Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Manchuria template. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As a native English speaker, and a member of the consensus that established WP:NCGN, I do have several comments:
1) Very well, the name I am arguing for is Northeast China, which - as you noted, is a proper name. However, NE China can also be interpreted as Northeast China, and in most cases, the term "northeastern China" and " Northeast China" are coterminous (refering to the three Chinese provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Liaoning).
2) Wrong. Northeast China is both a historic and geographical term synonymous with Manchuria (see above), solely referring to the Three Provinces of Northeast China. "Manchuria" only refers to the region of Chinese-administered areas, not including former territories in what is now North Korea and Russian Far East. This is confirmed by all teritary sources for "Manchuria"/"Northeast China":
[4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[5] Encarta Dictionary
[6] American Heritage Dictionary
[7] Collins Dictionary
[8] Answer.com
[9] Columbia Encyclopedia
[10] Britannica Encyclopedia
[11] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[12] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[13] Catholic Encyclopedia
[14] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[15] AncientWorld.net
[16] Nuttall Encyclopedia
Note: (from user:Wiki pokemon)
3) Yes, we understand this is an English-language encyclopedia. But realize that all of us here (proponents of Northeast China and/or its variants) live in English-speaking countries ( North America). The "Chinese translation" you're referring to ( Dongbei) is not a translation. "Dongbei" is the romanized version of Northeast China in Hanyu Pinyin. Many Chinese historical/geographic names use this form of romanization in modern vernacular English. For example, Peking was a former term referring to the city of Beijing, nowadays, the use of Peking in place of Beijing is almost non-existant - just like "Manchuria." Also, there are many English websites that use this term in place of both Northeast China (its English counterpart) and Manchuria, prime example of this being Encarta Encyclopedia [17]. Also, Northeast China is a very well established geographic term in the English language, as pointed above - almost all Western news corporations (e.g. NYT, ABC, CNN, etc.) adopt Northeast China in place of Manchuria [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25].
The reason why we Northeast Chinese abhor the use of Manchuria is primarily due to historical reasons. For one thing, this term is highly offensive in the eyes of us Northeast Chinese, especially due to its association with the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (literally "state of Manchuria"). This term can be compared to other offensive terms such as Shina or Zhina, which many Chinese consider to be derogatory. (see WP:AVOID)
Another reason why Manchuria cannot be used is because this term is not even a geographic term to begin with. "Manchuria" is rendered as "Manzhou" in Mandarin, but this name was originally meant to refer to the Manchu ethnicity, with absolutely no geographic connotations attached. As described above, the Qing Dynasty (the era which the concept of "Manchuria" was created) referred to this region as either Northeast China or "Eastern Three Provinces," Dongsansheng. However, there was never a geographic region of "Manchuria" in historical records. Therefore, Manchuria fails the WP:NCGN simply because it is not a valid geographic concept to begin with. Assault11 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To
PMAnderson: According to original wikirule texts,
WP:NCGN is not the guideline for proper names/nouns (Please do a string search on "proper", which only appears in the "See also" section, not in the central contents). In contrast,
Wikipedia:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". Let's go back to
WP:NCGN, which is the guideline for geographic names.
WP:NCGN does not apply to non-geographic names, but for any geographic region, it is the critical one. Here and now what is being disputed is the geographic name, as there is already a consensus saying that "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the historical entity between
1635 and
1945. The historical term is offensive to local English speakers if used anachronistically as a modern geographic name.--
Jiejunkong 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong, there is no such consensus that "Manchuria" can only be used for the historical period between 1635 and 1945. If you have a problem with the title of this template, please file a request for move. Please work through consensus. Cydevil38 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This entire argument appears to rest on ignorance of English idiom. All of Wikipokemon's examples above use "northeast China", "northeastern China", or "NE China". None of these are, or can be, proper nouns. One of them refers to use in Chinese of Dongbei, "Northeast". This is not English usage. As far as I recall, all of them deal with present usage, and are entitled Manchuria. I am not sure what Cause all this fallacious argument is intended to foster: if it were made straightforwardly, I might be willing to agree to amend WP:NCGN accordingly. But this sort of thing might as well be calculated to lose the sympathy of relatively neutral observers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. Dscarth 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoever wants to change this template's name should request a move. Otherwise, it should stay as "History of Manchuria". Cydevil38 ( talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said consensus was reached. The title of "History of Manchuria" was kept within the template, it was not removed - only that "Northeast China" was added in parenthesis. I agree with the other editors that this should not be removed. As for Russian Far East, it can be argued, when taking into account the non-Chinese regions ceded during the latter half of the Qing Dynasty. Laoganma ( talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
History of Manchuria → History of Manchuria(Northeast China) and Russian Far East — First, I make my position clear that I myself is against this move. I am making this request for move because some people have been persistently changing the title within the template that is different from the title of the template itself. Many steps were taken to help establish consensus, such as 3rd opinion, RfC and RfCU [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and a survey [32], but these editors still persist on the name "Northeast China". I have repeatedly asked them to request a move if they wish to change the title, but they just kept changing the title within the template without changing the template title itself, which lead to continued edit warring. So I make this request for move in hope to estalish consensus on the title of this template and put an end to the edit warring. — Cydevil38 ( talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.
Some examples of why it is an offensive term:
The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template. Folks, please discuss rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts. Thanks. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, add the Didouyu to this list. Yug2 ( talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities. This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria. There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The template was created that way, and for you to make such a drastic change to the template you'll need major consensus. You can start a consensus and ask for editors opinions of whether to add these links.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a drastic change when you are basically changing the whole format of this template by adding multiple duplicated links. By the way, all of the links on this template are sorted in a chronological order, i.e. in order of appearances (it doesn't mean that these entities ceased or how long they've lasted).-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a History template not a list of kingdoms. It should be created according to history. Elknz ( talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make this template look that good, it is fine with me. But please don't prevent people to improve the contents of this History template. Elknz ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid Accuracy is before beauty. Besides it is not ugly at all. As I said if you think it is ugly, you can improve on the look if you like. Elknz ( talk) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Elknz, I don't think Neo-Jay is talking about "beauty" per se. It is about the basic layout and the format of how a template should be, in which all of the same duplicate links you inserted would distort the format of the article. Also, as I said above, this template is already sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by Altaicmania ( talk · contribs) are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:
I've therefore reverted. Discussion on this is, however, welcome. I can be convinced with good argument. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.-- 133.236.57.172 ( talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
태왕 ( talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Manchuria template. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As a native English speaker, and a member of the consensus that established WP:NCGN, I do have several comments:
1) Very well, the name I am arguing for is Northeast China, which - as you noted, is a proper name. However, NE China can also be interpreted as Northeast China, and in most cases, the term "northeastern China" and " Northeast China" are coterminous (refering to the three Chinese provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Liaoning).
2) Wrong. Northeast China is both a historic and geographical term synonymous with Manchuria (see above), solely referring to the Three Provinces of Northeast China. "Manchuria" only refers to the region of Chinese-administered areas, not including former territories in what is now North Korea and Russian Far East. This is confirmed by all teritary sources for "Manchuria"/"Northeast China":
[4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[5] Encarta Dictionary
[6] American Heritage Dictionary
[7] Collins Dictionary
[8] Answer.com
[9] Columbia Encyclopedia
[10] Britannica Encyclopedia
[11] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[12] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[13] Catholic Encyclopedia
[14] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[15] AncientWorld.net
[16] Nuttall Encyclopedia
Note: (from user:Wiki pokemon)
3) Yes, we understand this is an English-language encyclopedia. But realize that all of us here (proponents of Northeast China and/or its variants) live in English-speaking countries ( North America). The "Chinese translation" you're referring to ( Dongbei) is not a translation. "Dongbei" is the romanized version of Northeast China in Hanyu Pinyin. Many Chinese historical/geographic names use this form of romanization in modern vernacular English. For example, Peking was a former term referring to the city of Beijing, nowadays, the use of Peking in place of Beijing is almost non-existant - just like "Manchuria." Also, there are many English websites that use this term in place of both Northeast China (its English counterpart) and Manchuria, prime example of this being Encarta Encyclopedia [17]. Also, Northeast China is a very well established geographic term in the English language, as pointed above - almost all Western news corporations (e.g. NYT, ABC, CNN, etc.) adopt Northeast China in place of Manchuria [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25].
The reason why we Northeast Chinese abhor the use of Manchuria is primarily due to historical reasons. For one thing, this term is highly offensive in the eyes of us Northeast Chinese, especially due to its association with the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (literally "state of Manchuria"). This term can be compared to other offensive terms such as Shina or Zhina, which many Chinese consider to be derogatory. (see WP:AVOID)
Another reason why Manchuria cannot be used is because this term is not even a geographic term to begin with. "Manchuria" is rendered as "Manzhou" in Mandarin, but this name was originally meant to refer to the Manchu ethnicity, with absolutely no geographic connotations attached. As described above, the Qing Dynasty (the era which the concept of "Manchuria" was created) referred to this region as either Northeast China or "Eastern Three Provinces," Dongsansheng. However, there was never a geographic region of "Manchuria" in historical records. Therefore, Manchuria fails the WP:NCGN simply because it is not a valid geographic concept to begin with. Assault11 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
To
PMAnderson: According to original wikirule texts,
WP:NCGN is not the guideline for proper names/nouns (Please do a string search on "proper", which only appears in the "See also" section, not in the central contents). In contrast,
Wikipedia:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". Let's go back to
WP:NCGN, which is the guideline for geographic names.
WP:NCGN does not apply to non-geographic names, but for any geographic region, it is the critical one. Here and now what is being disputed is the geographic name, as there is already a consensus saying that "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the historical entity between
1635 and
1945. The historical term is offensive to local English speakers if used anachronistically as a modern geographic name.--
Jiejunkong 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong, there is no such consensus that "Manchuria" can only be used for the historical period between 1635 and 1945. If you have a problem with the title of this template, please file a request for move. Please work through consensus. Cydevil38 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This entire argument appears to rest on ignorance of English idiom. All of Wikipokemon's examples above use "northeast China", "northeastern China", or "NE China". None of these are, or can be, proper nouns. One of them refers to use in Chinese of Dongbei, "Northeast". This is not English usage. As far as I recall, all of them deal with present usage, and are entitled Manchuria. I am not sure what Cause all this fallacious argument is intended to foster: if it were made straightforwardly, I might be willing to agree to amend WP:NCGN accordingly. But this sort of thing might as well be calculated to lose the sympathy of relatively neutral observers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. Dscarth 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoever wants to change this template's name should request a move. Otherwise, it should stay as "History of Manchuria". Cydevil38 ( talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said consensus was reached. The title of "History of Manchuria" was kept within the template, it was not removed - only that "Northeast China" was added in parenthesis. I agree with the other editors that this should not be removed. As for Russian Far East, it can be argued, when taking into account the non-Chinese regions ceded during the latter half of the Qing Dynasty. Laoganma ( talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
History of Manchuria → History of Manchuria(Northeast China) and Russian Far East — First, I make my position clear that I myself is against this move. I am making this request for move because some people have been persistently changing the title within the template that is different from the title of the template itself. Many steps were taken to help establish consensus, such as 3rd opinion, RfC and RfCU [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and a survey [32], but these editors still persist on the name "Northeast China". I have repeatedly asked them to request a move if they wish to change the title, but they just kept changing the title within the template without changing the template title itself, which lead to continued edit warring. So I make this request for move in hope to estalish consensus on the title of this template and put an end to the edit warring. — Cydevil38 ( talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.
Some examples of why it is an offensive term:
The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template. Folks, please discuss rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts. Thanks. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, add the Didouyu to this list. Yug2 ( talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities. This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria. There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The template was created that way, and for you to make such a drastic change to the template you'll need major consensus. You can start a consensus and ask for editors opinions of whether to add these links.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a drastic change when you are basically changing the whole format of this template by adding multiple duplicated links. By the way, all of the links on this template are sorted in a chronological order, i.e. in order of appearances (it doesn't mean that these entities ceased or how long they've lasted).-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a History template not a list of kingdoms. It should be created according to history. Elknz ( talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make this template look that good, it is fine with me. But please don't prevent people to improve the contents of this History template. Elknz ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid Accuracy is before beauty. Besides it is not ugly at all. As I said if you think it is ugly, you can improve on the look if you like. Elknz ( talk) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Elknz, I don't think Neo-Jay is talking about "beauty" per se. It is about the basic layout and the format of how a template should be, in which all of the same duplicate links you inserted would distort the format of the article. Also, as I said above, this template is already sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by Altaicmania ( talk · contribs) are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:
I've therefore reverted. Discussion on this is, however, welcome. I can be convinced with good argument. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.-- 133.236.57.172 ( talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
태왕 ( talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)