Misplaced Pages

Template talk:History of Manchuria: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:28, 16 May 2007 editCydevil38 (talk | contribs)2,772 edits →Continue Discussion : Manchuria = Northeast China← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:07, 30 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(979 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{calm talk|green}} {{Calm}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject China}}
{{WikiProject Korea}}
{{WikiProject Japan}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive index
|mask=Template talk:History of Manchuria/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


* Archive: ] (3/22/07-5/25/07) ] (5/23/07-7/3/07)
== Clarification on Nlu's inclusion criterion ==
* Polls: ]
As noted below, I am not insisting on this list or even this definition, but let me explain the list inclusion criteria, as far as I am concerned (and the inclusion critiera may very well include other articles that I didn't think of; I considered including ] but decided not do, because I don't think there's sufficient evidence that the Wuhuan controlled substantial parts, if any, of modern Manchuria. My inclusion criteria are:
* Dispute resolution: Third Opinion


== Comment from ] ==
# A power (whether tribal or state) --
# That controlled a substantial part of modern Manchuria --
# Where "Manchuria" is defined by definition 4 in ]'s "Extent of Manchuria" section --
# Verifiably so.


As a native English speaker, and a member of the consensus that established ], I do have several comments:
(Again, Wuhuan was my basic "close, but not quite" drawn line; ] may fall into the same category.) --] (]) 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
#] is intended to refer to ], which are marked in English by capitalization. ] is a proper name; so is ]; '''northeastern China''' is not a proper name, it's a ''description''. So is '''northeast China'''; and '''NE China''' which is equivalent to it; the last is capitalized only because the abbreviations for points of the compass always are, by idiom.
# On the other hand, ], so capped, would be a proper name; but I have never heard or seen it used for Manchuria. I do not believe it can be widespread English usage.
#Please note also that it is English usage we are concerned with here. "This is the English Misplaced Pages; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers." The section above, which displays a Chinese instance of the translation is therefore irrelevant. ] <small>]</small> 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


:::Point (1) accepted, it is simply the way things work. Point (3) accepted, this is a well known wikipedia policy. First sentence of point (2) accepted, it is indeed a proper name. Remaining part of point (2) not accepted, your personal experience is contrary to evidence presented. Don't you worry, we are working very very hard to comply with the spirit of ] here. In fact we are fighting to enforce ] here, which some editors seem to deliberately ignore. In addition we strive to comply with all wikipedia rules.
:The reason that inclusion of ethnicities can be complicated is because there are so many. There are also the Yemaek(proto-Koreans), the Dongyi, the Rong, the Sushen and the list goes on. ] 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::] 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::I'll add the Sushen. There are no articles for Yemaek or Rong, while "Dongyi" is a generic name that doesn't refer to a single group. --] (]) 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, in that case, I think it's useful to divide the template into two sections, one section covering polities, the other covering ethnicities/cultures. But I guess the problem is how we can do that. ] 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


1) Very well, the name I am arguing for is ], which - as you noted, is a ]. However, NE China can also be interpreted as ], and in most cases, the term "northeastern China" and "]" are coterminous (refering to the three Chinese provinces of ], ] and ]).
== Comments on list ==
I think Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon should be left out, as the term "Gojoseon" encompasses them both. And you have also included ethnicties, not just states. That may complicate things a bit. ] 09:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:If that is the case, then it should be ] that gets taken out (and replaced by whichever stages of Gojoseon that came before Gija Joseon, because this should really be a template of successive regimes. The reasons why some ethnicities are included is that they controlled major parts of the region ''in tribal form'', and therefore, while not perhaps states, were ruling powers over the region. I am not insisting on ''this current list'', but there was a reason; it's written in this way, intending to be neutral. --] (]) 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


2) Wrong. ] is both a historic ''and'' geographical term synonymous with ] (see above), solely referring to the Three Provinces of ]. "Manchuria" only refers to the region of Chinese-administered areas, not including former territories in what is now ] and ]. This is confirmed by all teritary sources for "Manchuria"/"Northeast China":
::And, as the articles themselves noted, there is a controversy whether ] (if it existed) was really the same state as Gojoseon or not; the same is true of ]. I would say they should be separate from Gojoseon (which, as I reread article, didn't really have a separate term for the entity that putatively could have been the one opposing and different from Gija Joseon). If anything, Gija Joseon's exclusion may be based on its lack of verifiability (although I included in the sense that ''if it existed,'' it would, I think, verifiably have had major parts of Manchuria; the question is its actual existence). --] (]) 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Merriam-Webster Dictionary <br>
:::As far as I know, at least in Korea, ] is used as a period of Korean history, not a specific state. Something like the ]. The period of ] consists of ], ] and ]. Actually, I may not be too sure about this. I'll check once I get back home. ] 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Encarta Dictionary <br>
American Heritage Dictionary <br>
Collins Dictionary <br>
Answer.com <br>
Columbia Encyclopedia <br>
Britannica Encyclopedia <br>
Worldbook Encyclopedia <br>
UK Encarta Encyclopedia <br>
Catholic Encyclopedia <br>
Encyclopedia of Modern Asia <br>
AncientWorld.net <br>
Nuttall Encyclopedia


Note: (''from ]'')


* All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire or province of China. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China. <br>
== Proposition of diving in sectors ==
* 5 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region. <br>
History of Manchuria is very rich but also complicated to better understand its history i suggest to divide that region in six sectors have a look at and :
* 3 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive. <br>
* Inner Manchuria (4 sectors) :
* A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants. <br>
:The "western" border of Inner Manchuria now incorporated in Inner Mongolia
* Note that none mentioned the Russian Far East, Primorsky Krai, Khabarovsk Krai, or North Korea (all of which were former ] territories). <br>
::- the former Xingan/ Hsingan Province (興安)
::- the former Rehe Province (热河/熱河) and Liaobei/Liaopei
<br>
:The "southern" part of Inner Manchuria : the Liao river bank (with Liaodong peninsula), corresponding roughly to the ''former'' Liaoning province including :
:: - former Jinzhou (锦州/錦州) located the right bank the Liao river
:: - former Fengtian (奉天) located on the bank the Liao river
<br>
:The "eastern" part of Manchuria bordering Korean peninsula, corresponding roughly to the actual Jilin Province : southern part of the Sungari basin contain also the banks of Yalu river , the banks of Tuman river and including the Changbai Mountain (Kaema Plateau)
:: - former Antung (安東)
:: - Kirin (吉林)
:: - and Sunkiang/Songjiang (松江) or Binjiang (濱江)
:: - parts of North Korea above the Goryeo Cheolli Jangseong (northern part of North Pyongan, Jagang, Ryanggang, North Hamgyong and South Hamgyong provinces)
<br>
: The "northen" part of Inner Manchuria
:: - Nunkiang/Nenjiang (嫩江)
:: - Hokiang/Hejiang or Sanjiang (三江)
:: - former Heilongjiang (黑龍江)


3) Yes, we understand this is an English-language encyclopedia. But realize that all of us here (proponents of ] and/or its variants) live in English-speaking countries (]). The "Chinese translation" you're referring to (]) is not a translation. "Dongbei" is the romanized version of ] in ]. Many Chinese historical/geographic names use this form of romanization in modern vernacular English. For example, ] was a former term referring to the city of ], nowadays, the use of ] in place of ] is almost non-existant - just like "Manchuria." Also, there are many English websites that use this term in place of both ] (its English counterpart) and ], prime example of this being Encarta Encyclopedia . Also, ] is a very well established geographic term in the English language, as pointed above - almost all Western news corporations (e.g. NYT, ABC, CNN, etc.) adopt ] in place of ] .
* Outer Manchuria (2 sectors) corresponding to well defined at the Nerchinsk Treaty:
: - the actual Primorye/Primorskii Krai ceded by China to Russia in 1860
: - the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai ceded by China to Russia in 1858 including :
:: - Bikinsky District
:: - Vyazemsky District
:: - Lazo District
:: - Khabarovsky District
:: - and eventually Nanaysky District because Nanai peoples are also Tungusic peoples.
<br>
Conclusion :
:::The western part of Manchuria history is closely related to China and Mongolia HIstory
:::The eastern part of Manchuria and the actual Primorye/Primorskii Krai is closely related to Korean History although not necessarily included.
:::The northern part of Manchuria with the southern part of Khabarovsk Krai : are closely related to the Black River Mohe history, the ancestor of the Wild Jurchen and the Nanai peoples.
:: I also emit some reserve concerning Rehe and Xingan province, because i consider that the border of Manchuria / East Tartary are :
:::- on the West : Liao River (see Goguryeo Cheolli Jangseong) and the ] Range
:::- on the South: Goryeo Cheolli Jangseong and Liaodong peninsula
:::- on the north : ] or Outer Khingan Range
:::- on the east : Sakhalin Island and Sea of Japan (East Sea)
:::Have a look on my page ]


The reason why we Northeast Chinese abhor the use of ] is primarily due to historical reasons. For one thing, this term is highly offensive in the eyes of us Northeast Chinese, especially due to its association with the Japanese puppet regime of ] (literally "''state of Manchuria''"). This term can be compared to other offensive terms such as ] or ], which many Chinese consider to be derogatory. (see ])
I think this is a good starting point for an eventual ''article''. For a template, this is too complex. --] (]) 12:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Another reason why ] cannot be used is because this term is not even a ''geographic'' term to begin with. "Manchuria" is rendered as "Manzhou" in ], but this name was originally meant to refer to the ] ''ethnicity'', with absolutely no geographic connotations attached. As described above, the Qing Dynasty (the era which the concept of "Manchuria" was created) referred to this region as either Northeast China or "Eastern Three Provinces," Dongsansheng. However, there was never a geographic region of "Manchuria" in historical records. Therefore, ] fails the ] simply because it is not a valid geographic concept to begin with. ] 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There are still some mistakes in my but i will try to improve it later


:It should be pointed out that "Northeast China" is used in '''none''' of Assault11's media examples as '''proper nouns'''. And Wiki pokemon, you're still using dictionaries entires that only attest to Manchuria as the widely accepted word. Also, about uk.encarta, it should be pointed out that it is different from Encarta 2007. ] 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
== Manchuria vs Dongbei : Trying to find a issue ==


::Sorry, but just judging from the first link "Explosion Kills 25 in Karaoke Parlor in ''']'''," (from NYT) there are plenty of examples which pits ] as a proper noun. In contrast, there are almost zero examples of "Manchuria" being used in a modern context. Manchuria violates the fundamental principle of ], simply because it is not a geographic concept. (Note: ''the UK version of Encarta is currently up-to-date''). ] 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
#The concept of Man Zhou as a geographic entity did not materialize until the 20th century, even then, it existed only as a puppet regime - hence, it is illegitimate. ] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
#:*Are you sure about what you said above??? The Manchuria region is well materialized :
::- on the West Koguryeo ] and
::- on the South : Yan State "great Wall", Koryeo ], the Liaodong peninsula
::- on the East : ] / ] of Korea
::- on the North : ]
:::The correct term to refer to this region is "Northeast China" (Dongbei) - or simply the "Northeast." The use of "Man Zhou" (Manchuria) as a geographic entity has never been in existance aside from the advent of Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo. ] 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::-"Northeast China" (Dongbei) is a correct term if you follow the CPOV or the Zhongguo Minzhu policy otherwise it is meaningless if you want be more more neutral you sould have to use another more appropriate term like "'''Eastern Tartary'''" or "'''Manju gurun'''" or "'''jušen gurun'''". In addition to that Manchuria has never been included as part of ].] 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::This has ''nothing'' to do with CPOV or "Zhonghua Minzu" AT ALL. The term "Manchuria" (rendered as Manzhou in Chinese) has never existed in official Chinese terminology referring to the three provinces of the Northeast. The Qing never called the place Man Zhou, nor did any of its successors. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by "Traditional China Empire/China Proper," I don't subscribe to idiotic Western terminology. ] 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Other alternative names would be '''Sahaliyan''' or Nurkal (Nu'ergan) (]: 努尔干 or 奴儿干 (see also ]) or Guandong (关东/關東)] 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Stop dodging the question. This is about Man Zhou vs. Dong Bei. Since when was Man Zhou ever used (aside from Man Zhou Guo/Manchukuo) as an official term referring to the Three Provinces of the Northeast? Never. ] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::1) Manchuria or Manchu or if you prefer Manju was adopted by Hong Taiji to replace the term Jurchen in 1635.
::2) Dongbei (中国东北) is a Chinese word meaning the Northeast of China according to Chinese Point of view or Inner Manchuria according to general point of view : Dongbei never include Primorye (滨海州) and the southern part of Kharbarovsk Krai (哈巴罗夫斯克边疆区 or 伯力).
::3) Northeastern China is defined by the government of the PRC to include the three northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning (all of them have been created or remodelled around 1955), replacing roughly the former provinces of Republic of China = former Heliongjiang, former Hejiang/Hokiang, former Hsingan/Khingan, former Nunkiang/Nenjiang, former Sungkiang/Songjiang , former Kirin/Jilin, former Liaoph/former Liaobei, former An-tung/Andong.
::=> Dongbei is akin Sinocentrism.I'm very sorry announce that to you.
::=> History of Manchuria template can be created and be used. ] 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


:::I don't follow you. If "Northeast China" is used as a proper noun in that NYT article, why isn't it capitalised?&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of its origin, the word "Manchuria" was already established in the English language by the early 20th century ''before the ]''. See:
* ] article on Manchuria
*
And the current English dictionaries still list "Manchuria". See:
*
*
"Manchuria" was a name given by the Europeans, and there seems to be no alternative name for it in English except a descriptive one such as "a region in northeast China". "Dongbei" is not listed in the English dictionaries.--] 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


::::Look at the title. ] 04:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
: ], I would like to ask you to drop the Chinese point of view and familiarize yourself with ] policy, because this is the '''English Misplaced Pages'''. It is only '''us Chinese''' that use the term "Northeast" or "Dongbei", please keep that in mind.


:::::What? "Kills" and "Karoke Parlor" are also capitalised! Are those proper nouns as well?&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:The term ] might be "stupid", but it is the common English usage in modern Western historiography per sources cited above. In regards of your quote "idiotic Western terminology", again, remember this is the English Misplaced Pages. (]&nbsp;&#149;&nbsp;]) 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


::::::At least those sources completely ruled out Manchuria to be a modern name for the region. The facts are pretty much established, and this case is pretty much closed. Manchuria is the historical name, and Northeast China is the modern name, for the region. There is no dispute about that among all editors. Now it is just about how to comply with ].
::Whlee, Huang Taiji changed the name of Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu (this was later shortened to Man Zu during the ROC), and Later Jin (Hou Jin) to the Great Qing. This name corresponds to the Man Zu (Manchu) '''ethnic''' group - NOT the region of Northeast China.
::::::] 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


::Dongbei was based off of the Three Provinces of the East (Dong San Sheng and includes the lost territories from the Treaty of Aihui/Aigun and the Convention of Beijing), comprised of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Fengtian (Shengjing). The Governor General of the region was known as the Viceroy of Dongsansheng - one of the eight during the Qing.


To ]: According to original wikirule texts, ] is '''not''' the guideline for '''proper names/nouns''' (Please do a string search on "proper", which only appears in the "See also" section, not in the central contents). In contrast, ''']''' is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". Let's go back to ], which is '''the''' guideline for '''geographic''' names. ] does ''not'' apply to non-geographic names, but for any geographic region, it is the critical one. Here and now what is being disputed is the '''geographic''' name, as there is already a consensus saying that "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the historical entity between ] and ]. The historical term is offensive to local English speakers if used anachronistically as a modern geographic name.--] 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::Manchuria is inappropriate because there is not one instance (aside from Man Zhou Guo) where it has been used officially to refer to the region of Northeast China. Not a single Chinese history source I've come across ever mentioned the region of Northeast China as "Man Zhou." As well, Manchuria used to be a common term referring to the Northeast in the English language, however this has been gradually been replaced by Northeast China (case in point: refer to the recent steel plant accident in Liaoning province as reported by CNN ). The usage of Northeast China is also used by Encarta in place of Manchuria . ] 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think we should look on the word "Manchuria" in a geographical sense. ] 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::In theory, that would work, but only if "Manchuria" had actually ''existed''. Besides, what we are making is a history template, therefore it should be within a historical context. Again, I see no problems why the History of China cannot be used especially when Gaogouli is no different from Nan Zhao (which is linked to the HoC template). There is no real need for an HoM template. ] 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What is Nan Zhao? I have never heard of that having a connection to Goguryeo. Goguryeo was a completely independent kingdom during the three kingdoms period. ] 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Jiejunkong, there is no such consensus that "Manchuria" can only be used for the historical period between 1635 and 1945. If you have a problem with the title of this template, please file a request for move. Please work through consensus. ] 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:::See ]. It's basically the predecessor state (some would argue the same state) as ]. I do agree I don't see the relevance Nanzhao has to Goguryeo, particularly given that it's fairly clear that the people of Nanzhao were eventually absorbed into China. That's not so for Goguryeo. --] (]) 07:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::How so? Can you back that up? Of all the primary sources I've looked over, most of the suggested a larger migration of Gaogouli people into Chinese territory (namely Tang/Bohai), especially in comparison with Xinluo (Silla). Take for example, here's what I found in Sanguo Shiji: ''Gao Zong Yi San Wan Ba Qian San Bai Hu Yu Jiang Hui Zi Nan'' In comparison, the Xinluo took only 4000 households. Like Wangkon936 said earlier, most historical sources implied a larger migration of Gaogouli people into Chinese territory than Silla, which is understandable considering much of its territory was located in Northeast China. Gaogouli is similar with the Kingdom of Nan Zhao and Da Li in that both were subordinate states vis-a-vis the Tang Empire and that both are similarly related to Chinese history. ] 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Assault11, I am rather disturbed that my opinions on the matter are being misappropriated. Yes, I would agree with you that circumstantial evidence found in both the Samguk Sagi and The New and Old Books of Tang would indicated that a majority (and it may be a slim majority at that after you net the Koguryo populations that went to the Eastern Turks, Liaodong, Parhae, Silla and Japan) of Koguryo went to Tang. However, you are rather misleading when you use the terms "]" and "assimilation." The definition of "migration" is a population moves from one place to another driven by resource requirements, whether it be due to better jobs, education, food, pastoral migrations, etc. This would imply a voluntary move of population (give certain "pull" factors). Koguryo's population move to Tang territories were, for the most part, not voluntary. The population of Koguryo people set-up in and around the Tang imperial capital were "defectors" to Tang so were the most trusted. Other then that, the vast majority of Koguryo people moved to Tang were untrustworthy or had less status then the Koguryo "defectors." You have to understand the reasoning why Tang did this. At first Tang just moved the families of the elites. However, from 668 A.D. to 673 A.D. the Koguryo population constantly revolted. Tang then systematically moved more and more of the Koguryo population out of their former territory and into all different parts of the Tang Empire with the expressed purpose of making sure that no single parts of Tang territory would have a big enough population for them to state a revolt. This concern of Tangs was played out when the last King of Koguryo, Pojang, lead a revolt in concert with the Malgal population in Liaodong. Furthermore, ] usually implies immigrants who came voluntary and "assimilated" voluntarily. Of course it doesn't always mean that, but the distinction between voluntary and forced assimilation must be made. The people of Koguryo who found themselves in Tang territory, were, for the most part, forcibly taken away (NOT migrated) from their lands and forcibly assimilated into Tang.
:When it comes to migration, in the truest sense of the term, Koguryo people in Silla were "migrants," but Koguryo people in Tang were not.
:Lastly, lets take your conclusion to its logical conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your assertion is: "Because there are more Koguryo people who went to Tang (regardless of whether or not they were forced or went by choice), and Tang is well recognized as a Chinese empire, then Koguryo was Chinese." Is this correct?
:In my opinion, this fact alone does not really "prove" anything because there are probably more people (in terms of shear numbers) of English, German, Jewish and Irish ancestory in the U.S. then there are English in England, Germans in Germany, Jews in Israel, and Irish in Ireland. Does this mean that Ireland, Germany, Israel and England belong to the U.S.? No, it doesn't. Why? Because nationality and culture mean more then simple numbers. It means a cultural heritage, preservation of what remains of that culture, history and heritage, so on and so forth. The culture, history and heritage is best preserved in today's Korea and Korean population. For example, the game "yut" something that my family plays every new years day, is a Koguryo game. Fermented bean paste, a staple of the Korean diet, was from Koguryo. Dress and housing structures was similar to that of the other two Korean kingdoms. As Sarah Nelson would say in her book "The Archaeology of Korea," ".. demonstrate a continuity in dress and house styles from Koguryo to historic Korea..." Ondol heating, which finds no meaningfully similar Chinese central plains culture equivalent, is prevalent in all three Korean kingdoms. So is clothing, such as trousers tied to the ankles and shoes with upturned toes. Religion wise, all three kingdoms have a mix of buddism and shamanism, with women clerics being prominent in shamanism. Further along this vein, Dr. Nelson would state, "Koguryo wall murals depict clothing, hair styles, dwellings and even kitchens that were little changed into ." ] 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Wangkon936, lets not to quibble over semantics. Whether it be ] (and yes, it is still considered "migration" nonetheless) or involuntary assimilation is not the issue here, the fact that the majority of Gaogouli people are now Chinese is the main point I was getting across, which was in response to Nlu's comment. Instead of making an argument (strawman) and attributing it to me on the presumption that it was my case, I would suggest that you read over my replies more carefully next time. By the way, some of your points might be flawed, just a brief search of this "Ondol" reminds me of the "Da Kang" - a stove-heated bed common throughout Northern China (including Dongbei). Whether they are similar, I'm not exactly sure. Whatever the case is, this is not something that I have brought up and I do not intend to issue a rebuttal for it. ] 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


:"Manchuria" as a historical entity, existed from ] to ], accordingly "History of Manchuria" will have contents from ] to ]. If you use "Manchuria" as a historic geographic name, then it must be accompanied by (Northeast China), accordingly the title must be "History of Manchuria(Northeast China)".
I don't see any sources. ] 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:] 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


:: "Manchuria" is not a historic name. It is a consistent and standardized name for the geographic region like Siberia and Transylvania are. It has been called by different names throughout history like it is called "Northeastern region of China" today. However, we should call it Manchuria since it has long been standardized along international community. I don't think there is a rule stating naming such places have to be parallel to what the containing country calls it. ] (]) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
:And assuming that Assault11 is (again) citing the '']'', it doesn't say what he claims that it says. --] (]) 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


: To Cydevil38, you cannot convince me that "Manchuria" is a modern name '''in the English-speaking world''' unless you can convince all private sector media ]s, in particular CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, to rename "northeast/northeastern China" to "Manchuria" in their news report about present-day China. Your "English-speaking world" argument is not solid either. The base of your arguments is being challenged.--] 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) BTW, the term "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the region between 1635 and 1945 is a consensus. Don't add the word "only" to my original sentence.--] 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
::No, I did not cite the New Book of Tang. In fact, I never even used it to support my argument before - that is, if you even bothered reading my responses some time ago. In any case, if you missed it, the source I quoted from was directly from (in English, although the one I quoted from was from the Chinese version). Again, if you have any more information that suggests Silla as the main receiver of Gaogouli migrants, feel free to prove me wrong. ] 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The source of the sentence that says many Goguryeo migrants were assimilated into the Tang is by Chinese authors as well as many of the other sources compiled.


This entire argument appears to rest on ignorance of English idiom. All of Wikipokemon's examples above use "northeast China", "northeastern China", or "NE China". None of these are, or can be, proper nouns. One of them refers to use in ''Chinese'' of ''Dongbei'', "Northeast". This is not English usage. As far as I recall, '''all''' of them deal with present usage, and are entitled ''Manchuria''. I am not sure what Cause all this fallacious argument is intended to foster: if it were made straightforwardly, I might be willing to agree to amend ] accordingly. But this sort of thing might as well be calculated to lose the sympathy of relatively neutral observers. ] <small>]</small> 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Also, who assimilated into who doesn't really matter. A destroyed Korean kingdom that is assimilated into China doesn't mean that the Korean kingdom is automatically part of China. You should also note that we don't know how many people went to Balhae or Silla. I don't think you should dwell on "how many people went to where". ] 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


:Please quote original texts from "]" to present your "proper name/noun" case. This is a request for meaningful discussion, since it is mentioned above that ''']''' is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". The current contents of ] say nothing about "proper name/noun". Contrast to what you said, ] defines guidelines for '''geographic''' names.--] 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Please be more specific, Samguk Sagi is a Korean source. What are you trying to get at? Most sources indirectly ''imply'' that Tang ended up receiving more migrants than Silla. This sets the number of Gaogouli migrants to Tang at 300,000 and Bohai at 100,000 out of a total population of roughly 700,000. This has all been discussed in the archives. Besides, I did not bring this issue up. I only pointed out the similarities between Nan Zhao and Gaogouli. ] 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


::I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making. "Geographic names" and "proper names" are not mutually exclusive at all. The examples mentioned in its "examples" section are things like Gdańsk/Danzig, Volgograd/Stalingrad, Istanbul/Constantinople, etc. ... proper names all.&mdash;]<sup>(]·])</sup> 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Just some clarification. The numbers you give are not of individuals but of households. The average number of people per household in Sui and Tang times was around 5 or 6, meaning that 100,000 households would mean 500,000 to 600,000 individuals. This would make Koguryo's population at the time of her fall at 3.5 to 4.1 million people. ] 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


:::If you are talking about ], then create a section to talk about ]. Since the section title is ], let's stick to the rule ], and discuss based on what the rule ] exactly says, is this the proper way a discussion should go?--] 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
'''A destroyed Korean kingdom that is assimilated into China doesn't mean that the Korean kingdom is automatically part of China.''' ] 19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


::::I think we can put it this way, "geographic names" is a subset of "proper nouns". Therefore ] should provide guidelines about "proper nouns" for ], and not the other way around. ] might be over stepping jurisdiction when he/she decides to dictate "proper nouns" out of ].
:''Whlee, please address my arguments regarding Dongbei vs. Man Zhou, again, adding both would not infringe upon the NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages and would put the template in a more historical context''
::::] 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::Dear ], Dongbei would not put the template in a more historical context. ] is corresponding roughly to ]. Manchuria = Dongbei + ]. adding the terms (Northeast China) close to Manchuria on the title is not appropriate. have a look on . But following ] Guideline Dongbei and Russian Far East are included in that template. Thank you for your comprehension. Regards.] 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::{{Misplaced Pages:Proper names]] does not define ] either; it just says we should use them as titles — which we should. ] <small>]</small> 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Whlee, you have to realize that "Inner Manchuria" (and it seems the Misplaced Pages article for it has been deleted, redirecting it to the main "Manchuria" page) - like "Manchuria" (or Man Zhou) - is not officially recognized and has never served as a geographic entity in Chinese historiography. It has never been used by the Qing or any of its successors To this day. In fact, many Northeasterners consider the term "Manchuria" or "Man Zhou" as an insult, due to the connection with the former Japanese puppet regime and possible separatist connotations. This is why "Manchuria" is gradually being replaced by "Dongbei." As well, if you notice the ] article, the Chinese term for it is NOT "Outer Man Zhou," but "Outer Dongbei." This is because Dongbei is synonymous with the term "Manchuria," and historical Dongbei (refer to the Gaogouli talk page) did indeed encompass the last territories to Russia.


== Anyone? ==
:1) Someone warned you previously but seemingly you "refuse to cooperate" :
:: ], I would like to ask you to drop the Chinese point of view and familiarize yourself with ] policy, because this is the '''English Misplaced Pages'''. It is only '''us Chinese''' that use the term "Northeast" or "Dongbei", please keep that in mind.
:2) I got of several questions to you :
::A) Do you consider peoples living in Manchuria (Hezhen/Goldi/], ],] living in ], ], ] or ]) as "Northeasterners" as well ?
::B) I'm working on a project called Manchu Misplaced Pages do you consider that Manchu/Manchu language as an insult?? I am very upset.. Manchu peoples can be proud of their culture and their history.
::C) What about Uighurs and Tibetans do you call them "Northwesterners" and "Southwesterners"? Once again i qualify that as Sinocentrism.


With this in mind, I will be reverting the template again, if you have any further questions, please talk first. ] 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. ] 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:I would suggest merging ] into ]. The article admits that its subject is commonly so called in English, and indeed it is. ] <small>]</small> 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:
:: Therefore i will revert it and add a template.
: In addition to that repating Northeast China is redundant, and incompatible with ] or ]] 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


::Both ] and ] stated that Manchuria is a historical region. Period of "Manchuria" history is generally from 1635 to 1945, which is the main focus of ]. It is very uncommon (almost never in English news and by governments and companies) to use "Manchuria" to refer to present day Northeast China (after 1945). The most common usage of Manchuria is when it is used in the context of the Qing dynasty and Manchukuo in WWII. For period before 1635, it is a mixture of Northeast China and Manchuria.] (]) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Whlee, it was a request - not a warning. I have done nothing wrong. And regarding your questions:


Whoever wants to change this template's name should request a move. Otherwise, it should stay as "History of Manchuria". ] (]) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A) Yes, they are "Dongbei Ren" (or Northeasterners) as along as they are born within modern Northeast China - regardless of ethnicity, however this definition does not encompass "historical" Dongbei (lost territories to Russia).


:I have read the above discussion, and there is a rather large dispute about the template. Since there hasn't been a change in months, it should be stay as is until some sort of agreement is reached. If discussion is still ongoing, I would like to join in as I've been referred here in several articles about Northeast China. ] (]) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
B) Again, you seem to be missing my point here. I myself, am a native Dongbei Ren (Northeastern Chinese) and I do have some Manchu ancestry (according to the family Jia Pu). I would certainly not consider the Manchu language as an insult, but ''the use of "Man Zhou" in place of Dongbei as a geographic entity is a grave insult to us Northeasterners''. Keep in mind that a lot of Chinese tend to associate "Man Zhou" with the Japanese puppet regime of "Man Zhou Guo," and this is why this term generally gets a bad rap from us Northeasterners. Not only that, it is historically inaccurate in that it has never existed in official Chinese historiography as a geographic entity. I have repeated this several times, I recommend that you RE-READ this over again in case you misquote me again.
::Lack of changes does not imply consensus. Rather, the title you keep reverting to is the result of persistent edit warring. Lets play this by the rule of consensus, on which Misplaced Pages is built upon. The template title is History of Manchuria, so lets keep it that way within the template as well. If you have a problem with it, please request a move. ] (]) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
: I am partially agree with you : Manchuria is not an insult terms BUT Manchukuo. Chinese people have to make efforts not associate Manchuria/manchu with the Japanese puppet regime of "Man Zhou Guo". Northeasterners is almost meaningless towards peoples who live outside China. For instance i am French and i never say Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians as "Northeasterners" because there are living in the "Northeast of Europe".
:: If some people consider ManZhou as an insult, a better and peaceful solution is to then not use Manzhou, instead of asking them to accept it as not an insult and live with it. Any decent person would do that. It is peoples right not to want to use ManZhou anymore but prefers Dongbei. Maybe to satisfy everybody, we can use "Northeast China/Manchuria" or in Goguryo case "Northeast China/Inner Manchuria"


:::Ye gods, just let sleeping dogs lie. ''''']]]''''' 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


I never said consensus was reached. The title of "History of Manchuria" was kept within the template, it was not removed - only that "Northeast China" was added in parenthesis. I agree with the other editors that this should not be removed. As for Russian Far East, it can be argued, when taking into account the non-Chinese regions ceded during the latter half of the Qing Dynasty. ] (]) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
C) No, they are not considered "Northwesterners" or "Southwesterners" because the region of Xinjiang and Xizang (Tibet) are well-defined geographic entities in Chinese historigraphy. As well, unlike "Dongbei," there is no such thing as "Xibei Ren" or "Xinan Ren."
:The pluarity consensus, as well as neutral opinions, was to keep the title as "History of Manchuria". If you want any changes to this title, please make a request for move and make the change based on consesus, not edit warring. If you revert the title one more time, I'll assume that you intend to change the title of this template, and I'll kindly make the request for move on your behalf. ] (]) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Modern Dongbei does not include the lost territories to Russia, however ''historic Dongbei'' does - refer to the ] article (note that the Chinese name for it is Wai Dongbei - or Outer Dongbei). If you scroll back up, the Encarta encyclopedia I referred to also use Dongbei in place of Manchuria because both terms are used interchangeably (only that Dongbei is more within a historical context).
::Wow, the absurdity of this all. Did anyone check, say, google news, which reports a good deal of hits for "Manchuria" in 2009? Personally I learned 'Manchuria' in an American history class, and later Chinese revisionism is not a good reason to change titles of commonly-accepted words in the English language. I have a good friend with Manchurian ancestry, and I can definitely tell you he uses the term himself with no hint of irony and would be startled to know that his family supposedly 'found it offensive'. The words "northeast China" have unreasonably large opportunity for false positives. Note "in the northeast China", for one, has no logical relation to the northeastern part of China (more often it is "in the northeast, China" or "in the northeast China Sea/shop/etc."), and has 15k hits on its own. How many other phrases are there? Reading the discussion is an education in how two or three people backing one position can sound like an actual faction. ] (]) 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
: Really ? then have a look at ] and ]. I only consider Dongbei is a modern term designating one of the nine ]. But this template is related to History of Manchuria.
:: I see it strange to have to stopped Goguryo association with later history at Manchuria. How about the period from end of Manchuria to TODAY? Today that is Northeastern China. Goguryo is within yesterdays Inner Manchuria and within todays Norhteastern China.


== Requested move ==
I have explained this many times before and my actions regarding this issue are all done in good faith and in accordance with the NPOV policies of Misplaced Pages. Please do not accuse me of anything that I am not guilty of. Thanks. ] 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
: I do not accuse you personnally, I accuse policies reducing knowledge via "simplistic" point of view. For instance, I prefer ] rather than ].] 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


] → ] — First, I make my position clear that I myself is against this move. I am making this request for move because some people have been persistently changing the title within the template that is different from the title of the template itself. Many steps were taken to help establish consensus, such as 3rd opinion, RfC and RfCU and a survey, but these editors still persist on the name "Northeast China". I have repeatedly asked them to request a move if they wish to change the title, but they just kept changing the title within the template without changing the template title itself, which lead to continued edit warring. So I make this request for move in hope to estalish consensus on the title of this template and put an end to the edit warring. —] (]) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Does Goguryo even occupy the entire Manchuria? From the map I see it only occupy parts of Inner Manchuria, which is today Northeastern China. It is therefore more accurate to link Goguryo to only Inner Manchuria/Northeastern China instead of the entire Manchuria. The template should use the title "History of Inner Manchuria/Northeastern China" to better reflect the Goguryo historical extension to present day. I wonder if Russia ever occupy Inner Manchuria. If not then Russia could be taken out to simplfy thing even more.


===Survey===
I am going to change the template title to "History of Northeast China (Previously Inner Manchuria)" with Northeast China and Manchuria link to its respective page. I will also exclude Russia from the template. I am doing this because Goguryo in found only within Northeast China (Previously Inner Manchuria), and Russia is found only in Outer Manchuria.
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since ], please explain your reasons, taking into account ].''
:: That's wrong there was also a Russian protectorate in Northeast Chinaat the dawn of the 20th century.


*'''Support''': I would support this move because "Manchuria" is indeed offensive to people of the Northeast region of China because of the imperialist overtones associated with it. I say this as a person who comes from this area of China. I would certainly advise most people to not openly refer to the region as "Manzhou" when visiting.
:Whlee, if you understand Chinese, you would realize the similarities between the terms "Manchuria" and "Manchukuo" in the Chinese context (Key word: "Man Zhou"). Allow me to make it clear that you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find ANY Northeasterner introducing themselves as "Man Zhou Ren" or from "Man Zhou." This is something only native Dongbei Ren would understand, so please be a bit more understanding.


The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.
:Allow me to rephrase my statement. Yes, geographically, "Xibei/Xinan" exists, but you don't call refer to the people of the region as "Xibei Ren" or "Xinan Ren" (at least thats something I've never heard of before). This is because their respective provinces/autonomous regions (e.g. Xinjiang/Xizang) are already well-defined. And unlike Xibei/Xinan, the people located within the Northeast are known collectively as "Dongbei Ren," mostly due to the relatively homogeneous regional culture (another reason why "Dongbei" is viewed synonymously with "Manchuria" since it encompasses all the areas - ''whether it be historic or modern'' - as in the English definition).


Some examples of why it is an offensive term:
:Lastly, regarding the person above. I agree that we should be using "History of Dongbei" or "History of Northeast China" as the title of the template (additions in brackets can help clarify things too), for reasons explained above. This, in theory would be the best possible outcome. Any exclusion of "Dongbei/Northeast China" on the title of the template would be of great disservice to not only us Northeasterners, but the readers in general. ] 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


:1) ] (傅斯年), the first director of the Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica, rejected the use of "Manchuria" in his "Dongbei Shigang" report to the Lytton Commission on the grounds that "Manchuria" was historically inaccurate and a geographical misnomer.
:: I would accept to allow the use of Northeast China on the title on ONE condition : adding ] as well. If both are used i wont add a veto again.] 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


:2) Top Japanese scholars such as 中見立夫 (Zhongjian Lifu in Chinese, not sure about its romanization in English/]) of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies also agree that "Manchuria" was never used as a regional name. This was even echoed by Japanese historian supporters of the Japanese puppet regime ] during the 1930s.
::: Whlee, you have objection to Northeast China because it covers only part of Manchuria. But now you have added Russian Far East which is a lot bigger than Manchuria. I will leave the template for now. However I still think in the discussion of Goguryo, this template should just use Northeast China and not Manchuria. This is because it is only in Northeast China that Goguryo had its presence felt. It will make the template simple, tidy, up-to-date and accurate.


:3) And according to Associate Professor, David Edgington at ]:
::::Dear 208.106.25.153, Thank you for leaving Russian Far East on that template If you look at what it was written below and if you link at the following then you will understand my point of view. I prefer using Russian Far East because parts of its territory especially Amur Oblast, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, '''the southern part''' of Khabarovsk Krai, and Primorye have tight links with the history of that part of Asia, have a look at ] : does is belong to North East China? not really it belong to Russian Far East ] was created 1866 in but archeoligcal sites are found at its vicinity which was previously called Shuaibin in Chinese and Solbin in Korean.


:"Although prewar Japanese came to perceive "Manchuria" as a separate or discrete entity, the term is of abstract utility only and is not a genuine geographic term. Of European origin, it designated only the homeland of the Manchus, but imperialist competition resulted in its reification. Chinese refer to the region historically as the "three eastern provinces" (dongsansheng) or, since 1945, as simply the "northeast" (dongbei)."
Now we're back to square one. I have said this many times, and I'll say it again: "Northeast China" is ''synonymous'' with the modern geographic concept of "Manchuria" (e.g. reference to popular online encyclopedia Encarta supports this ), only that these "lost" territories are part of '''historic''' Dongbei (do not confuse with ''historic'' and ''modern'' Dongbei - and this is why terms such as "Outer Manchuria" are referred to as "Outer '''Dongbei'''" in Chinese ). On the other hand, there is no Russian term that refers to the region of NE China/Manchuria as a whole, so I see no reason why it should be added. ] 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


:The above is why I would support the move. ] (]) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Assalut11, i would like to thank you for gving that link, i read carefullly, but this is a little bit biased at several times :
* Dongbei (also formerly known as Manchuria), historical region of north-eastern China, comprising the provinces of Heilongjiang (Heilungkiang), Jilin (Kirin), and Liaoning. Traditionally the region included a much larger area extending west to what is now the Republic of Mongolia. => They forget Primorye, Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Oblast. In modern literature, “Manchuria” usually refers to Inner (Chinese) Manchuria while the remaining (Russian ) part of that historic region is known as “Outer Manchuria”.
* The Chinese Han dynasty (206 bc-ad 220) maintained a military presence and colonies in much of the region, but after its collapse succeeding dynasties had only limited control over southern Dongbei. => that is wrong the northern part of that region (including Heilongjiang) have never been under the control on any of the four commanderies (Xuantu/Hyeondo; Lelang/Nagnang, Lindun/Imdun or Zhenfan/Jinbon)
* The Ming dynasty, which threw off Mongol rule in 1368, re-established Chinese control of Dongbei. => that's wrong they controlled only Jinzhou region corresponding to the actual Liaoning
* The Manchu rulers at first refused to permit development of Dongbei and even forbade Chinese immigration into the region until the late 18th century, but eventually Chinese colonists began flooding in to take advantage of its natural wealth. By the end of the 19th century the Chinese composed approximately 80 per cent of Dongbei’s population. => The weaken Qing Empire fearing that this region would passed through Russian sphere of influence allow the migration of Chinese settlers originated from Shnadong to face that situation.
* After Japan's defeat in World War II, Dongbei was briefly occupied by Soviet troops (1945-1946), who looted it on their withdrawal. It remains China's industrial heartland.=> biaised point of view.


*'''Oppose''' - Manchuria is the common English name for this entity, whereas Northeast China is, if used, either a secondary or local name for this entity, or an uncommon name, or a non-proper name that cannot be the title of a Misplaced Pages template or article. Also, the title and contents of a template should remain concise. For details, people may click on the link to the article on Manchuria to see what it consists of, the geographic definition of which may vary based on different historic periods, context and interpretation. Most importantly, this template was created for the intended purpose of concisely organizing historic articles related to Manchuria, not Northeast China or Russian Far East.] (]) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:* They didn't forget it. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice the following: "Continual Russian encroachments on the northern frontier resulted in agreements between China and Russia in 1689, 1858, and 1860, fixing the Sino-Russian frontier along the Amur River to the Ussuri River."
:* Read it carefully, "presence" does not necessarily mean "control."
:* There wasn't even the existance of a "Manchu" ethnicity then. This was even before Huang Taiji declared the transition from Hou Jin to Da Qing and Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu. Jianzhou Nuzhen were also "vassals" of the Ming (and ]) - the same people who united all <s>Northeastern Chinese</s> (no ]) tribes (mostly Nuzhen) and created the Qing Dynasty. In short, the term could be used to refer to the region as a whole.
:* Whats your point? The Manchus are Chinese.
:* How exactly is that biased? I can tell you for a fact that the Russians were certainly no angels in the eyes of <s>Northeast</s> Chinese. In fact, the dismantling of Northeast China's industrial equipment is very well documented .
:: ''(...) Chiang Kai-shek came to the painful realization that he lacked the resources to prevent a CCP takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure. He therefore made a deal with the Russians to delay their withdrawal until he had moved enough of his best-trained men and modern materiel into the region. Nationalist troops were then airlifted by the United States to occupy key cities in North China, when the countryside had been already dominated by the Communist Party of China. The Soviets spent the extra time systematically dismantling the entire Manchurian industrial base (worth up to 2 billion dollars) and shipping it back to their war-ravaged country (...)'' They were not angels but they were more tolerant than ] (no war crimes/genocides) towards the Chinese but not the Polish (Katyn massacre)


*'''Oppose''' for the reasons given by ] above. If the title were currently ], there might be some credence to the imperialism charge. However, Manchuria is the common English name for the region (even if not common in Chinese) and it predates the Japanese creation of Manchukuo. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What you just quoted is exactly what Encarta paraphrased. There is nothing POV in the excerpt, you just contradicted yourself. ] 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' the ''English'' name of the region is Manchuria. ] (]) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:Whlee, I have been repeating myself for quite a while now, not only that, I have been answering all your questions. Now, I would like you to reciprocate my persistant replies by answering the questions I had asked you:
*'''Oppose''' per 192... The English name of Manchuria is Manchuria; what it is called in Chinese, or whether it represents 17th century usage are valid questions which the article should discuss; but not to the detriment of clarity. ] <small>]</small> 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


*'''Support''' per nominator. The name 'Manchuria' is clearly archaic, potentially offensive and technically incorrect; I don't see what's so bad about 'History of Northeast China and Russian Far East', myself. ] (]) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:1) Do you have anything to disprove the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria?
**Evidence for any of this? ] <small>]</small> 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:: ''No for two reasons :
***Perhaps see my post above? There's also some examples laid out in previous discussion and pages too. But if still in doubt, we can create a new discussion and I can go into a bit of detail into this matter if you wish. But as for "Manchuria" being archaic and offensive, it is definitely so. Regards. ] (]) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::- Not yet
**The nominator opposes the move. And 'Manchuria' is certainly not an archaic word when it is the most common name in reliable sources published between year 2000 and year 2008. This issue has been discussed extensively, so it may be helpful to track back on the discussion here. ] (]) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::- because disproving the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria, is not adopting a NPOV attitude. and addition to that i agree to consider ] as a one of the ] in economic and social terms.''
***Editor Cydevil38, I think he was referring to me. You're partially correct. Although it must be stressed that the use of "Manchuria" is largely (though exceptions remain) relegated to the early 20th century time frame and many respectable historians acknowledge that the use of this term is largely for convenience and context, but not for historical accuracy. But definitely, there is greater awareness in academic circles about the use of this term than ever before. I can give a few examples later if you want. But I see that you are still around. Is it possible that you reply to my message I had left on your talkpage? I would be interested in your personal opinion. Thanks. ] (]) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' Use a simple, ] for a template. ] (]) 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:2) Do you have anything to prove that "Manchuria" was used by Chinese to refer to the region of what is now Northeast China and the former Chinese territories in the Russian Far East?
:: ''Manchuria is written like 滿洲 in Chinese and Manju in Romanized Manchu but the problem with that is a matter of interpretation between Manju (= Manchuria/满洲) and Manju (=Manchu/滿族 well defined by Hung Taiji).''


*'''Oppose''' The history of Manchuria should not be confused with the history of North East China due to (i) the different geographical location of Manchuria and Northeast China until recent history and (ii) the history of Manchuria englobing parts of current-day north korea and russia which have nothing to do with "northeast china". I recommend to keep this article as it is and not mention northeast china; if really necessary we can look into creating a NEW article on the "history of NorthEast China" with the latter focused on the history of the north-eastern section of the kingdom/empire of China since the start of the Qin dynasty. Only for limited periods did the latter include parts of Manchuria. --] (]) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:3) Do you have anything to prove that the concept of "Manchuria" as a geographic entity existed prior to the 20th century?
:: - Not yet. what about you?
''Northeastern China is defined by the government of the People's Republic of China to include the three northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning and, thus, the region is sometimes called the Three Northeastern Provinces (东北三省/東北三省; Dōngběi Sānshěng).''
:: Do you have anything to prove that the concept of "Dongbei" (excluding the term Guandong) as a geographic entity corresponding to "Manchuria" existed prior to the 20th century?


::'''Comment'''. If we are to use "History of Manchuria", the content should be changed to with starting year on 1635 and ending year on 1945. ] (]) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:4) Do you have anything to prove the existance of the terms "Inner Manchuria" and "Outer Manchuria" in official terminology (whether it be Chinese, Russian, etc.)?
:: - No. Not yet.
:5) Do you have anything to prove Dongbei only refers to - assuming it even exists - "Inner Manchuria" (if yes, then your answer contradicts article)
''Outer Manchuria (Chinese: 外滿洲), known in China as Outer Northeast (Chinese: 外東北), is the territory ceded by China to Russia in the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860. The area comprises the present-day Russian areas of Primorsky Krai, southern Khabarovsk Krai, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Amur Oblast. Another interpretation also adds the island of Sakhalin.
In contrast to Outer Manchuria, the part of Manchuria that is still part of China is referred to as "Inner Manchuria".''
:: I agree completely those sentences written in article. I dont see any objections on it.] 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


:::'''Comment'''. I could argue that in the same way as Ming, Tang, Song, Han are different names for Qin (China), Manchu is a different name for the Jurchen, Mohe, Xibe, or Balhae people who have been around in Manchuria since the 7th century AD. However, this was not my point. For most people in this world (except perhaps in China), "History of Manchuria" points to the region located between the Great Wall and the Yalu river while "History of North-East China" is ambiguous at best. ] (]) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' I still firmly believe that "Manchuria" is the more common English variant of the name of the region. ] (]) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing that you have provided in previous discussions disproves the fact that Dongbei = Manchuria. Disprove by points (by addressing the above questions), and I will accept your proposal. (''I'm almost sure that if i were able to disprove them one by one you will maybe find other points, it is a kind of "balkanization" of that talk page, i refuse the challenge you know my point of view as i wrote previously and i will be entrenched on it even though you are not agree''). Keep in mind RFE encompasses not just Outer Dongbei or Wai Dongbei in Chinese language, but other areas as well, thus inappropriate. Whereas Dongbei in the Chinese context refer to the entire region of Manchuria (whether it be historic or modern present-day Dongbei - or "Dongsansheng" during the Qing). ] 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' Manchuria is Manchuria, once a separate state, a foreign land to Chinese and Russian. The truth is that Russia and China tore Manchuaria off piece by piece. ] (]) 05:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming really tiring now, Whlee. You seem to ignore all the previous points I have made and keep making redundant statements that have already been thoroughly refuted.


===Discussion===
* "''Whlee, Huang Taiji changed the name of Nu Zhen to Man Zhou Zu (this was later shortened to Man Zu during the ROC), and Later Jin (Hou Jin) to the Great Qing. This name corresponds to the Man Zu (Manchu) ethnic group - NOT the region of Northeast China.''"
:''Any additional comments:''


== Protection ==
* "''Dongbei was based off of the Three Provinces of the East (Dong San Sheng and includes the lost territories from the Treaty of Aihui/Aigun and the Convention of Beijing), comprised of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Fengtian (Shengjing). The Governor General of the region was known as the Viceroy of Dongsansheng - one of the eight during the Qing.''"


The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template. Folks, please ''discuss'' rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts. Thanks. --] (]) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So far, you have provided zero explanation on the official uses of the geographic "Man Zhou" in Chinese historiography (''not even the Qing called this place "Man Zhou''). This area has never been geographically defined until the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo. In contrast, I have provided several explanations on the uses of Northeast China (Dongbei Sansheng), ever since the Qing Dynasty. I have provided sources explaining that Dongbei is synonymous with the term "Manchuria" and that Dongbei also encompasses the lost territories to Russia as a result of the ] . ] 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


:Thanks. I think more discussion will be helpful. Personally, I feel its not necessary to "move" this template because a the title only adds "Northeast China" in parenthesis. In fact, I can't find any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says you have to move the template. As indicated in previous discussions, Northeast China is not an uncommon name used nowadays, and is definitely gaining in use, both in academic works and the media (I can cite some examples if requested). Not to mention it has historic credibility as a typonym (unlike Manchuria, which was intended to be an ethnic group) and is officially known as such by locals of the region. I think "Northeast China" should definitely be emphasized one way or another. But I'm open to suggestions. Regards. ] (]) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


== Timetable of Manchuria from 300 BC to the 20th century ==
It starts voluntarily at 300 BC with the extension of Yan Kingdom in Liaoning thanks to general Qin Kai under King Zhao (311 BC-279 BC) and at the same time the creation of Mukden/Shenyang.


== ] (地豆于) ==
* I have just finished to create a . There are still cells which remained uncomplete because i am not a specialist of the history of the ]. The borderlines in red are NOT poltical borders :they are geographical and cultural borders. The "postulate" which helped me to achieved that painful task was : '''most of the civilizations have been generated on valley regions''' (Indus valley for India, the Huangho and Yangze plain for China the Naktong River plain for Silla, the Yalu banks for Goguryeo etc...). Hence i divided that region in 5 parts which later become roughly the 5/6 provinces of modern Manchuria Inner Mnachuria (Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang) Outer Manchuria (Amur Oblast, Khabarosk Krai and Martime/ Primorye).
We have to keep that in mind that this timetable's aims consist in being a mediated outcome and have to reduce as much as possible nationalistic point of view without forgetting the autochtones inhabitants of that region.


* I will now focus my efforts on Manchu Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your comprehension. ] 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Please, add the Didouyu to this list. ] (]) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


== Multiple links ==


There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities. This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria. There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.--] (]) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
== Proposition of renaming template ==
:You should understand what coexistence mean. Some kingdoms existed in this regions very long and span the timeline of several other entities. Former Yan, Later Yan etc have never occupy the whole regions singlehandedly AND occupied only a small southern part of this regions. You can't put these entities as the only thing on a row as if they were the only one there. The format you are promoting is misleading. What is important is accurate information not just looking good. Besides, it looks better with all the entities matching their timelines. ] (]) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Having not found any compromise with the definition of Manchuria, I accept to follow 208.106.25.153 's idea in creating/renaming the template into northeast China but on ONE condition deleting Manchuria for two reasons :
:Also History Temple shoul be based on timeline to be informative. This template is also based on timelines, for example Han is not placed below Tang. ] (]) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
: 1) Manchuria is going to be an obsolete terms according to some point of view . It was also used at the beginning to designate Manchu peoples and not a geographic part of Asia.
The template was created that way, and for you to make such a drastic change to the template you'll need major consensus. You can start a consensus and ask for editors opinions of whether to add these links.--] (]) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


:I don't think I'm making a dramatic change here. I'm trying to correct mistakes. ] (]) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
: 2) Chinese Northeasterners prefer to banish/prevent the use of that term because of remembering Manchukuo (a Japanese puppet-state), and assimilating that term to Manchuria.
It is a drastic change when you are basically changing the whole format of this template by adding multiple duplicated links. By the way, all of the links on this template are sorted in a chronological order, i.e. in ''order of appearances'' (it doesn't mean that these entities ceased or how long they've lasted).--] (]) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


This is a History template not a list of kingdoms. It should be created according to history. ] (]) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
: 3) There will not be any ambiguity/confusion on it and as said Assault11, we are back to square one.
:The multiple-links form is not good layout. If this template is changed to reflect the ''coexistence'', it should adopt the form of ]. Otherwise, I don't support to add so many same links to this template.--] (]) 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
On the others cases (leaving Manchuria close to Northeast China on the title as a headline) i would be '''strongly''' entrenched on my positions because i would never accept Paleosiberians and Tungusic peoples as being assimilated as "Northeasteners" because of belonging to historic "Dongbei" or "Outer Dongebi" : ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Otherwise it can be considered as an offense to people philologists and scholars (linguist, Manchurist) interested in everything related to Manchu peoples by spending time and energy on it... ] 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make this template look that good, it is fine with me. But please don't prevent people to improve the contents of this History template. ] (]) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:It's fine to improve the content. But it's not good to make the template ugly. The template clearly states that it is "not based on timeline". If you still worry that it may confuse the readers, we may change it to alphabetical order. --] (]) 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid Accuracy is before beauty. Besides it is not ugly at all. As I said if you think it is ugly, you can improve on the look if you like. ] (]) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:If you really care about ''accuracy'', then why did you only add multiple links to ]. Why not add ]? How many links should also be added? You will find how ugly it will be. And, this template is ''not'' inaccurate. As I said, it clearly states that it is "not based on timeline". --] (]) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Elknz, I don't think Neo-Jay is talking about "beauty" per se. It is about the basic layout and the format of how a template should be, in which all of the same duplicate links you inserted would distort the format of the article. Also, as I said above, this template is already sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities.--] (]) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:You two are talking about "'''List of Kingdoms'''". I'm not familiar with Khitan. That's why I didn't add it. If you know, you should add. Why didn't you add then? Since this is a '''History''' template, it should provide information according to history information. ] (]) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::This template ''DOES'' provide information according to history. As Balthazarduju said, it is ''sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities''. If you want to solve the ''coexistence'' problem, the only way is to adopt the format of ]. Otherwise, please don't change. Thanks.--] (]) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:The current format is misleading and inappropriate for History Template. One row on the template should represent a time frame. All entities existed in the timeline should be on that row. That's the way history template should be. There is nothing wrong with repeating. It adds for imformation and make it look better ] (]) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::No, the current format is not misleading and not inappropriate. Period. --] (]) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


== December 2009 Revision and Revert ==
This template webpage name is History of Manchuria. It is also used in Manchuria. To avoid conflict I have create a new History of Northeast China template. I will remove History of Manchuria template from Goguryo page and add the new History of Northeast China template. Whlee you are welcome to edit this template you see fit to address "Manchuria" history.
:I mean you are free to edit the History of Manchuria template according to your interpretation of "Manchuria".
:: Thank you Wiki pokemon.] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by {{user|Altaicmania}} are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:
Whlee, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain more clearly so I know what you're trying to get across. Also, Manchus are Chinese. If you want to create a ] or ] template, then by all means, feel free to do so. But whatever the case is, I will certainly not accept anything that would compromise Dongbei.
:: I will not compromise the existence of the term Dongbei i am agree with Wiki pokemon to create ] as a template.
Also, there is absolutely NO need for a "History of Manchuria" ''and'' a "History of Northeast China" template because they refer to the '''same thing''' (refer to above sources). Whoever created it, please have it deleted. ] 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
: I dont agree with you and i will give you a proof : . I will therefore support the "History of Northeast China" template. It is interesting to note that both term "Modern Northeastern China-Political" and "Manchuria" are used.　 ] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


#It breaks consensus -- it took a while to reach the current version by consensus;
What? A History of Northeast China in place of a HoM template is what I am trying to convey here. How are you disagreeing with me? ] 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
#It eliminates a large number of states and peoples which were fully or partially within Manchuria for no good reason;
#It ties the timelines down in ways that are not sufficiently justified.


:Not all Manchus are Chinese. --] (]) 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I've therefore reverted. Discussion on this is, however, welcome. I can be convinced with good argument. --] (]) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
::: I agree Nlu point of view.] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


==Academic consensus==
::If you go by nationality, that can apply to any of the official 56 ethnic groups of China. But generally, Manchus are Chinese. In modern times, they were also one of the first ethnic groups to be recognized. ] 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
*{{cite book|last=Seth|first=Michael J.|title=A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WJtMGXyGlUEC&pg=PA443|year=2010 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers|isbn=978-0-7425-6717-7|page=443}}
::: Therfore, if you consider Manchu and any of the official 56 ethnic groups of China as Chinese : Then it means from you that Tibetans, Uighurs, Koreans living in China as Chinese. Following and extending your reasonement to other place in the world we can compare China as a "continent" like Europe and Manchu as an ethnical minority like Italian, French, British, German on their respective "continent".] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."


*{{cite book|last=Stark|first=Miriam T.|title=Archaeology of Asia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=z4_bT2SJ-HUC&pg=PA49|year=2008|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4051-5303-4|page=49}}
::::So the Qing was not a "Chinese" dynasty? Why don't you take this issue up in the , request that the History of China template be removed on the grounds that the Qing was not Chinese. Let's see well you'd fare with that proposal. ] 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."


*{{cite book|last=Schmid|first=Andre|title=Korea Between Empires|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lVgaAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA269|year=2013|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-50630-4|page=270}}
Northeast China and Manchuria are not EXACTLY the same thing. I created "History of Northeast China" template to differentiate the two, and thus allowing flexibility in meeting peoples different need :
:"Most treat the myth as a later creation."
1. "History of Manchuria" template allows people to pursue the history of Manchuria = Northeast China/Inner Manchuria/Dongbei + Outer Manchuria/Russian Maritime.
2. "History of Northeast China" template allows people to pursue the regional history of the northeastern provinces of China. ] 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


*{{cite book|last=Peterson|first=Mark|title=Brief History of Korea|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ByIo1D9RY40C&pg=PA5|year=2009|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-1-4381-2738-5|page=5}}
:That's absurd. If you regard Northeast China as only "Inner Manchuria" (refer questions above), then please explain why Chinese also use the term "Wai Dongbei" . Northeast China is not subject to just its modern day borders, in the past, this area was known as Dongsansheng (essentially what Northeast China derives from, per above) and it includes the territories ceded to Russia under the Treaty of Aihui and Beijing Convention. There is absolutely no need for two separate templates that mean the ''exact same thing''. It is only the naming of the template that I am trying to fix here. ] 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
:::No, not you but WE are trying to fix together.] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


*{{cite book|last=Hulbert|first=H. B.|title=The History of Korea|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=WdusAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73|year=2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-84941-4|page=73}}
::When we use Northeast China and Dongbei today without any other qualification, should we be talking about "historic" Northeast China/Dongbei or "today" Northeast China/Dongbei? I think it should be "today" Northeast China/Dongbei. . "History of Historic Northeast China" is equal to "History of Manchuria" might be what you are trying to say. Anyway is there any other label for the region Manchuria? ]
:"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."
:::We are making a ''history'' template, are we not? Therefore we should take into consideration both the present borders of Dongbei ''as well as'' historic Dongbei. The main problem with the use of "Manchuria" (which I pointed out who knows how many times now) is that it has never registered in Chinese historiography or official terminology.This is because "Manchuria" is rendered as "Man Zhou" in Chinese, but has never been used to officially/commonly refer to the geographic region of Northeast China.
:::: Maybe it have never been registered in Chinese historiography or official terminology, but in European historiography or official terminology it was. See ] researches.] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


First posted on ], reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.--] (]) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Are you going to change ] back to ] for the same reason then? ] 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


::{{u|133.236.57.172}}, please do not copy-and-paste other users' messages without attribution. Your posting is identical to the one I made at ]. -] (]) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::The concept of a geographic "Man Zhou" only existed during the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (Chinese: Man Zhou Guo), which explains why there are many negative connotations associated with the term. So far, no one has proved it otherwise on this subject, and this is why I am opposed to any mention of Manchuria outside the context of Dongbei or that Manchuria and Dongbei are separate entities. ] 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: I will correct you sentence : The concept of a geographic "Man Zhou", according to Chinese historiography or official terminology, only existed during the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (]/]: 滿洲國 ]/]:満洲国 pinyin : Mǎnzhōu Guó)lit. "Manchu country" (although it was not because more than 90% are consiered as Chinese).] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whlee, I am deeply insulted. If you consider Manchus as separate from "Chinese," that is strictly ''your'' POV. As far as the modern construct of "Chinese" is concerned , Manchus are Chinese. The definition of "Chinese" is not limited to the Han ethnicity. In fact, the creation of the "Manchu" ethnicity (Huang Taiji) itself is composed of not just Nu Zhen tribes, but also ethnic Han and Mongols in the Northeast region as well. Again, as far as NPOV is concerned, Manchu is a Chinese entity, period. ] 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Present day Manchus in China are Chinese, quite universally accepted. Assault11 is right, most all sources I come across define Manchuria = Northeast China/Dongbei. The old Manchuria = the old Northeast China/Dongbei = 3 NE province + RFE. Current Manchuria = Current Northeast China/Dongbei = just 3 NE province, no RFE. So if this template wants to include RFE the title should be "History of Historic Manchuria/Northeast China" or "History of Manchuria/Northeast China + History of RFE". If does not include RFE then the title should be "History of Manchuria/Northeast China". Given the negative feeling of many people about the word Manchuria, plus Manchuria being a word falling out of favor in todays world, plus Assault11 explanation about the dubious origin of the word Manchuria, I would support using Norhteast China instead of Manchuria in the title. ]

This page is on the template of History of Manchuria, not that of Northeast China or any modern political entities. Take your issues to ] and leave this template be what it is supposed to be. Also, the consensus on Goguryeo was for a History of Manchuria template, not Northeast China. ] 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria is a more recent concept than Northeast China. As explained countless times above, Northeast China = Manchuria, only that NE China is a more "legitimate" definition. The other template is currently not in use and refers to the same thing. The so-called "consensus" was based on a survey, but according to the official policies of Misplaced Pages on resolving disputes (under conduct a survey), ''a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it.'' Technically, it does not qualify to be a consensus, but I have made it clear that "I will go along with the decision for now," on the condition that the title of the template is to be addressed. Not only that, this template is not limited to the Gaogouli article. ] 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== Protection ==
As the above thread indicates, there is clearly no consensus to retitle the template, and the edit warring on this is not acceptable. Please continue the ''discussion''. --] (]) 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

== Continue Discussion : Manchuria = Northeast China ==
What is a consensus on wiki? If people are editing and reverting then there is no consensus. A consensus has been reached only when everybody is satisfied and stop editing and reverting. This topic is hard to reach a consensus, discussion would be helpful. I would advice editors to edit in a respectful, open minded, reasonable and accurate way. ] 07:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:The three parties - Whlee, Wiki pokemon and I - currently involved in this discussion (or debate, if you will) are already trying to work out a solution. I have repeatedly made my rounds on the discussion page explaining the reasons behind my edits. In fact, we have been getting rather close towards a general sense of consensus with what looks like Whlee supporting a "History of Northeast China" template (minor problems notwithstanding) .
:I am all for further discussion, but at least address my points precisely. I have made my responses above, if there's no objections then there should be no reason why this template should not be re-opened and changed accordingly. ] 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary <br>
Encarta Dictionary <br>
American Heritage Dictionary <br>
Collins Dictionary <br>
Answer.com <br>
Columbia Encyclopedia <br>
Britannica Encyclopedia <br>
Worldbook Encyclopedia <br>
UK Encarta Encyclopedia <br>
Catholic Encyclopedia <br>
Encyclopedia of Modern Asia <br>

Below is the summary of the descriptions of Manchuria from the references above:
* All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China. <br>
* 4 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region. <br>
* 2 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive. <br>
* A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants. <br>
* Note that none mentioned Russia or Primorsky Krai or Khabarovsk Krai. <br>
] 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017 ==
The information above provides the rationale if not the legitimacy and mandate for the use of the word "Northeast China" versus "Manchuria". "Northeast China" is a natural choice because it is more up-to-date, use more often, less offensive and causes less confusion. "Manchuria" on the other hand causes lots of confusion because people use it in a variety of subjective, vague, conflicting and sometimes sinister concepts. These concepts include: 1)territory covering just northeast China versus also including Russian Maritime, 2)homeland legitimate only for the Manchu versus also for multi ethnic population, 3)a historical geographic only name versus a permanent, unchanging and timeless one like one would use the word "Mariana Trench" for example and last but not least, 4)it is used in a sinister manner to stealthily suggest the region's separateness from Northeast China or to avoid using the word Northeast China altogether. I therefore vote and urge others to do the same to use the better word "Northeast China" to better inform readers on Misplaced Pages.] 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Template:History of Manchuria|answered=yes}}
Since when did you people respect NPOV sources?
] (]) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*"'''Koguryo''': Largest of the three kingdoms into which ancient '''Korea''' was divided until 668." (''Encyclopedia Britannica'')
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:EP --> - ] ] 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
*"'''Koguryo''' style: '''Korean''' visual-arts style characteristic of the '''Koguryo''' kingdom (37 BC–AD 668) of the Three Kingdoms period." (Britannica)
*"Three Kingdoms period: in '''Korean history''', the period (from c. 57 BC to AD 668) when the country was divided into the kingdoms of Silla, '''Koguryo''', and Paekche. (Britannica)
*"Koguryŏ, also known as '''Goguryeo''', an '''indigenous Korean''' kingdom that emerged in the 1st century bc." (Encarta)
*"Chinese culture filtered into the '''indigenous Korean''' kingdoms of Koguryŏ ('''Goguryeo'''), Silla, Paekche (Baekche), and Kaya (Gaya)." (Encarta)
*"The earliest extant example of landscape painting in '''Korea''' is found in a '''Koguryô''' tomb" (Metropolitan Museum, "Korea, 1-500 A.D.)
* (''U.S. Library of Congress'')
*"'''Koguryo''', a '''native Korean''' kingdom, arose in the north on both sides of the Yalu River" (Columbia Encyclopedia) ] 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:07, 30 May 2022

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Manchuria template.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3
This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChina
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
WikiProject iconKorea
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
WikiProject iconJapan
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:36, December 23, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconSoviet Union
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
WikiProject iconCentral Asia
WikiProject iconTemplate:History of Manchuria is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia


Comment from WP:NCGN

As a native English speaker, and a member of the consensus that established WP:NCGN, I do have several comments:

  1. WP:NCGN is intended to refer to proper names, which are marked in English by capitalization. China is a proper name; so is Manchuria; northeastern China is not a proper name, it's a description. So is northeast China; and NE China which is equivalent to it; the last is capitalized only because the abbreviations for points of the compass always are, by idiom.
  2. On the other hand, Northeast China, so capped, would be a proper name; but I have never heard or seen it used for Manchuria. I do not believe it can be widespread English usage.
  3. Please note also that it is English usage we are concerned with here. "This is the English Misplaced Pages; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers." The section above, which displays a Chinese instance of the translation is therefore irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Point (1) accepted, it is simply the way things work. Point (3) accepted, this is a well known wikipedia policy. First sentence of point (2) accepted, it is indeed a proper name. Remaining part of point (2) not accepted, your personal experience is contrary to evidence presented. Don't you worry, we are working very very hard to comply with the spirit of WP:NCGN here. In fact we are fighting to enforce WP:NCGN here, which some editors seem to deliberately ignore. In addition we strive to comply with all wikipedia rules.
Wiki Pokemon 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Very well, the name I am arguing for is Northeast China, which - as you noted, is a proper name. However, NE China can also be interpreted as Northeast China, and in most cases, the term "northeastern China" and "Northeast China" are coterminous (refering to the three Chinese provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Liaoning).

2) Wrong. Northeast China is both a historic and geographical term synonymous with Manchuria (see above), solely referring to the Three Provinces of Northeast China. "Manchuria" only refers to the region of Chinese-administered areas, not including former territories in what is now North Korea and Russian Far East. This is confirmed by all teritary sources for "Manchuria"/"Northeast China":

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Encarta Dictionary
American Heritage Dictionary
Collins Dictionary
Answer.com
Columbia Encyclopedia
Britannica Encyclopedia
Worldbook Encyclopedia
UK Encarta Encyclopedia
Catholic Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
AncientWorld.net
Nuttall Encyclopedia

Note: (from user:Wiki pokemon)

  • All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire or province of China. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China.
  • 5 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region.
  • 3 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive.
  • A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants.
  • Note that none mentioned the Russian Far East, Primorsky Krai, Khabarovsk Krai, or North Korea (all of which were former Jurchen territories).

3) Yes, we understand this is an English-language encyclopedia. But realize that all of us here (proponents of Northeast China and/or its variants) live in English-speaking countries (North America). The "Chinese translation" you're referring to (Dongbei) is not a translation. "Dongbei" is the romanized version of Northeast China in Hanyu Pinyin. Many Chinese historical/geographic names use this form of romanization in modern vernacular English. For example, Peking was a former term referring to the city of Beijing, nowadays, the use of Peking in place of Beijing is almost non-existant - just like "Manchuria." Also, there are many English websites that use this term in place of both Northeast China (its English counterpart) and Manchuria, prime example of this being Encarta Encyclopedia . Also, Northeast China is a very well established geographic term in the English language, as pointed above - almost all Western news corporations (e.g. NYT, ABC, CNN, etc.) adopt Northeast China in place of Manchuria .

The reason why we Northeast Chinese abhor the use of Manchuria is primarily due to historical reasons. For one thing, this term is highly offensive in the eyes of us Northeast Chinese, especially due to its association with the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (literally "state of Manchuria"). This term can be compared to other offensive terms such as Shina or Zhina, which many Chinese consider to be derogatory. (see WP:AVOID)

Another reason why Manchuria cannot be used is because this term is not even a geographic term to begin with. "Manchuria" is rendered as "Manzhou" in Mandarin, but this name was originally meant to refer to the Manchu ethnicity, with absolutely no geographic connotations attached. As described above, the Qing Dynasty (the era which the concept of "Manchuria" was created) referred to this region as either Northeast China or "Eastern Three Provinces," Dongsansheng. However, there was never a geographic region of "Manchuria" in historical records. Therefore, Manchuria fails the WP:NCGN simply because it is not a valid geographic concept to begin with. Assault11 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that "Northeast China" is used in none of Assault11's media examples as proper nouns. And Wiki pokemon, you're still using dictionaries entires that only attest to Manchuria as the widely accepted word. Also, about uk.encarta, it should be pointed out that it is different from Encarta 2007. Cydevil38 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but just judging from the first link "Explosion Kills 25 in Karaoke Parlor in Northeast China," (from NYT) there are plenty of examples which pits Northeast China as a proper noun. In contrast, there are almost zero examples of "Manchuria" being used in a modern context. Manchuria violates the fundamental principle of WP:NCGN, simply because it is not a geographic concept. (Note: the UK version of Encarta is currently up-to-date). Assault11 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow you. If "Northeast China" is used as a proper noun in that NYT article, why isn't it capitalised?—Nat Krause 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the title. Assault11 04:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What? "Kills" and "Karoke Parlor" are also capitalised! Are those proper nouns as well?—Nat Krause 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
At least those sources completely ruled out Manchuria to be a modern name for the region. The facts are pretty much established, and this case is pretty much closed. Manchuria is the historical name, and Northeast China is the modern name, for the region. There is no dispute about that among all editors. Now it is just about how to comply with WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


To PMAnderson: According to original wikirule texts, WP:NCGN is not the guideline for proper names/nouns (Please do a string search on "proper", which only appears in the "See also" section, not in the central contents). In contrast, Misplaced Pages:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". Let's go back to WP:NCGN, which is the guideline for geographic names. WP:NCGN does not apply to non-geographic names, but for any geographic region, it is the critical one. Here and now what is being disputed is the geographic name, as there is already a consensus saying that "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the historical entity between 1635 and 1945. The historical term is offensive to local English speakers if used anachronistically as a modern geographic name.--Jiejunkong 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, there is no such consensus that "Manchuria" can only be used for the historical period between 1635 and 1945. If you have a problem with the title of this template, please file a request for move. Please work through consensus. Cydevil38 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Manchuria" as a historical entity, existed from 1635 to 1945, accordingly "History of Manchuria" will have contents from 1635 to 1945. If you use "Manchuria" as a historic geographic name, then it must be accompanied by (Northeast China), accordingly the title must be "History of Manchuria(Northeast China)".
Wiki Pokemon 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Manchuria" is not a historic name. It is a consistent and standardized name for the geographic region like Siberia and Transylvania are. It has been called by different names throughout history like it is called "Northeastern region of China" today. However, we should call it Manchuria since it has long been standardized along international community. I don't think there is a rule stating naming such places have to be parallel to what the containing country calls it. Dagvadorj (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
To Cydevil38, you cannot convince me that "Manchuria" is a modern name in the English-speaking world unless you can convince all private sector media tycoons, in particular CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, to rename "northeast/northeastern China" to "Manchuria" in their news report about present-day China. Your "English-speaking world" argument is not solid either. The base of your arguments is being challenged.--Jiejunkong 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) BTW, the term "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the region between 1635 and 1945 is a consensus. Don't add the word "only" to my original sentence.--Jiejunkong 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire argument appears to rest on ignorance of English idiom. All of Wikipokemon's examples above use "northeast China", "northeastern China", or "NE China". None of these are, or can be, proper nouns. One of them refers to use in Chinese of Dongbei, "Northeast". This is not English usage. As far as I recall, all of them deal with present usage, and are entitled Manchuria. I am not sure what Cause all this fallacious argument is intended to foster: if it were made straightforwardly, I might be willing to agree to amend WP:NCGN accordingly. But this sort of thing might as well be calculated to lose the sympathy of relatively neutral observers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please quote original texts from "WP:NCGN" to present your "proper name/noun" case. This is a request for meaningful discussion, since it is mentioned above that Misplaced Pages:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". The current contents of WP:NCGN say nothing about "proper name/noun". Contrast to what you said, WP:NCGN defines guidelines for geographic names.--Jiejunkong 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making. "Geographic names" and "proper names" are not mutually exclusive at all. The examples mentioned in its "examples" section are things like Gdańsk/Danzig, Volgograd/Stalingrad, Istanbul/Constantinople, etc. ... proper names all.—Nat Krause 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about Misplaced Pages:Proper names, then create a section to talk about Misplaced Pages:Proper names. Since the section title is WP:NCGN, let's stick to the rule WP:NCGN, and discuss based on what the rule WP:NCGN exactly says, is this the proper way a discussion should go?--Jiejunkong 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we can put it this way, "geographic names" is a subset of "proper nouns". Therefore Misplaced Pages:Proper names should provide guidelines about "proper nouns" for WP:NCGN, and not the other way around. PMAnderson might be over stepping jurisdiction when he/she decides to dictate "proper nouns" out of WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Proper names]] does not define proper name either; it just says we should use them as titles — which we should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?

Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. Dscarth 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging Northeast China into Manchuria. The article admits that its subject is commonly so called in English, and indeed it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Both Northeast China and Manchuria stated that Manchuria is a historical region. Period of "Manchuria" history is generally from 1635 to 1945, which is the main focus of Manchuria. It is very uncommon (almost never in English news and by governments and companies) to use "Manchuria" to refer to present day Northeast China (after 1945). The most common usage of Manchuria is when it is used in the context of the Qing dynasty and Manchukuo in WWII. For period before 1635, it is a mixture of Northeast China and Manchuria.Wiki Pokemon (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wants to change this template's name should request a move. Otherwise, it should stay as "History of Manchuria". Cydevil38 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I never said consensus was reached. The title of "History of Manchuria" was kept within the template, it was not removed - only that "Northeast China" was added in parenthesis. I agree with the other editors that this should not be removed. As for Russian Far East, it can be argued, when taking into account the non-Chinese regions ceded during the latter half of the Qing Dynasty. Laoganma (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Requested move

History of Manchuria → History of Manchuria(Northeast China) and Russian Far East — First, I make my position clear that I myself is against this move. I am making this request for move because some people have been persistently changing the title within the template that is different from the title of the template itself. Many steps were taken to help establish consensus, such as 3rd opinion, RfC and RfCU and a survey, but these editors still persist on the name "Northeast China". I have repeatedly asked them to request a move if they wish to change the title, but they just kept changing the title within the template without changing the template title itself, which lead to continued edit warring. So I make this request for move in hope to estalish consensus on the title of this template and put an end to the edit warring. —Cydevil38 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.
  • Support: I would support this move because "Manchuria" is indeed offensive to people of the Northeast region of China because of the imperialist overtones associated with it. I say this as a person who comes from this area of China. I would certainly advise most people to not openly refer to the region as "Manzhou" when visiting.

The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.

Some examples of why it is an offensive term:

1) Fu Sinian (傅斯年), the first director of the Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica, rejected the use of "Manchuria" in his "Dongbei Shigang" report to the Lytton Commission on the grounds that "Manchuria" was historically inaccurate and a geographical misnomer.
2) Top Japanese scholars such as 中見立夫 (Zhongjian Lifu in Chinese, not sure about its romanization in English/Romanji) of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies also agree that "Manchuria" was never used as a regional name. This was even echoed by Japanese historian supporters of the Japanese puppet regime Manchukuo during the 1930s.
3) And according to Associate Professor, David Edgington at UBC:
"Although prewar Japanese came to perceive "Manchuria" as a separate or discrete entity, the term is of abstract utility only and is not a genuine geographic term. Of European origin, it designated only the homeland of the Manchus, but imperialist competition resulted in its reification. Chinese refer to the region historically as the "three eastern provinces" (dongsansheng) or, since 1945, as simply the "northeast" (dongbei)."
The above is why I would support the move. Laoganma (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Manchuria is the common English name for this entity, whereas Northeast China is, if used, either a secondary or local name for this entity, or an uncommon name, or a non-proper name that cannot be the title of a Misplaced Pages template or article. Also, the title and contents of a template should remain concise. For details, people may click on the link to the article on Manchuria to see what it consists of, the geographic definition of which may vary based on different historic periods, context and interpretation. Most importantly, this template was created for the intended purpose of concisely organizing historic articles related to Manchuria, not Northeast China or Russian Far East.Cydevil38 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. The name 'Manchuria' is clearly archaic, potentially offensive and technically incorrect; I don't see what's so bad about 'History of Northeast China and Russian Far East', myself. Terraxos (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Evidence for any of this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps see my post above? There's also some examples laid out in previous discussion and pages too. But if still in doubt, we can create a new discussion and I can go into a bit of detail into this matter if you wish. But as for "Manchuria" being archaic and offensive, it is definitely so. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The nominator opposes the move. And 'Manchuria' is certainly not an archaic word when it is the most common name in reliable sources published between year 2000 and year 2008. This issue has been discussed extensively, so it may be helpful to track back on the discussion here. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Editor Cydevil38, I think he was referring to me. You're partially correct. Although it must be stressed that the use of "Manchuria" is largely (though exceptions remain) relegated to the early 20th century time frame and many respectable historians acknowledge that the use of this term is largely for convenience and context, but not for historical accuracy. But definitely, there is greater awareness in academic circles about the use of this term than ever before. I can give a few examples later if you want. But I see that you are still around. Is it possible that you reply to my message I had left on your talkpage? I would be interested in your personal opinion. Thanks. Laoganma (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The history of Manchuria should not be confused with the history of North East China due to (i) the different geographical location of Manchuria and Northeast China until recent history and (ii) the history of Manchuria englobing parts of current-day north korea and russia which have nothing to do with "northeast china". I recommend to keep this article as it is and not mention northeast china; if really necessary we can look into creating a NEW article on the "history of NorthEast China" with the latter focused on the history of the north-eastern section of the kingdom/empire of China since the start of the Qin dynasty. Only for limited periods did the latter include parts of Manchuria. --Cypoet (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. If we are to use "History of Manchuria", the content should be changed to Manchuria Timeline with starting year on 1635 and ending year on 1945. Wiki Pokemon (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I could argue that in the same way as Ming, Tang, Song, Han are different names for Qin (China), Manchu is a different name for the Jurchen, Mohe, Xibe, or Balhae people who have been around in Manchuria since the 7th century AD. However, this was not my point. For most people in this world (except perhaps in China), "History of Manchuria" points to the region located between the Great Wall and the Yalu river while "History of North-East China" is ambiguous at best. Cypoet (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Manchuria is Manchuria, once a separate state, a foreign land to Chinese and Russian. The truth is that Russia and China tore Manchuaria off piece by piece. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Protection

The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template. Folks, please discuss rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think more discussion will be helpful. Personally, I feel its not necessary to "move" this template because a the title only adds "Northeast China" in parenthesis. In fact, I can't find any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says you have to move the template. As indicated in previous discussions, Northeast China is not an uncommon name used nowadays, and is definitely gaining in use, both in academic works and the media (I can cite some examples if requested). Not to mention it has historic credibility as a typonym (unlike Manchuria, which was intended to be an ethnic group) and is officially known as such by locals of the region. I think "Northeast China" should definitely be emphasized one way or another. But I'm open to suggestions. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Didouyu (地豆于)

Please, add the Didouyu to this list. Yug2 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple links

There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities. This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria. There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You should understand what coexistence mean. Some kingdoms existed in this regions very long and span the timeline of several other entities. Former Yan, Later Yan etc have never occupy the whole regions singlehandedly AND occupied only a small southern part of this regions. You can't put these entities as the only thing on a row as if they were the only one there. The format you are promoting is misleading. What is important is accurate information not just looking good. Besides, it looks better with all the entities matching their timelines. Elknz (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Also History Temple shoul be based on timeline to be informative. This template is also based on timelines, for example Han is not placed below Tang. Elknz (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The template was created that way, and for you to make such a drastic change to the template you'll need major consensus. You can start a consensus and ask for editors opinions of whether to add these links.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

It is a drastic change when you are basically changing the whole format of this template by adding multiple duplicated links. By the way, all of the links on this template are sorted in a chronological order, i.e. in order of appearances (it doesn't mean that these entities ceased or how long they've lasted).--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a History template not a list of kingdoms. It should be created according to history. Elknz (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

If you want to make this template look that good, it is fine with me. But please don't prevent people to improve the contents of this History template. Elknz (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm afraid Accuracy is before beauty. Besides it is not ugly at all. As I said if you think it is ugly, you can improve on the look if you like. Elknz (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Elknz, I don't think Neo-Jay is talking about "beauty" per se. It is about the basic layout and the format of how a template should be, in which all of the same duplicate links you inserted would distort the format of the article. Also, as I said above, this template is already sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You two are talking about "List of Kingdoms". I'm not familiar with Khitan. That's why I didn't add it. If you know, you should add. Why didn't you add then? Since this is a History template, it should provide information according to history information. Elknz (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This template DOES provide information according to history. As Balthazarduju said, it is sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities. If you want to solve the coexistence problem, the only way is to adopt the format of Template:History of China. Otherwise, please don't change. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The current format is misleading and inappropriate for History Template. One row on the template should represent a time frame. All entities existed in the timeline should be on that row. That's the way history template should be. There is nothing wrong with repeating. It adds for imformation and make it look better Elknz (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the current format is not misleading and not inappropriate. Period. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2009 Revision and Revert

I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by Altaicmania (talk · contribs) are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:

  1. It breaks consensus -- it took a while to reach the current version by consensus;
  2. It eliminates a large number of states and peoples which were fully or partially within Manchuria for no good reason;
  3. It ties the timelines down in ways that are not sufficiently justified.

I've therefore reverted. Discussion on this is, however, welcome. I can be convinced with good argument. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic consensus

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
"Most treat the myth as a later creation."
"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."

First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.--133.236.57.172 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

133.236.57.172, please do not copy-and-paste other users' messages without attribution. Your posting is identical to the one I made at Talk:Gojoseon. -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
태왕 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - Vanstrat 🗼 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: