Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Willow Palissade the first northernmost frontier of Qing Empire 

message: We should use the contemporary terms of the region detailed:
*Northeast China
*Russian Far East
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)
replies: text: I agree to what you have said here. --Jiejunkong 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  End this POS discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, yes. It WILL be quiet since the Northeast advocates will be happy for 2 weeks. Good friend100 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for "Third Opinion" is illegitimate 

message: ====Support====
#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)
thread_title: History of [[Manchuria]]

message: #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)
thread_title: Support

message: #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 . 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
#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)
thread_title: History of [[Northeast China]]

message: #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)
thread_title: Support

message: #Strongly opposed The name of the region is Manchuria. --Dscarth 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Manchuria timeline

message: All reliable sources listed below state that "Manchuria" is a historical term:
: Encarta Dictionary 
: Collins Dictionary 
: Britannica Encyclopedia 
: Worldbook Encyclopedia 
: UK Encarta Encyclopedia 
: Encyclopedia of Modern Asia 
: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Manchuria is a historical term by consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:NCGN Violation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Physical proofs from the English-speaking world 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Manchuria vs. Northeast China 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NCGN]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A previous "History of X" case in Wikipedia