" North Korea actually gained approximately 230 km² from China in the 1962 treaty. 

And here's a 19th century book by Chong Yagyong, titled ""Korea's Northern Border Reigion"" (in a Korean sourcebook compilation translated by Peter Hacksoo Lee): 
A long time ago, the area north of the Tumen River was the land of the Su-shen people. It has not been under our control since the time of the Three Han. The ''southern slopes of Mount Changbaek, where both the Tumen and Yalu rivers have their headwaters, lay within our territory, but the winding ridges and layers of peaks make the exact location of the border unclear. However, Emperor K'ang-hsi, in the final years of his reign [1662-1722], ordered Area Commander Wu-la (Wu-la ts'ung-kuan) Muk'eteng to delineate the border and erect a stone boundary marker. As a result, the border between those two rivers is clear as well. [emphasis mine]

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

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

On another rather amusing note, it does seem my userboxes are being quite effective experiment in showing which users are capable of  judging others by the content their edits, and which prefer to judge a book by it's cover and lash out emotionally.  
should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the debate was no move.  ' 
Requested move
Chonji → Tianchi – The name was unilaterally moved from Tianchi to Chonji without concensus, for POV reasons (cited in move and talk page), such as that it should be Korean (it's on the border between China and Korea). Another reason cited was that the name of the Baekdu Mountain page is Korean as well. However, a Google search shows nearly 30,000 hits for Tianchi, and and less than 1,000 each for Chonji and Cheonji. That's two orders of magnitude in difference. (the preceding was quoted by Yuje)  
Survey
Add ""* Support"" or ""* Oppose"" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
 Support for the most common name. Searches for ""Chonji"" for all the most popular search engines combined give less than a thousand hits. Search on Google scholar shows only 2 uses of the name ""Chonji"" for the lake. The use of Chonji as a clear common name doesn't apply because it's not common. 
 Support — per Yuje.  Naming conventions gives preference to the more popular name. 
Oppose per Visviva and my previous comments. Like I said before, we need to use the most common name that is the clearest because ""Tianchi"" is a name for many other places in China.  
As shown, Chonji is nowhere near common. Chonji barely shows up any hits, therefore isn't a viable alternative for a clear alternative name.  
Oppose Look at my reason below.  
Comment:  The proposition seems to be flawed...  Given that Tianchi is now an article on the lake in Urumqi, if this article is moved it would need to go somewhere else; perhaps Tianchi (Changbaishan) or even (heh heh) Tianchi (Paektusan), but then again maybe Tianchi (Jilin)... if we must'' have a straw poll, it would be helpful to know what the full suggested title is.    Comment''': The issue you brought up is a legitimate one and shouldn't be ignored. Thus perhaps Tianchi could be a disambiguation page, or this page could be moved back to the original and there could be a Tianchi (disambiguation) page. Either one is a reasonable alterna