Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Template

template proposed by Whlee template 1 proposed by Cydevil38 template 2 proposed by Cydevil38

Notes/Explanations : XXXXXXXXXX = is the name of the region we are talking about and depends only on Wikipedia policy.

• Cathay was a European word maybe credited by the famous Marco Polo to designated roughly (?)territories which belonged to the former Jin Empire (1115-1234) (while Manzi designated the empire of the Southern Song dynasty (1127-1279))
• Cathay later became replaced by Tartary and more precisely Eastern Tartary to designate that region by the Westerners from the 16th century to 1858.
• before being called Manchuria, the region was called Manchurs. Manchuria was adopted by Westerners cartographers for the first time in 1817. J. Thomson: Tartary Edinburgh, 1817.
• the term Dauria (land of the Daurs) seemed to have been at the same period along with Manchuria.

If you want to see additional maps click on the following link : http://www.angelfire.com/sd/tajikistanupdate/historicalmaps.htm

XXXXXXX should be Manchuria, as it is the most common term used to describe the region in the historical period covered by the template. "History of Manchuria" in the sub-section should be changed to "History of Qing Dynasty and Russian Empire". Also, since some editors insist that Manchuria is a historical region, I think as a compromise this template can end with Xinhai Revolution. A separate template on Northeast China may cover the history of the region after the Xinhai Revolution. Another template on Russian Far East may either branch off from this template in the same manner as the one on Northeast China, but since Russian Far East is often seen as a separate region from Manchuria(I recall reading from a source recommended by WP:NCGN where the region is refereed to as coastal regions to the east of Manchuria), perhaps an alternative is that the template may cover the regional histories strictly limited to that geographic region. However, this really depends on the definition of "Manchuria", whether it can be extended to the eastern coastal regions or strictly limited to its inland boundaries. Cydevil38 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

One important point, Whlee. There shouldn't be a dispute on the template name so far as Jiejunkong and Wikipokemon don't provide the necessary evidence and proceed with WP:RM. So the tempate name, without disputation, is Manchuria.

Another point, are those separate "History of X"s really necessary? How often do you come by names such as "Cathay" when you read about the Khitans? I think little bars without descriptions would do better. Cydevil38 11:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 is a user who habitually ignores WP:NCGN, which states "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." Note User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 hijacked the wikipolicy by imitating other users in wikipolicy name reference, but failing to quote original wikipolicy texts. In particular, I see that they have added an extra personal contraint "the most common name", which is not part of the wikipolicy. What the wikipolicy states is "widely accepted English name", that is, as long as a name like "Northeastern China" or "Far Eastern Russia" is widely accepted, it is qualified (there is no need to be the most common name, and it is unclear which name is the most common geographic name. Manchuria is the most common historical name. User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 exploited this fact to confuse the case with most common geographic name). "Manchuria" is also by consensus a historical name, which blatantly violates "in the modern context" constraint in the wikipolicy. I think this case is related to History of Gdansk and History of Tokyo because the current rule WP:NCGN clearly enforces that a widely accepted modern name like "Gdansk", "Tokyo" or "Northeastern China/Far Eastern Russia" to be used as the geographic name "X" in a title like "History of X". In contrast, using out-of-date names like "Danzig", "Edo" or "Manchuria" to describe a geographic region is clearly against the rules.--Jiejunkong 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think those separated "History of X" sub-bars improve the template because they provide more knowledge and make the contents more accurate. If you remove those sub-bars, I personally think the contents are more confusing compared to the version with sub-bars. As to "Cathay", I think a better term in the sub-bar is "Khitan and Jurchen" because the historical local residents in the geographic region are called Khitans and Jurchens during Khitan Liao Dynasty, Jurchen Jin Dynasty and Mongol Yuan Dynasty.--Jiejunkong 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like Whlee said, everything we do on Wikipedia must conform to the spirit of all Wikipedia policies, this is especially so for this sensitive page. Any violation of Wikipedia policies will not be entertained. Twisting of Wikipedia policies or invention of personal policies, is also not an ethical move, and editors please refrain from doing so, any such action will be exposed and the editors will be discredited.
Wiki Pokemon 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added two template proposals, and put the templates into seperate pages to prevent clogging. For template 1, I have retained the sub-histories and revised some of them. However, I find little use of these sub-histories in reliable sources. For instance, while both Liao Dynasty and Jin Dynasty are categorized under Cathay, the word is rarely used in referring to the region in relation to Liao and Jin. So for template 2, I replaced the sub-histories with just lines.

I can admit the fact that Cathay is rarely used in referring to the region in relation to Liao and Jin. But Cathay is a word which derives from the word Khitan that the reason why i put them on the same catagory. But sincerely i haven't found any map where Manchuria can be clearly recongnizable before 1626 (see the map below).

Overall, I'd favor removal of all such distinctions unless they can be based on reliable history from secondary sources. For instance, if such a source distinguishes the historical periods of Manchuria into several distinct sub-histories or historical eras, then those sub-histories should be used.

Distinction are based on authentic maps which are reliable primary sources, Europeans assimilated Jurchens as Tartars. (example :"A newe mape of Tartary" 1626 - Map of Siberia and Central Asia. It indicates the great Wall (= A wall of 400 leages, built between the bottom of the mountain by The King of China against the incursions of Tartars (= Jurchens)

Before being called Manchuria it was called Eastern Tartary. This is a certitude. But there is an obstacle: the transition from Cathay/Quinci (or maybe something else? problem of identification of the region) (used until 1703 !) => Eastern Tartary (since 1540 maybe before? until 1858) => Manchuria (from 1817 to ...)was progressive taking several dozen years !

Another point, the template proposed by Whlee has a lot of entries and will clog the articles where it is presented. I think the contents should be cut down, disregarding entries that can be deemed less important than others. Cydevil38 01:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was clogging at its creation, according to me there were redundant information initially having minor (or no impact) on Manchurian history :

- such as Western Jin Dynasty (265-317), Former Yan, Former Qin, Later Yan, Northern Yan

- if you want to simplify further that template by removing autochtonous Tungusic peoples not having a notable impact of that region, then Nanais and Ulchs should have to be deleted as well. On the other hand, Nivkhs/Gilyak, Evenks, Solons and Daurs need be kept.

I can not support the template 1 proposed by Cydevil38 beucase of the erroneous revised title "history of Russian Empire and Qing Empire" which certainly can not be the synonymous of Manchuria. But template 2 proposed by Cydevil38 "could be" an acceptable template though because of the slow transition of the terminology Cathay/Quinci=> East Tartary => Manchuria.

Those are my suggestions.Whlee 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, widely accepted names are determined by their uage in modern secondary or tertiary sources, not primary sources, especially very archaic ones. Using primary sources directly to make your own interpretations is a violation of WP:OR. "Manchuria" is a widely accepted name NOT because the region was defined as such in old maps, because it is by far the most widely accepted name today for the corresponding historical periods, including the historical periods prior to the 17th century. I have repeatedly provided evidence in this regard. Cydevil38 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting historical Manchuria and modern Northeast China

If the modern history part of this template is to be split to a new template on Northeast China, when should the time of split be? Jiejunkong suggested 1945, but according to Manchuria, Xinhai Revolution was the point when Northeast China came to use in official documents of Republic of China. For consistency's sake, I think either the split should be at 1911, or some changes should be made to Manchuria. This template can end with Xinhai Revolution, and the new template on Northeast China can start with Xinhai Revolution and Republic of China. Also, Russian Far East should be a separate template, because it started splitting off from Manchuria at different times from Northeast China, so having the same template covering those two entities will only complicate things. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Cydevil38 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting historical "Manchuria" and geographic "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia"

I agree to the idea to split the template into two: (1) one dealing with "History of Manchuria" (prior to year 1945, the starting time is flexible), where "Manchuria" is a historical entity which no longer exists; (2) and another for geographic regions covering the nowadays Northeastern China_{(not only the 3 provinces in Northeast China)} and Far Eastern Russia, namely the drainage areas of Liao River, Amur River, Sungari River, Ussuri River and Yalu River, as illustrated in the pictures of User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template. Unlike the non-existing historical "Manchuria", the geographic regions exist.--Jiejunkong 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A geographic remark: The upstream area of Amur River is in the Inner Mongolia region, which is typically not counted in the so-called Northeast China ("中國東北"). Nevertheless, the upstream area of Amur River is at Northeastern China (中國東北方,i.e., the Northeast direction of China). I don't buy the argument that "Northeastern China" is identical to "Northeast China". In fact, the former one is a geographic variant of the latter one, with political meanings much reduced.--Jiejunkong 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't use Whlee's template as is. Most of the contents will be redundant with this template. On the template on Northeast China and Russian Far East, just provide a link to historical "Manchuria" as its origins, and start off with Xinhai Revolution or some other significant event that changed "Manchuria" into "Northeast China". Cydevil38 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some reasons, in particular original wikipolicy texts and subsequent logical arguments to get to the conclusion that we "can't use Whlee's template as is"? The template is a history template about geographic regions (which indisputably exists in present day Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia, or equivalently, the drainage regions of Liao River, Amur River, Sungari/Nen River, Ussuri River and Yalu/Tumen River). Are you saying "History of Tokyo", which is a history template about a geographic region (which indisputably exists in present day Tokyo), must be cut off at year 1868 so that "History of Tokyo" only covers "1868--present"? You can file the request to enforce the cut-off, but I don't think the request will be respected. It seems to me that there is no reason to do the cut-off, so I would like to see your (wikipolicy-based) reasons to justify the cut-off. In addition, let's talk on the same page, we are talking about "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia", which is more geographic compared to "Northeast China and Russian Far-east". If you insist "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" is not a geographic name, then you need to present your reasons to deny it. Per this disputation, we can do a consensus poll on the name "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". If the name is rejected, then we need to find a better geographic name. Otherwise the name is a qualified geographic name.--Jiejunkong 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use your common sense. "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" are not widely accepted words for the corresponding historical periods, "Manchuria" is. "Northeastern China" is not even a definitive word - it's an ambiguous descriptive word that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Also, the two templates cover pretty much the same region, you're just using this so called "geographic terms" as an excuse to create a POV fork of template:History of Manchuria. And should you include the same contents in "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" as in "Manchuria", what are you going to do, put the two templates in the relevant articles?

Also, this is what you said regarding a google search:

• You forgot to search "Northeastern China" and sum the result with "Northeast China".[1]

You already made it evident that you treat "Northeastern China" and "Northeast China" as the same entity, you're just making the "geographic" distinction between them to continue to push for "Northeast China" POV. You should really stop abusing WP:NCGN and start adhering to it. Go ahead and establish that "Northeast China" or "Northeastern China" is the widely accepted name for the corresponding region and historical periods, then file a WP:RM if you think you can reach a consensus. Cydevil38 22:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) 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. (2) The two variants Northeast China and Northeastern China do have some difference in this case. The upstream drainage region of Amur River is in northeastern Inner Mongolia, which certainly belongs to Northeastern China (中国东北部), but typically not counted in Northeast China (中国东北). For example, unlike local residents of Heilongjiang,Jilin and Liaoning, the local residents of Inner Mongolia don't call themselves "Dongbeiren" (东北人,Man from Northeast China). You are ignorant of these China geography facts, so you'd better listen before you file accusations. --Jiejunkong 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have pointed out before that all your evidences violated WP:NCGN. Those evidences are not wikipedia articles, they do not need to follow wikipedia rules. But if you want to edit on Wikipedia, you should follow wikipedia rules, wikipedia articles need to follow wikipedia rules. Continuously citing those evidences to justify your right to violate WP:NCGN only shows your determined desires for blatant disregard of WP:NCGN. In addition stop baselessly accusing people who are upholding the spirit of WP:NCGN as its abusers, while at the same time violating the rules blatantly yourself. Next, there is no wikipedia requirements for the facts which you want about NE China to be established. As a matter of fact, we have already seen several good examples of wikipeida articles serving as a good guide on the spirit of wikipedia rules, and how this articles should follow in step. Lastly I also like to point out that whatever polls or consensus building efforts there is, they should first and foremost only allow choices which strictly satisfy WP:NCGN, or any other wikipedia rules. So far I only see one choice which meets the spirit of all relevant wikipeida rules.

Wiki Pokemon 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To those who want to split Northeast China to Manchuria, i think they would meet some difficulties because of the definition of Manchuria :

• In the beginning (1817) and until 1865 Manchuria was considered by Westerners map as including what some people call : Northeast China and Russian Far East.
  • J. Thomson: Tartary Edinburgh, 1817
  • A map of Siberia and Chinese Tartary ca. 1830-1850
  • "Asie" Paris 1862 - Map of Asia Including Central Asia
  • "Carte general de l'Empire Chinois et du Japon" London 1865 by Adrien-Hubert Brue - Includes Central Asia
• I haven't found any map of Northeast Asia yet printed between 1865 and 1890
• Since 1890, things have changed on Westerners maps : Manchuria = Northeast China
  • A map of Asia dating from 1890 by Rand, Mc Nally & Co.
    
  • Another map dating from 1897Whlee 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, we can meet other difficulties like the beginning date :

- 1945 suggested by Jiejunkong

- 1911 : Xinhai Revolutionsuggested by Cydevil38

- 1860 : the peking treaty and the final partition of that region between the Qing Empire (succeded by Republic of China and PRC) and the Russian Empire (by USSR and Russia respectively)?

There are many possibilities.Whlee 11:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favor of a split, but if there is to a split, I suggest 1945 as the split date. 1911 would be my next choice. --Nlu (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Whlee's efforts

The template User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template by Whlee has good contents. But the "XXXXXX" part in the name is being disputed.

1. A failsafe approach is using the exact geographic description of the region depicted in the associated image. The image clearly says that the object being studied is exactly the "history of drainage region of Amur/Sungari/Nen/Ussuri/Liao/Yalu/Tumen rivers". Then we name the geographic region with this exact name. No disputing party is unhappy in this case. Later, we create some shorter synonyms like "history of drainage region of Amur River",..., "History of drainage region of Tumen River" to redirect to the main article/template with long name, so that other users also have no trouble to refer to the main article/template.
2. A related disputation is User:Cydevil38's 3-way split, which produces "History of Manchuria" for the non-existing historical entity Manchuria, "History of Northeast China" for the three present-day Chinese provinces and "History of Russian Far-East" for the Russian federal subjects. However, none of the 3 matches User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template: (1) "Manchuria" is a proper noun denoting the historical entity which no longer exists. This contradicts the depicted geographic regions which do exist today. A quibble to bypass the contradiction has to define "Manchuria" as a geographic name, but then the geographic name regulation WP:NCGN says: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. " In regard to geographic names, either the modern names based on drainage regions or the modern names based on geographic directions is better than the out-of-date name. At least in this wikipedia, nobody is from the so-called "Manchuria" area. WP:NCGN does have some merits to avoid confusion caused by anachronism in geographic names. (2) "Northeast China" obviously does not match the regions depicted in User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template. (3) "Russian Far-East" obviously does not match the regions depicted in User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template.
3. A related disputation is 2-way split, which produces "History of Manchuria" for the non-existing historical entity Manchuria and "History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" for the vague geographic directions of the regions. According to talk history, User:Cydevil38 is against the name for two reasons: (1) He claimed that he hates the appearance of "Northeast China" (he said "Northeastern China" is yet another "Northeast China") due to the Northeast Project. (2) The "Northeastern China" part is too vague because Shandong and Hebei provinces are included _{(I don't list Inner Mongolia here because northeastern Inner Mongolia is supposed to be part of Northeastern China but not Northeast China) (He also included verifiable sources saying that Shanxi, Henan, JiangSu provinces are part of Northeastern China, but experts on China's geography won't agree to these factual errors)}.--Jiejunkong 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 1. above does not meet WP:NCGN. Drainage region of Amur/Sungari/Nen/Ussuri/Liao/Yalu/Tumen rivers is too obscure for the average reader, even for advanced reader it is too difficult. We don't use Drainage region of Changjiang/Huanghe/... to describe China. I think Northeast/Northeastern China plus Far Eastern Russia as the title will comfortably accommodate all the contents of the template.

Wiki Pokemon 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

most widely used

Manchuria is the most widely used word, not northeast china. Thats why it should be used. This is not a complex problem, as you are making it seem. Good friend100 11:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As we are discussing how to name the geographic name in a title like "History of the geographic name", your argument is irrelevant to WP:NCGN (Naming Convention of Geographic Name). Without quoting original wikipolicy texts, your comments are ignored because they are off the topic. We don't know the reason why you file the argument here. WP:NCGN says: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." You and User:Cydevil38 have added an extra personal contraint "the most widely used name", where the term "most" is not part of the wikipolicy. What the wikipolicy states is "widely accepted English name", that is, as long as a name like "Northeastern China" or "Far Eastern Russia" is widely accepted, it is qualified (there is no need to be the most common name, and it is unclear which name is the most common geographic name. Manchuria is the most common historical name. You and User:Cydevil38 exploited this fact to confuse the case with most common geographic name. --Jiejunkong 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NCGN is irrelevant to templates. (Wikimachine 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe that WP:NCGN is irrelevant to templates. Nothing on that page indicates that that's the case.

However, Jiejunkong's argument is premised on the assumption that "northeast China" is a "widely accepted English name," which I don't believe is true. (Much of the purported evidence for its truth falls into the "false positives" category as stated on WP:NCGN, in my opinion.) --Nlu (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think you intentionally confuse my term "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" with "Northeast China" (as I have repetitively explained the difference amongst various names during the discussion). See the proposed "Template:History of the entire geographic region being disputed". If you keep calling the entire geographic region as "Northeast China" and claim that "User:Jiejunkong chooses the name". I have to say that this is not true (if somebody repetitively makes the claim, I will call the users who make the claim as liars). Consider the following geographic facts: (1) First, "Northeastern China" includes the upstream drainage region of Amur River, thus the concept of Northeastern China is larger than Northeast China because the former one includes northeastern Inner Mongolia; (2) Second, the geographic region being disputed is much broader than Northeastern China, as Far Eastern Russia should also be included to cover the regions to the east of Ussuri River and to the north of Amur River. (3) Historical kingdoms, such as Balhae, occupied both present-day Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia. To use the template in those wikiarticles like Balhae, you cannot exclude Far Eastern Russia. (4) Using the out-of-dated term "Manchuria" violates wikirules if the term is used anachronistically. Either I see the geographic name "Gdansk" in History of Gdansk is switched back to the historical term "Danzig" (i.e., "History of Gdansk" is renamed as "History of Danzig"), or I will dispute the anachronism in the title. In the former case, I am willing to see a consistent standard (no double-standard) in wikipedia's rule interpretation; and in the latter case, I am willing to see a consistent set of wikipedia rules.--Jiejunkong 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. But in context of their demands, commonality in itself doesn't determine the title of the template. Its function does. Then, NCGN becomes irrelevant in many cases. Right? (Wikimachine 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Another thing to consider is that this is a historical tempalte. For much of the historical period that this template covers, "Northeast China" would be an anachronistic term that is very misleading under historical context, not to mention that "Manchuria" is by far the most widely accepted name for this region under historical context. Also, there are reliable sources, such as Britannica that use a variant of "Northeast China" as a secondary name for "Manchuria", and defines both as a historical region, so Jiejunkong's argument that "Northeast China" should be used under "modern context" poses a problem in both that Northeast China is not defined as such, and that this template should be put under historical context as it covers historical entities, not modern entities. And so far, I have repeatedly requested both Jiejunkong and Wiki pokemon that if they want to continue to dispute the title of this template, they should establish Northeast China as a widely accepted name for the historical period that this template covers following the guidelines provided by WP:NCGN. After that, they can request a WP:RM per the guidelines. I believe this is the best way to deal with this dispute, to work by policies, evidence, common sense and consensus. Othweriwse, the title stays, and we should go on discussing the changes proposed by User:Whlee for the contents of the template, not the title. Cydevil38 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong simply has a problem understanding english. What we have been discussing is information from a month ago. Why should we care about the "geographic" and "historical"? Also, stop saying that northeast china is the most widely used. You haven't given any evidence that this is mostly used.

Northeast China only describes the region of China and thats not all that this template covers. Manchuria covers the entire region.

I suggest you stop trying to argue for this because you don't have any good reasons. Good friend100 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

His English and vocab. is way more advanced than your simplistic one-liners.

Manchuria still a violation

WP:NCGN clearly has two requirements. (1)widely accepted English name. (2)in a modern context. Manchuria has clearly violated (2). There is only one modern name for the region and that is Northeast China. Being the only name which satisfies (2), automatically makes Northeast China satisfies the entire WP:NCGN requirements. Note that WP:NCGN does not say that if many other non wikipedia articles uses a historical region name out of its relevent context, then it is acceptable to do the same in Wikipedia, on the contrary, (1) and (2) specifically prohibited that.

There are already other examples mentioned earlier in the discussions, how the spirit of WP:NCGN should be follower. Here are some more examples of historical template of modern geographic regions. Note that many of examples have archaic names names, but they are not used in the titles. Some simple pattern recognition should make the point clear how WP:NCGN should be followed.

History of Singapore
History of Indonesia
History of Thailand
History of Mexico
History of Iran
History of Tokyo
Wiki Pokemon 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Manchuria and its variant[s]: [2]

Result: 1,270,000

• Northeast China and its variants: [3]

Result: 1,580,000

Northeast China is BY FAR more common than Manchuria.

Firstly, WP:NCGN makes no recommendation of using a general google search to establish a widely accepted name, so that can't be considered evidence, not to mention you're using who lot of variants for Northeast China that are not a specific term, but generally descriptive words that are ambiguous in meaning. WP:NCGN provides recommendation on specific criteria to establish a widely accepted name, and those crtieria are clearly not in favor of "Northeast China", which is probably the reason you keep avoiding my request and making inapplicable "evidence". Secondly, unlike "Singapore" or "Iran", "Northeast China" is not a widely accepted name. You cannot find "Northeast China" in dictionaries. Thirdly, a good paralell to Manchuria is Tibet, which is a case where English usage is used even though it was incorporated into China's political system and no longer exists, and now has a different official name in Chinese. Articles on Tibet are called Tibet and History of Tibet, not "Xizang" or "History of Xizang". Then there is also a case recommended by WP:NCGN, which is Constantinople. And again, unlike Istanbul, "Northeast China" is not even a widely accepted name in modern context. In some reliable sources, it is a secondary term for "Manchuria", and also defined as a historical region, and in most dictionaries, there is no entry on the term.

Also, regarding WP:NCGN, it says 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 "Manchuria" is indeed a historical region that no longer exists, then it should be treated as a widely accepted historical English name, covering the historical period where it is widely accepted. If "Northeast China" is indeed established as a "modern name", then it can only cover the period of modern era, but not the historical period where it is not widely accepted. And lets not forget that other policies apply here, such as Wikipedia:Naming_conflict where it says The most common use of a name takes precedence;. You're just sweating on a particular clause of WP:NCGN while ignoring all other policies, even other clauses within WP:NCGN. Cydevil38 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't reply to this b/c you'll only legitimize a new RM. This is an anon sock puppet. Eh hem: looking at the contribs & the amount of knowledge this anon has about WP guidelines. Sounds like someone I know. (Wikimachine 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Your analogy for Tibet is wrong because Xizang (藏区) and Tibet are the same thing, only one is in Chinese and the other in English.

I have said that editors should not be twisting wikipedia policies. Where does WP:NCGN state that "If XXX is indeed a historical region that no longer exists, then it should be treated as a widely accepted historical English name, covering the historical period where it is widely accepted."????? In addition where does WP:NCGN state that "If XXX is indeed established as a "modern name", then it can only cover the period of modern era, but not the historical period where it is not widely accepted."????? Check all the examples I listed above, and exercise some pattern recognition to see how the templates are contructed. You are trying to revolutionize Wikipedia policies to your personal taste, and all the examples above would have become illegal under your personal policies. Lastly Wikipedia:Naming_conflict is irrelevant here because the name Manchuria has clearly violated WP:NCGN and is not even legal in the first place.
Wiki Pokemon 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NCGN: The title: 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. 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.

Another clause from WP:NCGN: The following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names)

About Wikipedia:Naming conflict, that policy definitely applies here because there is a naming conflict on this template. The very fact that you are disputing the template's title makes that policy relevant. Cydevil38 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You tried desperately to prove that "Manchuria" is the most common geographic name which does not exist. (1) The geographic region we are talking about does exist. See "User:Whlee/History of Manchuria#Template" for the existing drainage regions being discussed. If you are working on the non-existing historical entity "Manchuria", I agree to the proposal to change this very template Template:History of Manchuria to meet your demands. Why aren't you satisfied? But then you blatantly showed your ulterior motives to block the move to create an article/template for the existing geographic regions. Whatever you are doing, you have repetitively confused the following two things: existing regions and non-existing historical entities. (2) I don't know why you want to add the most part in "widely accepted names". "Most widely accepted" is not part of WP:NCGN. "Widely accepted" is good enough for WP:NCGN. Do a string search on "most" in WP:NCGN and you can figure out your efforts and arguments on the "most" part are useless. (3) So far you have successfully proved that "Manchuria", "Northeast China", "Northeastern China", "Russian Far East", "Far Eastern Russia" are popular names ("widely accepted" in wikipedia's term). Good, nobody is against this conclusion. (4) Unfornately, "in the modern context" is explicitly written in WP:NCGN. This explicitly invalidates out-of-date terms like "Manchuria" to describe a geographic name. If you don't want to go to WP:NCGN's talk page to vote for a change of the geographic name policy, then what are you doing here?--Jiejunkong 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good. We should all agree to stick to wikipedia rules then. As for Wikipedia:Naming conflict, if a name is disqualified by wikipedia rules, then it cannot be used, hence there is no conflict to speak of.

Wiki Pokemon 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, please provide historical proof for your claims. Fact remains that Manchuria as both a geographic and historical entity never existed since its creation in 1635. You cannot use a so-called "widely accepted historical English name" when such entities never existed to begin with. This is completely different from cases such as the History of Edo and History of Tokyo because Edo actually existed prior to the modern day city of Tokyo. This is obviously not the case for Manchuria.

According to WP:NCGN: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."

In the modern context, almost all major English-language news agencies subscribe to the term Northeast China and its variants in their articles:

(WP:NCGN states: Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.)

Take a look at the results shown when searching for Northeast China on Google News [4]. As of this writing, every single result shown on the first page indicate a recent event, thus proving Northeast China's status as a widely accepted English name in a modern context.

In comparison, the search results for Manchuria mostly refer to the events during the Second Sino-Japanese War when using the term "Manchuria" and are clearly not modern examples [5].

Also, the search results for "Northeast China" is 626, compared to 105 for "Manchuria".

The naming on entries regarding Northeast China/Manchuria on certain encyclopedias such as Britannica can be considered dubious (though most do recognize Manchuria to be synonymous with Northeast China). Given their mistakes regarding Huang Taiji (which they refer - erroneously - as Abahai). With this in mind, I have consulted more scholarly/scientific sources:

(Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.)

A search for "Northeast China" on the United States Library of Congress website nets me exactly 500 results. This is compared to 144 for Manchuria. Another clear indication of Northeast China being more popular than Manchuria. Assault11 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly provided evidence that Manchuria is by far the most widely accepted name for the historical period that this template covers. If you, and Jiejunkong and Wiki pokemon, repeatedly ignore the evidence and continue to ask for proof, it's very hard to assume good faith. Also, google news is not the only criterion provided by WP:NCGN. There are also numerous others. And don't discredit Britannica just because it doesn't agree with you. And on Library of Congress contry studies, it says country studies, not a general search. This is the evidence regarding that specific criterion given:

Cambridge History of China

• Koguryo - In Korea the Chinese met with more powerful resistance. Unlike northern Vietnam, where Chinese dominance had continued at some level since Han times, northern Korea and southern Manchuria were controlled by the powerful and well-organized state of Koguryo.
• Liao Dynasty - We cannot expect such evidence to offer any definite solution to the origins of the Khitan, particularly because their territories lay in the border area between the arid grasslands and deserts of the west, inhabited by Turkic or Mongolian tribes, and the forested plains and mountains of Manchuria to the east, the home of the Tungusic peoples.
• Jin Dynasty - Within a surprisingly short time A-ku-ta succeeded in eliminating the Liao armies sent against him and in establishing himself as the undisputed master of most of Manchuria.

Library of Congress country studies

• Gojoseon - The most illustrious of these states was Old Chosn, which had established itself along the banks of the Liao and the Taedong rivers in southern Manchuria and northwestern Korea.
• Koguryo - Meanwhile, in the first century A.D. two powerful states emerged north of the peninsula: Puyo in the Sungari River Basin in Manchuria and Koguryo, Puyo's frequent enemy to its south, near the Yalu River.
• Parhae - By the eighth century, Parhae controlled the northern part of Korea, all of northeastern Manchuria, and the Liaodong Peninsula.

Cydevil38 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I have said this more than once. Cydevil38 has been repeatedly citing evidences which are violating WP:NCGN. Such evidences are not justifications for the right to violate WP:NCGN. Please stick to wikipedia rules.

Wiki Pokemon 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats so ridiculous is that CPOV editors make these lame-ass claims like "Manchuria is not legal". I don't know if this is a problem with english or if you are falling back to weak claims.

Also, I showed that Manchuria is more common using google which you responded to it as "google is not reliable". Now you are using search bars to make your point.

Stop arguing for a title that only you simply want. Nobody else has a problem with Manchuria and nobody thinks its offensive. Good friend100 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have also "repeatedly provided evidence" that puts Northeast China as the most common name used in the modern context. A search on both the Google main page and news page gives Northeast China an enormous lead in terms of search results.

Cydevil38, I have perfectly good reason to question the validity of the historical terms used by certain encyclopedias such as Britannica. This is not just a simple "disagreement," because the naming of certain historical entities are flat-out wrong - as is the case for Abahai [6]. Also, do take a look at the extensive criticism for Britannica on its Wikipedia page [7].

Your "evidence" based on the examples from search queries for the Cambridge History of China and Library of Congress country studies is clearly faulty. These are not examples of uses of the term in the modern context. I find it a bit puzzling seeing how you would agree towards "splitting" the template between modern Northeast China and Manchuria (the past) around the Xinhai Revolution (no proof provided except reference to the dubious Manchuria article), yet at the same time fail to realize that the concept of "Manchuria" (as a ethnicity) only came to be in 1635, long before Koguryo, Bohai, Jin, Liao, etc.

Here are some evidence to support the use of Northeast China in the modern context:

Library of Congress (Glossary -- China)

• Used broadly to mean China within the Great Wall, with its eighteen historic provinces. Divisible into two major, sharply contrasting regions, north China and south China. The dependencies on the north and west--Manchuria (now usually referred to as northeast China), Mongolia, Xizang (Tibet), and Xinjiang or Chinese Turkestan--were known in the imperial era as Outer China. (Note: This implies the outdated/obsolete use of Manchuria)

• (Country Profile: China, August 2006) - The Heilongjiang (Heilong or Black Dragon River) flows for 3,101 kilometers in Northeast China and an additional 1,249 in Russia, where it is known as the Amur. (Note: Refer to the date and sole use of Northeast China)

• (Business Reference Services - Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia) -

1) Research into the Progress of China's Northeast Development Policy & the Effects Thereof: We conducted surveys focusing on the economic development of Northeastern China, the 21st century frontier, and such business opportunities as the potential for future expansion in the region by foreign capital, by following trends relating to Japanese-affiliated companies and domestic Chinese capital that has begun to move after sensing business opportunities and changes in regions and towns, which are being revitalized by the Northeast Development Policy.

2) Information on Cities in Northeastern China -

Outline of Initial Purpose: To collate basic information concerning cities in Northeastern China and disseminate information in order to deepen understanding of Northeastern China and use this as an opportunity to promote exchange with this region.

Outline of Outcome: With regard to the basic information concerning cities in Northeastern China that has already been published on the ERINA homepage, we updated economic data and added to the necessary information about the cities, and sought to further enhance the information available there.

The Cambridge History of China (volume 9) - On June 6, 1644, Ch'ing troops entered Peking and claimed the throne for their six-year-old emperor. The military success in 1644 and the subsequent expansion of the Ch'ing empire were rooted in two centries of Jurchen multilateral relationships with Koreans, Mongols, and Chinese in the Northeast. (Note: This is an example of historical usage of Northeast China right after the Nuzhen-Manzu transition by Huang Taiji).

Assault11 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Northeast China is only about northeastern China. And thats not what this template only covers. It covers both Korea and Russia. Good friend100 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make unsupported or unfactual claims. Your claim contradicts every source mentioned in the talk page, all of whom - whether they refer to Northeast China or Manchuria - regard the region to be solely in the "northeast" region of China. The term Dongbei in Chinese is synonymous with the obsolete late 19th/early 20th century geographic concept of "Manchuria" (see Outer Manchuria "外东北"). Although areas of what is now modern DPRK and Russia were formerly Nuzhen (Jurchen) or Qing territory, they are generally not considered to be part of Northeast China/Manchuria - just as Greater China is not necessarily within the scope of the modern day Chinese nation-state (PRC/ROC). Assault11 23:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to fabricate evidence. A comparison of google search on "Northeast China" itself and "Manchuria" results in many more hits for "Manchuria".[8][9] It is only when you add a bunch of other variants that you get more hits for "Northeast China". Also, when you disregard Chinese sources, Manchuria is by far the most common name in comparison. 488,000 hits for "Northeast China" without Chinese sources[10], 1,190,000 hits for "Manchuria" under the same condition[11]. And your claim that "Manchuria" is obsolete has little credibility when English secondary and tertiary sources published after year 2000 use "Manchuria" as widely accepted name for much of the historical period that this template covers.

Also, this is from the very same page of Cambirdge History of China vol. 9 that Assault11 quoted:

• The Liao valley is the heardland of a region known to Westerners as Manchuria, a place where forest, steppe and agricultural lands overlap.

This volume of Cambridge History of China uses the term "Manchuria" extensively throughout the book.

It should also be made clear that this is a historical template that should be put under historical context. Sources on history and geographical terms more appropriate for history should take precedence here.

Based on evidence following the criteria given by WP:NCGN, if "Northeast China" is proven as being widely accepted for certain historical periods, I'll agree to letting a new template "History of Northeast China" cover those historical periods after the historical periods of Manchuria, in a chronological manner. However, "History of Northeast China" cannot cover the historical periods of the region where the term "Manchuria" is far more common. Cydevil38 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not fabricate evidence. The reason why the different variants of "Northeast China" are included is because there are quite a few different English interpretations of the characters "东北." Most common being Northeast China, although variants such as "Northeastern China" are also used (in most cases, referring to the Three Provinces of the Northeast). If that is not enough to prove my case, lets take the two most common terms (being Northeast China and Dongbei - a term used by Encarta [12]):

1) Northeast China and Dongbei: [13]

Result: 1,340,000

2) Manchuria and Manzhou: [14]

Result: 1,210,000

Again, it is clear that according to the Google main search, Northeast China is a more common term compared to Manchuria.

Again, I find it very puzzling why you keep stressing the need to put the template in a "historical context" when the "evidence" you provided mentioning Manchuria (Koguryo, Bohai, Jin, Liao, etc.) in pre-Qing time periods are clearly before the advent of the concept of "Manchuria", that is not even mentioning its geographic connotations some 3 centuries.

Cydevil38, if you are truly committed to maintaining a historically accurate template, you must also accept that the "History of Manchuria" began in the year 1635 - the date the concept of "Manchuria" (满洲) was created by Huang Taiji (even though that concept was based on ethnicity and not geography). However, I am totally against the splitting of the template, because there is still no evidence to suggest geographic "Manchuria" is indeed a credible historical concept. Assault11 01:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, if we disregard Chinese sources, usage of Northeast China and "Dongbei"(which is a Chinese word) drops dramatically, from 1,340,000 to 596,000[15]. As for Manchuria, the difference is relatively minimal, from 1,210,000 to 1,200,000[16]. Also, these are results from Google books on corresponding historical periods limited to sources published after 2000(to the point that "Manchuria" is by no means an "obsolete term" as Assault11 suggests):

• Koguryo / Manchuria[17] - 71 sources
• Koguryo / Northeast China[18] - 13 sources

• Liao Dynasty / Manchuria[19] - 62 sources
• Liao Dynasty / Northeast China[20] - 6 sources

• Jin Dynasty / Manchuria[21] - 44 sources
• Jin Dynasty / Northeast China[22] - 7 sources

These are all historical entities that predate the historical period that Assault11, Jiejunkong and Wiki pokemon claim that Manchuria is limited to. Geographical names in English that are used under historical or cultural context are not necessarily limited to the specific historical period when the name itself was contemporary. For instance, the name "Korea", which derives from Goryeo and ultimately Goguryeo, is a widely accepted name for entities that predate both Goryeo and Goguryeo by far. The name "China", which derives from Qin Dynasty, is used well beyond the historical period of Qin Dynasty. And discussing the name "China" also brings to attention another case where a distinction is drawn between History of China and History of the People's Republic of China. People's Republic of China, which is a widely accepted name under modern context, cannot be used under historical context because it is anacrhonostic and not widely accepted. For example, you don't say Goguryeo held parts of "People's Republic of China". Accordingly, they have seperate templates, with People's Republic of China only covering the appropriate historical period. It should be emphasized that this is a template on history, so historical usage of the region should take precedence. Cydevil38 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, this region is a Chinese region, I see no reason why all websites ending in a .cn suffix be excluded - even though the sites in question are in English. You need to take your own advice and not distort data.

The reason why "Dongbei" is used is because it is romanized form of Northeast China and is a term used by well-known encyclopedias such as Encarta [23].

Again it is quite clear that Northeast China is a much more common term compared to Manchuria:

1) Northeast China and Dongbei: [24]

Result: 1,340,000

2) Manchuria and Manzhou: [25]

Result: 1,210,000

Cydevil38, how is the establishment of the "Manchuria" concept in 1635 a "claim"? This is solid, irrefutable fact. Are you suggesting that prior to 1635, that the Manchu or Manzhou ethnicity existed? For the sake of argument, lets suppose that was the case. What then, are the Jurchen people and other Northeastern Chinese ethnic groups that were united by the Jianzhou Nuzhen chieftain Nuerhaci?

Again, your argument for Manchuria being able to represent pre-Qing entities such as Koguryo, Bohai, Jin, Liao, etc. is extremely contradictory:

At first, you claim that "Manchuria" must be represented in a historical context. Very well, this is partly true only that "Manchuria" is a historical term denoting the Manchu ethnicity - not the landmass. However, now you stress the need to "Geographical names in English that are used under historical or cultural context are not necessarily limited to the specific historical period when the name itself was contemporary." Now you have the burden of providing substantial evidence proving that Manchuria is a geographic concept, and not an ethnic one created by Huang Taiji.

Using geographic names in English under a historical context is perfectly reasonable, which is why Jiejunkong earlier suggested the use of the name "Northeastern China". I see no objections towards the term, and in some cases, it may be more accurate than simply "Northeast China" because it also encompasses historic areas in what is now the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.

Regarding the use of "China" and "Korea," these terms are legitimate because they are recognized by their respective governments (the PRC, ROC, DPRK and ROK), this is not the case for Manchuria - which the Qing, ROC and PRC never even recognized. Assault11 02:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Google searches are not proper in this case because, as WP:NCGN recognizes, they yield false positives in that the term "Northeast China" may not be used in the context that is being argued here. (Certainly it will never be used to cover the Russian Far East.) "Silicon Valley" yields about 49 million Google hits. "Santa Clara County" yields only 1.9 million. That doesn't mean that Santa Clara County, California should be renamed to or merged with Silicon Valley. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The context which Northeast China/Manchuria is subject to does not include the Russian Far East and only concerns the Chinese-administered areas. Even the encyclopedic sources used to represent "Manchuria" does not make mention of the Russian Far Eastern regions. If you must insist on the inclusion of former Nuzhen/Qing territories in the Russian maritime provinces, then areas in what is now North Korea (as far south as modern Hamgyong province in modern DPRK) must also be included. Again, I stress that such measures unnecessary and is as ridiculous as adding non-PRC/ROC administered regions of Greater China (e.g. Singapore) into the modern Chinese nation-state.

I do agree with you on one specific matter though. Google searches concerning "Manchuria" in general is not proper, nor any of the other recommendations put forth by WP:NCGN simply because "Manchuria" is not a historical geographic concept, thus the contents of the page could not be put under a "historical context" as described by Cydevil38 above.

Lastly, if you want to argue about false positives, there is very little ambiguity in the term "Northeast China," and in almost all the case, it would refer to the Three Provinces of the Northeast. In fact, if you are to worry about false positives, you should look no further than your own "Manchuria" and "Manzhou". Many sources indicate "Manzhou" as an ethnicity (which would be historically accurate), and not as a dubious geographic concept [26] [27] [28] (e.g. "The Qing Dynasty founded by the Manzhou, although of nomadic origin, had absorbed much of Chinese culture and did everything it could to portray itself as a legitimately Chinese dynasty.). Assault11 07:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that there is little ambiguity in the term "Northeast China" and related terms. It is often very difficult to tell whether it is referring to Manchuria specifically, or to everywhere that is in the northeastern part of China, e.g. Beijing, Hebei, Shandon, eastern Inner Mongolia, etc. I agree that "Manzhou" produces false positives, but it is responsible for very few hits. I get 1,030,000 for (manchuria OR manzhou -wikipedia) and also 1,030,000 for (manchuria -wikipedia).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The "Northeast" is a very specific term solely referring to the Three Provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning. The cities/provinces of Beijing, Hebei, Shandong, etc. are never referred to as the "Northeastern" region of China - nevermind the "Northeast". Likewise, people living just south of the Yangtze river in Jiangsu, Shanghai and Zhejiang are always considered "southerners" and not "easterners". Beijing, Hebei, Shandong and Inner Mongolia are considered to be in "northern" China, but never the Northeast. There might be a slight ambiguity concerning the term "Northeastern China" because it can also include parts of Inner Mongolia, which is very similar to the rest of the Northeast in terms of the local variant of Mandarin and culture. But this term was not included in the search results, so there's no ambiguities there.

Regardless of its number of hits, the number of false positives for "Northeast China" and "Dongbei" should be no more than "Manchuria" and "Manzhou", if not less. Not mention that "Manchuria" itself also suffers from a number of false positives [29] [30]. Either way, this only goes to shown that Northeast China is the more common term used in modern times. Since there is no definitive proof that "Manchuria" is a historical geographic term, this would contradict and violate WP:NCGN. Assault11 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the section title which says that using the out-of-date term "Manchuria" as a geographic name violates wikirules. But I also agree to the following two points: (1) "Manchuria" can be used in any wikicontents when the term is not used anachronistically. This is conforming to wikirules. (2) The geographic region being disputed is much broader than "Northeast China" (i.e., the 3 provinces Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning). In particular, the region to the east of Ussuri River, which is now part of Far Eastern Russia, was part of a sequence of ancient kingdoms like Balhae, Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Manchu Qing Dynasty etc. "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia" is a better name.--Jiejunkong 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy in question is fundamentally flawed because it did not consider cases such as this one. We prefer History of Tokyo because it sounds less anachronistic to refer to it in its early history of "Tokyo" rather than "Edo". In this case, however, referring to the pre-Manchu history of Manchuria as "history of Northeast China" sounds a lot more anachronistic than "history of Manchuria" does. I suppose this is partly because Dongbei is sometimes still called Manchuria, while Tokyo is never called Edo anymore.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See
for what I mean by purely geographic Manchuria. (Caveat: The image is not very precise, see the talk page for the technical reasons)--Jiejunkong 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

An actual problem is that this used-to-be "Manchuria" region no longer exists as a monolithic entity except in a purely geographic sense. The region was divided into multiple parts since 1858's Treaty of Aigun _{(I understand that many English-speaking users think it is reasonable to call the region as Manchuria because the term is a very convenient one---it bypasses these historical details and minimizes the pronunciation efforts. But I personally think this convenience is not very consistent with what Wikipedia is trying to achieve, namely providing reliable contents and precise information for encyclopedia purposes. Don't bend with amateurish errors you live with every day)}. Between 1858 and 1945, it is ambiguous whether the term is geographic or political. Under some contexts it is geographic, while under some other contexts it is political (e.g., Manchukuo). However, after 1945, even in the English-speaking world, I think it is true that the term "Manchuria" became a purely geographic one, as there is no example to use the term to describe other types of significant entities, for example, significant political entities _{(The term "significant" means that a movie title or a singer group with reference to "Manchuria" doesn't count. These names are mainly artistic and fabricated, e.g., the name "Manchurian Candidate" actually has nothing to do with real-world Manchurian/Manchu)}. Here comes the policy WP:NCGN for all geographic names. You said "The policy in question is fundamentally flawed because it did not consider cases such as this one.", which I don't agree to. Actually Gdansk, Minsk etc. are very much the same type of geographic names---their history was significantly changed in recent centuries. WP:NCGN was defined to solve such kind of problems. The policy gives priority to local & modern names with enough popularity. It won't please everybody, but rules are rules, which are never meant to please everybody.--Jiejunkong 23:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A difference should be drawn between a geographical region and a city, because cities identifies itself with a name, while geographical regions don't[31]. Another difference between Gdansk/Tokyo and Manchuria/Northeast China is that Gdansk was "Polish" and Tokyo was "Japanese" for much of its history. Can you argue for the same with Manchuria, that it was "Chinese" for much of its history? Is it historically accurate to refer to the region as "Northeast China" or "Northeastern China" for historical periods when this region wasn't a part of China? Bear in mind that the conventions we're talking about here is not set in stone. Common sense also applies. Cydevil38 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, a geographic feature cannot identify itself with a name. A city is a geographic region, both city and geographic region are self-identifying entities. Your other arguments are subjective point of view and not within the scope of any wikipedia rules we are discussing about. Common sense is pretty subjective as we can see in the discussion. We should get back in line with wikipedia rules.

Wiki Pokemon 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, when did geograhpic regions become "self-identifying" entities? Does Siberia self-identify itself? Does Asia self-identify itself? Does North America self-identify itself? Use your common sense. Cydevil38 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As to your comparison of the timeline length between Gdansk's Polish history and Manchuria's Chinese history, you lost miserably because Manchuria (1635--1945) is part of Chinese history from 1644 to present (excluding Manchukuo time). Manchu's Qing Dynasty is a canonical dynasty of China. Even if you anachronistically count the starting time of Manchuria from medieval time. Khitan Liao Dynasty and Jurchen Jin Dynasty are also considered as canonical dynasties of China. Liao's Emperor and Song's Emperor were proclaimed to be brothers. As to your "self-identification" arguments, please show original wikipolicy texts to make your point. I have decided that I won't tolerate your self-made rules any more. You can apply your self-made rules in your home, but not here.--Jiejunkong 06:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was not always Chinese, what was it? Korean? Absolutely ridiculous. Historical accuracy? How could you even mention those two words with a straight face on? Do you even understand what the term means? Here, I'll give you a sample of what this term really means: areas north of the 大同江 were former Jurchen territory. Assault11 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pehraps Manchuria can be considered a part of Chinese history for a significant duration, but it is true that also, for much of its history, it wasn't "Chinese". It is also not entirely accurate to call Khitans of Liao Dynasty or Jurchens of Jurchen Jin Dynasty as "Chinese", as there were significant cultural differences. Another significant difference between Gdansk and Manchuria is that Gdansk was from the very beginning founded as a Polish city, whereas Manchuria is a historic geographical region. And I have already provided the link to the relevent policy. Cydevil38 07:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How so? Both the Qidan (Khitan) Liao and Nuzhen (Jurchen) Jin Dynasties were contesting the right to the Mandate of Heaven. Jin in fact, subjugated the Southern Song as a subordinate. Both dynasties are part of Ershisi Shi (Twenty Four Canonical Histories) and officially part of Chinese historiography. Your claim is completely baseless.

Manchuria is a historic geographical region? Prove it. This is completely contrary to the ethnic concept of "Manzhou" created by Qing Taizong Huang Taiji in 1635. Assault11 08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for name change

I think now it's very obvious that there cannot be a consensus between the parties here. Instead of wasting our time, I suggest that the disputants of the template's title follow WP:NCGN's recommended guidelines by establishing their preferred title, "Northeast China", as a widely accepted name for the historical periods that this template covers, and then file for a Request for Move. In the process of establishing "Northeast China" as a widely accepted name, it should be tested by all criteria recommended by WP:NCGN. Cydevil38 00:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Assault11 is arguing for the name "Northeast China", so it is his turn to respond to your post here. But I want to point out that you always say that it is my idea to give the name "Northeast China". I have to say that you need to revoke the claim, or I will call you a liar because you intentionally and repetitively put other user's words in my mouth. My point is very clear---"Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". I believe you already know that northeastern Inner Mongolia and Far Eastern Russia are not part of Northeast China.--Jiejunkong 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, what are you talking about? A non-existing place?

Look at your arguments posted at "05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)", I am wondering what you are doing here. Check this post, it is an agreement that "Template:History of Manchuria" can be a history template describing the non-existing entity "Manchuria". In contrast, it is the history template of the geographic region being disputed. Are you saying the geographic regions do not exist? Can you explain this point? Where do the geographic regions go? Where is my middle school located? In a magical non-existing place?--Jiejunkong 01:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote your "05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)" here: "From WP:NCGN: The title: 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. 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."

The sentences you blackened are not applicable to existing geographic regions. And at the very beginning we agree to the proposal of using the historical term "Manchuria" in a period when the region held this widely accepted historical English name (before 1945, and with flexible starting date). So who are you disputing here? Why did you continue to inject these aimless disputations here to confuse the talk? I don't think this confusion and diffusion strategy is nice.--Jiejunkong 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

By "historical" definition, I interpret "Manchuria" as a geographical region used under historical context that has been incorporated into the Chinese political system and no longer exists. Per the dictionary definitions that some editors such as yourself insist upon, "Manchuria" as a political entity has ceased to exist when China took over and reorganized the place into three "Northeast" provinces. Nonetheless, even though "Manchuria" ceased to exist as a political entity, it is still a widely accepted geographical region under historical context. And don't forget this interpretation of "no-longer-existing Manchuria" and "modern Northeast China" is only based on selective sources insisted by Jiejunkong and Wiki pokemon - there are also other soures that define it as a geographical region or contradict "Northeast China" as a modern entity. A very good parellel to Manchuria is Tibet and History of Tibet. Tibet, in some dictionaries, is also defined as a "former independent state" or "historical region".[32][33]

If you agree with my proposal, then we don't have a dispute. If it can resolve the dispute, then I can agree to the compromise of splitting this template from "History of Manchuria" to two templates, "History of Northeast China" and "History of Russian Far East". The two new templates should only cover contemporary history, which is from 1945 and afterwards for Northeast China based on your proposal. "History of Manchuria" will cover the historical period from antiquity to 1945. "Northeastern China" is not a good solution because it is a vague directional term, and the template on Russian Far East should be separate because it's a distinctive entity that went through a different history from Northeast China. Having the two templates in one will only convolute the process on such points as when to "split" the template. Cydevil38 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our agreement is only about the action of split, not the manner of split. I don't agree to your 3-way split, which produces "History of Manchuria" for the non-existing historical entity, "History of Northeast China" for the three present-day Chinese provinces and "History of Russian Far-east" for the Russian federal subjects. Because you want to limit the valid time of "History of Northeast China" and "History of Russian Far-east" to modern time, it is clear that, by your standard, "Northeast China" and "Russian Far-east" are also modern historical entities which have explicitly specified valid dates. They are not geographic names chosen by WP:NCGN. Actually I personally agree to this standard where "Northeast China" refers to the 3 provincial political units of China and "Russian Far-east" refers to the far-eastern federal subjects of Russia. But none of these 3 newly proposed articles is proper for the contents of User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template, which depicts the history of a geographic region subject to WP:NCGN. In a nutshell, the 3-way split is okay, but is another subject that is not very related to the problem we have now. The current problem is the name of "History of the geographic region" which covers the entire history of the region. This is very much like "History of Iran" "History of Gdansk" etc. (In contrast, "History of Manchuria" is similar to "History of Persia" "History of Danzig" etc.) Unless you show the sincerity to vote for a change in "History of Iran" "History of Gdansk" to shorten the history periods to modern time, I don't buy your argument that "History of a geographic region" must limit its covered period to modern time.--Jiejunkong 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your distraction to Tibet is gross. The name of Tibet is never changed. Don't you know that Tibet is the present-day official English name? Tell you a fact: When I studied English in middle school in Northeastern China (not "Manchuria" Mr. User:Cydevil38), Tibet is the name written in China's English textbooks.--Jiejunkong 04:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Here is the official name Tibet Autonomous Region. Is your English good enough to continue the talk? I really doubt.--Jiejunkong 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, I am only offering it as a compromise, not as something that I agree upon. "Northeast China" is not a widely accepted name, lacking entires in most, if not all, dictionaries, and having descriptions in reliable sources such as encyclopedias that contradict its usage under "modern context". And we're talking about the split of this template, and Whlee's template is only a proposed improvement, not a "different" template. And the name of Manchuria also didn't change. Just like Tibet, Manchuria is a widely accepted name listed in all dictionaries and encyclopedias. And Wikipedia clearly distinguishes between "historical/cultural Tibet" and "the administrative region in the People's Republic of China".

And about your attempt to have a new so-called "History of the geographic region", it can only be seen as an attempt to create a new POV fork of this template, since they cover pretty much the same region and contents. And Iran and Persia are countries. Manchuria is different, as it is a widely accepted geographic region under historical context. Cydevil38 05:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use the term "Manchuria" to name the "History of a geographic region" User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template. It is a blatant violation of WP:NCGN. For the past months, you either ignore the policy WP:NCGN or twist the policy WP:NCGN by "inventing" lots of your personal rules. Neither of the false moves will prevail. On one hand, the policy WP:NCGN is respected in History of Gdansk, so I suggest to connect the two cases (when some users said History of Gdansk is not yet completely settled). On the other hand, invented personal rules will be removed and ignored. We are not subject to your personal rules. So far the agreement is: if you want to use the term "Manchuria" in any template/article, you must use it carefully in a non-anachronistic way. For the template User:Whlee/History_of_Manchuria#Template, this means that the contents after year 1945 should be deleted, while the starting date is yet to be decided. As this is almost a consensus, you need to explicitly dispute the decision before this decision is implemented. So far you have said several times that you agree to this decision. So I guess this part is done. Next, it is about the creation of "History of the geographic region" to cover the entire history. So far it is fine with me that this new template is not implemented. Why should I care if nothing is wrong?--Jiejunkong 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Is "Manchuria" not a widely accepted name for the geograhpical region for the historical period this template covers? Is "Northeast China" or "Northeastern China" a widely accepted name for the geographical region for the historical period this template covers? I don't think so. And unlike History of Gdansk, which was a Polish city from the start and was so for much of its history, Manchuria wasn't "Chinese" for much of its history. If anything is to be defined as "anachronistic" and thus "idiotic" by your definition, it is using "Northeast China" or "Northeastern China" to refer to this geographical region under a historical context. And you have repeatedly accused other users of violating Wikipedia policies and twisting them, while you have so far only provided your personal interpretations of the policy while making no effort in following the recommended procedure in resolving a naming dispute at WP:NCGN. You should accept the fact that people may interpret the policies differently, and you are not necessarily right. Also, the WP:NCGN itself is not "set in stone", that we should also use common sense, not to mention WP:NCGN is not the only convention that applies here. Cydevil38 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer interested in your wikipolicy show without original wikipolicy texts. Whatever you babble here, without original wikipolicy texts, it is merely about your personal rules that only apply to yourself. Before you make any point by referring to wikipolicies, you need to present original wikipolicy texts because you have lost all your credits on this subject. WP:NCGN is a wikirule about geographic names. You cannot ignore it. And the reason why many users mention it hundreds of times is because you refuse to follow it.--Jiejunkong 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are really a historical "expert". You said Gdansk, "which was a Polish city from the start and was so for much of its history, Manchuria wasn't "Chinese" for much of its history." Mr. Cydevil38, I suggest you to go back to school to take your history lesson again before you say such astounding sentences. Gdansk is not that Polish as you thought to be, and Manchuria's history as China's history is way way way longer than Gdansk's Polish history. What a waste of time to argue with some searcher (not "researcher") on some basic history facts. --Jiejunkong 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought, I have decided to change my vote to strictly enforcing the starting date of the article/template "History of Manchuria". Anachronism is wrong, and I don't think a good encyclopedia should tolerate this kind of idiotic behavior.--Jiejunkong 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To avoid anachronism in this sensitive region (which is obviously a precious region to User:Cydevil38 due to his proclaimed enthusiasm toward Goguryeo), I think a better idea is to divide it into more shorter-period templates, including "History of prior Jurchen" (before Liao Dynasty) "History of Jurchen" (Liao Dynasty to late Ming Dynasty) "History of Manchuria" (Qing Dynasty to Manchukuo) "History of Northeast China" and "History of Russian Far-east", then use every template with care in related articles. ("History of prior Jurchen" can be refined to make the contents more precise) --Jiejunkong 06:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism also applies to template:History of China and template:History of Korea. "China" is a widely accepted English word that derives from Qin Dynasty, and "Korea" is a widely accepted English word that derives from Goryeo and ultimately Goguryeo. However, both templates cover historical periods prior to Qin Dynasty and Goguryeo. "Manchuria" is the widely accepted English geographical name used under the historical context of this template, and hence it is the appropriate title of this template. You should simply accept that and get on with it. Cydevil38 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NCGN, "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." You should simply accept that and get on with it.--Jiejunkong 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, I'm getting really sick of this. If you think you're so right, just go ahead and establish "Northeast China" as a widely accepted name for the historical period that this template covers per the criteria given by WP:NCGN, and then file a Request for Move. You should try to work with evidence, dispute resolution process and consensus. Cydevil38 07:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cydevil38, if you refuse to follow wikirules, then you should be patient when people repeat the rules hundreds of times to you. When rules conflict with your interests, then they are useless; when rules are of your interests, then they are useful? If you are sick of this, then what do other people feel? As to the so-called "Northeast China" move, that was User:Assault11's argument, not my argument. My argument is "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". I told you that you will be called as a liar if you keep putting other people's words into my mouth, and congratulations you become a blatant liar in this case.--Jiejunkong 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Most" widely used?

Still cannot figure out why Cydevil38 wants to add the "most" constraint to "widely used names" for geographic names ("Widely used" is good enough). WP:NCGN has never had such a "most" constraint. Cydevil38 also quotes Wikipedia:Naming conflict to back up his/her arguments. Look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict carefully, only Proper nouns (in Chinese: 專有名詞) are with the "most common" constraint. In wikipedia's article "Proper nouns", Proper nouns are defined as "nouns representing unique entities (such as London or John), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city or person)". If a proper noun, "Manchuria" is the historically unique entity which we already agreed many times to limit its valid date to year 1945. Cydevil38, are you trying to confuse historical entity and geographic region again? Who is disputing with you whether the term "Manchuria" can be used to name the historical entity in a non-anachronistic way (hence also not offensive)? Nobody. I think you are fighting with windmills.--Jiejunkong 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether "Manchuria" is a historical entity or a geographical entity, it's a proper noun either way. Anyways, we can just say that we have an disagreement on what "Manchuria" is, but if we can come with a practical solution to this nonetheless, lets try to reach one. Cydevil38 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Proper noun "Manchuria" entity using the most common historical name (which is "Manchuria", that is fine). But that is not the geographic region I am from. Otherwise, I guess you are from Silla, not Korea, is that right?--Jiejunkong 04:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The historical/cultural/geograhpical term "Korea" is derived from Goryeo and ultimately Goguryeo. It is the English word for former entities that became a widely accepted name for many contexts. "Manchuria" is also the English word for a former entity that became a widely accepted name for many contexts as well. And if China somehow manages to take over Korea and renames the region to "Chinese Far East", I think it would be inappropriate to change "History of Korea" to "History of Chinese Far East". Cydevil38 05:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. So you are not from Silla, and I am not from Manchuria. Thank you for the confirmation. Also your imagination of Korea as "Chinese Far East" is admired. It shows your gross mindset.--Jiejunkong 05:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria is the English word for what "former entity"? Please elaborate. Are you talking about the Nuzhen/Jurchen? Also, why would we name it "History of Chinese Far East"? Did you forget that the region was Chinese territory during the Han? You just contradicted yourself, big time. Assault11 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "Northeastern China" is an invalid name

• Columbia Encyclopedia - Location of Hebei, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Henan and Shandong provinces are described as "NE China".
• Cambridge History of China[34] - The third leg of the defensive triangle was Peking itself, in the vicinity of which some 160,000 troops were garrisoned. Farther back still, the garrisons in ther est of northeastern China (Shantung, the Northern Metropolitan Region, Honan) were kept in reserve.
• Placenames of the World[35] - Wei-fang. City, northeastern China. The city, in Shantung province, derives its name from Chinese wei, the Wei River, and fang, "neighborhood," "vicinity."
• Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism[36] - The Bay of Kiaochow is located on the southern coast of the Shantung Peninsula, the easternmost extension of the old Shantung Province in northeastern China.
• Chiang Kuei[37] - Shantung, a coastal province in northeastern China, has a long and proud history.
• The Geography of Contemporary China[38]: the impact of Deng Xiaoping's decade - The huge alluvial plains of northeastern China in the provinces of Henan, Hebei, Shandong, Anhui and Jiangsu are largely re-deposited bess, and the Huanghe(Yellow River) is named for its loess sediment load.
• China Guidebook, 1993-94[39] - In addition, the Liaodong and Shandong peninsulas in northeastern China are slated for accelerated economic development in the near future.
• Prehistoric Settlement of the Pacific[40] - An important site at Longshan (Lung-shan) in Shandong province (Figure 5) in northeastern China has served as point of reference for the many similarities in ceramics over wide regions of North China and in parts of South China, as well.
• Silks for Thrones and Altars[41]: Chinese Costumes and Textiles from the Liao Through the Qing Dynasty - Sericulture spread from northeastern China in what is now Shandong, Hebei and eastern Henan provinces.
• Japanese War Crimes[42] - According to their lawyers, the women were raped by Japanese soldiers at their homes in Shanxi Province in northeastern China or at Japanese military camps in the early 1940s.

I'll just let the evidence speak. Cydevil38 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I request that you should present verifiable evidence. The reason for filing the request is that you don't have credit in proper reference. You constantly fail to quote original wikipolicy texts and use self-proposed policy to replace original wikipolicy texts. I am very careful at your references. This time I cannot find your contents by search or other methods. If you are referring to books, please provide more details following wikipedia's convention.--Jiejunkong 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Including northeastern Inner Mongolia in Northeastern China is the point. Can you have a look at Amur River and Inner Mongolia? Can you verify whether the upstream drainage region of Amur River is in Inner Mongolia? If Amur River is not in Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia, then where is it?--Jiejunkong 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And you still don't get the point. See Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria/Archive2 and do a string search on "directional". The whole point is that this geographic region being disputed doesn't have clearly defined boundary, so it gets better when directional terms like "Northeastern China" and "Far Eastern Russia" are used.--Jiejunkong 04:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, did you even make the effort to verify those evidence? It's very hard to [assume good faith] when you fail to assume good faith on me by accusing me of lying and presenting false evidence. Anyways, I'll just make the extra effort, though I think this is just damn lame and a waste of time, considering those are easily verifiable and some of them have direct links to the contents. And I don't think I have to look through Wikipedia's conventions for this one - this is just common sense. Oh, and since I started searching books.google.com, I might as well do some more search and present some more evidence:

• Note: The "dubious" tags were added Jiejunkong, but I believe his intetions are not for verification, but rather harassment to have me waste my time. If other editors request further elaboration of soures for verification, I'd be more than willing to do so.

Dear User:Cydevil38, the official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." It is your duty to provide verifiability to your writeup, or the material may be removed. Don't act as if you are an exception.--Jiejunkong 08:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Urban Design Ethics in Ancient China - The Longshan culture of northeastern China(c. 2500 B.C.) used pounded or rammed earth(terre pise) to construct walls, platforms for large buildings, and terraces.
• The Genesis of East Asia, 221 Bl.C.-A.D. 907 - Indeed, there is even a recent Chinese theory that the first known textual reference to Wo, in the Shan hai jing, in which the land of Wo is described as being lcoated south of the kingdom of Yan(in northeastern China and Manchuria) and subordinate to it, is actually only a variant designation for the Yue of southern China and not Japan at all.
• An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China - Beijing is located in northeastern China, within Hebei Province, 250 kilometers northwest of the Yellow Sea coastline.
• Surge Tectonics: A New Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics - A nearly identical structural situation is present in Hebei, Shandong, Henan, Anhui, and Jiangsu Provinces in notheastern China.

Cydevil38 06:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried several search engines and could not find the contents you posted. It is your duty to provide reliably sourced contents (automatically, and imperatively if upon request). This is your duty, so no need to complain as if it is a burden to you. --Jiejunkong 06:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it takes a search engine to click on a link, right? So why did you make "Columbia Encyclopedia" as a dubious source when links were already provided? Cydevil38 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you provide sources, then you have to provide reliable sources. If no verifiable sources are provided, then any user can alert you about the verifiability. There is nothing wrong with the verifiability requests, which will always follow you and me. As to your links in Columbia Encyclopedia, I initially cannot find the term "Northeastern China" in those contents, but then I see that your argument "NE China"="Northeastern China" is a reasonable one.--Jiejunkong 06:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38, do you understand what it means to be an "officially recognized geographic region"? (According to Columbia Encyclopedia: "Mandarin Dongbei sansheng [three northeastern provinces], region, c.600,000 sq mi (1,554,000 sq km), NE China. It is officially known as the Northeast. "Jiangsu Province in northeastern China," is this a joke or something? Jiangsu is strictly a southern Chinese province - all provinces south of the Chang Jiang (Yangtze) is regarded as "the South". This is no different than branding Michigan, Ohio, Indiana (e.g. some Midwestern U.S. State) as part of "Northeastern United States" due to its geographic proximity in the region - although it is not recognized as an official geographic region of the Northeastern United States. There is a huge difference here. Also, your search methods are extremely subjective: e.g. "Cambridge History of China" AND "Northeastern China" AND "Shantung" and do not conflict with the Google results for "Northeast China" and "Dongbei" above (e.g. false positives). Assault11 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Poor research results in chaos

As User:Cydevil38 refuses to provide verifiability to some of his sources, I will ignore those unverified sources and limit the discussion to those verified sources. From these western sources, it is quite a surprise to me that many western researchers were ignorant about China's geography at the time of writing and called ShanXi, Henan, JiangSu as Northeastern China. This is very "professional" and some users here intentionally accept it as truth because this is of their interests. Although these sources are verifiable, they have factual errors. In the real world, (1) ShanXi is a Northern (almost straight north, neither to the east nor to the west) China province. (2) Henan? My god, this is the strict central plain (中原), how comes Henan a Northeastern province? Northeastern to what? Hubei? Since when Hubei can represent the entire China? (3) JiangSu? This is a joke. The neighboring city Shanghai now becomes the largest city of Northeastern China. I must thank User:Cydevil38 for this "useful" geography lesson and I admit that he beats me by showing off the sources without going through brain-level filtering. (4) Shandong is deeply related to Dongbei, as dominant population of southern LiaoDong penisula is from Shandong. For example, people in Dalian city speak Shandong dialects. (5) Hebei (not "Hubei") and northeastern Inner Mongolia sometimes are considered as part of Northeastern China by Chinese, this is my point about the difference between Northeastern China and Northeast China.--Jiejunkong 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, tell me just one article that you brought up to a GA status or one that you've been working hard on. None. All you're good for is quarreling. To me it's ridiculous that you act all high with the NCGN or NGCN or whatver (which is the only WP rule you know, basically) when there's nothing else to back that attitude. (Wikimachine 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Mr. Wikimachine, I did most of my work in zh.wikisource, which is none of your business. If you can input the entire classic Chinese texts for Samguk Sagi in ko.wikisource, then that is a non-trivial contribution to this wiki system. In a subsystem like en.wikipedia, I also contribute many wikisource related contents, but some users with Nazi minds refuse to admit (in particular, some nationalist users incapable of reading their own history records and brainwashed by modern political propaganda like TV series). If the rules are actually against you, you cannot simply ignore it. Otherwise, the other party also has the freedom to ignore it and ignore you. So far Cydevil38, Good friend100 and you have no rule to support you--whenever a wikirule is quoted by you, it is either a name-only reference or a reference to a solved case (e.g., Proper noun case of Manchuria). Poor guys having trouble in understanding English.--Jiejunkong 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It doesn't look good when you make all these analyses without proving that you know what you're talking about. (Wikimachine 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

I still see no original text quotes and reliable source in your posts. Unlike Cydevil38 who always quotes modern political sources, you and Good friend100 hardly quote any verifiable sources in your posts. Compared to Good friend100, you sound a little older than him. Here comes the triad. --Jiejunkong 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I always quote modern political sources? Jesus christ, just look at this guy ramble on. How are my sources "modern political sources"? Common sense just flies out the window for this guy. Jiejunkong, if you think you're so right, establish Northeast China or Northeastern China as a widely accepted name for the corresponding historical periods per the criteria recommended by WP:NCGN, then file for a Request for Move. Cydevil38 22:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any quote from primary history source by you. Have you ever done anything beside web search? Oh, I forgot, you also don't filter the searched results by your brain. Here comes Shanghai, the largest city in Northeastern China, according to your post. Where is your brain when you post those searched result? What an entertainment.-03:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this template/article is about the historical entity Manchuria, there is no need to file "Request for Move". According to the consensus, its contents will be cut off before 1945. If you want to move, you can file the request and there is no consensus supporting you.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not object to that. However, the problem is that you are trying to create another template with identical or very similar contents as this one covering roughly the same region, which would be a POV fork. I won't object to a historical template for "Northeast China", so far as it covers the contemporary history of the region after 1945. Or you can just opt not to create other templates, and just limit this template to 1945. Cydevil38 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be completely unacceptable. Splitting the template into two is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. By limiting the Northeast to the post-1945 era and not doing the same for dubious "Manchuria" is clearly a double standard. Assault11 06:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The title should be what it is meant to be

It seems none of the compromises are working. I'll just revert the title within the template to its original version, and one that is coherent with the template's title itself. If you disagree with the title, please establish your preferred version per the criteria recommended by WP:NCGN and file a request for move to try to reach a consensus. Cydevil38 03:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could the CPOV editors please stop trying to make the template the way they want it to be? Its obvious that northeast China and Manchuria are two different things. You have no good reason to edit it and if its that important to you, request a move for this entire template.

Clear enough, Assault11, or Jeijunkong? Request a move! If you hate the word "Manchuria" so much that it "insults the Chinese people", request a move to Template:History of Northeast China, and that will justify the template name change as well. Good friend100 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it different? They are both used in the same context. Manchuria directly refers to the Chinese-admininstered regions, all sources (including your encyclopedic ones) regard "Manchuria" to be part of China's Northeast. The only problem with it is its lack of historical credibility, the Qing (e.g. Manchus), ROC and PRC never called the region "Manchuria," thus cannot be used as a geographic term because it was never meant as such.

CPOV editors? You continue to call us so-called "CPOV editors" despite the fact that the subject concerning this region is completely "Chinese." You know what? Those involved (me included) all came from this region of China, we sure as hell have a damn good reason for voicing out against historical incompetence displayed by you "KPOV editors". Your level of reading apprehension and historical knowledge (or lack thereof) astounds me. Assault11 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that those searchers (note: web searchers, not "researchers") of China's geography and history should stay out of the domain which is too tough for them to handle. It is almost like vandalism, for example, by relocating JiangSu or neighboring Shanghai to northeastern China. This is identical to relocating Seoul to northwestern Korea. Anyone who did this kind of terrible show should be automatically stripped of editorship of related wikiarticles.--Jiejunkong 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, I don't pose myself as a researcher. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes research done by experts, not by Wikipedia editors themselves. I have quoted secondary and tertiary sources that use northeastern China in a different meaning than that prescribed by your own. This proves my point that northeastern China is an ambiguous directional term that may mean areas that are well outside the boundaries of this template. Cydevil38 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) You prescibed miserably. As a local resident, I told you many times the out-of-date term "Manchuria" is an insult to most local residents if used anachronistically, so you'd better be careful when using the out-of-date term. In geographic contexts and anachronistic contexts, you cannot use it according to wikirules. Several local residents have confirmed the same thing again and again to you, but you keep ignoring the warning. Who are you? An airdropped Chinese geography and history expert from Korea? Maybe your parachute had some problem when you landed in Northeast China so you got amnesia? This concludes that you prescribed, otherwise it is impossible to ignore all the warning signs. (2) I did and do say northeastern China and far eastern Russia is an ambiguous directional term that overlaps mostly with the geographic region being discussed. If the consensus says this is not the solution, I am fine with the rejection.--Jiejunkong 01:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescribed? Outdated? Jiejunkong, can you please pay attention to evidence? I have already proven that "Manchuria" is by far the most widely accepted name for the corresponding historical periods in published secondary and tertiary sources, including recent ones published after year 2000. Such usage is by no means "out-dated", and supporting "Manchuria" on such basis is by no means "prescribed", since I'm not the one writing those published sources. Cydevil38 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Those sources all violated wikipedia rule WP:NCGN. Please stop using those sources for justification for violating wikipedia rules.

Wiki Pokemon 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, WP:NCGN is not the only naming convention that applies here, and if "Manchuria" does not fit the criteria of a widely accepted historical name for the period from antiguity to whatever per WP:NCGN, then it's not so blatantly violative, that it's a borderline case, and common sense should be applied. Secondly, I have presented my evidence based on one of the recommended criterion of dispute resolution set by WP:NCGN, I don't think I violated any "rules" in that regard. You're just denying the evidence that "Manchuria" is by far the most widely accepted name for the contents of this template. Cydevil38 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that "History of Manchuria" with the current contents violates WP:NCGN. You cannot brush it off using the excuse that it is a borderline case. You common sense is very subjective, very different from others common sense. Again please use Wikipedia rules.

Wiki Pokemon 02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal judgement is: User:Wikimachine is a kid who actually believes in those brainwashing websites like mygoguryeo.com and TV propaganda. He cries in his heart when we break his dream using canonical history records, and we are being hated because of this. I am very sorry but it is time for him to grow up. Cannot give him an exception to mess up with other people's self identification . In addition, the historical term "Manchurian" (滿洲人) is not a positive term in USA because of Hollywood products like "Manchurian Candidate". I personally cannot accept this rule-violating and non-positive POV title on me. On the other hand, unlike Wikimachine who acts in a consistent manner, User:Cydevil38 is quite a different story, as demonstrated in his inconsistent behavior. Let me copy the physical proofs here to diagnose his "amnesia":

1. Fact 1: In [43], User:Cydevil38 did a personal investigation to compare the popularity between "Manchuria" and "Northeast China". This investigation was done within 2 weeks from now. According to his own search, searching "Manchuria" returns 1,130,000 results, and searching "Northeast China and its variants" returns 1,090,000.
2. Fact 2: In [44], User:Cydevil38 did an edit-warring with a blatant lie (quote: ""Northeast China" is not a widely accepted English name per WP:NCGN."). Per his own investigation 2 weeks ago, we can see "Manchuria" and "Northeast China" are widely accepted in a comparable manner. I remember this discussion, thus when User:Cydevil38 shows the symptom of amnesia, I can immediately went to the related wikirecords to illustrate his funny behavior.--Jiejunkong 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to wikipedia rules. Here are possible templates which meet Wikipedia rules.

1. Title: History of Manchuria. Contents: from 1635 to 1945.
2. Title: History of Manchuria(Northeast China). Contents: from antiquity to 1945.
3. Title: History of Northeast/ern China. Contents: from antiquity to today.
4. Title: History of Northeast/ern China and Far Eastern Russia. Contents: from antituity to today.
5. Title: History of Far Eastern Russia. Contents: from antiquity to today.

Wiki Pokemon 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Manchuria. Contents: from antiquity to 1945 is acceptable, on the condition that no POV fork is made. Templates for Northeast China and Russian Far East are fine as long as they cover contemporary history, in case of Northeast China, after 1945. If "Northeast China" is to be put in brackets, then so should "Russian Far East", per the Wikipedia articles Manchuria and Outer Manchuria(also known as Outer Northeast in China). However, if you want to distinguish Manchuria as a "historic region" and Northeast China as a "modern region", then I suggest keeping the title of this template as just "History of Manchuria" with no sub-definitions, and leaving continuation links in the appropriate time period for a new template on Northeast China and another template for Russian Far East that cover contemporary history. That way, readers can clearly see that the legacy of this region has passed on to "Northeast China". Cydevil38 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have listed those possible titles and contents because they all meet wikipedia rules. Now you are suggesting to change it to break wikipedia rules. What are you trying to do? Contempt for wikipedia rules for your own pleasure or what? Stop suggesting things to break wikipedia rules. Again stick to wikipedia rules.

Wiki Pokemon 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First make a merge request at the Manchuria talk page. (Wikimachine 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Wiki pokemon, WP:NCGN is not "set in stone". And it's not the only naming convention that applies here. "Manchuria" is by far the most widely accepted name for the contents of this template. Use your common sense. But if you still want to insist on "History of Manchuria(Northeast China)", I'd deem it acceptable if the article on Northeast China is modified to also cover for "Outer Northeast". But I'd caution against this compromise, because Russians may dispute this. And of course, no POV fork. Cydevil38 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to follow wikipeida rules. You cannot mix title of (1) with content of (2). If you want to use content of (2), you must use the title of (2), this is specified by WP:NCGN, not up to you to be acceptable. Why are you suggesting me to break wikipedia rules???

Wiki Pokemon 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wiki pokemon, if you want to adhere to the rule so much, why don't you establish "Northeast China" as a widely accepted name first and then file for a request for move as WP:NCGN suggests? Do you know why you can't? Because from the very first criterion, "Northeast China" fails as a widely accepted name. So in fact, all of your proposed templates that has "Northeast China" are not adherent to WP:NCGN. Oh, and by the way, both Tokyo and Gdansk pass the first criterion. And again, WP:NCGN is not the only naming convention that applies here, and those naming conventions clearly say that they are not "set in stone" and common sense should also be used. Cydevil38 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear by now, even by your standard, that Manchuria should be used either in (1) and/or (2) only. Lets get started doing that. And one more thing, "Northeast China" is a widely accepted name.

Wiki Pokemon 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

If you guys don't know, the ones who were in the disputes w/ Jiejunkong & Assault11 should - if they agree, "sign" as participants agreeing that efforts through normal means failed. (Wikimachine 03:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Another fiasco by your mishandling of wikirules. If you file RFC against me, don't include User:Assault11 based on your baseless guess on socket puppetry. Now what? All local residents who disagree with you become the same person? --Jiejunkong 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute happening here has been heated. But there are big differences between Wikimachine and Jiejunkong in the dispute. Jiejunkong discussion is always on the subject matter, always following wikipedia rules and always use reliable sources for support of his views. Wikimachine on the other hand, does not discuss on the subject matter, not interested in wikipedia rules, do not provide reliable sources, always focusing on editors with different views from himself and sometimes threatening them with unjustifiable action such as this. Wikimachine should just work on the subject matters and stop harrassing and attacking editors.

Wiki Pokemon 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)