reliable sources(published after year 2000):
I have also repeatedly provided the evidence that when the region's history is being discussed in reliable sources, especially the listed entities, Manchuria is by far the most common term. Cydevil38 08:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh really, now this is my "personal opinion"? Responses from RfC and Third Opinion have expressed support for Manchuria. The survey also gave results where majority of users, expressed support for Manchuria. And this is a template about history, which should be formatted under a historical context. Constantinople is an exemplary case given by WP:NCGN in this regard.
I have repeatedly provided evidence that not only is Manchuria the most common term in general, especially in reliable sources, Manchuria is also the most common term used in historical context, especially in relation to the listed entities. Unless you somehow can upturn this indisputable evidence, you've got no case. Cydevil38 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38 and company have clearly violated
WP:NCGN. Rfc and Third Opinion who supported the use of Manchuria in the same manner also clearly violated
WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 03:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCGN also makes the following provision, "In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." While this template waits to be corrected of
WP:NCGN violation described above, I shall invoke the above provision to the existing template.
Wiki Pokemon
03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
For the history of the geographic region, I personally recommend contents similar to User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, which is quite comprehensive and objective (not including the title). After we verify the correctness of the details of the contents in User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, I vote for updating the contents of the corresponding template. The professionally made contents also show that the term "Manchuria" is not the best term to describe the geographic region. BTW, I also support Whlee's division of regions in terms of Amur River, Ussuri River, Sungari/Nen River, Liao River, Yalu/Tumen River.-- Jiejunkong 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It has been repeatedly proven and proven that the most common term for this region in historical context going beyond its contemporary use is Manchuria. Also, as a geographic term, Manchuria is still more common than Northeast China, especially in reliable sources. Another point, using "China" or "Russia" under historical context to refer to this region is anachronistic as those are not geograhpic but cultural regions of which borders fluctuated considerably throughout history. I have pointed out many other problems associated with using those descriptors for the title previously. Cydevil38 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidence to common usage under historical context(yet again):
Cydevil38 05:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And per consensus at Manchuria, this region in modern context should also include the Russian Far East. If you don't like it, then we can simply "divide" the history as in Constantinople and Istanbul, limiting template:History of Manchuria to the history of the region prior to the creation of Northeast China, and limiting template:History of Northeast China to the history of the region after the creation of Northeast China. Same for the Russian Far East. Anyways, so far, the consensus has been Manchuria. Many editors, including neutral parties from RfC and Third Opinion, supported the use of Manchuria, so I suggest some editors here to drop their nationalistic bias and start appreciating the opinion of others. Many problems have been pointed out with regards to usage of Northeast China by multiple editors, such as that it's anachronistic, not a common word(even lacking entires in most dictionaries), sinocenctric, biased, etc. Cydevil38 05:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a snapshot of Whlee's contents at 22:45 29 June 2007. I agree to the contents of the snapshot in general, but there is no guarantee that I agree to a signifcantly changed version.-- Jiejunkong 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Whlee is also maintaining a collection of westerner-made maps of Northeastern Asia at User:Whlee#Maps_of_Northeast_Asia. As this is the English wikipedia, the English-based physical proofs are considered authoritative. I agree to using the names in those maps to name every historical entity (e.g., Eastern Tartary, Manchuria) which appeared in this in-discuss geographic region at various historical periods.-- Jiejunkong 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the KPOV (CPOV & KPOV, just out of convenience) has been taking a wrong approach. It is inevitable that a term like "Japan" would have more search results than a term like "Nuclear somatic transfer". The difference between the two terms is that Japan is used in both historic and modern context, while "Nuclear somatic transfer" is used only in scholarly & scientific articles.
And Manchuria is one of them. Scholars will definitely refer to the region as Manchuria if they want to talk about history of non-Chinese countries/tribes. But they could refer to it as Northeast China within the context of Chinese history. Furthermore, the Chinese government websites are referring to the region as Northeast China.
Therefore it is crucial that you provide a search option that includes only the historical context b/c this is a template on articles that are definitely supported by the Google search in their commonality & include both Korean titles & Chinese titles.
Anyone can clearly see that the same good old CPOV or simply anti-Koreans (well, b/c even on Japan-Korea dispute-related articles, these same old people voted & argued against KPOV) is a move to claim that Manchurian history was Northeast CHiNesE history. Like the good old WP:NPOV#Article naming clearly states (I referred to it in the Goguryeo-China wars, you cannot test ethnic neutrality through name move.
Now, I think the problem is not about the article title neutrality whatever. It's these same people who bring about the same problem, and they need to be rid of. Could somebody file an Rfc, just as they did to user:Assault11? That would be pretty sweet, and would not exhaust me from working on my Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I've been trying to work on that for half a year now, and still haven't gotten it finished thanks to all these disputes. I also highly suspect that these users are sock puppets. A file at WP:SOCK or checkuser might be nice too. Thanks guys. ( Wikimachine 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
Since we should find articles within context of history, I'll use '"X" history' form.
( Wikimachine 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
Jiejunkong and Wiki Pokemon, instead of accusing other people of violating WP:NCGN, why don't you adhere to WP:NCGN yourselves. WP:NCGN has layed out guidelines to proving the widely accepted name as well as a specific definition of "periods". According to WP:NCGN, Northeast China or its variant Northeastern China, assuming that they are the "current name", may only cover the modern era, unless it can be established that those terms are widely accepted for historical periods that this template covers. So go ahead and try to prove that "Northeast China" and "Northeastern China" is the widely accepted name for the historical periods that this template covers, and then file a WP:RM if you think a consensus can be reached. Otherwise, stop misleading other editors by using WP:NCGN abusively. Cydevil38 06:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Historic term "Danzig"<->"Manchuria"; Local geographic name "Gdansk"<->"Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia") Let's have a look at a comparable case " History of Gdansk" (a similar disputation happened in wikipedia to choose the name "Gdansk" or "Danzig" in the title as "X"). Like this disputation, the previous case is within the context of history, and coincidently both Danzig and Manchuria were obsoleted after World War II. So there is no quibble to say that applying a historical term before WWII in a "History of X" article is a valid decision. And by User:Cydevil38 and User:Wikimachine's argument, because Gdansk only returns 4210, while Danzig returns 10500, "History of Danzig" should be used. Nevertheless, the argument is invalid in this previous disputation case. We see that History of Gdansk is used in wikipedia because Danzig is anachronistic and offensive to local residents (Wikipedia respects local names, e.g., see WP:NCGN). In summary, unless the title " History of Gdansk" is changed to "History of Danzig", or the covered period in " History of Gdansk" is cut off as from World War II to present, I would say that the following two requirements from User:Cydevil and User:Wikimachine are baseless in terms of wikipolicies: (1) Refuse to use modern name of the region and prefer a historical name (as the "X" in "History of X" articles/templates); (2) Ask to cut off the contents of "History of modern region name" to be from World War II to present.-- Jiejunkong 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Somebody claimed that " History of Gdansk"/"History of Danzig" is not completely settled, then we can connect the two cases (i.e., the Gdansk/Danzig case and Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia/Manchuria case) and settle them in the same way when History of Gdansk is completely settled. An advantage of this option is that the connection avoids double-standard or multiple-standard.-- Jiejunkong 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)