Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reason as to why this template is "Manchuria"

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.

  • Manchuria is used more often than Northeast China.
  • Northeast China is a term used by the PRC government to try and stop everybody from using "Manchuria".
You should be slapped for saying nonsense like this. Northeast China was first coined by Qing Dynasty officials (東三省 or 東北三省) and later adopted by the Republic of China. The PRC then adopted the ROC terminology. I'm part Manchu, BTW. You are an annoying Korean nationalist trying to stir up non-existing Manchu nationalism here. Let me tell you something, Manchus are proud to be Chinese; our history is tied to China. We can see beyond petty notions of ethnicity, something you apparently cannot comprehend. Manchuria and Northeast China are none of your Korean business. Go back to your peninsula. --Naus 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Naus, hi. I'm reading this page because I was asked to drop in for a third opinion, and I took forever to get around to it. Now I'm reading the page, and one of the first things I see is you saying "Go back to your peninsula," right after saying, "We can see beyond petty notions of ethnicity." You might be interested to know that such statements come across to me as racist and hypocritical, and fairly disgusting.

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)

  • "Manchuria" is used in the geographic sense. We are not here to argue about Manchuria's history.
  • Using "Manchuria" is not intended to insult anybody (especially the sensitivity of Japanese occupation)
  • This is the english wikipedia. Most english users are fine with the word "Manchuria".

Good friend100 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Prove it. Just a quick Google news search of "Northeast China"[1][2] vs "Manchuria" [3] proves Northeast China is by far, more popular as far as modern usage is concerned. Also refer to (recent news) the Liaoning accident I pointed out earlier.
  • Prove it. As far as I'm concerned, the usage of the Three Provinces of the Northeast originates from the Qing Dynasty when the region was referred to as "Dong San Sheng." Also, I have no problems with the usage of "Manchuria," as long as it is supported by official Chinese historiography - which does not seem to be the case.
  • This is a history template, of course its related to history.
  • Are you from Northeast China? Can you read Chinese? If not, go ask someone who is/can.
  • English users are fine with the term "Burma" too, why don't you change Myanmar back to Burma? Same logic.

Assault11 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of your points are very subjective and not backup by anything except your POV, which thus cannot stand on its own. Where else mine is totally objective backup by respectable NPOV references and encyclopedias. I don't even have to make argument or interpretation, just quoting directly from the sources is enough.
  • First you also need to see the context Manchuria is used. It only used by respectable journal to refer to the region in the period from 1850 to 1950. Few respectable journal use Manchuria to talk about present Northeast China. Most use Northeast China today to refer to the region.
  • Northeast China is used by PRC, plus all other governments in this world today. No government will refer to the region as Manchuria today unless talking about the period from 1850 to 1950.
  • As I mentioned Manchuria is used in many subjective and vague interpretations. You may used it in one way, but readers might read it in other ways. This will lead to gap between the articles and readers, and will cause confusion to readers.
  • Again you might not want to insult others, but people will still be insulted. You cannot insist you have no negative intent and force others to accept an insulting label put on them.
  • I know this is English Wikipedia. I am not using any other language except English, am I? I believe Northeast China is English, isn't it? English users are totally fine with Northeast China, aren't they? I bet the regular lay person will get where Northeast China is right away with the word Northeast China, then with the word Manchuria.
Wiki Pokemon 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Myanmar is used because they changed their official name to that.
"as long as it is supported by official Chinese historiography" doesn't matter because the English wikipedia emphasizes on english usage. The CIA factbook uses Manchuria. Most people refer to that area of China as Manchuria. Again, Manchuria is used as a geographic term and english users that browse Wikipedia won't be insulted by using "Manchuria". Why would they? I don't understand why "Manchuria" is so insulting to english users.
The google count has more "Northeast China" because there are many Chinese sites (in english) that call it "Northeast China".
Wikipedia's article on Northeast China shows only northeast China and nothing more while Manchuria covers both China and Russia. This template covers both those. Good friend100 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Northeast China has always been the official name of the region - not even the Qing Dynasty called it "Manchuria." What's your point then?
Replace the word "Manchuria" with any derogatory terms towards Koreans, then come back and tell me if your argument still stands.
Did you read the CNN article regarding the Liaoning accident[4]? It was fairly big news in China (recent at the time of posting) and received quite some coverage in Western media.
Look, I suggest you read everything (above) that has been discussed already before making redundant statements that have been thoroughly refuted:
"Northeast China" is synonymous with the modern geographic concept of "Manchuria" (e.g. reference to popular online encyclopedia Encarta supports this [5]), only that these "lost" territories are part of historic Dongbei (do not confuse with historic and modern Dongbei - and this is why terms such as "Outer Manchuria" are referred to as "Outer Dongbei" in Chinese [6]). On the other hand, there is no Russian term that refers to the region of NE China/Manchuria as a whole. Assault11 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So far your input into this discussion seems to be just (1) Asking irrelevant questions, (2) asking questions which have already been answered with supporting source, and (3) stating that you do not understand what is being talked about. Anyway here are comments about your latest input
  • Looks like you accept official terms as appropriate. Northeast China is official to all governments in the world today. Manchuria is not.
  • Looks like you accept CIA Factbook as an appropriate source. The CIA Factbook state that Manchuria is a region in China (no Russia here) and it only uses the word Manchuria when it describes it as a region in China where Japan occupied during 1930s. Which is consistent with what I said before, Manchuria is only use by respectable sources in the historical context during the period 1850 to 1950, not before and after, certainly not now.
  • Regardless of whether one understands or do not understand why a term is offensive, a person with a sense of morality will try to avoid using that term, taking into consideration of other feelings, and try to use other alternative less offensive term. Regardless of whether one understand or do not understand why a term is offensive, a person without a sense of morality will insist that the term be used, ignoring other feelings, and will not compromise of other alternative less offensive term. It’s quite obvious which category you belong to. Don’t use your failure to understand things to justify something you want. Furthermore this is not the only reason why Manchuria should not be used.
  • There is some statistical proof at least using Google that Northeast China is used more often than Manchuria. You have provided NONE to prove otherwise, no statistical proof, not even a logical argument, so far your only claim is by pure personal insistence. (You have also failed to prove your claim that "there are many Chinese sites (in english) that call it "Northeast China", I can also make a claim, which is far more reasonble than your claim, which is that many more people today whether Chinese or not are using Norhteast China than Manchuria.)
  • Manchuria is used to label China’s territory EXCLUSIVELY. No NPOV sources (zero, none, check sources I provided above) I have come across (including CIA Factbook) treat Russia territory as part of Manchuria. I don’t know when Manchuria is coined. If it is coined before Russia took Priamurye region, then Manchuria is not just a purely geographical name, it has political implications too, because it proves that Manchuria expanded and shrunk according to China’s control of the area. If it is coined after Russia took Priamurye region, then there is still some argument to say that it is a purely geographical name, in this case however, the area would only be restricted to Northeast China. However as I have already mentioned, “Manchuria” as a word has been abused by people giving it various interpretations according to their own taste. The only objective and responsibly way to use Manchuria is according to the definition given by NPOV references, which is to use it only in its relevant historical period of between 1850 to 1950, and not today.
I find your style of discussions not very convincing and productive. If there are so many questions on your mind, and if there are so many things you yourself said you do not understand, maybe you should try not to make any edit. To be convincing you must support your views with sources, not by insistence of your subjective view and making excuses that you do not understand things.
Wiki Pokemon 02:55, 26 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)

[edit] Willow Palissade the first northernmost frontier of Qing Empire

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)

[edit] Interesting suggestion ?

Following what i wrote above i suggest to split it differently:

  • the Amur region (= Amur river basin) corresponding to the "Northern" part of Manchuria/Northeast China or whatever containing :
- Heilongjiang
- Amur Oblast
- Southern part of Khabarovsk Krai
  • the Liaodong region (= Liao river basin) corresponding to the "Southwestern" part of Manchuria/Northeast China or whatever containing:
- Liaoning
- the former Rehe province (South Liaoning + north Hebei)
  • the Jilin/Maritime region (= Ussuri river basin) corresponding to the "Southeastern" part of Manchuria/Northeast China or whatever containing:
- Jilin
- including Primorski Krai
  • Reasons of the suggestions : NEUTRALITY for every parties (Korean, Chinese and also Russian) definied as historical region
- The Amur region (Heilongjiang+Amur oblast) share a common history roughly until 1858 and was a vast region settled by semi-nomadic peoples.
- The Liaodong (Liaoning+Rehe) region was heavily civilized and was a strategical region disputed by countries and kingdom.
- Heilongjiang = Amur everybody will be easily recognized by Chinese and Russian.
- Liaodong is neutral to Korean party and will not insult Chinese party as well. In addition to that Liaodong was employed all along the history from Goguryeo until recently Liaodong peninsula.
- Manchuria (considered is an insult) and Northeast China (which enfuriated Korean party) are not employed.
- During the Qing Dynasty , that region was divided in 3 parts :
> The gouvernor-genereal of Heilongjiang/Amur on the north whose power extended, according to the Treaty of Nerchinsk, as far north as the Stanovoy Mountains
> Gouvernement-general of Shengjing (or Mukden/Shenyang) on the southwest, whose power extended over the Liaodong region convering roughly northern Hebei, Liaoning, southeastern Inner Mongolia and northwetsern Jilin.
> Gouvernement-general of Ninguta/Jilin region controlling the southeastern part, whose power reached the Sea of Japan (East Sea).
- Songhua/Sungari River would cut that region in three part :
>Liaodong on the west,
> Jilin/Martime on the East
> and Amur region on the north.
> Illustration : See link
>* I hope that this suggestion would help everybody to find an agreement.Whlee 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

> I'm sorry infuriated is nos the suitable term i would use, my english proficiency is a bit low you know. probably offend is a better term i dunno.
> i haven't been in Yanji (Yeongil) yet but i wish to go there someday. It wouuld be interesting to ask them if they considered themselves as : Manchurian, Northeasterners, Korean, Chinese, Chinese Korean or Korean Chinese?
> i'm not able to open your link
> Liaodong peninsula was widely use since Tang campaign against Goguryeo at around 650s until the 20th century.
> if you describe that region like this : Liaodong is located in the southwestern part of Northeast China it is right but it makes us puzzled.
> Jilin (the southeastern part of Northeast China and Heilongjiang thenorthern part of Northeast China respectivley. Manchuria would be more suitable in that case but most of Chinese consider Manchuria as a taboo. Then avoiding terms like Northeast China and Manchuria although both of them are right would help diminished revert edit war significantly.

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".

> Liao river basin can be replaced by synonyms like Liaodong (i wont apply Guandong because it can also be considered as a taboo terms to Chinese see Kwantung or Kantogun)

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.

> Goguryeo was only located on Liaodong and Jilin region and the Taedong and han basin region( Pyongyang and seoul respectively) but not on the amur region. Jilin region can be considered as the motherland of Balhae kingdom, Jin dynasty while Liaodong region is the motherland of Khitan Liao (it's logical). Excepting Goguryeo basin and some minor post-balhae/pohai kingdom Yalu river was not the motherland of anyother kingdom creating thta template would lack support.

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.

> this was the only suitable solution i found up to now to find an agreement between all of the parties.

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)

Wiki Pokemon , replacing History of Korea by History of Han River Basin doesn't have a sense because :
- Silla kingdom developped its culture on naktong river
- Baekje near the Han river and then moves southwards
- Goguryeo was created on the Yalu banks and then moves its capital to the Taedong basin
- the existence of "Korea" can start between 668/676 when the three kingdom united forces have beaten Tang forces of the Andong protectorate.
- modern day Korea borders were fixed in 1433 by Sejong of Joseon

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)

[edit] History of Manchuria

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)

Look, I think we have given you enough time to raise your objections to this case. For close to a week now, you have made no attempts to counter our proposal. And the fact that you made no arguments on the validity on the issue of renaming the template gives you no right to change the consensus we have built up:
The three parties - Whlee[8], Wiki pokemon and I - currently involved in this discussion (or debate, if you will) are already trying to work out a solution. I have repeatedly made my rounds on the discussion page explaining the reasons behind my edits. In fact, we have been getting rather close towards a general sense of consensus with what looks like Whlee supporting a "History of Northeast China" template (minor problems notwithstanding) [9].
Not only that, your insistence on using the term "Manchuria" is historically flawed. The fact that you reverted to the title of "History of Manchuria (present day NE China/RFE)" - as well as removal of the Donghu/Xiongnu - shows that you have no interest in maintaining a historically-accurate template. We have already reached an agreement on renaming the "History of Russian Manchuria" template to be changed to "History of the Priamurye region." In line with this agreement, we have decided to change the naming of this template to the "History of Northeast China."
Regarding the Gaogouli dispute, we reached a rough agreement - not a consensus. There is also no policy against our actions. If you re-examine the polls, you'd see that most of the Chinese editors were not in favor of the HoM/HoK template. And I believe I made myself quite clear in the discussion pages (see above/Gaogouli talk page):
Manchuria is a more recent concept than Northeast China. As explained countless times above, Northeast China = Manchuria, only that NE China is a more "legitimate" definition. The other template is currently not in use and refers to the same thing. The so-called "consensus" was based on a survey, but according to the official policies of Wikipedia [10] on resolving disputes (under conduct a survey), a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Technically, it does not qualify to be a consensus, but I have made it clear that "I will go along with the decision for now," on the condition that the title of the template is to be addressed. Not only that, this template is not limited to the Gaogouli article.
You have accused us of trying to push our "POV" in order to have this template to be renamed. And yet - as stated above - you made no attempts to join in the discussions. I could hardly believe you are in a position to unilaterally revert back to the previous template.
Anyway, if you want to challenge what has been done, open up a new thread and join in on the discussions. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to file a case against you for disruption. Thanks. Assault11 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of the cited sources refer to Manchuria as, well, Manchuria. And I've already made my point and it still stands - you cannot selectively apply NPOV sources for one POV while denying its application for the other. Cydevil38 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
All the sources clearly explain that Manchuria is Northeast China and NE province of China. None explain that Manchuria is Manchuria. Half mentioned that Manchuria is historic. Plus you clearly approve and have no objection about using NPOV sources for editing, which is exactly what we are doing. I and other responsible editors have not deny you to do the same. I have seen you making lots of edits using NPOV sources successfully.
Wiki Pokemon 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If a dictionary or an encyclopedia explains an entry on "Manchuria" simply as "Manchuria", then what's the purpose of their existence? Cydevil38 04:43, 1 June 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)

Removal of Donghu and Xiongnu was not intentional. While I have some doubts about Xiongnu, Donghu is certainly an important ethnic group in the History of Manchuria. Cydevil38 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We also have to add the Wuhuan in that template because : the Donghu were their ancestors and the Xianbei were their descendants.In addition to that, Kumo Xi and the Shiwei need also be added.Whlee 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Should this template be titled "History of Manchuria"[11], or "History of Northeast China"[12]? Cydevil38 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A late throw-in: I think "History of Northeast China and Russian Far-east" is good enough. Neutral, objective and up-to-date as it appears.--Jiejunkong 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • History of Northeast China. Manchuria = Northeast China. They are interchangeable. There is no country called Manchuria. There never was. Manchukuo was a Japanese puppet state and we should not be supporting the position of the Imperial Japanese on Wikipedia. --Naus 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
On the issue of the territory that is now in Russia, we can just use a separate Russian Far East template, rather than combining everything into a pseudo-historic, pseudo-academic "History of Manchuria." Manchuria didn't exist during the time of Balhae either. --Naus 05:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Naus's comment should be discounted as a third-party opinion since this editor has been an active disputant on the Goguryeo topic. Cydevil38 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You are no different. Assault11 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement I would like to inform the outside commentors that there was a delicate consensus on the "History of Manchuria" template at the Goguryeo article, and creation of this template, which is based on no reliable source, was made to prevent constant revert warring.[13] Assault11 being one of the few digressors continues to dispute this consensus by furthering his POV. I have raised my objections in the talk page, and I saw progressing discussion made mosstly by Assault11 and Wikipokemon as repetitive and rather pointless to the relevant issues at hand, that the common English word for Manchuria is Manchuria, not Northeast China or Dongbei. Even most of the cited sources that Wikipokemon used as evidence are entries on the word Manchuria.[14] The common English usage being Manchuria this name should be used for this template. Cydevil38 05:21, 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.

> Being agree with Nlu i bring you some illustrations :
- A map of Siberia and Chinese Tartary ca. 1830-1850
- A map of Asia dating from 1890 by Rand, Mc Nally & Co.
- Another map dating from 1897 (= date of the creation the the 3 provinces)
> Conclusion : Manchuria is not an artificial construct created by the Japanese.

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)

I agree that Manchuria would be the best name for this template, for several reasons, some of which are listed above. The maps posted above clearly demonstrate that Manchuria is not a construction of the Japanese (how could they have done so in 1897 if they hadn't invaded it until 1931?) I agree with Cydevil's argument that the most common English name for Manchuria in Manchuria. Also, I support Manchuria for the NPOV reason stated by Nlu above. Parsecboy 11:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • History of Northeast China. The modern geographic concept of "满洲" did not materialize until the 20th century - most notably, the establishment of the Japanese puppet regime of "満州国". The term created by Huang Taiji was "満州族" - an ethnic group, NOT the landmass.

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 again, the problem is that the term is sinocentric -- and excludes the parts of the same geographic unit that currently are parts of Russia. I am highly doubtful the people of the non-Chinese parts of the same geographic region would refer to themselves as 東北人, now or ever in the past. If you find "Manchuria" problematic, at least try to think of another non-sinocentric term that would have some usage in English. (Note also that Dongbei is a geographically problematic term because the article doesn't restrict itself to what is now currently Chinese territory.) --Nlu (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Manchuria is a much more firmly established article in Wikipedia itself, having been translated into 31 languages. Also, Manchuria is the common term in not just English, but also the respective languages of surrounding countries like Korea, Russia and Japan. Cydevil38 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because the region was Chinese to begin with? The Manchus are a Chinese entity, and one of the original founding Chinese ethnic groups according to 五族共和. The territories lost to Russia are no longer Chinese territory, although the area shares a common past history with the rest of Northeast China. There is already a template about the Russian region "Priamurye" Template: History of the Priamurye region (though template is still in progress). And it is fair to say that Northeast China inherited the legacy of this region considering the the main ethnic groups (Mohe - Nuzhen - Manzu, hence the name "满洲") are now Chinese.
Funny Cydevil pointed that out. The Manchuria article is a complete joke (see the tags?). Not to mention the occassional Korean vandalism [17] on that page. Northeast China on the other hand... Enough said. Assault11 04:27, 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)

In some ways, this issue is more-or-less similar to the Sino-Indian dispute over parts of South Tibet/Arunachal Pradesh. After all, the Indian-administered areas corresponding to what China claims as part of "Zangnan" were historically Tibetan (people/states). Even today, the ethnic composition of the area is mostly related to Tibetan. I don't see a problem at all with identifying Northeast China. For one thing, this term is used much more regularly than the outdated and historically inaccurate term "Manchuria." It is generally accepted and a laid down fact that the Mohe later "evolved" into the Nuzhen, which in turn became the Manzu (Manchus). As we all know, the Manchus are one of the 56 ethnic minorities of China and one of the five "founding" ethnic groups of modern China (ROC) at that. They also provided Emperors to the China as well as the establishment of its last dynasty. In contrast, I don't recall the USSR/Russia identifying Manchus in its national census/as one of its official ethnic minorities (even if they did, probably would've been classified under "Chinese"). You say that the term "Northeast China" is "sinocentric," while at the same time denying the fact that Manchus are as Chinese as any other ethnic group (including Han). You also ignore the fact that modern construct of Dongbei Sansheng is derived from the Qing's (or "Manchus," just to get the point across) Dong Sansheng. You tend to equate the term "Sinocentrism" (Zhongguo Zhongxin Zhuyi) with "Han chauvinism (Da Hanzu Zhuyi) - which is flat out wrong. And yes, the region was indeed "Chinese" to begin with, at least just as "Chinese" as any other non-Central Plains entity that is also considered "Chinese" (see Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and dare I say, Taiwan). Its just that your Han-centric definition of "Chinese" differs significantly from mine. Tags or not, Northeast China is still much more widely used nowadays than the outdated term "Manchuria." Assault11 16:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
But this is a "current status justifies retrospective historical characterization" argument. Your logic is circular: the region is Chinese because it is now Northeast China, and it should be called Northeast China because it is Chinese. Whether Han-centric or not, the historical fact is, until the middle of Qing Dynasty (when the Manchu = Chinese concept began), the region (other than Liaodong Peninsula) was not considered by anyone to be Chinese, and it certainly wasn't Northeast China -- at the time of Song Dynasty, for example, if you referred to "Northeast China," all listeners will assume that you are talking of modern central and southern Hebei, and even in Ming Dynasty, the capital (Beijing) itself would have been considered "Northeast China."
Your attempt to bring the issues of Guangdong and Zhejiang and Jiangsu into this is simply trying to compare apples and oranges. Guangdong and Zhejiang became parts of China back in the Han Dynasty -- over 2,000 years ago. That's not true of the three provinces. And you haven't addressed one of my objections -- that using the three provinces as the basis for the template is far more arbitrarily geographically and historically. Do you propose to include the eastern 1/3 of the current Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region into this discussion? (After all, as late as 1945, at least on paper, they were still part of the three provinces.) If not, why not? There is no good historical reason to exclude it, other than "because the PRC doesn't include it into the three provinces." There is similarly no good reason to exclude the currently Russian parts of the region.
If you disagree, then consider the issue: modern northern Vietnam was a part of China from the times of Han Dynasty until the end of Southern Han, for a period of about 1,000 years. Is the history of northern Vietnam, during those times, a part of Chinese history? Of course it is. But under your "current political boundary"-centric view, one would have to excise all references to those currently northern Vietnamese locations while discussing the history of southern China.
And your use of PRC official definitions of Chinese ethnic minorities to justify your arguments simply doesn't hold water. Those official definitions are for administrative and political purposes and cannot be used to justify the wording in a historical article (or, in this case, a historical navigation template). If Taiwan becomes united with the PRC, I assume "Japanese" will become an official ethnic minority of the PRC (as there is still a significant number of ethnic Japanese with ROC citizenship in Taiwan). That doesn't mean that, all of a sudden, by an act of political unity, suddenly we can make Japanese history part of Chinese history. What you are proposing isn't as drastic or as ridiculous, but it is on the path to that slippery slope.
Again, NPOV means that the point of view needs to be neutral. In order for you to even start approximating NPOV, you need to stop getting your ideas just from the PRC official view of history, nationalism, and geography. How the PRC government views things is a view that needs to be considered in NPOV, but by definition of NPOV cannot be the one that predominates over all others just because it's the official PRC view. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, my argument is not solely based on current status. The modern terminology used to describe the region is "Northeast China," but this term is derived from the very name the Manchus used during the Qing Dynasty. In contrast, the notion of a "geographic Manchuria" NEVER existed as far as the Qing or any of its successors were concerned. So how exactly is "Manchuria" legitimate when it was not even recognized by the Qing? During the Song Dynasty, the Northeast of the empire may have been located in modern-day Hebei province, but by the time of the Southern Song, the Nuzhen Jin Dynasty asserted its claim to the Mandate of Heaven (it can be argued that Jin was a more "legitimate" Chinese Dynasty than the Song) and the S. Song then became a subordinate state to Jin. In this respect, the "Northeast" of China by the did indeed stretch into modern-day Northeast China. Even during the Yuan Dynasty, there were 3 levels of hierarchy established by the Mongols (a fourth later on for southerners) according the Chuogeng Lu by Tao Zongyi. The term "Chinese" (Han ren) was applied not only for Northern Han populations, but also sinicized peoples of Northern China, including the Nuzhen (Jurchen) and Qidan (Khitan). During the Ming Dynasty, the Jianzhou Nuzhen technically were not regarded as "foreigners" since they served as vassals of the Ming Dynasty.
Likewise, during the Han Dynasty, parts of southern Northeast China and North Korea came under "Chinese" control. However, the main point is that national borders do in fact, change. While parts of Inner Mongolia may have been once part of the Three Provinces, it does not mean the areas that used to belong to the Northeast have to be included, it just means that these areas share a common past history with the rest of Northeast China. The same applies to Russia and your reference to Vietnam. Hell, even areas located within the Northeast had their borders changed, the areas of what is now western Jilin province used to be part of Heilongjiang.
This isn't a matter of "official PRC definitions of ethnic minorities," IIRC, the ROC was the first to designate Northern ethnic minorities as part of 五族共和. I could hardly believe that the number of ethnic Japanese holding ROC citizenship in Taiwan is sizable enough to become an "ethnic minority" - not even in Taiwan, nevermind on the Mainland. Last time I checked, a good 98% of Taiwan are ethnic Han (including the Kejia, related to the Han), the rest are aborigines. To compare the Japanese on Taiwan with the ethnic minorities in the Northeast (Manchus is the second largest minority in China today) is misleading on so many levels, I'm beginning to think that was a joke.
As far as I'm concerned, this is not an issue of "official PRC view of history" and whatnot. This is an issue of historiography. As of now, there is no proof that "满洲" is a well-supported geographic concept. This term was not even used by the Manchus to refer to the area, despite its name. If that fact were to be proven otherwise, I would gladly accept "History of Manchuria" as the title of this template, but this is clearly not the case as of this posting. Assault11 20:53, 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)

And Manchuria is supposed to span "thousands of years"? Mind you the establishment of 満州族 by Huang Taiji was only around 400 years ago, and thats not even referring to the area. The only time "Manchuria" became a geographic entity was in the early 20th century. The region of the Three Provinces of the East during the Qing Dynasty was used well before that time. In short, the establishment of these Three Provinces was not a PRC creation. Assault11 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
400 years is a lot longer than 68 years. In any case, the three provinces' area during the Qing Dynasty is very different than the area of the three provinces now. --Nlu (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, 400 years since the creation of the Manchu ethnic group - NOT the geographic region. As different as they may be, the name "Northeast China" derived from this very geographic entity established during the Qing, the same cannot be said for Manchuria. Assault11 04:34, 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)

There seems to be a lack of communication here, Wiki pokemon. I showed you this map that Wikipedia uses to describe Manchuria. It includes northeast China AND parts of Russia. I still don't have an answer as to why "Manchuria" is such a negative word. To China, it may be offensive since it brings discussion about Manchukuo, etc, but english speakers are fine with this. Do you see anyone else arguing for Northeast China here? Good friend100 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lack of communication. I am using authoritative references to support my view (actually just using the authoritative references view). But you are using Wikipedia to support your view, which is just self referencing if you are going to use it to edit Wikipedia. Why is this not a good idea, you go figure it out. Why is "Manchuria" offensive? I don't know why, I know many people who are labeled with it is offended, its your choice whether to respect them or not. Plus it doesn't matter too because Manchuria is NE China is the only authoritative English NPOV sources verifiable fact, nothing else is, you have provided ZERO (other than Wikipedia Manchuria page).
Wiki Pokemon 00:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You might dispute whether they're references to the people or the geographic region, but it is my opinion that the first arguable reference to Manchuria as a geographic entity was back in the times of Huang Taiji -- in 1638 (Chongde 3), when the offices of Manzhou Chengzheng (滿洲承政) (ministers over Manchuria/Manchu) were created, apparently in imitation to Liao Dynasty's northern and southern administrations.[18] A clearer geographic (but I'll admit it's still debatable) reference was in 1668, during the reign of Kangxi Emperor, when the official Kuadai was made the Manzhou Dutong (滿州都統, which I'd translate as "governor general of Manchuria", but again, I'll admit that alternative views are possible -- possibly as "commander of the Manchu forces").[19] The geographic volumes of the Draft History of Qing are somewhat problematic, as in the volumes on Fengtian[20] and Jiling Provinces[21] don't use Manzhou much, but there are plenty of references to Manzhou in the volume on Heilongjiang,[22] and the references appear to be geographic in nature, in my opinion -- in particular, there were reference to a part of Heilongjiang (which would include the area north of the Amur River) as Xin Manzhou (新滿洲 -- i.e., "New Manchruia"). I think that one cannot conclude that the references to Manzhou were purely to the people and not the region long before the 20th century.
As far as "not having a strong position on this," I was referring to whether the template should include "Northeast China," not whether it should exclude "Manchuria." Excluding "Manchuria" makes it geographically and historically inaccurate, unless you want to start getting into the impossible task of dividing the history of the regions that are now parts of China and Russia. --Nlu (talk) 20:48, 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)

Regardless of when the term "Manchuria" was coined, the fact is that today it is NE China only. So far this is the only verifiable interpretation by authoritative references (see my sources). Do you have any verifiable sources which says that Manchuria includes Russian territory also? So far all other interpretation of 'Manchuria', 'Inner & Outer Manchuria' and 'Russain Manchuria' do not have verifiable sources. Do you have proof that Manchuria has the most common usage in English sources? Even if you have proof, you have to stick to the verifiable fact that Manchuria is NE China.
Wiki Pokemon 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And all of those entries were on "Manchuria" with one exception, attesting to my argument that "Manchuria" is the common English name used in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Here is my proof, where you provided "evidence" where all entries, with one exception, are on "Manchuria", not "Northeast China". [23] Cydevil38 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil, where is your evidence? You point towards the evidence provided by Wiki Pokemon, at the same time conveniently ignoring his commentary on the bottom. We have all provided facts and explanations on this talk page - everyone but you. Your lack of knowledge in history is not our problem. Assault11 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You are going to find entries of Manchuria in most dictionaries and encyclopedias. That does not prove it is more commonly use than Northeast China. It only proves that it is a more obscure word which needs explaining. And all of those sources explains that Manchuria is Northeast China.
Wiki Pokemon 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Its worth noting that in the early twentieth century, the rise in Anti-Manchu sentiment - mostly to do with Late Qing incompetence/propaganda of the revolutionaries - helped influence many historians in identifying the Manchus as an "inferior," "barbaric," and "foreign" race. Such that phrases like "Manzhou Zhi Waizhong" (Manzhou as in Manchus, consistent with Huang Taiji's neologism) were quite common back then. Also worth noting that the term used to denote a person of Manchu ethnicity during that time was "Manzhouren." It should come as no surprise that the "Draft History of the Qing Dynasty" (Qing Shi Gao) would use such weasel words in its description of the Northeast. Ironically, Zhao Erxun, the supervisor of the Draft History of the Qing was also a former Han Bannerman, belonging to the Zheng Lan Qi (正蓝旗). By 1911, he also became the Governor-General of Dongsansheng (Three Provinces).
Nlu, the term "Manzhou Dutong" does not refer to the "Governor-General of Manzhou." The term "Dutong" refers to one of the nine ranks overseeing the Banner system (Baqi) of the Qing. A more accurate translation of "Dutong" would be the rank of Lieutenant-General - a clear indication that this example refers to a person, not tho geographic landmass.
Exclusion of "Manchuria" is certainly not "historically-inaccurate," its the other way around. The latest incarnation of the region (through the Mohe-Nuzhen-Manzu lineage) is "Dongbei Sansheng," or simply Northeast [China] for short. Assault11 23:54, 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)

Why do I have to acknowledge YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION that Manchuria describes China AND Russia? You have nothing to back up your claim except the Wikipedia Manchuria page, which is self referencing when you use it to edit another Wikipedia page. I only acknowledge the interpretation of authoritative NPOV sources from references and encylopedias below.
Sharp Electronic Dictionary PW-E550, New Oxford American Dictionary
[24] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[25] Encarta Dictionary
[26] American Heritage Dictionary
[27] Collins Dictionary
[28] Answer.com
[29] Columbia Encyclopedia
[30] Britannica Encyclopedia
[31] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[32] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[33] Catholic Encyclopedia
[34] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[35] AncientWorld.net
[36] Nuttall Encyclopedia
Wiki Pokemon 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself considers Manchuria to include northeast China and Russia. Here's the link. Manchuria
Its not my own interpretation. The only intepretation that is going on is how the PRC government is trying to erase Manchuria from its vocab list. However, most people agree that Manchuria is an ok word. Good friend100 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End this POS discussion

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)

I agree to what you have said here. --Jiejunkong 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I am drawing an analogy here: Calling this NE China + Russia Fareast region as Manchuria is very much like calling modern France as Gaul. Maybe in the English speaking world, all names are neutral . But it doesn't make lots of sense. When a person insists on using the old naming and blocks the new naming, then I should say that something is very wrong.--Jiejunkong 05:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Third Opinion

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 agree that Manchuria would be the best name for this template, for several reasons, some of which are listed above. The maps posted above clearly demonstrate that Manchuria is not a construction of the Japanese (how could they have done so in 1897 if they hadn't invaded it until 1931?) I agree with Cydevil's argument that the most common English name for Manchuria in Manchuria. Also, I support Manchuria for the NPOV reason stated by Nlu above. Parsecboy 11:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil has yet to prove that Manchuria is more common than Northeast China. Plus NLU reasoning is still yet to be reconciled with facts from verifiable NPOV sources. This is a sensitive issue, please provide input in the debate to have your view taken seriously if you have one.
Wiki Pokemon 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In a historical sense ("History of"), the term "Manchuria" is more appropriate. Aided by the fact that it is referenced by authoritative sources of the modern english language (M-W, AHD, Encarta, etc.), would lead me to believe it is proper current terminology. Furthermore, reviewing the discussion I don't see compelling reason to change it. I support the title History of Manchuria for this template. --Dscarth 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This template describe history of a region that is Northeast China and Russia Maritime Province spanning a time frame from around 2000BC to 2007. Manchuria History time frame is only from around 1600 to 1900. Authoritative sources you provided above and I also have provided earlier explain very clearly that Manchuria is a historical term with the current terminology being Northeast China.
Wiki Pokemon 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is pseudo-history. Manchuria is not more historically accurate than the term Northeast China. A region called Manchuria did not exist during the time of the Yan, Koguryo, Parhae, Liao Dynasty, Jin Dynasty. Manchuria is not "proper current terminology" when the references you cite above all in turn refer Manchuria to Northeast China. --75.33.232.129 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to provide a third, non-biased opinion, which is exactly what I did. Call it what you want, Northeast China is no more accurate than Manchuria. This is English Wikipedia, so if you have a nationalist chinese preference, take it over to zh.wikipedia.org. --Dscarth 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Northeast China are both English words I believe. You have an opinion, biased or not is really subjective, however it is definitely very casual and non substantiative. Thanks for your third opinion, but it cannot be taken seriously for the casual nature of it. This will be doing other editor a big disservice when they have put in extensive effort and research in this debate.
Wiki Pokemon 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You, Cydevil, are the one doing all the edit warring! --75.33.232.129 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No he is not because Dscarth and Parsecboy have never been involved in revert edit war in this article and can only be considered as Third Optinions users.Whlee 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of calling it simply Manchuria. This is the English Wikipedia, after all, so it behooves us to use English terminology - especially when several authoritative sources use that term also. -Amatulic 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Northeast China is English. Manchuria is described by aurhtoritative sources as (1) Northeast China (2) Historic term (3) Offensive. Please read the content of the sources instead of just counting entries. Counting number of entries does not prove usage, reading the content will make you understand the subject better.
Wiki Pokemon 03:21, 5 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)

Nonsense. The whole point of a third opinion is to get the point of view of a neutral, uninvolved 3rd party. That has been done. You are way out of line implying that I rendered my opinion casually. I write many third opinions, and each one involves a careful and time consuming evaluation of the dispute, the relevant edits, the edit history, the talk page discussion, etc. You clearly have no idea what is involved; I would argue conversely that we shouldn't take seriously those who casually dismiss third opinions as you have done. -Amatulic
I agree. I had taken a reasonable amount of time before coming to my conclusion, after reviewing the facts and opinions presented on the discussion page, and doing my own bit of googling and reading. The third-opinion process is to encourage outside involvement of unbiased third parties, which has been accomplished. --Dscarth 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seemed that way from your writings. Third opinion is only good when it is factually correct. You might have tried very hard, but it is a fact that all your points are wrong and not backup.
Wiki Pokemon 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Tried very hard? Alright, fine, I guess you want to be flamed. My sense of irony is overwhelmed when a clearly non-native English speaker tries to incite English language arguments on English wikipedia. As you might say, "you points are wrong and not backup!" --Dscarth 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this isn't a place for flamming. Please get out.
Wiki Pokemon 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave this discussion when you stop editing on English wikipedia. Deal? After all, if you and others are just going to disregard the informal 3O process when it doesn't suit you, even though you have all contributing 3O editors in consensus to keep the current template title, I guess I should just ignore all rules too. --Dscarth 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So English wikipedia is for English native speakers only? Who are you to decide who gets to do edits here?
Wiki Pokemon 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but you told me to leave first, and you are acting as if you are a self-proclaimed expert on the subject of Manchuria. --Dscarth 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for "Third Opinion" is illegitimate

According to WP:3O: "This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors."

In that case we are talking about 2 parties those who support the term Manchuria and those who support Northeast China therefore the use of Third Opinion is not illegitimate.Whlee 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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 have protected this template from further reverting. It is set to expire 2 weeks later, but if discussion has gotten better, you may appeal for earlier unprotection at my talk page. Cydevil38 asked me to offer my opinion, but I wish to remain neutral. In the meanwhile, I will watch this page and see where the discussion will head. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) PS: Note that this is NOT an endorsement of the current revision.
Ah, yes. It WILL be quiet since the Northeast advocates will be happy for 2 weeks. Good friend100 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The rule for only two editors in WP:3O doesn't seem to be absolute. There's a relevant discussion in the policy's talk page where a user said there was a consensus that WP:3O can deal with disputes with more than two disputing editors. Cydevil38 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather abide by the article, not the talk page. Assault11 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey for template name

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.

As discussed below, I don't see a problem with "History of Manchuria" and I oppose "History of Northeast China" as being underinclusive and POV, but I'll propose one potential compromise solution that I myself do not particularly favor but would be geographically descriptive: History of the Liaodong-Stanovoy Region. If someone wants to second it, go ahead and add it as an option. --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
A related potential geographically-based compromise name: History of the Liao-Amur Drainage Region. --Nlu (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost as ridiculus as changing History of Korea to History of Han River Basin. Remember that a big part of political history is for people to identify themselves with. This is sensitive and you have no choice but to take politics into consideration if you want a lasting and realistic solution. We are not talking about natural or geographical history here.
Wiki Pokemon 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Except that we're talking about history here. The current residents of the three provinces simply have way-too-attenuated connections to the Khitan and the Mohe to be lodging objections on those ancient people's behalf. Describing the region geographically is a potential NPOV solution. That having been said, I do not believe that they are better solutions than, well, simply "Manchuria." I am bringing them up only as potential solutions.
(As an aside, if it's a template intending to address all of Korean Peninsula, a hypothetical template of "History of Korean Peninsula," while it might draw objections, is less problematic than "History of North Korea" and "History of South Korea," which would be roughly analogous to your suggestion of "History of Northeast China.") --Nlu (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are deciding for the current residents of NE China/Russian Maritime who they should and should not recognize to be their ancestors.
Wiki Pokemon 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's something all historians have to do, at least in the context of historical articles. Regardless of whether a suggestion that Macedonians (ethnic group) are or are not descendants of the Ancient Macedonians might offend the modern Macedonians or the modern Greeks, or both, a historian writing a history of the region still has to decide that issue based on available evidence. --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Manchuria

[edit] Support

  1. Support Most commonly used and recognized by english editors. "Manchuria" is not a negative word to english speakers and it is not meant to be negative. Good friend100 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Most commonly used in reliable English sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. It is also the most common term used in respective languages of surrounding countries, such as Korea, Japan and Russia. In Wikipedia itself, the article Manchuria is a much more firmly established article, which is available in 31 languages. Cydevil38 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Current authoritative English-language sources use "Manchuria" to describe the region known otherwise as "Northeast China". --Dscarth 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support : Up to now i have only found reliable map drawn in the end of the 19th century : map of Asia dating from 1890 by Rand, Mc Nally & Co. and map of Manchuria in 1897 if someone can prove me the existence of authentic map dated also in the 19th century or before, writen in English mentionning term like Northeast China or Dongbei then i would probably reconsider my position. For two reasons : we are discussing within English wikipedia and because this is a historical template and nothing else. PS : I found in a Turkish map the uses of the term Manchuria.Whlee 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    What you need to do is to find modern 2007 maps which label the region of NE China and Russia Maritime as Manchuria to support your case. Using the maps mentioned here does not support your case.Wiki Pokemon 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    This is a historical template. --Nlu (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    You are ignoring current conventional usage and forcing a new usage. You are also denying modern NE Chinese/Russsian their rights to identify themselves as NE Chinese/Russains AND at the same time tracing their ancestral roots to the region. And you are forcing people to accept a identity they refused to accept.Wiki Pokemon 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Stop making accusations. Nobody here is trying to force Chinese people to use "Manchuria". Good friend100 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. I still see no principled reason to use a term that -- particularly because this is a template that is supposed to be inclusive of the peoples/states that have been in the region historically -- excludes the Russian parts of the region. With that being the case, "Northeast China" is not going to work, and "Manchuria" is the most inclusive term that is used in English. Addressing the issue that "Manchuria" is derogatory -- it is not. "History of Manchukuo" would have been derogatory, but that's not what being used or being proposed. --Nlu (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support as expressed in my third opinion above. Accepted English usage is accepted English usage; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of how people identify themselves. -Amatulic 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support even if it would legitimize this poll. I don't take CPOV nationalists seriously. (Wikimachine 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose Most reliable English sources admit the modern use of Northeast China over the obsolete term of Manchuria. For further details, refer to Wiki pokemon's analysis of the definitions provided by these encyclopedias [41]. Saying that "Manchuria is not a negative word to English users" is absurd. The fact that its offensive to people of the region is enough to warrant a change in the name. Likewise, replace the term "Manchuria" with a derogatory name towards Koreans would not be offensive to English users, same logic. Assault11 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose Manchuria is an imprecise and archaic term, equivalent to words like "Oriental." --Naus 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Northeast China

[edit] Support

  1. Support Current terminology. Self explanatory and recognized by all governments in the world today. Most authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias describes it as (1)Northeast China (2)Historic term (3) Offensive. Most commonly used and recognized by ordinary English readers. "Manchuria" is a negative word is a fact. Sensitive English reader will not want to unknowningly learn a negative word from Wikipedia that may lead to them offending people. Wiki Pokemon 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong support Most commonly used term in the English language is by far "Northeast China"[42]. In contrast, "Manchuria" is obsolete and almost always used in the context of early twentieth century events (when the geographic term was first coined) [43]. The people of Northeast China are referred to as "Dongbei Ren," or "Northeasterners." Referring to us as "Manchurians" is a grave insult, just try going to China and asking if there's any "Manzhouren" in the Northeast. We certainly do not need Koreans to tell us what we should call our region. We have ample amounts of evidence (refer to above discussion, the "opposing side" has yet to offer a rebuttal) to suggest that the term "Northeast China" was used before "Manchuria." The fact that the geographic label of "Manchuria" has never been realized until the early twentieth century (de jure status under the illegitimate Japanese puppet regime of "Manchukuo" - Chinese: Manzhouguo) as a result of Republican propaganda and Japanese Imperialism. On the other hand, not even the Qing/Manchus or any of its successors ever used the term "Manchuria" to refer to what is now Northeast China. In short, the name of the region is Northeast China, period. Assault11 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Manchuria is an archaic term referring to Northeast China.--Naus 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Strongly opposed The name of the region is Manchuria. --Dscarth 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. For reasons stated above in supporting the continued use of "Manchuria." I actually question whether the name of the region is Manchuria. (As Bill Clinton might say, this depends on what the definition of "is" is.) Nevertheless, this is a historical template. --Nlu (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Agree with Nlu Good friend100 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose The most common English usage, espeically in historical context, is Manchuria. Cydevil38 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral or Indifferent

  1. Neutral. Either term is fine, but the term in common English usage (Manchuria) is preferable. -Amatulic 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

I don't think there are enough votes here yet for an answer. Good friend100 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We have to wait a bit more, do not conclude so hastily. Poll has been opened since June 5th 2007. Votes should continue, and i wish that more Third Opinion users would be involved in it.Whlee 08:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I said that there are not enough votes for an answer, if you even paid attention to what I wrote above. Good friend100 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

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)

Thanks for your opinion. There are inaccuracies to many of your points and you have also not backup your points with references. I hope you have also read the archive where I listed references mentioning Manchuria, because they are very important verifiable information showing the current status of Manchuria. To respond to your opinion ,first Manchuria is a derogatory term today, still is while I typed, definitely not infinitely less than before. Second there are several view points about 'Manchuria', for example Manchuria included Russia or not, Manchuria derogatory or not, Manchuria or NE China is the modern term, Manchuria or NE China is the most common. All references listed in this page have conclusively answered those questions, which is Manchuria does not include Russia, Manchuria is derogatory, Manchuria is historic term and NE China is modern term, and by infering from the last answer, NE China is more common than Manchuria. These encyclopedic references have clearly explained that NE China is the current replacement of Manchuria. Contrary to your assertion that argument for NE China is unencyclopedic, it is supported by all dictioinaries and encyclopedias listed above. Please do not ignore it and go read the content. And support your view with similar authoritative encyclopedia as well.
Wiki Pokemon 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Being agree that utilizing Google as a component are immediately suspect, as China indeed restricts the internet within its borders from without. In addition to that i would like to add that this is a historical template. the frequency/results of terms appearing in a search engine is less important than finding authentic documents/illustrations or map .Whlee 07:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the fact that the PRC blocks Internet access is really our problem. Any consensus formed will have to be a consensus formed among Wikipedians, and the fact that most PRC residents might not access Wikipedia because of involuntary reasons doesn't mean that they're members of the Wikipedia community. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(I mentioned the access issue as Assault11 had utilized a Google search as an argument for one choice over the other. I agree that it is an invalid argument) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure you can reject it if it is unfavorable to you. Thats ok. Doesn't mean it proves your point though. So far you have not even attempted to make any effort to provide any kind of backup for what you said, only stating your opinion, formed using your private logic iin your private world. Same for all others who agreed with you so far except Nlu and even he admitted that his solution is not without problem, but he is at least trying his best.
Wiki Pokemon 19:55, 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'll say this: I don't think I'm ignoring your argument, but I still believe "Manchuria" to be the least problematic of several problematic names. A similar issue exists at, for example, Palestine. There's not going to be a name that will be acceptable to everyone; what we need to find is the least problematic solution. --Nlu (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't even conclusively backup your claim that modern Manchuria today included Russia. Even the least problematic solution needs backing up. Like I said your solution is not very valid in todays context and at most very very short term in this transitionary period, there is already a long term solution and is already valid currently. Having said that I am willing to work out a temporary solution, but having Manchuria as the main theme is not viable given the current conclusiveness of the status of Manchuria by verfiable sources today.
Wiki Pokemon 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the reference to the volume of Draft History of Qing that dealt with the geography of Heilongjiang Province is sufficient to show that "Manchuria" included the region north of the Amur. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Does it specifically say 'Manchuria' or 滿洲? I believe you still need that little translation which might introduce subtle discrepency, so can this be considered conclusive? Even if it is then, is it still now? Even if it is now, you still need to reconcile with the more conventional conclusions given above.
Wiki Pokemon 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria clarifies it. Good friend100 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, that is the ONLY, ONE, UNO thing you can find, and it's controversial too.
Wiki Pokemon 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would appear that the opinion rendered did not really stop the action. Might I suggest - without sounding too harsh - that everyone stop debating the matter and take a step back from the argument for a day. I mean everyone. this allows people to not use the time that other people are posting to think up what they are going to say next, and instead allows for people to arrive at a compromise.
Make no mistake, Niu hit the nail on the head: this is a very similar argument to that of Palestine in that the only solution to be found is the one that works the best for everyone. I am not including the possible hurt feelings of those residents of the region who simply do not have access to the English-language wiki to raise a fuss; their opinion does not count here. Those students, immigrants, etc. who have relocated to a country with English wiki access are going to have to realize that assimilation into a larger world view includes accepting that the old offenses must be set aside. Not forgotten, just set aside.
Trekkie root beer philosophy aside, I think that after everyone takes a break, some compromise can likely be found. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That is because all those opinions are wild imaginations without any backing. Regarding ignoring the feeling of people, you can do that, I don't care, but I know what kind of person you are now, also please do not stop people with higher morale than you from being sensitive to other people feeling, and stop dictating how other people should view the world, certaining not your view of the world, plus your view of the world regarding Manchuria is unconventional currently. Lastly everything must be fact based. None of your casual style debating is treated seriously here, thinking that just saying something without backup is good enough.
Wiki Pokemon 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil. --Nlu (talk) 20:43, 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, I believe you have misinterpreted many points made [by proponents of "Northeast China"]. The term "Manchuria" (known in Chinese as Manzhou) was first coined by Huang Taiji, the "creator" of the Qing Dynasty and the Manchu ethnicity. At first, this term only referred to the Manchu ethnic group with no geographic connotations associated with it. It was not until the Late Qing era (post-[First Sino-Japanese War]) that the Republican revolutionaries (through propaganda) began to promote Anti-Manchuism in order to trump up popular sentiment against the corrupt Imperial government. By the 1930s, the Japanese invaded Northeast China and established a puppet regime called "Manchukuo" (Chinese: Manzhouguo) with Puyi installed as "Emperor Kangde". These two events in modern times are the only times when the term "Manzhou" was used in a geographic sense. Before that, Manzhou strictly referred to the Manchu ethnicity, not the region. The region of what is now Northeast China used to be referred to as the "Three Provinces of the East" (Chinese: Dongsansheng) during the Qing Dynasty, which is what the modern term of Northeast China is derived from. It should also be noted that Northeast China is also the official name of the region today. In short, the term Northeast China is both a historical and modern entity.
Your concerns about Google searches and Internet censorship in the PRC are - in my opinion - irrelevant to this discussion. My reference to the Google news results was meant to give a general idea of the kind of uses of the term Northeast China in the modern context. As you can see, most non-Chinese online news services use the term Northeast China to refer to the region. This is in contrast to Manchuria, where barely any (none at the time of posting) reference was made to recent events happening into the region. Instead, Manchuria was relegated to early 20th century events, signifying its creation as a geographic entity during that time period. As for Internet censorship in the PRC, "Northeast China" is not one of the hot-button issues associated with censorship, so I don't see how that argument would mean anything. Assault11 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I submit that you are incorrect on both points, Assault11. Your first argument - that the area is referred to outside of China is not referred to as Manchuria - cites your reading of history. Secondly, I agree that the inclusion of Google searches is irrelevant; it should not have been included as an argument at all. The claim is that the term is not used by the folk of the region, most relying on their various idntifications for the region - none of them cohesively defined.
So, I did a search from Manchuria of my own:
Additionally, a survery of JSTOR (one of the benefits of being a Forevering Student) indicates a number of modern articles regarding Manchuria.
Allow me to suggest an alternative to either choice that may resolve the situation: This map is the result of a search for both Manchuria and Northeast China. It refers to the area as "Dongbei Pingyuan" (that may translate as something other than historic Dongbei region). Why not name it that, and have redirects and idsambiguations for both Manchuria and Northeast China? This way, everyone is correct, and the casual search by the reader searching either area takes them to the same place? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:37, 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,

[45] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[46] Encarta Dictionary
[47] American Heritage Dictionary
[48] Collins Dictionary
[49] Answer.com
[50] Columbia Encyclopedia
[51] Britannica Encyclopedia
[52] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[53] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[54] Catholic Encyclopedia
[55] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[56] AncientWorld.net
[57] Nuttall Encyclopedia

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)

What I don't understand is, why does Wiki pokemon keep using evidence that is contradictory to his position? I'll repeat, all of those entries are on Manchuria with one exception, attesting to the common usage of Manchuria in English. Cydevil38 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If counting entries helps your position, you are welcome to do that. And I do admit that your argument has merit. But if one would read the contents of those sources, one can find information to make an argument just as valid as yours, but reaching the opposite conclusion. I hope there can be mutual respect for valid arguments reaching different conclusions. And please do read the sources. They have simple, straight forward information.
Wiki Pokemon 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I too was asked to provide a third opinion on the matter. Personally I do not have much knowledge of this topic but I do believe that Manchuria is the more approperate name. Even though in China theses are refered as 东北三省(Three north east provences). I'm more inclined to believe that, this region is better refered as Manchuria because this name refers to the whole region as - "Manchuria either falls entirely within China, or is divided between China and Russia." so just saying NE China may not cover all the places because it has more than one defination Af648 07:21, 7 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)

[edit] Request for Mediation

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)

This new round of discussion barely got started and you have already given up? I think we can still try to reach for a compromise. Mediation is a lot of troubles, I would avoid it if possible. The issues here is much less, definitely a lot simpler, and information is also a lot easier to verify than Goguryeo. I stated earlier that I am willingly to compromise, so I still have hope.
Wiki Pokemon 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, after reading some of your proposals in the mediation, I think in the end that you and I may not have a POV conflict, and it was only a misunderstanding of eachother's view. I only think that the primary title of this template should be History of Manchuria, and that's pretty much it. Just to make this certain, would you be satisfied with the title of this version?[59] Cydevil38 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[60] is actually very accurate factually in todays context, in the sense that, Manchuria is indeed today's NE China (infact all along throughout history) and vice versa (they are really interchangeable). The point then is which one should we use, given that there are valid arugments on both sides? Before, we have insisted on our own arguments and choices (both have merits), now its time for both sides to be a little flexible. The other point about[61] is that it lacks the Russian component which is the original requirments of the template. This can easily be corrected by adding the Russian component to the title. If you agree to what I wrote above, then we can move on in finding a good and fair resolution.
Wiki Pokemon 21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you add the Russian component, it would make it into this one[62], which is essentially the version I've been supporting for quite some time. If you're thinking of this version[63], then I'd disagree. Manchuria should be the primary definition. I wouldn't mind "History of Manchuria and Russian Far East", but others, such as Whlee and Nlu, may disagree with that one. Cydevil38 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Both of those are inaccurate because they imply that Russia is part of Manchuria, which is not (not before or now), so they cannot be used. I know you insist on having Manchuria as the primary word in the title. While not asking you not to do that, I hope you also will not stop others from wanting to use NE China as the primary word in the title (again both are interchangeable). Only under such condition is it possible to move on to a good compromise. Basically I hope to find a solution between the two options I listed on the mediation page. (By the way the first option does not include the Russia component). As for Whlee and Nlu, I believe Whlee has seen the point that Manchuria does not include Russia, and Nlu too understands that even though Manchuria once occupied Russia, it refers to China only and it does not occupy Russia today.
Wiki Pokemon 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the template is unprotected. As a show of good will, I will try to edit it so that BOTH Manchuria AND Northeast China will have equal status in the title. See if this is ok.
Wiki Pokemon 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, Manchuria should be the primary definition. I also oppose putting Manchuria and Northeast China in the same line because it will make the template too wide. Cydevil38 06:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't oppose Manchuria being the primary definition, NE China must be the primary definition as well. Being side by side makes it equal. I have said before, reason for Manchuria is no better than reason for NE China. I am also acceptable to Manchuria(NE China) and NE China(Manchuria) both taking turns for the same amount of time period (2weeks each). If we use either Manchuria|NE China or NE China|Manchuria, then I will leave it alone. Using either Manchuria or NE China exclusively for the primary definition will never end the edit war.
Wiki Pokemon 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll revert any title edits made to include "NE China" or any variant thereof until mediation is settled. Switching them back and forth in two week intervals is an absurd notion, and changing the title to suit your agenda in the mean time is POV, not good will. --Dscarth 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. The main title at the time of protection and mediation request included Northeast China. I will revert your title edits that attempt to remove Northeast China from the main title before mediation is settled. Good will is generated by both sides, not your empty platitudes. Your agenda is as clear as anyone else. --Naus 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The comment noted during protection was "Note that this is NOT an endorsement of the current revision." He had simply protected it as-is. Assault had changed it to include "Northeast China" shortly before the protection, simple as that. I can roll back title to original article version if you want. With lack of consensus, that would be as per wikipedia guidelines. --Dscarth 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't BS with me. You can check the history and see how long Northeast China has been part of this template. Northeast China has been used for far longer than Assault's revert before the protection. --Naus 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no consensus to edit

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)

Agreed. This template covers a larger region than simply China, and as such it makes no sense for that to be any form of primary title. --Dscarth 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Who are you arguing against? No one is denying this template covers a larger region than China. That's why Russian Far East is included as a title in the template. Don't distort the positions of those you are arguing against. Let's be more intellectually honest. --Naus 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Manchuria is the right word to use"? That's your POV. The sources you cite states instead that Manchuria is a historical word that refers to the contemporary region of Northeast China since the period of Manchu rule. Manchuria is no more an accurate term in describing the land of the Jurchens and Khitans than Northeast China and Russian Far East. Manchuria and Russian Far East cannot be given the same title weight. They are not symmetrical terms. Russian Far East is a contemporary region, while Manchuria is a historical one (one with limited duration too). --Naus 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! The template is about the history of Manchuria. "Manchuria" is NOT POV.
Look, check Manchuria on Wikipedia and you will see that Manchuria covers China AND Russia. Good friend100 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
First, you are self-referencing an unsourced Wikipedia article that you edited. Secondly, Manchuria doesn't have the historical prominence to demand a history of itself that extends to peoples like the Khitans and the Yan. Manchuria has only existed as an independent state during the illegal Japanese occupation. The Khitans and Yan are strictly in the annals of Chinese history, not in Manchurian history. Thus this is further reason why this template should not be titled History of Manchuria. --Naus 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets recap...
History of Manchuria.
"Manchuria is a historical word" - Naus
Seems pretty open and shut to me. --Dscarth 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria is a historical word that has been superceded by the contemporary region called Northeast China. Manchuria is a historical word with a very narrow time period, not one extending to the Khitans and Yan. History of Manchuria starts with Nurhaci in the 17th Century. Manchuria is Manchu-centric. Get it? If you are going to use History of Manchuria, you better take out all the references of Yan, Khitan, etc. Yan and Khitan are part of the history of China, not Manchuria. --Naus 19:48, 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)

I just wrote above: "No one is denying this template covers a larger region than China. That's why Russian Far East is included as a title in the template. Don't distort the positions of those you are arguing against." Comprehend that first. I'm beginning to think you and Dscarth are the same person, since you just repeated the exact same thing he said using the word "again." Also you have violated the 3RR, and will be reported and blocked. --Naus 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm definitely not the same person as Good friend100. If you want to probe that further, have an admin do an IP lookup/tracert. Next, the 3RR is just as much a guideline as anything else, but so is ignore all rules. --Dscarth 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please summarize your edits. Your edits also are not "minor" as they are at the center of the current controversy. Thanks. Furthermore, three-revert rule is official policy and strictly enforced. --JakeLM 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll see about summarizing, and uncheck the minor box when making further changes. As for 3RR, the rules state things like "may be" and "may not be", and while is official policy, doesn't mean everyone who performs 4 revs in 24 hours is always banned. --Dscarth 20:43, 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)

Ha! You can file a report against me. In fact, I might even be a sockpuppet for Cydevil and Wikimachine. Good friend100 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old naming, new naming

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.

  1. As to de facto NPOV users, calling this NE China + Russia Fareast region as Manchuria is very much like calling modern France as Gaul. Maybe in the English speaking world, all names are of NPOV. But the old names don't make lots of sense. When a person insists on using the old names and blocks the current names, then I should say that something is wrong. In a nutshell, I can see that a disputation may happen, but I cannot see the reason why the disputation persists. Changing an old name into a new name doesn't hurt anybody, then why dispute as if your honor is on the table?
  2. As to de facto POV users, calling this NE China + Russia Fareast region as Manchuria is very much like calling southern states as the "Confederacy". Manchuria was mainly used to refer to the land of Manchukuo, a puppet state founded by Japanese militarist during World War II. It is somewhat offensive to some wikipedians. I am personally against the name due to this reason.--Jiejunkong 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask, how is "Manchuria" an old name? A few examples of usage of "Manchuria" in books on history published after 2000:
  • While Koguryo dominated Manchuria and the northern part of the Korean peninsula, The History of Korea(2005) - Page 23
  • The polity of Koguryo developed among the peoples of the eastern Manchurian massif, State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives(2001) - Page 22
  • In the north, Sui hegemony was resisted by the Korean kingdom of Koguryo. This state had its capital at Pyongyang in the northern part of the Korean peninsula, and extended westward into southern Manchuria as far as the Liao River. Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900(2002) - Page 145
  • Juha Janhunen (1996) regards the Altaic languages as developing initially in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies(2004) - Page 231
  • The Liao dynasty was founded by the Khans of southern Manchuria and incorporated large parts of northern China, including what is now known as Beijing. Warfare in Chinese History(2000) - Page 17
  • Already, at the very end of the seventh century, a Khitan leader, from the forests of Manchuria, had declared himself khaghan and challenged the Chinese. Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube(2004) - Page 33
  • The Jurchen Jin dynasty ruled Manchuria and north China, the Chinese Song dynasty ruled south China, and the steppe was divided.' Firearms: A Global History to 1700(2003) - Page 29
  • Overlapping with the Liao dynasty was the Jin dynasty (1115—1234), another non-Chinese speaking people who originated in Manchuria The Sino-Tibetan Languages(2003) - Page 7
  • Among the Tungusic speakers of eastern Siberia and northern Manchuria, for example, some groups followed and hunted wild reindeer as their primary occupation The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History(2006) - Page 9
  • The Kitan Liao dynasty (AH 916-1125) and the Jurchen Jin dynasty (1126-1234) had their origins in Manchuria, where their predominantly pastoral nomadic The Great Wall of China 221 BC-AD 1644(2007) - Page 6
Now, lets do a few searches on Goguryeo, Jin Dynasty and Liao Dynasty on Google books to see which term is used more often in relation to those kingdoms. Search is limited to sources published after 2000.
  • Koguryo / Manchuria[64] - 71 sources
  • Koguryo / Northeast China[65] - 13 sources
  • Liao Dynasty / Manchuria[66] - 62 sources
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeast China[67] - 6 sources
  • Jin Dynasty / Manchuria[68] - 44 sources
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeast China[69] - 7 sources
It is now quite evident that in relation to listed kingdoms on the template, Manchuria is the primarily used term, and accordingly, it should be the primary definition of this template. Cydevil38 07:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Jiejunkong, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese Wikipedia. Is Joseon a common term for modern Korea? No. But in China it is, and it is still being used in China to refer to Korea as a whole(e.g. Chaoxian-minzu, Chaoxian-yu, Chaoxian-bandao). This is also the case in the Chinese Wikipedia. Cydevil38 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the term for South Korea is "Han Guo." China used to refer to South Korea as "Nan Chaoxian" (Southern Chosun) North Koreans are referred to as Chaoxian, the same term they use to refer to their own country. In Chinese Wikipedia, the term for Seoul has changed from the commonly used name Han Cheng to Shou'Er, the transliteration of "Seoul." By your logic, we should have it changed back to the former names deeply ingrained in Chinese terminology. Assault11 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"Seoul" is a better example. By the same logic of what User:Cydevil38 adopted here, a Chinese counterpart of this user should argue that the conventional name (漢城) must be used even if it is rejected by the residents themselves. In addition, nobody can add the new name (首爾), or he will dispute. Such behaviors are not reasonable, in particular the disputation part and his persistence of disputation. --Jiejunkong 23:34, 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)

Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan may also arouse negative feelings from Koreans, but this is the English Wikipedia where common usage in the English language takes precedence. You should keep in mind - the purpose of English Wikipedia is provide information to English readers to their benefit, not to cater to certain prejudices that Chinese people may have. Cydevil38 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The 1st sentence of Wikipedia:Words to avoid is "There is probably no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article." Yet, "in general, words and expressions should be avoided if they are", for instance, "offensive". It is true that the same word may cause disputation somewhere, but no disputation elsewhere. We can ignore the non-disputing cases. Nevertheless, when the word does cause disputation, I think it is important to figure out each side's reasons and then resolve the disputation. For the example you have offered, if you have problem with the term "Sea of Japan", go there, dispute and show your reasons. But for the template being disputed, can you explain the reason why you persist on the term with derogatory slurs after knowing the story behind? The reason you offerred is invalid---explaining the derogatory slurs behind the term "Manchuria" or "Korean Empire" is "providing information to English readers"---thus you need to find a better reason (or a better prejudice that you may have).--Jiejunkong 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it is also legal to provide information about the negativeness of the word to English Wikipedia readers for their benefit. It is not against any Wikipedia policy to add a ref footnote to clarify the negativeness of the word on every 'Manchuria' appearance. It is better to avoid negative words, then have everyone using footnotes on all negative words.
Wiki Pokemon 07:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sea of Japan is not a South Korean-specific problem, it also involves Japan. Irony is, if Japan was not lying in the middle of the Sea of Japan, the whole "sea" would otherwise be known as the Pacific Ocean. As for the Liancourt rocks analogy, same logic. Although it has more to do with the case of Diaoyutai. Assault11 16:43, 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)

If you think Wikipedia should be censored, go back to Chinese wikipedia. English wikipedia has derogatory terms in articles, see nigger for example. May I also refer you to the article chink, since we are dealing with Chinese feelings at the moment. Simply stating that the term "Manchuria" should not be used because it is offensive is not just POV, its a baseless argument. --Dscarth 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the above was not directed towards Good Friend100, its directed to those who think "Northeast China" should be the title. --Dscarth 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you live in the 19th century? Or are you from the Confederacy land, or the Yankee land, or the Texas Republic, or the old Mexico including California, Arizona and New Mexico? What's the point to fight for an old name with derogatory meaning, after people have shown the facts? What's the matter with you? --Jiejunkong 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As to the word "nigger" or something similar, if some wikipedians protest against the term because of its offensiveness, then it will cause disputation. (1) An academic description of the term is allowed in wikipedia, but using the term to insult other wikipedians is not allowed. (2) If certain neutral term can be used to replace the term being disputed, then why do you persist on using the old term? Something is wrong here.--Jiejunkong 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course he finds the term non-offensive, because it has nothing to do with him. By the same token, we Chinese couldn't care less if we used the term "gaisideyangguizi" (foreign devil) or "rednecks" to refer to people of Caucasian descent liberally. Assault11 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This guy is actively referring to derogatory slurs and enjoying the expected results. There are many other wikiusers who are against this kind of behavior. As many wikiusers have pointed out, the wikipedia will eventually do it right. Gotta be patient.--Jiejunkong 22:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be a yankee. I'd take no offense to being called by that, even though it may be considered historical or outdated. In fact, I do think the north is better than the south. Regional differences aside, I see no problem calling the southern states the "confederacy", even though that is a historical term. There would be very little confusion as to what we are speaking about. Just as with Manchuria. --Dscarth 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about casual spoken English, or the written English used in the wikipedia? And are you saying that you find nothing wrong when the name of "Southern American English" is changed to "Confederacy English"? or since you claim that you are a yankee, is it nothing wrong when "New York City" is changed back to "New Amsterdam"? The previous paragraphs have already explained the reasons why the term "Manchuria" has some unexpected slurs. Recently more and more academia people studying this topic switch to use current terms like "NE China" or "Russian Far east" used by local people since 1945 rather than the old term used before 1945. This template is about the history of the land at present day NE China + Russia Far-east. In contrast, Manchukuo (i.e., the "State of Manchuria" by literal translation) no longer exists. If you are referring to the history of a currently non-existing historical entity, a split may be more proper (for example, just like the split between "New Amsterdam" and "New York City").--Jiejunkong 00:21, 11 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)

As usual, you are going to somewhere nobody has been to. Nobody here has ever said "Manchuria" is a racial slur. User:Dscarth did use some racial slur terms to make his point, but I don't think he was saying that "Manchuria" is a racial slur. Like "confederacy" and "New Amsterdam", "Manchuria" has some unwanted political slur from the World War II puppet state Manchukuo (literally, The State of Manchuria).--Jiejunkong 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
For those people who know little about the World War II puppet state Manchukuo (lit. State of Manchuria), please check the wiki articles Unit 731, Shiro Ishii, etc. for the reasons why it is an offensive term. And for User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100's information, the victims of plague, cholera, anthrax experiments and vivisections in Unit 731 mainly include local Chinese (some of them are Manchu) and Koreans. In a nutshell, the term Manchuria was a neutral term before World War II, but afterward, no local residents want to use the name of this puppet state. This has nothing to do with politics after 1945. --Jiejunkong 03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, no one has ever proposed that this template be called "History of Manchukuo." --Nlu (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My remark is that it is a slur, which is also a reason why many Western people fail to see the point at the very beginning, only those people who are familiar with the regional history understand the slur. User:Good friend100 and User:Cydevil38 repetitively state that they understand the slur, but their attitude is: ignoring it and ignoring the wikirules to avoid it.--Jiejunkong 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither is Jiejunkong. He is just giving background information about Manchuria, specifically information about 'The State of Manchuria', the actual meaning of 'Manchukuo'. Pretty relevant information I think. By the way, I have seen you have given a strong summary on the latest edit, saying Russia Far East must be included in the title because apparently Manchuria does not adequately address the Russian component. Does that mean you have finally accepted the fact that Manchuria and Russia are mutually exclusive? So what is your justification for the continued use of Manchuria instead of NE China now? You do realise that your NPOV arguement is completely untenable now?
Wiki Pokemon 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone making compromises doesn't necessarily mean they agree with you. And as for this "Manchuria is offensive to Chinese" argument, this just won't work. Sea of Japan also reminds Koreans of Japanese imperialism and is a very repugnant term, but nonetheless NPOV and common English usage takes precedence in Wikipedia. And I have demonstrated the common usage of Manchuria, especially in relation to entities listed on this template, so using Manchuria as the primary definition is in the benefit of the readers. "Chinese call it Northeast China" also doesn't work. Korea today is called "Joseon" and "Hanguk" by the Koreans, but the common English term for Korea is, well, Korea, which is a very old word ultimately stemming from Goguryeo. Cydevil38 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Really now. If "Sea of Japan" was so politically charged as you suggest, why do Chinese also refer to the sea as "Riben Hai"? And I don't recall China being a very big fan of Japan to begin with. Assault11 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, Koreans refer to Manchuria as "Manju/만주", which is a cognate of Manchuria. Cydevil38 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't draw Sea of Japan into the argument and confuse the argument. It is a different thing. Sea of Japan doesn't belong to Japan and you can go to the wikiarticle to show your reasonings there. No disputation is ever raised against the sovereignty of present-day NE China and Russian Far-east. It is more like the case of Seoul---as there is no disputation about the sovereignty---there is no valid reason to interfere with local residents' naming convention.--Jiejunkong 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that Northeast China is being claimed and/or disputed by South Korea (like the case with Sea of Japan/East Sea)? This region is entirely a Chinese entity, I fail to see how the Korean term for the region is anymore relevant than say, the French. Likewise, Chinese term for Seoul is "Han Cheng," but this has been changed after South Korea requested the name be switched to "Shou Er". Just like how we Chinese respect South Korean terms for their own geography, we expect the same the reciprocated. Assault11 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with claims to sovereignity or whatever. Sea of Japan is an excellent example where the common English term is being used even though many Koreans consider it repugnant, as it reminds them of Japanese imperialism. If you manage to change the article's name, perhaps I'll reconsider my position. Otherwise, I'll stick to the common English term for this area for the benefit of general English readers. Cydevil38 05:37, 12 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)

And just what do you know about local feelings regarding this issue? Are you Chinese? Have you been to Northeast China? Matter of fact, the only ones who are dismissing these sentiments are people who've never even been to the region. Assault11 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that Chinese people may feel insulted about the issue with Japan. But Wikipedia is not a place that recognizes Chinese sympathy because that is biased. Japanese editors might as well cry that Japanese war crime articles should be rewritten because they suffered two atomic bombs.
We have to maintain an NPOV view on this. That the Chinese people are angry about the issue is not a valid reason to make the article the way you want to. Good friend100 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put self-asserted NPOV mark in your comments. I already told you that Wikipedia:Words to avoid stated that offensive terms should be avoided. And (1) so far you haven't denied the validity of my statement that "Manchuria" is an offensive term to Chinese wikipedians. In contrast, you repetitively admit that you understand the Japanese puppet state issues and you are on the same page of me. Then your persistence on the offensive term is really an interesting issue, which is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Let me know that you have read the wikirule carefully. (2) Please answer the question that why "NE China" is not NPOV? Why are you against the term? (3) Why do you and Cydevil38 draw "Sea of Japan" into the argument? Sea of Japan doesn't belong to Japan, so if you have problem with the name, go to the wikiarticle and argue. NE China doesn't have such kind of problem, so your introducing "Sea of Japan" issues into this argument here is invalid.--Jiejunkong 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just butting in: I think the use of WP:NPOV in this discussion is somewhat misguided. Neutrality doesn't mean not offending anyone; it does mean seeking balance and avoiding bias in our treatment of disputes. As far as I can tell, there is no actual dispute here; no one disputes that Manchuria is the same thing as northeastern China and the Russian Far East. Thus NPOV is not an issue, at least as far as I can tell. The relevant "policy" for this particular dispute would seem to be the Naming Conventions (which are actually only a guideline, and can be adapted for unusual cases such as this). -- Visviva 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've never cited WP:NPOV in this discussion. The wikipolicy I have cited is Wikipedia:Words to avoid. At the beginning of this section, I divided the discussion into 2 cases: NPOV and POV. This means the problem is orthogonal to NPOV, since the POV case is also discussed. Because you are referring to the Naming Conventions, I am also referring to a related wikipolicy Wikipedia:Naming conflict, please see the section about Dealing with historical contexts: Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically. It is important to note that this template is about the history of the land with current name "Northeast China and Russian Far-east", not the non-existing historical entity "State of Manchuria" or the historical term "Manchuria" that was discarded by local residents after year 1945. If an article is about these historical entities, for example, the wikiarticle Manchukuo, then using the term "Manchuria" in the article is proper. But this is not about this template.--Jiejunkong 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There was actually a heated WP:NPOV argument against using NE China. The assumption is that Manchuria today includes Russia, so using NE China is POV because it excludes Russia. But this is a wrong assumption. Manchuria is a concept related only to Manchu/Chinese and is has nothing to do with Russia. Therefore this WP:NPOV argument against using NE China is invalid. All editors with the exception of Good friend100 have accepted the fact and abandoned this argument (note Russia Far East is now included in the title). Since then other arguments (which are inconclusive, for example Manchuria is more common than NE China, Manchuria is not historical etc) are being made to block the use of the word NE China. And of course the discussion now, the argument that Manchuria is not negative.
Wiki Pokemon 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] third (or tenth?) opinion

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)

I have provided evidence here that "Manchuria" is by far the most common term being used in relation to listed kingdoms in recent reliable publications from 2000 to 2007. I presented this evidence to counter the claim that "Manchuria" is an old term that is no longer used. And also, I'd say using "Northeast China" under a historical context in relation to some of the listed Korean kingdoms there would be very offensive to Koreans, especially after Northeast Project and Goguryeo controversies. "Northeast China", or the descriptor "Northeast" itself, has been getting a lot of negative attention in the Korean media lately. Anyways, Koreans use a transliteration of "Manchuria" when dealing with the region's history, and as a Korean, it's unimagineable to refer to the region as "Northeast China" when dealing with former historical entities that used to reside there, because Manchuria wasn't the "northeast" of "China" in the past. It should also be noted that the original version of this template was "History of Manchuria" with no further descriptions. The current version itself is a significant compromise to the editors arguing for "Northeast China", not to mention even the creation of this template was itself a compromise. I'm quite unhappy with the creation of this template, and also unhappy that "Northeast China" HAD to be in the title, and now trying to replace "Manchuria" with "Northeast China" as the primary title is just pushing it. Anyways, I'll provide further evidence to its common usage in scholarly works:
  • Koguryo / Manchuria - 210[70]
  • Koguryo / Northeast China - 39[71]
  • Liao Dynasty / Manchuria - 104[72]
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeast China - 28[73]
  • Jin Dynasty / Manchuria - 156[74]
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeast China - 30[75]

Cydevil38 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The critical issue here is about the labelling of history or even the succession of history. All the evidence you provided about Manchuria usage is not about labelling or succession of history. It is against convention to use a historical or unofficial name to label the history of a place which is already succeded by an entity with an official current name. I have not seen any example of that convention being violated anywhere except here.
Also can you explain why creation of this template is a compromise? This template should be independent of any other wikipedia pages, its creation and contents should not have to depend on anything. There is nothing wrong about creating this template. The only problem is that its title does not match its entries. Either the title needs to be changed or the entries need to be changed. If you agree to changing the entries to match History of Manchuria(1600-1945), then NE China would not need to be added to the title.
Wiki Pokemon 03:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
"It is against convention to use a historical or unofficial name to label the history of a place which is already succeded by an entity with an official current name." I don't think that's really a policy. It seems to imply that articles like Mound Builders or Anasazi would fall under Category:History of the United States, which is certainly not the case.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
To follow convention or not to follow convention? That is the question. Is this a policy or not a policy? That is the question. You seem to imply that Manchuria does not fall under the history of China or specifically NE China, which is certianly not the case.
Wiki Pokemon 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that your claim of 'NE China' causing negativism among Koreans is more a case of academic unacceptance because of the perceived weakening of Korean historiography by NE China historiography, emotion can be high, but it is nothing more than just academic competition of historiographies. By contrast, the negativism of the word Manchuria among NE Chinese is caused by actual atrocities suffered by millions of residents under the Japanese puppet state, 'The State of Manchuria' during WWII.
Wiki Pokemon 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Both are fundamentally political concerns, but "Manchuria" is more politically neutral because it does not include the name of any currently existing state. Also, it's worth noting that 満州国 is almost never referred to as "Manchuria" in English, but as "Manchukuo".—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there any political concerns about Manchuria and NE China? I am not aware of any. Should either party in a dispute be considered neutral? I don't think so. Note negativism among NE Chinese. Also letting English users know that 満州国(Manchukuo) means "The State of Manchuria" could be enlightening and is at the very least educational.
Wiki Pokemon 05:14, 18 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.
(1) Where did you find that chart? (2) Why didn't you answer my question? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the table is from Wikipedia:Naming conflict, with ? replaced by numerics.--Jiejunkong 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. In working on well over a thousand page moves, I've never seen that before. I object to the idea that decisions on Wikipedia are made by heuristic tables, and I again request answers to my original questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That chart is not even a recommendation, it's a methodological example of how one can use a chart to deal with name conflicts. And in the policy article, it repeatedly says that the common usage takes precedence. Cydevil38 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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'.

[76] Encarta Dictionary
[77] Collins Dictionary
[78] Columbia Encyclopedia
[79] Britannica Encyclopedia
[80] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[81] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[82] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[83] AncientWorld.net

For some examples of usage of NE China today by US government departments, universities, and news networks see below:

[84] California State University Pomona research paper
[85] US Department of State
[86] NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Agency)
[87] USGS (United State Geological Services)
[88] US Government Export Portal
[89] US Congressional Executive Commission on China
[90] CNN
[91] Reuters
[92] Fox News
[93] MSNBC
[94] Bloomberg

Wiki Pokemon 04:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikémon, I don't really understand why you have cited most of your citations. Surely, saying "northeast China" is not the same thing as saying "Northeast China", and saying "northeastern China" is certainly not. Few of these sources imply that "northeast China" is a name rather than just a descriptor of the northeastern section of China. Only UK Encarta claims that the name "Dongbei" should be used instead of "Manchuria"; the ancientworlds.net article is clearly just a mirror of that text.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCON has never been a very useful page, and that table is just plain wrong. What matters is what the most common name is in English. Since this template is specifically about the history of the area, I think the current useage and official name should have relatively less importance.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I lived in Northeastern China when I was in primary school and middle school. People there stop calling the place Manchuria since World War II. Many English dictionaries, Chinese-English dictionaries, English-Chinese dictionaries properly show the fact. For example, Encarta Dictionary states that it is a historical term. Also, in the section "Dealing with historical contexts" of Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, it is a consensus that "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo." Here "Manchuria" is like the term "Edo", while "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" is like the term "Tokyo". The former one is historical so they can only be used in proper historical context; the latter one is the modern one. I think this template is about the history of a currently existing land, not the history of a historical entity. The disputation is about how to call this existing land.--Jiejunkong 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
A similar example is which one is more proper: "History of Edo" or "History of Tokyo"?--Jiejunkong 05:49, 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 jump in here to say a word. I have asked your final question at least twice, but so far got no reponse.--Jiejunkong 22:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
GTBacchus, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that Wiki Pokémon's souces "indicate that Manchuria is an historical name, and that it is considered offensive to modern Chinese." Of the seven reference works he linked to (the eight was a minor of one of the others), only three of them (Encarta dictionary, World Book, and Encarta UK) state that “Manchuria” is a historical or former name. Of the other four, one (Britannica concise) describes it is a historical region while giving "Northeast" as an alternate name; Columbia and Bookrags point out that it is known in China as Dongbei or the Northeast, while the Collins dictionary mentions nothing of the sort. It is worth noting that none of the seven sources use the term "Northeastern China" in so many words.
More importantly, only one of these seven sources (Encarta UK) states that the word "Manchuria" is offensive. One other source, Bookrags, says, "This Chinese terminology is part of a larger effort to distance the region's history from the colonial overtures associated with the term 'Manchuria'", which is basically my understanding of the situation, that the preference for "Northeast China" over "Manchuria" is a political position.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Nat Krause, I didn't "reach the conclusion" so much as take other editors' word for it. I don't assume people are lying in these discussions. Are you saying that modern Chinese don't find the term "Manchuria" offensive? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, what you said was, "The sources you cite do indeed indicate that Manchuria is an historical name, and that it is considered offensive to modern Chinese". And, no, I don't think it has been established that "Manchuria" is offensive, and certainly not established firmly enough that we should ignore "Use Common Names" over it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
For your information, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that Manchuria is considered as an offensive term by modern Chinese. Such an explicit example is good enough. You need to find a reliable source to explicitly say that "Manchuria is not an offensive term to modern Chinese", not something like "Source X doesn't say Manchuria is an offensive term to modern Chinese" because the latter one is irrelevant. More importantly, wikipolicies Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided. --Jiejunkong 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
One source says it, many do not. Proving a negative is a fool's errand. Do you really expect them to say specifically that it is not offensive? Would an article on, say, Kansas be likely to inform us that "the term Kansas is not offensive to Kansans, nor is it offensive to Nebraskans or Coloradans"?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What's your logic here? One reliable source says you exist, and other reliable sources don't say you exist, then you don't exist? You claim that you were in China before. China is a big place and there are more than 1 billion Chinese. It is possible that you have met some Chinese who don't know much about Northeastern China's history (for example, Shanghaiese or Cantonese may not care about the history of Northeastern China. There is simply no such demand). If you want to know the truth about the area, go make friends with local residents with proper age/background or history knowledge. You cannot jump out from nowhere and deny the fact (even User:Good friend100 and User:Cydevil38 repetitively stated that they understand the offensive issues) without physical proofs.--Jiejunkong 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that one or a small number of sources writing on a subject that is often written about don't establish the offensiveness of this word firmly enough for us to let it override other Wikipedia policies. There are, in fact, quite few instances of names that are left out of Wikipedia because they are offensive, so this is very much the exception rather than the rule. In any event, "Manchuria" is an English word and it is doubtful that most people in northeastern China even know what it means, much less are offended by it.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
To Nat Krause: (1) Wikipedia requests proof from reliable sources, but has no requirement on number of reliable sources. As long as I quote MSN Encarta Encyclopedia as a reliable source, the offensiveness in the term "Manchuria" to a group of wikiusers (definitely including Chinese users from or knowing the modern history of the region) is a reliable statement following current wikirules. You can put a prefix statement to say that "According to MSN Encarta Encyclopedia, Manchuria is an offensive term to some users including local residents". This is fine. But you cannot say the statement is unreliable. (2) Look at the number of your reliable source, it is 0. (3) Manchuria is still used by many westerners due to indifference. The communist China was blocked from the western world before year 1980. And even after 1980, the northeastern China region is not as influential as southern China region with respect to the western world. Only Japanese, South Korean business people are quite active in the region. You claim that you stayed in China for 2 years, but I really doubt you have ever been in the region being discussed and know anything non-trivial about its history.--Jiejunkong 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your one source has plausibly established this claim as a fact in view of such a large number of sources which don't mention it at all.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your zero source argument can deny the reliable source which explicitly identified the fact. Otherwise, you are challenging that the reliable source "MSN Encarta Encyclopedia" is lying. In addition, if something is not mentioned, then the failure to mention something is irrelevant to the subject being discussed because reliable sources are never meant to be omniscient. The failure may be caused by many reasons: ignorance due to blocked communication, indifference due to lack of presence and participation, etc. Manchuria was a historical term used 60 years ago, a generation of people has passed away. The kids in the region may not know the offensiveness in the term because the term was largely forgotten in local region. Since there is never a disputation in the local region on changing the name, plus the communist China was blocked from the western world before 1980 and the region mostly only attract Japanese and South Korean investors after 1980, many westerners are unaware of the offensive connotations in the term "Manchuria". But if some reliable sources detect the fact, they will write it down and hence comes reliably resourced statements.--Jiejunkong 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What can I say? I guess even dictionary definitions can be read between the lines and interpreted subjectively. I have posted similar sources many weeks ago, you are the only one who have problems with the definitions. That is ok, flexibility might be a good thing. Perhaps you can use your flexibility to be persuaded that the example uses of NE China today by news articles, US government and universities which I provided is evidence that Manchuria is historical in the most common sense of the word. And perhaps even, that your flexibility in reasoning can be persuaded that there is a chance, that it is the massive atrocities suffered by NE Chinese that have led to the preference NE China over Manchuria. But no matter how flexible you are, it is a fact that NE China is today the standard name the world all over is using.
Wiki Pokemon 05:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you really replied to the substance of what I said above, and your tone sounds aggressive, so I've got nothing further to say.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You are too sensitive reading between my lines. I did address you as Dearest Nat Krause in the summary, in return for your dear pokemon in your summary, and I will do it again for this one too.
Wiki Pokemon 23:46, 23 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)

You can apply the same rule described in Wikipedia:Naming conflict if there are naming conflicts. As to Tibet and Xinjiang, the official names are Tibet and Xinjiang. There is no doubt about it. As to Inner/Outer Mongolia, if by Wikipedia:Naming conflict there is a best term, the best term should be used. As to Manchuria, if the name is not used anachronistically, it should be used, for example, in historical articles like Manchukuo, Battle of Khalkhin Gol etc. But articles like "History of xxx" deserve more inspection: (1) If we are talking about "History of Khitan" where Khitan is now a historical term, then the historical term can be used because it is the intended object. Similar to this case, "History of Manchuria" should only describe the history between year 1600 and year 1945, where using the term "Manchuria" is not anachronistic. (2) In contrast, if we are talking about "History of Tokyo", where Tokyo is a geographic term, then a historical term like Edo should not be used to replace Tokyo. It is anachronistic. In addition, forcing such a replacement may imply some POV, for example, due to political support of Edo bakufu.--Jiejunkong 22:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, allow me to reiterate (for the, what, millionth time now?) that Manchuria, as a geographic entity is NOT a historical concept. The Qing Dynasty (this implies Manchu usage), the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China all NEVER used this word officially to describe the region of Northeast China. The term "Manchuria" in Chinese is indeed a historical concept, but only when referring to the Manchu ethnic group - a term created by Qing Taizong Huang Taiji (originally known as "Man Zhou Zu").
Unlike Northeast China, the people in Xizang (Tibet) and Xinjiang are not referred to as "Southwesterners" or "Northwesterners". In contrast, the people of Northeast China are collectively known as "Dongbei Ren" (lit. Northeasterners or Northeastern people). The local brand of Mandarin is known as "Dongbei Hua," which is often perceived by outsiders (e.g. non-Northeast) to be a bit "rough/raw" sounding. Again, the list goes on. The people of this region call themselves "Dongbei" people, not "Manzhou Ren." This word is highly provocative and is en par with the Japanese term "Shina" (which also happened to be a widely-used term during the early 20th century Japan). But this term has been replaced by the old Japanese term used to refer to China, "Chugoku" (lit. Middle Kingdom). Moreover, China has recently replaced the historical term of "Han Cheng" (which can be interpreted as, lit. "Han Chinese city") - denoting the South Korean capital, Seoul - with the term proposed by the South Korean government, "Shou Er." Both these examples reflect a similar situation with Northeast China. Assault11 19:46, 15 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)

Wiki Pokemon , once again your point of view is interesting : but i suggest to modify the present title from History of Manchuria (present day Northeast China) and Russian Far East and change into History of Manchuria (present day Northeast China and Russian Far East) (look at the position of the ending bracket) by considering Manchuria (historiographic term) = Northeast China (modern term) + RFE (modern term). It would probably minimize revert edit war. I would like to know opinions of all of you, if you don't mind. Whlee 10:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not my point of view. I am just pointing out the standard way histories are presented and labelled. Look around and you will see that that is the case everywhere except for this template. The controversy and revert edits can be traced ultimately to the mismatching of title and entries of the template. For your suggestion of History of Manchuria (present day Northeast China and Russian Far East), that could mislead Russians and others to think that Russian Far East is presently part of Manchuria/NE China and make them very angry. The best way to solve this controversy is to make the title 'History of Manchuria' and the entries matchingly show relevent historical Manchurian events from 1600 to 1945. This would be the most uncontroversial, natural and proper form of history for Manchuria. The current entries would be most appropriately titled 'History of NE China' using standard practice of labelling history.
Wiki Pokemon 23:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Following what you've written above, I will have to ask to my Russian friends if they consider the southern part of Russian Far East as belonging to Manchuria. I think you will be right. But i would ask them anyway. Therefore we should probably have to create several templates then (i dunno)?
- A template of Manchuria with its history (starting from ???? - 1945 or later) Manchuria is still commonly used in our French vocabulary.
- A template of Northeast China with its history (starting from 1945 - present???)
- with a link between those templates
I've made other researches about Northeast China which was a short-lived former province (1946-1954) consisting of the unification between Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. After 1954, Liaoninng Jilin and Heilongjiang were restored.Whlee 11:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(As to French and other western vocabulary) If the term "Manchuria" is used to refer to the present day Northeastern China and Russian Far-east, it is not a professional move. Westerners, include some history researchers, typically make this kind of mistakes before they become professionals on this topic. For example, Mark Byington is switching from the term Manchuria to Northeastern China or Russian Far-east (depending on which exact region is studied) more often. I guess he has realized that using an anachronistic term in a serious research paper is quite amatuerish. Let me use the example of Edo and Tokyo again: if a researcher on Japanese history keeps using Edo to refer to Tokyo out of the context, he will not be treated as a professional, at least by most Japanese people. --Jiejunkong 02:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchuria timeline

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)


[edit] New Suggestion

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)

Manchuria history should basically follow the Manchuria Timeline mentioned above with some modification in the beginning and end. I think it should start no earlier than Nurhaci unifying the various Jurchen tribes. Another possible starting point is when Huang Taiji proclaimed the founding of the Manchu ethnicity. As for the ending it is possible to stop the history at the time when Qing/Manchu is succeeded by ROC (1911). When I have some time I shall try to make a sample of the entries following those in Manchuria Timeline.
Wiki Pokemon 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have created a sample template here for History of Manchuria. It is similar to Manchuria Timeline. I think we can use it.
Wiki Pokemon 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If Bohai prefecture (a name given by the Imperial Tang court) cannot be included under the history of Heilongjiang/Jilin/Liaoning, then it does not belong under "Manchuria" either. The term "Manchuria" was invented well after the demise of Bohai, in 1635 by Huang Taiji and did not refer to the landmass until the late Qing/ROC period. To directly refer to the Sumo Mohe of Bohai as modern day Manchus is a bit ambiguous and questionable at best, especially when considering the Mohe-Nuzhen-Manzu demographic changes between these vast time periods. Also, the term "Manchu" and "Chinese" are not mutually exclusive, and to date Manchus are solely a Chinese entity. Assault11 21:47, 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)

First of all, I don't think anyone here is deliberately trying to offend others, I don't, and I don't think you do too. Regarding this template, I believe it should be independent of any Wikipedia pages. It has been transcluded by several articles, therefore it should not be solely customized for Goguryeo only. As it currently is, the template has a fundamental problem that is causing heated dispute. I hope to correct this by making the entries match the Manchuria Timeline. This is the most natural and objective presentation of the History of Manchuria. A sample can be viewed here History of Manchuria.
Wiki Pokemon 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If you modify the template like that, then this template has to be excluded from kingdoms that are not listed there, such as Goguryeo. Some editors are going to be vocally opposed to this. This is how the template is inevitably tied to the dispute at Goguryeo. And also, your template is rather specific to the Manchus, and Manchus weren't the only people who were involved in the history of Manchuria. Cydevil38 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is specific to Manchus. The concept of "Manchuria" was after all, invented by the Manchu. Assault11 06:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The template in the current form has generated lots of dispute because it has been erroneously customized to fit article like Goguryeo. The propose entries is the correct and natural one for which people will expect. Whether the template is suitable for transclusion by other pages is another matter for the affected pages to decide, but don't compromise the independence of this template. Also the entries are not totally specific to Manchus.
Wiki Pokemon 23:47, 20 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)

The template is not just about ethnic Manchus. It's about various peoples and states of different ethnicities and cultures that resided in Manchuria throughout its history. Cydevil38 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Manchuria, however you twist objective fact and evidence, existed at the very most from 1635 to 1945, or even shorter. This template should accordingly reflect that. The thing you are talking about 'various peoples and states of different ethnicities and cultures' in the region should be labelled History of NE China. No doubt about it.
Wiki Pokemon 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria (1635 onwards) only refers to the ethnic Manchu history and a category of Imperial Chinese history (Qing Dynasty), not other "peoples and ethnicities." Assault11 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:History of Northeast China

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)

Wiki pokemon, you're really trying my patience. Am I the only one who opposes NE China? Look at the RfC. Look at the Third Opinion. Those are the objective opinions that apply common sense. Replacing template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China is not going to solve the problem. Cydevil38 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't pretend that you do not know that the discussion here has taken a new direction. This is no longer about the 'words' Manchuria and NE China. You are very well aware that we are talking about presenting actual Manchuria history here. NE China is no longer an issue here. Those Third Opinion is not about the entries presenting Manchuria history, they don't apply to the current situation. Manchuria is now the main title. Most importantly you have absolutely shown no direct concern regarding the proposed template itself. Lastly this template has nothing to do with template:History of Northeast China. They are different, independent templates.
Wiki Pokemon 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to circumvent the majority consensus by making template:History of Manchuria into something else and replacing it with template:History of Northeast China. I have demonstrated the common usage of Manchuria in relation to listed entities that predate your scope of Manchuria's history. Cydevil38 22:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't beat around the bush. Manchuria history is Manchuria history. Don't make it into someting else it is not.
Wiki Pokemon 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps by your own logic, you should take Whlee's advice by modifying History of Northeast China to what it actually is, instead of making it into something that it's not. Cydevil38 22:44, 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)

I wont support that suggestions : Arguments are based by comparing that region with other region in the world.

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:

- Centre
- Midi-Pyrénées is the best French example.
- Pays de la Loire
- Rhône-Alpes
- = Evolution of the Northwest Territories of Canada.
>You can compare Midi-Pyrénées and Northeast China
Midi-Pyrénées = Midi-Pyrénées has no historical or geographical unity. It is one of the regions of France created artificially in the late 20th century to serve as an hinterland and zone of influence for its capital, Toulouse, one of a handful of so-called "balancing metropolises" (métropoles d'équilibre)¹. Another example of this is the region of Rhône-Alpes which was created as the region for Lyon. The name chosen for the new region was decided by the French central government without reference to the historical provinces (too many of them inside the region) and based purely on geography: Midi (i.e. "southern regions", in a Parisian perspective) - Pyrénées (Pyrenees mountains that are the southern limit of the region). The French adjective and name of the inhabitants of the region is: Midi-Pyrénéen.
>You can compare Manchuria and Languedoc or Gascony
Toulouse was the capital of the former province of Languedoc (provinces were abolished during the French Revolution). It is now the capital of the Midi-Pyrénées région, the largest région in metropolitan France.Whlee 08:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Wait a minute

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)

Please stop making confusing comments. This has been proposed and discussed. And there is no direct concern whatsoever regarding the proposed template. Cydevil has expressed concern about transcluded pages, but that is the concern of the transcluded pages, not the proposed template itself. Don't blame your failure to participate as not holding any discussion. This has nothing to do with popular word. This is about conventional labelling of history and presentation. None of your confusing reasons for revert make sense.
Wiki Pokemon 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a template to help readers understand the history of the region, and Manchuria is by far the most common word being used in modern publications when referring to this region in relation to the listed entities that predate your personal scope of Manchuria's history. So far, the majority of editors involved here, including those from RfC and Third Opinion, have expressed their support for Manchuria. If anything, it's you who is disregarding majority consensus for your own personal POV. Cydevil38 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria history is exactly as it should be presented by the proposed template. This is conventional Manchuria history, unless you are saying conventional Manchuria history is POV. Right now you are hijacking the template for another purpose. Please note that relevance has priority over first come first serve (even in trademark and DNS naming). Return this template to Manchuria history.
Wiki Pokemon 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And you are attempting to circumvent the naming dispute by replacing this template with a POV fork. Again, common usage, especially in relation to the listed entities on this template, takes precedence. Cydevil38 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't mean majority; it means that all concerns are addressed. The chief concern of those opposing the use of "Manchuria" seems to be that the term is offensive to modern Chinese. I haven't seen a very good response to that point, but I may have missed it. We do try to avoid offensive terms... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you missed it. Please see [95]. The title "Sea of Japan" in Sea of Japan is also considered an offensive term in Korea for very similar reasons that some Chinese here resent the title "Manchuria", that it reminds them of Japanese imperialism. Nonetheless, common usage takes precedence. Cydevil38 22:34, 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)

This article is more like Edo versus Tokyo. It is not similar to Sea of Japan. I support the name "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" (though this is a long name), which is neutral and non-offensive. Note that Sea of Japan doesn't belong to Japan, but Northestern China and Russian Far-east have no such problem. This is more like Tokyo, which also has no such problem. In a nutshell, only articles describing events occurred before year 1868 can use the term "Edo". For events occurred after year 1868, and articles like "History of xxx" (which is in present tense), Tokyo is the term to use, except for some Edo bakufu supporters. Similarly, Manchuria is a historical term just like Edo.--Jiejunkong 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! You just proved your own point! The template is the history of the region so that is why Manchuria is used.
Do you still not understand why we use Manchuria? How many times does it have to explained to you???
  • It describes the history of the region.
  • "Northeast china" only describes Northeast China and the template covers more than just China.
  • The article for Manchuria even shows that Manchuria covers a large region including Russia.
  • "Manchuria" is not offensive to english speakers. Good friend100 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
From my example on Edo and Tokyo, you are basically announcing your POV that History of Edo must be used to replace History of Tokyo. "History of Edo" is not offensive to English speakers, but it is anachronistic and offensive to modern Japanese. In addition, you haven't answered the question asked by me and User:GTBacchus about your reasons against the name "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east". Do this name offend you? If yes, why are you offended? If no, why do you persist?--Jiejunkong 01:54, 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)

What I wrote is "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east", not "History of Northeastern China". But you said that it "only describes northeast China, while the template includes Russia and Korea". What are you talking about? Is your English reading comprehension skill flawed here? It is hard to communicate if you change other people's proposal into an unexpected form. First, Russia is included here (please read writings more carefully next time); Second, now you want to include Korea in this template. That is really an extra move. Good, let's talk about it. Besides you, who else wants to include Korea in this template?--Jiejunkong 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And I'm not "announcing my POV" that Edo must be used. Its seriously immature and insulting how you assume things and make up things about others. Good friend100 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
IF "Manchuria" is a historical term like "Edo", and "History of Tokyo" is an article describing history of a geographic region (just like this article's purpose to describe history of a geographic region), THEN your POV is saying "History of Edo" (note that the old name is used here) must be used to replace "History of Tokyo". Unfortunately, I think the "IF" part is true.--Jiejunkong 02:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh* I'm not arguing with you anymore. Assuming that I "must believe" something and that I am POV is enough. Its regrettable to say that it is extremely hard working with you and the other editors. You simply cannot agree with anything you don't like. Good friend100 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In contrast, I don't think your arguments are helpful to solve the problem because (1) you changed my proposal "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" into "History of Northeastern China" and then claimed that my proposal doesn't include Russia. If you intentionally do this type of move, please get out of the discussion because you are not qualified; (2) You avoided answering the question why "History of Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" is offensive. Your only reason explained so far is that the title is too long. Well, long or short, no wikipolicy is against the title, and there are wikipolicies against anachronistic terms and offensive terms. Please remember to follow wikipolicies rather than your personal preferences.--Jiejunkong 02:32, 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)

For your information, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explicitly states that Manchuria is considered as an offensive term by modern Chinese. And wikipolicies Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly state that offensive terms should be avoided. Don't try to intentionally offend other users.--Jiejunkong 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed this point again and again, and I'm not going to repeat myself any further. Cydevil38 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot find wikipolicies to support you, then go away because you are disqualified in the wikipedia discussion.--Jiejunkong 04:28, 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)

I think it is acceptable to create a new template for a new specific purpose. History of Manchuria is okay if it studies the history of the historical Manchuria (from year 1635 to 1945). The division of "History of Northeastern China" and "History of the Priamurye region" is okay if they address significantly different topics. In my opinion, "History of Northeastern China" only includes the history from 1945 to present time, because the region was called "Guan Dong" (關東，East of Shanhai Guan) in Chinese language, not "Dong Bei" (東北，Northeastern China). The name "Dong Bei" (Northeastern China) became popular after 1945.--Jiejunkong 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchuria is a historical term by consensus

All reliable sources listed below state that "Manchuria" is a historical term:

[96] Encarta Dictionary
[97] Collins Dictionary
[98] Britannica Encyclopedia
[99] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[100] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[101] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[102] AncientWorld.net

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)":

  • Throughout the early Chinese dynasties, China had only limited control over Manchuria. In 1211 Genghis Khan invaded and occupied Manchuria. Chinese rebellions overthrew the Yuan dynasty of the Mongols in 1368, and the Ming dynasty was established. Britannica Concise
  • The presence of Han Chinese in Manchuria can be traced back to the Qin dynasty (221–206 BCE) when a prefecture was established on the Liaodong Peninsula at the southernmost point of Liaoning Province. It was during the reign of the fifth Han emperor, Wu Di (reigned 140–87 BCE), that a more significant Chinese presence was established when Wu Di encouraged the settlement of Chinese both on the Liaodong Peninsula and in an area of what is today western Liaoning in order to strengthen the northern borders against the Xiongnu peoples. For much of China's imperial past, however, there was only a minimal presence of Chinese in this region that lay beyond the northeast border of the Great Wall.

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:


  • Koguryo / Manchuria[103] - 71 sources
  • Koguryo / Northeast China[104] - 13 sources
  • Liao Dynasty / Manchuria[105] - 62 sources
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeast China[106] - 6 sources
  • Jin Dynasty / Manchuria[107] - 44 sources
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeast China[108] - 7 sources

Similar results from scholarly journals:

  • Koguryo / Manchuria - 210[109]
  • Koguryo / Northeast China - 39[110]
  • Liao Dynasty / Manchuria - 104[111]
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeast China - 28[112]
  • Jin Dynasty / Manchuria - 156[113]
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeast China - 30[114]

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)

You need to prove that Northeastern China and Russian Far-east is a "very offensive" term to Koreans. Without reliable sources, your words are merely personal opinions.--Jiejunkong 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Web forum posts, emails and anything without a reliable publication process are thus disqualified.--Jiejunkong 05:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As to Sea of Japan, go to the article Sea of Japan to present wikipolicies (if the wikipolicies are applicable there). Please follow wikipolicies or go away. Anything wrong at other places (if it is actually wrong) does not justify your persistent wrongdoings here. (I say this because it is very clear that your attitude is "I understand it is offensive, so what, I want to offend you")--Jiejunkong 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, for any source Cydevil38 listed, if the source calls the land being discussed as Manchuria after 1945, then this source is an amateurish source which makes a mistake, a mistake similar to calling Tokyo as Edo, or Istanbul as Constantinople. The word "Manchuria" is considered offensive by many old age local residents and is forgotten by local kids. Most of those kids have never heard of this term "满洲"(Manchuria). So far there is no sign that Tokyo will go back to the name Edo, or Istanbul will go back as Constantinople, or Northeastern China (& Russian Far East) go back as Manchuria. --Jiejunkong 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
For years before 1635, if a source calls the Northeastern China (& Far Eastern Russia) land as "Manchuria", I personally think it is okay. The term "Manchuria" became offensive during World War II and was discarded after 1945. For years before 1635, westerners in the English-speaking world simply have no word to describe the region except using the term Manchuria. This is reasonable in my opinion.--Jiejunkong 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A draft template for discussion

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 don't see much of a difference. And do you even understand the meaning of "anachronistic"? You are defining the histories of this region as "Northeastern China" and "Russian Far-east" when neither of these concepts existed. Not only did these two concepts not exist until modern times, even its historical interpretation, such as that of "Chinese culture" or "Russian culture" cannot be applied to this region because Manchuria wasn't "Chinese" or "Russian" for much of its history. You should just deal with the reality that Manchuria is the most common term for this region especially in relation to the listed kingdoms and Wikipedia policy says the most common term takes precedence when there's a naming conflict. Cydevil38 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Both "Northeastern China" and "Russian Far-east" are geographic terms. If you can find a better geographic expression, please inform the mass audience, and I will switch to the term based on consensus. For your political and cultural arguments, my comment is that we should minimize political and cultural connotations in this template. The best name is the one with minimal connotations (if no name is with 0 connotation).--Jiejunkong 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
On your template, "Northeastern China" redirects to Northeast China. "Northeastern" and "northeast" in your comment is still the same thing. Wikipedia uses the most common word, just accept it. Good friend100 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The most common geographic word nowadays is "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east". "Manchuria" is a political-historical term. If you want to talk about the history of the historical Manchuria (from year 1635 to year 1945), then you can use the term Manchuria. If you want to talk about the history of the geographic region, use the most common geographic word. Some malicious users, who have admitted they understand the offensive side of word "Manchuria" but persist in offending wikiusers, want to play word game here. This will make the disputation last forever.--Jiejunkong 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 who persist in using the out-of-date term "Manchuria" to describe a geographic region, please make your own decision which way to go for this template: （1） Do you want to talk about the history of the historical Manchuria (from year 1635 to 1945)? （2）Or do you want to talk about the history of the geographic region. If (1), this template should be reduced to describe the history between 1635 and 1945, and a new template about the history of the geographic region will be created to hold the similar contents of this template. If (2), use the most common geographic name, which could be "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" or could be something else. Let's reach a consensus. It is uncalled-for to redirect to political and cultural issues if this template is about the history of a geographic region.--Jiejunkong 19:10, 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)

Don't act like you own the article. All your demands/choices you have given us are geared towards your own personal wishes.
I doubt that "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" is the most commonly used word today to describe the region. On google searches, "Northeastern China and Russian Far-east" gets 454,000 hits while "Manchuria" gets 1,360,000 hits. Good friend100 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
First, this is neither my article nor your article. This is a wikipedia article conforming to wikipolicies. Second, wikipolicy Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid explicitly states that offensive words should be avoided, while the term "Manchuria" is offensive if used anachronistically. Third, wikipolicy Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_historical_contexts explicitly states that "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.", while the term "Manchuria" is historical term which is not suitable to be used to describe the history of a geographic region (though you can use the term to describe the history of the historical Manchuria from year 1635 to 1945). Fourth, I don't agree to your Google search approach. You cannot use it to draw conclusion. It does not conform to the rule Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Depending on which term you search, you can find different result, for example, this search of "china northeastern OR northeast" returns 3,880,000 results, much larger than your Manchuria's 1,360,000. You can do the search, but don't expect we would accept it as a reliable source. Fifth, in order to reach consensus, please answer the questions in my previous post. --Jiejunkong 21:47, 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)

Yes, wikipedia says to avoid offensive words, but offensive to english readers. You keep saying that it offends Chinese people. Nobody here thinks "Manchuria" is an offensive term. And we aren't talking about the timespan of when the word "Manchuria" was used. Manchuria is used to describe the region. I'm offended by the title Sea of Japan. Does wikipedia care? We use the most commonly used word. Wow, talk about exhaustion.
I am an English reader. It is quite shameful to throw your classification of ethnic origins of the so-called English reader into wikipedia. Your ethnic classification may have something to do with Adolf Hitler, but has nothing to do with the wikipedia. As to Sea of Japan, go to the right article to show the relevant wikipolicies. I have to use the C-word to describe such uncalled-for behavior to drag something else to confuse the talk here.--Jiejunkong 02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Manchuria is the most commonly used word, I'll say that again. Here, on this article called Manchuria in our very own Wikipedia shows that "Manchuria" includes much more than just northeastern China. The article even uses the title "Manchuria". In fact, there is a separate article called Northeast China that describes only norhteastern China.
Here's the link, Manchuria. Manchuria! I've referred you to this link how many times I don't know.
If you are not blind, you can see the word historical in that wikiarticle Manchuria, which describes the historical entity Manchuria. The wikiarticle about the geographic region is Northeastern China (and Far Eastern Krai with Russia part included). These are 2 different articles. Again, 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.--Jiejunkong 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cydevil. As long as you and the other editors keep pushing your POV and conflicting with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, we won't come to consensus. Deal with the fact that Manchuria is the most commonly used and that nobody here finds it offensive. Good friend100 00:45, 23 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)

By far the most relevant policy toward this discussion is WP:NC(CN). Since you have requested the original text of the policy, it reads as follows: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The WP:NC(CN) is not relevant here because it is about common name of a 'person' or 'thing'. These policies are more relevant.
  • WP:NCGN, because we are talking geographic name here
  • WP:PLACES, because we are talking about places here
  • WP:NCON, because there is a conflict here
  • WP:NCI, because self identity, ethnic, national identity is invloved here
Wiki Pokemon 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard anyone make this distinction before, that WP:NC(CN) doesn't apply to places. I'll ask about the talk page for that policy about this question.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think if we are writing the history of a geographic region, then WP:NCGN mentioned by User:Wiki_pokemon is more applicable than WP:NC(CN) because it is the NC rule on geographic regions. If we are writing the history of a historical entity, then WP:NCGN doesn't apply and WP:NC(CN) still applies. But because everybody agrees that "History of Manchuria" can be used to describe the history of the historical entity Manchuria (1635--1945), there is no disputation on the history of a historical entity. The current disputation is therefore only about the history of the geographic region. I think some users are confusing history of a geographic region with general history. The history of a geographic region will list multiple historical entities existed/existing in the geographic region, thus you will see many historical terms in the list. However, the geographic region itself in the title is not historical. Is it very hard to see this point? (An example is "History of Tokyo", which cannot be renamed to "History of Edo" because "Tokyo" is a geographic region , not a historical entity. The article "History of Edo", if exists, is limited to describe the history when "Edo" is not used anachronistically).--Jiejunkong 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCGN says the same thing: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always." The main argument made by people supporting "History of Manchuria" is that "Manchuria" is the widely accepted English name of this place, and, therefore, it should be moved.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I must thank you for quoting the original texts of wikipolicies. But in your deduction towards your conclusions, you forgot the critical constraint "in a modern context" in the quoted wikipolicy. And by consensus we have seen that "Manchuria" is a historical term (which means out-of-date, not modern). So unlike your conclusion, the wikipolicy actually questions the applicability of the out-of-date term "Manchuria" as the name of a place/region in present tense.--Jiejunkong 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchuria is not the most common geographic name

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.

  1. For the wikiarticle Manchuria, you can easily see the word historical in the 1st definition sentence. Clearly, the wikiarticle describes the historical entity Manchuria, which doesn't exist today. The wikiarticle about the geographic region is Northeastern China (and Far Eastern Krai with Russia part included). These are different articles.
  2. Recently you constantly use google search counter to "prove" that Manchuria is the most common name. This approach is also invalid. For example, this search of "china northeastern OR northeast" returns 3,880,000 results, much larger than your Manchuria's 1,360,000. Manchuria is not even the most common name. Plus its historical nature, there is no way it is the most common geographic name.

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)

As geographic terms, I propose to use "Northeastern China" and "Far Eastern Russia", which only state directional and not-very-precise informations. Indeed, this geographic region is by definition a semi-amorpheous region due to its complex history. One fact is that it has no clear boundary. The definition of this region is directional and not-very-precise.--Jiejunkong 05:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The new draft template User talk:Jiejunkong/Template:History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia.--Jiejunkong 06:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The most common term for this region in reliable sources on the region's history is Manchuria, which has been repeatedly proven by evidence.
  • For much of its history, Manchuria wasn't the "northeast" of "China", nor the "far east" of "Russia".
  • "China" and "Russia" are nations, not geograhpic entities. For example, China is described as a cultural region.
  • In one exception where Dongbei(Northeast China) is the primary entry, it is also described as a historical region.
  • There are also sources that refer to Manchuria as a geographical region:
[115] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[116] American Heritage Dictionary
[117] Collins Dictionary
[118] Answer.com
[119] Columbia Encyclopedia
[120] Catholic Encyclopedia
[121] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
  • This template is about history, not geography or any modern entities. Cydevil38 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your English has some problem. The template is about the history of something, not just "history". It makes difference whether it is about the history of a historical entity or the history of a geographic region.--Jiejunkong 06:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Add the reliable sources that confirm the term "Manchuria" is historical.
[122] Encarta Dictionary
[123] Collins Dictionary
[124] Columbia Encyclopedia
[125] Britannica Encyclopedia
[126] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[127] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[128] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[129] AncientWorld.net
--Jiejunkong 06:18, 24 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)

I agree with Jiejunkong's analysis. One of the major problems with "Manchuria" as a geographic term is that it is not supported by Chinese history. As well, unlike Northeast China, the geographic concept of "Manchuria" did not have a definite border with neighboring provinces/regions and countries. In fact, based on the 1713 Qing-Chosun border agreement, areas of what is now the DPRK are part of this so-called "Manchuria" in the past.
Another thing that should be taken into account here is the validity of the sources used to support the "common usage" of "Manchuria" in the English language. Western sources have a habit of making easily identifiable mistakes (and repeating them) regarding the history of Northeast China. Take for example Britannica [130] and Bartleby's [131] article on Emperor Qing Taizong Huang Taiji, erroneously identifying the creator of the Qing as "Abahai." These types of misunderstandings is quite common throughout the past works of various famous Western Sinologists. This case involving "Abahai/Huang Taiji" "Northeast China/Manchuria" certainly reflects this.
The same argument can be applied to North Korea, since the landmass of what is now the DPRK was not "north" of "Korea" (even moreso when considering the South Korean concept of "Korean" or "韩国") for most of its history. Assault11 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong's google search is flawed. This is a proper general search on google:

  • Manchuria: [132] - 1,130,000
  • Northeast China and its variants: [133] - 1,090,000

Search result from reliable sources:

  • Manchuria[134] - 14486
  • Northeasst China and its variants[135] - 1297

Search result from recent reliable sources(published after year 2000):

  • Manchuria[136]- 8785
  • Northeast China and its variants[137] - 721

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)

Currently, even with your Google search method, my webbrowser returns 1,260,000 for Manchuria, and 1,370,000 for Northeast China and its variants. This web search method is not conforming to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so cannot be regarded as reliable. Your conclusion "Manchuria is by far the most common term" is unreliable and merely your personal opinion. Note that a different disputation is whether "Manchuria" is the most common geographic term in present tense for a template of history of a geographic region in present tense (e.g., "History of Tokyo", not "History of Edo"). If you want to use Manchuria to describe the history of the historical out-of-date Manchuria, fine with me. But if you persist to use the historical term to anachronistically describe the history of a geographic region in present tense, this is a malicious move from a sock puppet suspect.--Jiejunkong 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no way Google search is going to yield any meaningful data in this not so simple case (its not that complicated either). We should just forget about Google search. I like to point out that all the evidence provided by Cydevil38 have broken the Wikipedia WP:NCGN rule. Shall we do the same? Not in Wikipedia.
Wiki Pokemon 00:16, 26 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.

  • Istanbul or Constantinople? Istanbul is the single widely accepted English name in modern context, but Constantinople is a widely accepted historical English name. Now Constantinople is a separate article covering the history of Istanbul until 1453 and the term used to refer to the city in historical context before 1453.

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)

In terms of the case of Istanbul or Constantinople, this is nearly identical to the case of Tokyo or Edo. The historical term used to refer to the place must be used in the corresponding period when the place was called that name. Similarly, "History of Tokyo" and "History of Edo" are two different articles, because the latter one cannot replace the former one without violating WP:NCGN.--Jiejunkong 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NCGN Violation

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.

  • 1) WP:NCGN states very clearly "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.". If this template is about current geographic region called NE China, then using Manchuria instead of NE China violate this rule. NE China must be use in this case.
  • 2) WP:NCGN also states very clearly that "If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.". If this template is about historic geographic regioin called Manchuria which existed from 1635 to 1945, then it can only be used for the period from 1635 to 1945. Using it outside of this period is a violation.

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)

[edit] Template of the history of the geographic region

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)

I support the contents of the template as well. I am ok with the title too. There might be some problems with the section History of Manchuria. This is because during that time, Manchuria had shrunk, and Russia had taken over some land, and the contents show both Manchuria and Russian entities. Perhaps in the section History of Manchuria, the title should also include the Russian name for the region they occupied. Right now, we should deal with this Template:History_of_Manchuria first and change the entries to reflect events from 1635-1945.
Wiki Pokemon 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The size of the Chinese Manchuria started to shrink since the Treaty of Nerchinsk. But this is the problem in the template describing the history of the historical Manchuria, not in the template describing the history of the geographic region. I suggest that we worry about the template describing the history of the geographic region at first.--Jiejunkong 02:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(Note) This example also shows that the history template about the geographic region and the history template about the historical entity in the geographic region are 2 different things. The former one need not address the increment or decrement of the historical Manchuria (1635--1945) because it is about the geographic region, not the historical entity. In contrast, the latter one should address the size increment or size decrement of the historical entity.--Jiejunkong 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That is the reason why I suggested adding the Russian name to the title, to make the region whole.
Wiki Pokemon 00:57, 30 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)

Not a very convincing speak because all your proofs are flawed. Your reliable sources are talking about the historical entity Manchuria, of course the term "Manchuria" can be used according to wikipolicies. Your googling search is invalidated because even with your Google search method, my webbrowser currently returns 1,280,000 for Manchuria, and 1,330,000 for Northeast China and its variants. Which one is more common? Your interpretation of wikipolicies is also flawed, that is, using current name (i.e., in a modern context) X to name a title like "History of X" is NOT anachronistic. Are you saying "History of South Korea" is an anachronistic phrase? Not really. Likewise, "History of Northeastern China" is not an anachronistic phrase. "History of Far Eastern Russia" is also not an anachronistic phrase. Compared to the out-of-date and offensive term "Manchuria", I see no problem in "History of Northeastern China of Far Eastern Russia" except it is a quite long expression. A compromise would be like this: (1) The main template's name is "Template:History of Northeastern China of Far Eastern Russia". (2) "Template:History of Manchuria" can be redirected to the main template name, or separated to describe the history of the historical entity "Manchuria" (1635--1945).--Jiejunkong 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also "Southern Korea" and "Northeastern China" are geographic terms rather than cultural terms. You may say "Korea" and "China" are cultural terms, but it is already not very solid to make the claim that "South Korea" and "Northeast China" are cultural terms; Saying that geographic terms like "Southern Korea" and "Northeastern China" are cultural terms goes too far. User:Good friend100 argued that somebody redirected "Northeastern China" to "Northeast China". Well, I didn't do the redirection. That move is just like redirecting "Southern Korea" to "South Korea", which is not a fully valid move. Based on future consensus, I think the link "Northeastern China" should be changed into a disambiguation page rather than a simple redirection.--Jiejunkong 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I just checked with some people over at the States, and they confirmed Jiejunkong's results. I don't know why the results are different, maybe because google maintain seperate servers? I'm not sure. Anyways, still, in reliable sources Manchuria is by far the most common term, especially under historical context. And yes, "History of South Korea" would be absolutely absurd, and I would be baffled if they use such a term under historical context. "Northeast China" is not appropriate for the title of this template, and "Northeastern China" is anachornistic and too ambiguous, and it's also just a sad excuse to use a variant of "Northeast China". If you must insist on modern geography, then just refer to the region by purely geographic terms, such as "History of Liao-Amur Drainage Region", but "Northeast China" and "Russian Far East" are anachronistic and ambiguous. Though it is also anachronistic to refer to this region as Manchuria prior to its creation, this is the commonly used term for this region under a historical context that goes beyond the contemporary periods of Manchuria. Cydevil38 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence to common usage under historical context(yet again):

  • Koguryo / Manchuria - 367[138]
  • Koguryo / Northeast China - 19[139]
  • Koguryo / Northeastern China - 26[140]
  • Liao Dynasty / Manchuria - 373[141]
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeast China - 32[142]
  • Liao Dynasty / Northeastern China - 13[143]
  • Jin Dynasty / Manchuria - 85[144]
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeast China - 14[145]
  • Jin Dynasty / Northeastern China - 8[146]

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)

Step-by-step replies: (1) Why is "Northeastern China" not a geographic term? You still call the region "Manchuria", are you living before 1945? (2) "History of Liao-Amur Drainage Region"? Not really, where are Ussari River, Sungari River and Yalu River? I expect the history template about the geographic region will be much like User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, which doesn't match the title "History of Liao-Amur Drainage Region". (3) The dictionary sources you listed is about the historical Manchuria, or they are wrong because many reliable sources like Encarta etc. explicitly state that "Manchuria" is a historical term, not a modern term. In articles describing the historical Manchuria, such as Manchukuo, using the historical term is correct and no disputation is raised. But "History of (a geographic region)" is not one of the articles. Here the (geographic region) should use the modern term according to WP:NCGN (in a modern context). (4) I agree to limiting Template:History of Manchuria to the history of the region between 17th century and year 1945 (prior to the creation of Northeast China), and limiting Template:History of Northeast China to the history of the region after 1945 (the creation of Northeast China). Same for the Russian Far East. (5) What is the best name for "User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template"? This arguing is not yet resolved because it is the history template of the entire geographic region. Maybe we can do this, naming the template using a very long main title "Template:History of Liao Amur Sungari Ussari Yalu Drainage Region", but we won't use this long name to refer to it. For convenient reference purpose, we create short redirection links like "Template:History of Liao River Region", "Template:History of Amur River Region", "Template:History of Sungari River Region", etc. to redirect to the long main title. "Template:History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" also redirects to the title because Whlee's template is supposed to supercede the template I made.--Jiejunkong 06:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(1)Per WP:NCGN: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. (2) If Manchuria is indeed only historical, which is contrary to many reliable sources including many dictionaries(though there are also reliable sources that refer to it as a historical region), then it should be treated as a place that does not exist anymore. (3) Manchuria is by far the most widely accepted historical English name used for this region in today's reliable sources, used for historical periods(e.g. Koguryo, Liao Dynasty, Jin Dynasty) well beyond the temporal limit of "historical period of Manchuria" that some editors are trying to limit its use to. "Northeast China" in this regard is rare in English usage, and there are many problems associated with this as pointed out by myself and many other editors. "Northeastern China" is a just mere variant of "Northeast China" some editors are trying to use to continue arguing in complete disregard for the opinion of others. (4) In fact, Northeast China was named "Northeastern China" in Wikipedia until User:Naus recently changed it to "Northeast China", not to mention Northeast China itself was previously redirected Manchuria and it ended up at its current state after some edit warring[147]. And as it seems that some editors here will never be convinced otherwise, I propose that any changes to the main definition of the template's title should be treated as an article move, that it requires majority consensus on a proper survey of concerned editors. At least this will prevent an edit war. Cydevil38 06:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(1)Hello, we are talking about the history template of a currently existing geographic region, not a place which does not exist anymore. I repetitively put blackened emphasis marks all the time, and you are still missing the point!!! (2) See Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Manchuria is a historical term by consensus, if you don't agree to the consensus that "Manchuria is a historical term", you perhaps should argue at there, no at here. Some reliable sources may not say something due to various reasons like ignorance or loss of memory. That is fine because nobody is omniscient. But if many other reliable sources confirm the missing point, then the missing point is reliably sourced. See all the reliable sources at the beginning of Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Manchuria is a historical term by consensus. (3) I am aware of the recent naming of "Northeast China". That is the reason why I choose to use a geographic term "Northeastern China". Like "Southern Korea", "Northeastern China" is a directional term. Can you say "Southern Korea" and "South Korea" are identical? Then why are "Northeastern China" and "Northeast China" identical? (4) Compared to Northeastern China, Northeast China seems to be a better term to describe the three northeastern provinces Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning. Note the adjective "northestern" before the term "provinces". Jiejunkong 08:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This template was created as the History of Manchuria here based on the consensus here, NOT "Northeast China". "History of Manchuria" template was itself a compromise. The word "Northeast China" has been added subsquently without consensus by constant edit warring. "Northeast China" and "Northeastern China" don't even exist in dictionaries or encyclopedias, whereas "Manchuria" does exist. "Manchuria" is also by far the most common term used under historical context. And considering that this is a template on history, "Manchuria" is the most appropriate term strongly attested by plenty of evidence. Cydevil38 09:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Your response is confusing. Look at the section title "Template of the history of the geographic region". In this section we are talking about 2 options: (1) It was said that the current template is for the history of the geographic region. This means the history template for the historical entity "Manchuria" will not be created. So the current template needs to update its contents similar to User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template and also renamed to a more proper title following WP:NCGN. (2) If the current template stays as "Template:History of Manchuria", then it becomes the history template of the historical entity "Manchuria" (where it is not used anachronistically before 1945). A new history template of the geographic region, which is very much like User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template will be created as a separated template to cover the entire history of the geographic region. (1) seems to be strongly disputed now. If (2), the current template must reduce its contents (at least contents after 1945 should be removed to avoid anachronism), and you cannot file POV fork charge in system admin pages to go against the creation of the new template.--Jiejunkong 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also to User:Cydevil38, I just figured out you hijacked User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template, and converted the original history template of geographic regions (with no anachronistic contents) into this current template Template:History of Manchuria (with anachronistic contents everywhere and hence offensive). Please don't do that again. I think it is a smearing practice. If you want to significantly change the sample template being discussed here, create your own copy please.--Jiejunkong 23:20, 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)

[edit] Physical proofs from the English-speaking world

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'd love for people to tell me who put on the template "keep cool-headed... etiquette". I'll find it funny if it was somebody who's definitely not a cool-minded person as I see it. (Wikimachine 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
I don't know what you are talking about. Who told you to put on the template "keep cool-headed...etiquette"? Why are you talking about something irrelevant to the discussed subject? If you don't object, please remove the random words and leave the space for meaningful discussions.--Jiejunkong 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchuria vs. Northeast China

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))

[edit] Search results

Since we should find articles within context of history, I'll use '"X" history' form.

[edit] Google News

[edit] Google Scholar

[edit] Google Book

[edit] EBSCO Research Database

[edit] UN

(Wikimachine 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe in searches as good statistical evidences. Others have made similar belief. If you insist on using that, then it only shows that Manchuria is really a more historical term than NE China.
Wiki Pokemon 05:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to search "Northeastern China" and sum the result with "Northeast China". These are the technical details. A criticism against your idea is that User:Cydevil38 and you start from a problematic assumption described below. Suppose we have a geographic region X (which could be any region in the world) and X was called Y many years ago. When we want to describe its military force, which one is better: "Military forces in X" or "Military forces in Y"? You should not search the term X or Y with constraint "military force" to mangle the search results. For "History of X" or "History of Y", it is similar to the above case. You can figure out some other cases too, for example, "Tribes originated from X", "Scientific History of X", "Theology in X", etc. In a nutshell, when we are talking about the popularity of a name of a geographic region, study the name itself. To me, "Anything of certain region" where the "Anything" part could be anything including "history", and the "certain region" part should use a modern term and non-offensive term. Thank you.--Jiejunkong 03:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Errors are assumed as part of Google test. If you want to fix them, you do them. And I'm not all fluffed up to say "thank you" to people like that. Read Babbit. This search is better than the your previous searches b/c it brings in historical context. So, whatever you did before doesn't matter. Start all over from here. (Wikimachine 16:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
"certain region" can be a historical term, but then when describing "Anything", "Anything" must be within the context of the historical period of "certain region". Failure to do so will cause confusion, and in Wikipedia case, a violation of WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 05:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a geographic article. Look, buddy. X in Y and Y in X don't come together. It's either X in Y or Y in X. Choose one over the other. In other words, you make complete nonsense crap.
This is how you go: "X in Y is good and Y in X is good, but because X in Y lacks Y in X, we'll choose Y in X." What? I can only shake my head. I'm a policy debater so I know what I'm talking about. But I think you don't. So don't make up stuff as if you understand.
So, this is history. Right? Then it doesn't matter what it's called now... as much as what it is commonly called within the context of history. (Wikimachine 16:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
(Historic term "Danzig"-"Manchuria"; Local geographic name "Gdansk"-"Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia") Okay, 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). It is within the context of history. And by your logic, because Gdansk only returns 4210, while Danzig returns 10500, "History of Danzig" should be used. Nevertheless, your logic is wrong in this previous disputation case. 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). Finally, I have to point out that you have repetitively used baseless personally-defined arguments in this disputation. To lay a basis for your arguments, it is necessary to present original wikipolicy quotes and original wiki-disputation case decisions. You can use other types of proofs (e.g., web search) as superstructures, but without the wikipedia-ruled basis the other types of proofs are meaningless.--Jiejunkong 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hard cases make bad law. Danzig/Gdansk was a messy dispute that was never really completely settled. It's not the sort of thing we should be looking to for guidance on what to do in other cases.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
So what is bad law? and what is not? Are you saying in hard cases there is no law? If so, then what can be used in regulation? If History of Gdansk is not completely settled according to your claim, then an option is to connect the two cases 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 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would "Northeastern China" be included in the search? Is it a name or just a description? If a name, which is it: "Northeastern China" or "Northeast China"?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Either one. (Wikimachine 23:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
If it's name then one would expect it to a have a particular form.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A "widely accepted name" is good enough according to WP:NCGN. What do you want to prove by your argument? Northeast China, Northeastern China, Russian Far-east, Far Eastern Russia are not widely accepted names??? I think you can't prove that. To answer your question, Northeast China and Northeastern China are variants of the region being disputed. You can see wikiarticle "Manchuria" to see that various definitions of "Manchuria" overlap with these variants. One definition of "Manchuria" is identical to Northeast China, while another one is identical to Northeastern China, while another one is identical to "Northeast China and Far Eastern Russia", while another one is identical to "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". Counting all these variants is a valid move.--Jiejunkong 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NCGN

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)

I don't see the validity of your argument. (1) Thank you for quoting original texts of wikipolicies. I appreciate it and hope you can persist in doing the right thing. Let's see what WP:NCGN says exactly: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." Ironically, you have already proved that Northeastern China and its variants are widely accepted English name, for example, your google counters return 1,260,000 for Manchuria, and 1,330,000 for Northeast China and its variants. By your claim "Manchuria" is a widely accepted English name, then how come the comparably popular "Northeastern China" not a widely accepted English name??? You tell me. (2) I think "Anything of certain region" where the "Anything" part could be anything including "history", and the "certain region" part should use a modern term and non-offensive term. For example, "History of Tokyo" is the right choice, but "History of Edo" is not. Can you show me that "Tokyo" is widely accepted for historical periods that the article 'History of Tokyo' covers? You can't, I can't and nobody can. Tokyo was never the name of the region before year 1868 because "kyo" means capital (Tokyo was never the capital before Edo period). What you requested is unreasonable and not required by wikipolicy at all---it's your personal request. Please literally follow the wikipolicy, don't add and don't delete constraints. The geographic name wikipolicy WP:NCGN says "widely accepted English name" "in a modern context". If a geographic name match what the policy says, then it is the answer. Therefore, "History of Tokyo" is the answer; likewise, I don't see any problem with "History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia".--Jiejunkong 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Also so far from what I see in the discussion, some users including you are against the disappearance of "Template:History of Manchuria". So based on the discussion, I won't file WP:RM; Instead, I would like to create a new template "Template:History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". If you are against the move, discussion is needed. The reasons to divide the template into 2 different templates is due to WP:NCGN, the original quote "This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." Note that this wikipolicy applies to both titles and contents. Because "Manchuria" is an important historical name, it can be used to refer to the discussed region in any context when the region was called "Manchuria". This applies to time prior to year 1945 (Also as I stated before, I don't mind that the region is called Manchuria before 1635 because Manchuria only became offensive after World War II).--Jiejunkong 09:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Jiejunkong, WP:NCGN provided guidelines to establishing a widely accepted name. I suggest you follow that guideline. Otherwise, this template stays and any attempt to replace this template, such as Template:History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia, will be yet another attempt to POV fork. However, I wouldn't mind if that template is limited to contemporary history like it should be. I'd agree to using this template for the history of the region prior to 1945. The two templates can be linked for historical continuity. Now, this doesn't mean I agree with Northeast China being a widely accepted word in modern context. Many sources, such as Britannica, Encarta and Columbia Encyclopedia, are contrary to that definition. Agreeing to letting a template on Northeast China organize the contemporary history of the region is just yet another compromise out of good will and in hopes to put an end to this dispute. Cydevil38 12:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the part "'Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia' is not a geographic name" and why is it a POV fork? Please present your arguments based on (1) the original texts from wikipolicies(don't add, delete or change the original constraints specified in the wikipolicies please) and (2) step-by-step arguments from the original wikipolicy texts to your conclusion that the geographic name is POV (So far I haven't seen the logic flow from original texts of wikipolicies to your conclusion). And (2.a) if you are wrong (i.e., the geographic name is not POV by consensus), do you want to accept the result of an incoming consensus poll? (2.b) If such a geographic name is POV by consensus, what name can be used? I have to say that your previous choice of "Manchuria" is not the answer in the geographic name case because we have seen that the name violates a number of wikipolicies due to its offensiveness (if used anachronistically) and the fact that it is not a name in a modern context.--Jiejunkong 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All of you CPOV's are complete noobs. I don't think that the geographical naming convention applies here. Above all, naming convention doesn't apply here to begin with. This is a template. It can be called almost anything related to what its purpose. Now, purposewise, do you think it appropriate to call it "Northeast China" when there are non-Chinese states as well? Back off. You guys will never become admins or ever have any bit of credibility whatsoever. All of you are so obsessed with the haughty "thank you" & WPG CNSDF guideline 324x3t bureaucratic stuffs that it makes me sick. Most of all, out of all other naming conventions, you chose the geographic convention just because it fit your conspiracy. It's a coincidence! not. (Wikimachine 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC))
I find it annoying to talk to people who show no respect to original rules specified in wikipolicies and always babble about some nationalistic nonsense. Look at what WP:NCGN says exactly: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." If your fight against the wikirule failed because your personal opinion has conflict with the wikirules, you have no right to pour your upset at the other disputing party. In contrast, you should spend more time to study wikipolicies more carefully to make yourself on the same page of most wikipedians. Calling wikirules as "bureaucratic", "make"-you-"sick", "conspiracy" is not helpful.--Jiejunkong 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A previous "History of X" case in Wikipedia

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)

  1. Per WP:NCGN (quote: "the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used"), this "History of Manchuria" name can be used to describe the history of the region in the specific period when Manchuria was used as the official name. This specific period should be prior to year 1945. Some users want to limit the starting date as year 1635 and I don't mind the starting date because Manchuria became offensive only after World War II.
  2. Per the previous case of "History of Gdansk", the title is "History of Gdansk", and in the first sentence of the contents it says "History of Gdansk(Danzig)". By the comparison: Historic term "Danzig"<->"Manchuria"; Local geographic name "Gdansk"<->"Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia", I think we should create a new template to describe the entire history of the geographic region by leveraging the contents of User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template. The new template's name is "History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" (like "History of Gdansk"), and the first sentence of the contents should say "History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia (Manchuria)" (like "History of Gdansk(Danzig)").--Jiejunkong 20:24, 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)