Template talk:History of Manchuria

message: Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. Dscarth 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest merging Northeast China into Manchuria. The article admits that its subject is commonly so called in English, and indeed it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Northeast China and Manchuria stated that Manchuria is a historical region. Period of "Manchuria" history is generally from 1635 to 1945, which is the main focus of Manchuria. It is very uncommon (almost never in English news and by governments and companies) to use "Manchuria" to refer to present day Northeast China (after 1945). The most common usage of Manchuria is when it is used in the context of the Qing dynasty and Manchukuo in WWII. For period before 1635, it is a mixture of Northeast China and Manchuria.Wiki Pokemon (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have read the above discussion, and there is a rather large dispute about the template. Since there hasn't been a change in months, it should be stay as is until some sort of agreement is reached. If discussion is still ongoing, I would like to join in as I've been referred here in several articles about Northeast China. Laoganma (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of changes does not imply consensus. Rather, the title you keep reverting to is the result of persistent edit warring. Lets play this by the rule of consensus, on which Wikipedia is built upon. The template title is History of Manchuria, so lets keep it that way within the template as well. If you have a problem with it, please request a move. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye gods, just let sleeping dogs lie. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The pluarity consensus, as well as neutral opinions, was to keep the title as "History of Manchuria". If you want any changes to this title, please make a request for move and make the change based on consesus, not edit warring. If you revert the title one more time, I'll assume that you intend to change the title of this template, and I'll kindly make the request for move on your behalf. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the absurdity of this all. Did anyone check, say, google news, which reports a good deal of hits for "Manchuria" in 2009? Personally I learned 'Manchuria' in an American history class, and later Chinese revisionism is not a good reason to change titles of commonly-accepted words in the English language. I have a good friend with Manchurian ancestry, and I can definitely tell you he uses the term himself with no hint of irony and would be startled to know that his family supposedly 'found it offensive'. The words "northeast China" have unreasonably large opportunity for false positives. Note "in the northeast China", for one, has no logical relation to the northeastern part of China (more often it is "in the northeast, China" or "in the northeast China Sea/shop/etc."), and has 15k hits on its own. How many other phrases are there? Reading the discussion is an education in how two or three people backing one position can sound like an actual faction. 151.204.142.73 (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone? 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: I would support this move because "Manchuria" is indeed offensive to people of the Northeast region of China because of the imperialist overtones associated with it. I say this as a person who comes from this area of China. I would certainly advise most people to not openly refer to the region as "Manzhou" when visiting.
The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.
Some examples of why it is an offensive term:
:1) Fu Sinian (傅斯年), the first director of the Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica, rejected the use of "Manchuria" in his "Dongbei Shigang" report to the Lytton Commission on the grounds that "Manchuria" was historically inaccurate and a geographical misnomer.
:2) Top Japanese scholars such as 中見立夫 (Zhongjian Lifu in Chinese, not sure about its romanization in English/Romanji) of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies also agree that "Manchuria" was never used as a regional name. This was even echoed by Japanese historian supporters of the Japanese puppet regime Manchukuo during the 1930s.
:3) And according to Associate Professor, David Edgington at UBC: 
:"Although prewar Japanese came to perceive "Manchuria" as a separate or discrete entity, the term is of abstract utility only and is not a genuine geographic term. Of European origin, it designated only the homeland of the Manchus, but imperialist competition resulted in its reification. Chinese refer to the region historically as the "three eastern provinces" (dongsansheng) or, since 1945, as simply the "northeast" (dongbei)."
:The above is why I would support the move. Laoganma (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. If we are to use "History of Manchuria", the content should be changed to Manchuria Timeline with starting year on 1635 and ending year on 1945. Wiki Pokemon (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I could argue that in the same way as Ming, Tang, Song, Han are different names for Qin (China), Manchu is a different name for the Jurchen, Mohe, Xibe, or Balhae people who have been around in Manchuria since the 7th century AD. However, this was not my point. For most people in this world (except perhaps in China), "History of Manchuria" points to the region located between the Great Wall and the Yalu river while "History of North-East China" is ambiguous at best. Cypoet (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template.  Folks, please discuss rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think more discussion will be helpful. Personally, I feel its not necessary to "move" this template because a the title only adds "Northeast China" in parenthesis. In fact, I can't find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that says you have to move the template. As indicated in previous discussions, Northeast China is not an uncommon name used nowadays, and is definitely gaining in use, both in academic works and the media (I can cite some examples if requested). Not to mention it has historic credibility as a typonym (unlike Manchuria, which was intended to be an ethnic group) and is officially known as such by locals of the region. I think "Northeast China" should definitely be emphasized one way or another. But I'm open to suggestions. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Please, add the Didouyu to this list. Yug2 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Didouyu]] (地豆于) 

message: There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities.  This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria.  There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should understand what coexistence mean. Some kingdoms existed in this regions very long and span the timeline of several other entities. Former Yan, Later Yan etc have never occupy the whole regions singlehandedly AND occupied only a small southern part of this regions. You can't put these entities as the only thing on a row as if they were the only one there. The format you are promoting is misleading. What is important is accurate information not just looking good. Besides, it looks better with all the entities matching their timelines. Elknz (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Also History Temple shoul be based on timeline to be informative. This template is also based on timelines, for example Han is not placed below Tang. Elknz (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think I'm making a dramatic change here. I'm trying to correct mistakes. Elknz (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The multiple-links form is not good layout. If this template is changed to reflect the coexistence, it should adopt the form of Template:History of China. Otherwise, I don't support to add so many same links to this template.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It's fine to improve the content. But it's not good to make the template ugly. The template clearly states that it is "not based on timeline". If you still worry that it may confuse the readers, we may change it to alphabetical order. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If you really care about accuracy, then why did you only add multiple links to Goguryeo. Why not add Khitan? How many links should also be added? You will find how ugly it will be. And, this template is not inaccurate. As I said, it clearly states that  it is "not based on timeline". --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: You two are talking about "List of Kingdoms". I'm not familiar with Khitan. That's why I didn't add it. If you know, you should add. Why didn't you add then? Since this is a History template, it should provide information according to history information. Elknz (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This template DOES provide information according to history. As Balthazarduju said, it is sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities. If you want to solve the coexistence problem, the only way is to adopt the format of Template:History of China. Otherwise, please don't change. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The current format is misleading and inappropriate for History Template.  One row on the template should represent a time frame. All entities existed in the timeline should be on that row. That's the way history template should be. There is nothing wrong with repeating. It adds for imformation and make it look better Elknz (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the current format is not misleading and not inappropriate. Period. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple links 

message: I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by  are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:
#It breaks consensus -- it took a while to reach the current version by consensus;
#It eliminates a large number of states and peoples which were fully or partially within Manchuria for no good reason;
#It ties the timelines down in ways that are not sufficiently justified.
I've therefore reverted.  Discussion on this is, however, welcome.  I can be convinced with good argument.  --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2009 Revision and Revert 

message: *
:"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
*
:"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
*
:"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
*
:"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
*
:"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.--133.236.57.172 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , please do not copy-and-paste other users' messages without attribution. Your posting is identical to the one I made at Talk:Gojoseon.  -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic consensus

message: 태왕 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - Vanstrat ((🗼)) 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017