Talk:Chonji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

The translation to "Lake Tianchi" is redundant because "Tianchi" already refer to a body of water. "Heavenly pond lake" sounds wierd. Kowloonese 01:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the lake be in Korean since the name of the Mountain and history is in Korean? -- dandan xD 12:01 22 April 2006 (AEST)

Yes, it should be. Baekdusan is wholly Korean territory. Oyo321 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's better. -- dandan xD 22:47 18 November 2006 (KST)

Contents 1 Alternate image 2 Page Move 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 4 Now we have two Tianchi articles. 5 Different Move Request 6 tianchi 7 Chonji 8 So....

[edit] Alternate image

Just thought I'd mention these images from Wikimedia Commons: Baitou Mountain Tianchi.jpg, Paektu-san.jpg (see right).

Although at present I'm afraid this article isn't really big enough to support more than one image.-- Visviva 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have removed Image:Tianshan tianchi.jpg, which depicts the lake of the same name in Xinjiang. It was needlessly confusing. Once a Tianchi (Xinjiang) article is created, please put the picture there. -- Visviva 11:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

Tianchi is far more common of a name than either Chonji or Cheonji. A Google search shows nearly 30,000 hits for Tianchi, and and less than 1,000 each for Chonji and Cheonji. That's two orders of magnitude in difference. [1][2][3] And, of course, the fact that the lake monster is called the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Lake Cheonji monster" or "Lake Chonji" monster is further evidence of Tianchi being the more common and accepted name.--Yuje 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the mountain is Korean, the history is Korean and Baekdu mountain was under Korean control since the Three Kingdoms and when Goguryeo controlled Manchuria and parts of China. Good friend100 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose territory it is. As is noted above, Tianchi seems far more common in google. Can anyone provide some evidence to the contrary? —LactoseTI^T 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And after Goguryeo, it hadn't been under Korean control for over a thousand years as its territory was limited to the the south of the Taedong River. They only reached near the modern borders again during Choson and the mountains and lake were divided approximately 50-50 by China and North Korea in 1962. And from seeing pre-1962 maps, it's possible North Korea might not even have had control of the lake till 1962. [4] [5]--Yuje 22:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The page can't be moved back directly since the old one has been edited. Nihonjoe has offered to move it when consensus has been reached. I'm curious if anyone has an argument other than N. Korea having some claim of control over it (which as I mentioned above, isn't how the naming policy works anyhow). —LactoseTI^T 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"North Korea having some claim"? Do you know anything about North Korea? North Korea gave a part of the mountain to China a while ago, most likely a thank you for China's help during the Korean War. North Korea controls at least half of the mountain. Also, "Tianchi" may just be more common, because the only way to visit Baekdu mountain is through China. North Korea restricts any tourists to the mountain. Also, why move this article to a Chinese name when the article's title is Korean? Thats not being consistent. Good friend100 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first website that comes up after "Tianchi" on google shows a travel site information [6]. Also, there are more travel informations on it, and Chinese newspapers that state that a "monster has been sighted on Tianchi lake". Most of the results are travel information that are not really relevent to the article, unless a travel section is written. Good friend100 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the article's title being different from the name--they should be changed to be consistent after the move back to the other name. Travel information is actually one of the best kinds of pages--English sites targetting tourists are highly likely to use a name that the majority of speakers would know. Since the article's name must reflect the most common English usage, this strongly points in the direction of Tianchi. —LactoseTI^T 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that why use "Tianchi" a chinese name while the mountain of the lake is a Korean name "Baekdu mountain"? If you agree that Tianchi is the best, then why not move "Baekdu mountain" to the Chinese name? Also, if travel pages are the best to support that "Tianchi" is the word used mostly by tourists, then there should be a travel section in the article. Good friend100 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Actually I think the Google results are a strong argument in favor of the Korean name. A lot of the Google hits seem to refer to various other places called "Tianchi," most frequently a lake in Urumqi. Thus, Tianchi is ambiguous as a title; in contrast, Cheonji/Ch'ŏnji is relatively unambiguous. Note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) specifically says that we should use the most common name that does not conflict with other names; in this case, that would seem to be Ch'ŏnji. -- Visviva 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point, Visviva--if this is the case, I would support the Korean name (although I must stress again, Good friend100, that this is not for the reasons you suggest--please learn that the naming policy has nothing to do with where a territory is). —LactoseTI^T 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Try searching "Lake Tianchi monster", which describes only on the lake at the Sino-Korean border. [7] This term alone is just over a thousand, more than either Cheonji or Chonji. Even taking into account other Lake Tianchi elsewhere, Tianchi is still the most common name for this one as well.--Yuje 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked over 1,000 sites by typing "Tianchi," and most of them was either about the Tianchi in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, or the Monster. Now, considering that the Monster is pretty much a Chinese idea/belief/sighting, I have to say that the name should be either Cheoji or Chonji, although I prefer Cheonji.--General Tiger o7:24, 3 October 2006 (Korean Time)

I wasn't talking about anything with whose territory chonji lake was. I was simply stating that it would be confusing for an outside reader to read the baekdusan article and then read the suppposed "tianchi lake" article. If the mountain's name is in Korean and the lake of that mountain's name is in Chinese it would be confusing. Good friend100 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there doesn't seem to be good reason for the page to be at Baekdusan either. There's 74,000 hits for Changbai Mountain, 50,000 hits for Changbaishan, but only 11,000 for Baekdu Mountain and 9,500 for Baekdusan. And for the border ownership, there seems to be indication that it was Mao that gave away half to Kim in 1962, not vice versa. [8][9][10][11] And, of course, the fact that the lake monster is called the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Lake Cheonji monster" or "Lake Chonji monster", and that searches for this alone number higher than all searches for "Lake Cheonji" and "Lake Chonji" combined is further evidence of Tianchi being the more common and accepted name.--Yuje 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

However, Visviva stated that the most common name that does not conflict with other names should be used. "Tianchi" is a name of other places in China. Chonji (or Cheonji) is the best title for this article. And your references are just a bunch of google search web addresses. I have never heard of Mao giving "half of Baekdusan" to Kim. Its the other way around. As I said, Kim gave it as a gift to Mao.

You don't seem to understand why it shouldn't be "Tianchi". I already repeated twice that it would be inconsistent with Baekdusan. Also, searching Changbaishan gives me numerous links to a hotel called "Changbaishan hotel" which is merely a hotel near Baekdusan and a number of reviews and tourist information. Good friend100 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See the Wikipolicy on undue weight. Even with other places called Tianchi, the name of this lake is overwhelmingly called Tianchi in English, and the number of hits for Chonji barely registers a blip in comparison. I'm sure you don't want to keep the original page title because you're Korean, but you need objective NPOV reasons as well. Chonji is clearly nowhere near being common of a name, and even the monster that lives in the lake is more popular than the name Chonji. Like I said, there's a reason why the monster is named the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Chonji mosnter".

For the "Changbaishan hotel", it makes sense that Changbaishan, being a tourist attraction, would have hotels in the Chinese side. But if you insist, we can omit the word "hotel" from searches. [12] [13] It still shows near 60,000 hits for Changbai, 39,000 for Changbaishan, but only 10,000 for Baekdu, and a paltry 968 for Baekdusan. [14] [15] You're going to have a very hard time trying to argue against Changbai's common usage and against moving it to Changbai without resorting to POV reasons. So your argument about confusion due to Baekdusan is flawed as well. But if you still don't believe me, here's comparisons on other search engines as well:

• 11,300 hits for Lake Tianchi on Yahoo, 90 hits for Lake Chonji. [16] [17]
• 14,200 hits for Changbai mountain on Yahoo, 2,010 for Baekdu mountain [18] [19]
• 11,000 hits for Lake Tianchi on Altavista, 85 hits for Lake Chonji [20] [21]
• 14,400 hits for Changbai mountain on Altavista, 2,000 hits for Baekdu mountain [22] [23]
• 4,347 hits for Lake Tianchi on MSN, 132 hits for Chonji [24] [25]
• 6,184 hits for Changbai mountain on MSN, 1,707 for Baekdu mountain [26] [27]

You're clearly arguing for a very small minority viewpoint. Even if we go with the overly generous assumption that only 25% of each result refers to the lake in Manchuria, that result is still clearly disproportionate in favor over Chonji. The number of Google hits for the unambiguous "Lake Tianchi monster" alone outnumber all hits for "Lake Chonji" on all search engines combined. If there's disambiguation to be made, it clearly should be "Lake Tianchi (Manchuria)" or "Lake Tianchi (Jilin)", instead of the completely unknown "Lake Chonji". You clearly know the frustration of individuals attempting to force a move that you feel is clearly POV and in a minority [28], so I hope you would take a moment to step out of your shoes for a moment and observe how your arguments on this page might look to an outsider.

Last but not least, take a look at these links for the border issue. [29] [30] Even the farthest extent of Korean claims covers only the approximate area of the modern day border, and nowhere near the whole mountain range, while Chinese maps did in fact show the whole range in Chinese territory. This detailed border report [31] claims that it was China that comprised and conceded the land to North Korea. And lastly, the Manchus regarded the mountain as a sacred place, and set a quarantine zone around the area, and emperors would pay visits there to worship. This couldn't have happened unless they actually had control over it, and being the pre-eminent power of East Asia during their heyday, the Manchus wouldn't have let anyone else claim it. The only sources claiming that North Korea gave the land away to China are a handful of recent news sites that are complaining about the 2008 Olympic games in China.--Yuje 09:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't want to keep the original page title because you're Korean Hmm thats interesting. I could accuse you of changing the page because you are Chinese, but thats a tit for tat move thats pretty lame.

No need to get angry and rabble out all your accusations and facts. instead of the completely unknown "Lake Chonji". It seems you are out on a plan to expand everything on China.

I have already repeated "Tianchi" is already used in other places in China and about the monster in the lake, that seems to be something like the Asian counterpart of the Loch Ness monster. Most of the search items are simply tourist information (since China is the only way to tour the mountain), the mountain's name is Korean (no need for a Chinese name of the lake), and the title that is the most clear should be used. "Tianchi" is name for numerous other places, including a place called "Urumqi".

We cannot just rely on google and other search engines alone. They are pretty crude for estimating how many articles are on the web, and it includes sites that do not relate to this article, like news articles, and company websites. "Tianchi" will bring up any webpage with a word "Tianchi", and that means it will include anything, even an article that mentions "Tianchi" once. Good friend100 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) If your case is strong, go argue at the Baekdusan talk page.

My argument isn't about its name in the Chinese or Korean language, but that its name in English is most commonly named Tianchi. I don't see how you can continue to argue that Chonji is somehow a common name. The name of the monster also refers to the lake. If Chonji were indeed a common name, why isn't it called the "Lake Chonji monster"? The monster sites certainly aren't tourist sites, yet they all inevitably name the lake it lives in as "Lake Tianchi". As I've repeated above numerous times, the name of the mountain has even less relevance, as Baekdu doesn't look more common. And the usages you mention in articles, websites, etc are a good indicator of usage. But if you insist, what you mention about Tianchi is the same for Chonji as well. Take out the word "lake" from the search, you'll find countless hits of guys named Chonji instead of the lake. If you filter out "Taekwando", "Tae kwon do", "martial arts", etc, the number of hits for Chonji come out considerably less, less than 500. Again, I don't see how you can argue for such an uncommon name other than for POV reasons.

If you still don't believe me and still think "I'm out to expand everything for China", I can, however expand my search into other domains as well. Try Google scholar for example: [32] [33]. A search for "Lake Tianchi" with Yunnan, Xinjiang, and Tibet filtered out turns out 92 hits, while a search for Lake Chonji turns up only 8, and of those 8, only 2 of them refer to the actual lake in this article. Another order of magnitude difference, and also shows that not only is Chonji not in common usage, but that it's not in common academic or scientific use either.--Yuje 20:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "undue weight" section in WP:NPOV is intended to apply to article content, not naming conflicts. In any case, as far as I can see the nature of the dispute here is rather different from the kind where undue weight is likely to be an issue... There is no dispute over whether the lake is "really" named Tianchi or Ch'ŏnji; they are, after all, the same name. Nor is there any dispute over whether it is in Korea or in China; it is, after all, in both.

Also, your Googling seems a bit flawed. "Lake Cheonji" / "Lake Ch'ŏnji" are relatively infrequent collocations; on the other hand, searching without quotes leads to about 950 hits each.[34] [35] This contrasts with 575 for 'Tianchi monster' also without quotes ... [36] This isn't to say that Tianchi isn't more common (its Google hits are still orders of magnitude higher), but I don't think the issue is nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.

I don't have any particular opinion on the actual naming issue here. This article sat quite happily at Lake Tianchi for many years; I don't see any reason why that name is better or worse than Chonji. The disambiguation concerns more or less balance the popularity contest. I don't see why this article needed to be moved in the first place; neither do I see why it needs to be moved again. -- Visviva 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use quotes in my search. What I did do was add in the search term "-Wikipedia", so that we wouldn't end up searching our site. Do this and the hits come out the same as I showed above. [37] 875 hits for Chonji, even less for Cheonji. [38]--Yuje 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In view of the ugliness of the POV warring that has been going on over a wide range of article names lately (consider Dokdo, Baekdusan, Socotra Rock, Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, et cetera ad nauseam), I'm tempted to suggest that we adopt Wikipedia:Use English over Wikipedia:Use common names. How about we just call the mountain White-Headed Mountain and the lake Heavenly Lake? That isn't an option for every naming conflict, but it would take care of the POV issues with these two. -- Visviva 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I really can't go with that view. If we actually name things like you suggested, we would have to change almost all of the articles in Wikipedia. -- General Tiger 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now we have two Tianchi articles.

Before arguing on whether Google searches are important or not:

People, other than the question of whether Chonji/Tianchi is better for the title, we have the situation where there is another Tianchi article for the one in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. My current concern, is what are we going to do about this?

My opinion is that since we now have another article for the more widely known Tianchi, I say that we just leave Chonji alone now. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is more relevant than Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). To my knowledge, the Korean name is unambiguous (meaning that there isn’t any other Choenji/Chonji, unlike Tianchi), and is therefore preferable. Unless we’re going to argue to go against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), we seem to have a conclusion.

Any other opinions?

--General Tiger 12:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that Chonji is an unambiguous name. If you actually went and searched for "Chonji", the most likely results you would get would be Taekwando-related material. For this reason, I don't feel that Chonji is neccessarily superior in being unambiguous. If we're all debating about precision and ambiguity, then I propose that both Tianchi and Chonji be disambiguiation pages, Tianchi to disambiguate the various lakes, and Chonji for Taekwando and the lake. --Yuje 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tianchi, theres an article on it if you type in the exact words on the search bar. Its an article about the lake in a place called "Urumqi" which I have already mentioned of the unclearness. Good friend100 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It even says that the name refers to "several lakes in China and Taiwan". Good friend100 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your choice of words is striking. Such careful, well-balanced sentences; it reminds of something I've read somewhere. ... ;-) -- Visviva 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, if you are complimenting me, I suppose you are linking this article with the Baekdusan article. Good friend100 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chonji" is part of Hyung, which is a part of Taekwondo. And I don't think that there is an article for "Chonji (Taekwondo)". Also, "Chonji" in Taekwondo means "heaven and earth" for some sort of movement or attack in Taekwondo, it really does not have to do with the lake Chonji on Baekdu mountain. Good friend100 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "Tianchi" has way too many other names. There is a Tianchi lake in a place called Urumqi, there is a person named Liu Tianchi, and there is another person named Zhao Tianchi, all of which come out on searches.. Good friend100 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Red herring. Such pages would be located at Liu Tianchi, not Tianchi, and have nothing to do with disambiguation. Or do we put George Washington's page at George now?--Yuje 01:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Red herring =) This is not a criminal investigation. And whoever Liu Tianchi may be, he doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Liu Tianchi is not the only name that can be confused with other places or people.

Also, we're tending to get off topic, with George Washington, red herring, and Liu Tianchi is coming in. Good friend100 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different Move Request

Chonji → Cheonji

Simply, since we have problems with both Tianchi (several different lakes) and Chonji (lake and Taekwondo), I say that we use Cheonji, which only refers to the lake we're talking about.

--General Tiger 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative, we might reconsider the part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) which dictates that we use McCune-Reischauer without diacritics and apostrophes for NK place names. When that was written (long long ago), technical restrictions prevented diacritics and apostrophes from appearing article titles. However, those restrictions no longer apply. At any rate, if the article is to remain at the Korean name, it would seem best to follow North Korean romanization practice for a landform that lies (partially) in North Korea; hence, I would consider Ch'ŏnji as preferable to Cheonji. -- Visviva 08:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Then we would have to change Baekdusan as well. It would be easier to just change it to Cheonji. --General Tiger 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually in fact, Baekdu Mountain itself is incorrect in that the name is supposed to include "san". According to the naming conventions for Korean, I think we should move the Baekdu mountain article into "Baekdusan". Good friend100 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

After we get the Changbai thing over. --General Tiger 03:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tianchi

Tianchi. Is this the right link to the right article? Is "Chonji" a pain enough for you to write a whole new article under "Tianchi". Its going to confuse outside readers. This is really ridiculous. Good friend100 22:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, it's about the one in Shinjiag. Don't wory about it. -- General Tiger

It is still going to confuse readers. Two different pictures (even though they both show Chonji) is going to throw people off. Good friend100 02:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a different picture of a different lake. -- General Tiger

[edit] Chonji

Quality over quantity. It seems to me that the only evidence you can come up with is that "Tianchi" comes up with more "hits." LmAO. Wow. Its nearly getting annoying hearing you talk. Everyone gives you the same response because you say the same stuff over, and over again. To me, your only intention is to try and impress on wikipedia users that Korea is China. I read your political opinion boxes, and they're purely imperialistic and outright aggresive towards East Asia. Stop it. You know that Baekdusan is Korea, and that Kim Jong Il has sold the Chinese side of it to China. You know that that is a fact. And you know I'm not going to tolerate any crap you hurl at other users in the Chonji article. Its just so easy to just admit it! I want to impress on you that I agree with you that China was a world power long ago, and is again becoming a power today! It doesn't matter whether I like it or not-its a fact! But that doesn't give you the right to put on mr. tough-guy and be aggressive on Korea-China relations! Be modest! Oyo321 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This message was posted on my talk page, but I think this page would be a more appropriate place to address his concerns.

My response:

The fact that there are more publications using the name Tianchi than Chonji isn't sufficient evidence? That's been my position since the beginning. The WP:Google test isn't everything, but it gives a good indicator of trends, and those trends tend to show Tianchi being used to a far greater degree than Chonji. That said, at the moment there lacks a strong concensus to change it back, even though the initial change occured improperly without concensus, but I'm content to leave it be for now.

As for accusations of my alleged imperialistic attempts, Oyo321 seems to think I'm trying to annex Korean territory with a simple romanization proposal. To which my advince is: Chill the fuck out. Korean sovereignty wasn't threatened by years of this page existing under the name Tianchi and it won't be by a return change, and I'm sure the country will continue to survive whether or not online teenagers rush to its patriotic online defense.

And lastly, the widespread claims that the entire mountain was once Korean territory until Kim Il-Sung sold land. Do you have any evidence that Korea sold any land to China? I see you making a lot of claims, but not producing any sources. In fact, signs point in the opposite direction. The stele that demarcated the China-Korea border in 1712 is located on the southern bank of the lake, meaning that the border was originally demarcated at that location. There's a Korean article in the from the publication 역사비판 (Historical Criticism, Fall, 1992) that says North Korea actually gained approximately 230 km² from China in the 1962 treaty.

And here's a 19th century book by Chong Yagyong, titled "Korea's Northern Border Reigion" (in a Korean sourcebook compilation translated by Peter Hacksoo Lee): [48]

A long time ago, the area north of the Tumen River was the land of the Su-shen people. It has not been under our control since the time of the Three Han. The southern slopes of Mount Changbaek, where both the Tumen and Yalu rivers have their headwaters, lay within our territory, but the winding ridges and layers of peaks make the exact location of the border unclear. However, Emperor K'ang-hsi, in the final years of his reign [1662-1722], ordered Area Commander Wu-la (Wu-la ts'ung-kuan) Muk'eteng to delineate the border and erect a stone boundary marker. As a result, the border between those two rivers is clear as well. [emphasis mine]

Here's another study of the US-North Korea border in 1962, by the US Dept of State, which makes no mention of North Korea owning the entire mountain. [49] And another, which says that China actually made concessions to NK on the border in 1962 [50].

The only sources that seem to claim that Korea once owned the entire place are some recent tabloid news articles that protest China conducting activities on its own side of the border, and of course, a few ultranationalist sites, but please, enlighten me if you can provide other reliable sources as well.

On another rather amusing note, it does seem my userboxes are being quite effective experiment in showing which users are capable of judging others by the content their edits, and which prefer to judge a book by it's cover and lash out emotionally. --Yuje 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Google is vague-the numerical value of the hits are mostly way off the topic. As another has written before, tourist locations, random names of other cities etc. come up in these hits. Google cannot be used to show trends of the popularity of controversial topics. It was never meant to. Korean soverignty has nothing to do with the name of the article being names "Tianchi." It is that it is historically incorrect, and misinforms users about the name of the article. And I have never claimed that Korea sold land to China. North Korea may have-secretly offering a concession for the 2008 Olympics on Baekdu Mountain. Oyo321 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chill the fuck out Oh my, the language is way too harsh. Oyo321, you can stop your nonsense, and Yuje you should stop calling names and telling people to fuck off or a variation of that can get you blocked. I can refer to an admin and then it would get nasty for both of you. Stop it Good friend100 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So....

Everyone happy with the current article? I personally what it to be "Cheonji," but I can get over it. -- General Tiger