Talk:Heaven Lake/Archive 1

The translation to "Lake Tianchi" is redundant because "Tianchi" already refer to a body of water. "Heavenly pond lake" sounds wierd. Kowloonese 01:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the lake be in Korean since the name of the Mountain and history is in Korean? -- dandan xD 12:01 22 April 2006 (AEST)


 * Yes, it should be. Baekdusan is wholly Korean territory. Oyo321 02:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's better. -- dandan xD 22:47 18 November 2006 (KST)

Alternate image
Just thought I'd mention these images from Wikimedia Commons: Baitou Mountain Tianchi.jpg, Paektu-san.jpg (see right). Although at present I'm afraid this article isn't really big enough to support more than one image.-- Visviva 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I have removed Image:Tianshan tianchi.jpg, which depicts the lake of the same name in Xinjiang. It was needlessly confusing.  Once a Tianchi (Xinjiang) article is created, please put the picture there.  -- Visviva 11:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Move
Tianchi is far more common of a name than either Chonji or Cheonji. A Google search shows nearly 30,000 hits for Tianchi, and and less than 1,000 each for Chonji and Cheonji. That's two orders of magnitude in difference. And, of course, the fact that the lake monster is called the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Lake Cheonji monster" or "Lake Chonji" monster is further evidence of Tianchi being the more common and accepted name.--Yuje 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The name of the mountain is Korean, the history is Korean and Baekdu mountain was under Korean control since the Three Kingdoms and when Goguryeo controlled Manchuria and parts of China. Good friend100 14:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whose territory it is. As is noted above, Tianchi seems far more common in google.  Can anyone provide some evidence to the contrary? — LactoseTI T 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And after Goguryeo, it hadn't been under Korean control for over a thousand years as its territory was limited to the the south of the Taedong River. They only reached near the modern borders again during Choson and the mountains and lake were divided approximately 50-50 by China and North Korea in 1962. And from seeing pre-1962 maps, it's possible North Korea might not even have had control of the lake till 1962. --Yuje 22:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The page can't be moved back directly since the old one has been edited. Nihonjoe has offered to move it when consensus has been reached.  I'm curious if anyone has an argument other than N. Korea having some claim of control over it (which as I mentioned above, isn't how the naming policy works anyhow).  — LactoseTI T 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"North Korea having some claim"? Do you know anything about North Korea? North Korea gave a part of the mountain to China a while ago, most likely a thank you for China's help during the Korean War. North Korea controls at least half of the mountain. Also, "Tianchi" may just be more common, because the only way to visit Baekdu mountain is through China. North Korea restricts any tourists to the mountain. Also, why move this article to a Chinese name when the article's title is Korean? Thats not being consistent. Good friend100 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The very first website that comes up after "Tianchi" on google shows a travel site information . Also, there are more travel informations on it, and Chinese newspapers that state that a "monster has been sighted on Tianchi lake". Most of the results are travel information that are not really relevent to the article, unless a travel section is written. Good friend100 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean about the article's title being different from the name--they should be changed to be consistent after the move back to the other name. Travel information is actually one of the best kinds of pages--English sites targetting tourists are highly likely to use a name that the majority of speakers would know.  Since the article's name must reflect the most common English usage, this strongly points in the direction of Tianchi. — LactoseTI T 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that why use "Tianchi" a chinese name while the mountain of the lake is a Korean name "Baekdu mountain"? If you agree that Tianchi is the best, then why not move "Baekdu mountain" to the Chinese name? Also, if travel pages are the best to support that "Tianchi" is the word used mostly by tourists, then there should be a travel section in the article. Good friend100 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm... Actually I think the Google results are a strong argument in favor of the Korean name. A lot of the Google hits seem to refer to various other places called "Tianchi," most frequently a lake in Urumqi.  Thus, Tianchi is ambiguous as a title; in contrast, Cheonji/Ch'&#335;nji is relatively unambiguous.  Note that Naming conventions (common names) specifically says that we should use the most common name that does not conflict with other names; in this case, that would seem to be Ch'&#335;nji.  -- Visviva 15:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent point, Visviva--if this is the case, I would support the Korean name (although I must stress again, Good friend100, that this is not for the reasons you suggest--please learn that the naming policy has nothing to do with where a territory is). — LactoseTI T 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try searching "Lake Tianchi monster", which describes only on the lake at the Sino-Korean border. This term alone is just over a thousand, more than either Cheonji or Chonji. Even taking into account other Lake Tianchi elsewhere, Tianchi is still the most common name for this one as well.--Yuje 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked over 1,000 sites by typing "Tianchi," and most of them was either about the Tianchi in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, or the Monster. Now, considering that the Monster is pretty much a Chinese idea/belief/sighting, I have to say that the name should be either Cheoji or Chonji, although I prefer Cheonji.--General Tiger o7:24, 3 October 2006 (Korean Time)

I wasn't talking about anything with whose territory chonji lake was. I was simply stating that it would be confusing for an outside reader to read the baekdusan article and then read the suppposed "tianchi lake" article. If the mountain's name is in Korean and the lake of that mountain's name is in Chinese it would be confusing. Good friend100 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there doesn't seem to be good reason for the page to be at Baekdusan either. There's 74,000 hits for Changbai Mountain, 50,000 hits for Changbaishan, but only 11,000 for Baekdu Mountain and 9,500 for Baekdusan. And for the border ownership, there seems to be indication that it was Mao that gave away half to Kim in 1962, not vice versa. And, of course, the fact that the lake monster is called the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Lake Cheonji monster" or "Lake Chonji monster", and that searches for this alone number higher than all searches for "Lake Cheonji" and "Lake Chonji" combined is further evidence of Tianchi being the more common and accepted name.--Yuje  01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * However, Visviva stated that the most common name that does not conflict with other names should be used. "Tianchi" is a name of other places in China. Chonji (or Cheonji) is the best title for this article. And your references are just a bunch of google search web addresses. I have never heard of Mao giving "half of Baekdusan" to Kim. Its the other way around. As I said, Kim gave it as a gift to Mao.


 * You don't seem to understand why it shouldn't be "Tianchi". I already repeated twice that it would be inconsistent with Baekdusan. Also, searching Changbaishan gives me numerous links to a hotel called "Changbaishan hotel" which is merely a hotel near Baekdusan and a number of reviews and tourist information. Good friend100 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the Wikipolicy on undue weight. Even with other places called Tianchi, the name of this lake is overwhelmingly called Tianchi in English, and the number of hits for Chonji barely registers a blip in comparison. I'm sure you don't want to keep the original page title because you're Korean, but you need objective NPOV reasons as well. Chonji is clearly nowhere near being common of a name, and even the monster that lives in the lake is more popular than the name Chonji. Like I said, there's a reason why the monster is named the "Lake Tianchi monster" and not the "Chonji mosnter".


 * For the "Changbaishan hotel", it makes sense that Changbaishan, being a tourist attraction, would have hotels in the Chinese side. But if you insist, we can omit the word "hotel" from searches.  It still shows near 60,000 hits for Changbai, 39,000 for Changbaishan, but only 10,000 for Baekdu, and a paltry 968 for Baekdusan.   You're going to have a very hard time trying to argue against Changbai's common usage and against moving it to Changbai without resorting to POV reasons. So your argument about confusion due to Baekdusan is flawed as well. But if you still don't believe me, here's comparisons on other search engines as well:
 * 11,300 hits for Lake Tianchi on Yahoo, 90 hits for Lake Chonji.
 * 14,200 hits for Changbai mountain on Yahoo, 2,010 for Baekdu mountain
 * 11,000 hits for Lake Tianchi on Altavista, 85 hits for Lake Chonji
 * 14,400 hits for Changbai mountain on Altavista, 2,000 hits for Baekdu mountain
 * 4,347 hits for Lake Tianchi on MSN, 132 hits for Chonji
 * 6,184 hits for Changbai mountain on MSN, 1,707 for Baekdu mountain
 * You're clearly arguing for a very small minority viewpoint. Even if we go with the overly generous assumption that only 25% of each result refers to the lake in Manchuria, that result is still clearly disproportionate in favor over Chonji. The number of Google hits for the unambiguous "Lake Tianchi monster" alone outnumber all hits for "Lake Chonji" on all search engines combined. If there's disambiguation to be made, it clearly should be "Lake Tianchi (Manchuria)" or "Lake Tianchi (Jilin)", instead of the completely unknown "Lake Chonji". You clearly know the frustration of individuals attempting to force a move that you feel is clearly POV and in a minority, so I hope you would take a moment to step out of your shoes for a moment and observe how your arguments on this page might look to an outsider.


 * Last but not least, take a look at these links for the border issue.  Even the farthest extent of Korean claims covers only the approximate area of the modern day border, and nowhere near the whole mountain range, while Chinese maps did in fact show the whole range in Chinese territory. This detailed border report  claims that it was China that comprised and conceded the land to North Korea. And lastly, the Manchus regarded the mountain as a sacred place, and set a quarantine zone around the area, and emperors would pay visits there to worship. This couldn't have happened unless they actually had control over it, and being the pre-eminent power of East Asia during their heyday, the Manchus wouldn't have let anyone else claim it. The only sources claiming that North Korea gave the land away to China are a handful of recent news sites that are complaining about the 2008 Olympic games in China.--Yuje 09:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't want to keep the original page title because you're Korean Hmm thats interesting. I could accuse you of changing the page because you are Chinese, but thats a tit for tat move thats pretty lame.

No need to get angry and rabble out all your accusations and facts. instead of the completely unknown "Lake Chonji". It seems you are out on a plan to expand everything on China.

I have already repeated "Tianchi" is already used in other places in China and about the monster in the lake, that seems to be something like the Asian counterpart of the Loch Ness monster. Most of the search items are simply tourist information (since China is the only way to tour the mountain), the mountain's name is Korean (no need for a Chinese name of the lake), and the title that is the most clear should be used. "Tianchi" is name for numerous other places, including a place called "Urumqi".

We cannot just rely on google and other search engines alone. They are pretty crude for estimating how many articles are on the web, and it includes sites that do not relate to this article, like news articles, and company websites. "Tianchi" will bring up any webpage with a word "Tianchi", and that means it will include anything, even an article that mentions "Tianchi" once. Good friend100 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC) If your case is strong, go argue at the Baekdusan talk page.


 * My argument isn't about its name in the Chinese or Korean language, but that its name in English is most commonly named Tianchi. I don't see how you can continue to argue that Chonji is somehow a common name. The name of the monster also refers to the lake. If Chonji were indeed a common name, why isn't it called the "Lake Chonji monster"? The monster sites certainly aren't tourist sites, yet they all inevitably name the lake it lives in as "Lake Tianchi". As I've repeated above numerous times, the name of the mountain has even less relevance, as Baekdu doesn't look more common. And the usages you mention in articles, websites, etc are a good indicator of usage. But if you insist, what you mention about Tianchi is the same for Chonji as well. Take out the word "lake" from the search, you'll find countless hits of guys named Chonji instead of the lake. If you filter out "Taekwando", "Tae kwon do", "martial arts", etc, the number of hits for Chonji come out considerably less, less than 500. Again, I don't see how you can argue for such an uncommon name other than for POV reasons.


 * If you still don't believe me and still think "I'm out to expand everything for China", I can, however expand my search into other domains as well. Try Google scholar for example: . A search for "Lake Tianchi" with Yunnan, Xinjiang, and Tibet filtered out turns out 92 hits, while a search for Lake Chonji turns up only 8, and of those 8, only 2 of them refer to the actual lake in this article. Another order of magnitude difference, and also shows that not only is Chonji not in common usage, but that it's not in common academic or scientific use either.--Yuje 20:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the "undue weight" section in WP:NPOV is intended to apply to article content, not naming conflicts. In any case, as far as I can see the nature of the dispute here is rather different from the kind where undue weight is likely to be an issue... There is no dispute over whether the lake is "really" named Tianchi or Ch'&#335;nji; they are, after all, the same name.  Nor is there any dispute over whether it is in Korea or in China; it is, after all, in both.
 * Also, your Googling seems a bit flawed. "Lake Cheonji" / "Lake Ch'&#335;nji" are relatively infrequent collocations; on the other hand, searching without quotes leads to about 950 hits each.     This contrasts with 575 for 'Tianchi monster' also without quotes ...    This isn't to say that Tianchi isn't more common (its Google hits are still orders of magnitude higher), but I don't think the issue is nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.
 * I don't have any particular opinion on the actual naming issue here. This article sat quite happily at Lake Tianchi for many years; I don't see any reason why that name is better or worse than Chonji.  The disambiguation concerns more or less balance the popularity contest. I don't see why this article needed to be moved in the first place; neither do I see why it needs to be moved again.  -- Visviva 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't use quotes in my search. What I did do was add in the search term "-Wikipedia", so that we wouldn't end up searching our site. Do this and the hits come out the same as I showed above. 875 hits for Chonji, even less for Cheonji. --Yuje 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In view of the ugliness of the POV warring that has been going on over a wide range of article names lately (consider Dokdo, Baekdusan, Socotra Rock, Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea, et cetera ad nauseam), I'm tempted to suggest that we adopt Use English over Use common names. How about we just call the mountain White-Headed Mountain and the lake Heavenly Lake?   That isn't an option for every naming conflict, but it would take care of the POV issues with these two.  -- Visviva 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I really can't go with that view. If we actually name things like you suggested, we would have to change almost all of the articles in Wikipedia. -- General Tiger 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Chonji → Tianchi – The name was unilaterally moved from Tianchi to Chonji without concensus, for POV reasons (cited in move and talk page), such as that it should be Korean (it's on the border between China and Korea). Another reason cited was that the name of the Baekdu Mountain page is Korean as well. However, a Google search shows nearly 30,000 hits for Tianchi, and and less than 1,000 each for Chonji and Cheonji. That's two orders of magnitude in difference. (the preceding was quoted by Yuje) Endroit 17:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support for the most common name. Searches for "Chonji" for all the most popular search engines combined give less than a thousand hits. Search on Google scholar shows only 2 uses of the name "Chonji" for the lake. The use of Chonji as a clear common name doesn't apply because it's not common.--Yuje 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; per Yuje. Naming conventions gives preference to the more popular name.--Endroit 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Visviva and my previous comments. Like I said before, we need to use the most common name that is the clearest because "Tianchi" is a name for many other places in China. Good friend100 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As shown, Chonji is nowhere near common. Chonji barely shows up any hits, therefore isn't a viable alternative for a clear alternative name. --Yuje 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Look at my reason below. --General Tiger 04:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposition seems to be flawed...  Given that Tianchi is now an article on the lake in Urumqi, if this article is moved it would need to go somewhere else; perhaps Tianchi (Changbaishan) or even (heh heh) Tianchi (Paektusan), but then again maybe Tianchi (Jilin)... if we must have a straw poll, it would be helpful to know what the full suggested title is.  -- Visviva 06:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue you brought up is a legitimate one and shouldn't be ignored. Thus perhaps Tianchi could be a disambiguation page, or this page could be moved back to the original and there could be a Tianchi (disambiguation) page. Either one is a reasonable alternative. All of your above suggestions seem to be reasonable and viable disambiguation devices. --Yuje 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCha (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose The only reason why the word "tianchi" is more popular is because of the greater population and therfore greater support by China. If Baekdusan is a Korean dominion, the crater on top being named a Korean title is natural. A geographic region cannot and should not share a common acceptance of names from two different countries. If we are to agree on "tianchi" it can only be justified if we change "Baekdusan" into its chinese cognate. Oyo321 18:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy. An opposing vote means nothing in a straw poll unless you can give valid reasons, and POV reasons aren't valid ones. Not to mention that you're factually wrong, I might add. If the mountain is entirely Korean territory, how is it possible that China is building an airport on it? --Yuje 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course not. Because Kim Il Sung broke off half of the mountain to China, that part is Chinese territory. Its pretty obvious that China has the right to do anything on their side of the mountain. And how are my reasons, or General Tiger's reasons POV? Are we pushing for Chonji because its "wholly Korean"? Good friend100 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Goodfriend. Baekdusan has always been Korean territory until dictator Kim Jong Il sold half of it to China. And China begins to claim it has been they're land since the beginning of time. Your evidence is also just on Google "hits." Everything you say is supported by Google. And if you believe that Wikipedia is a democracy, then why did you vote? I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but right now, I am voting to retain some accuracy in some of our articles, because its always being challenged. Oyo321 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Please look into all the searches you do. If you go throught most of them (I myself went throught 1000 hits for each different version), you will find that the hits has almost no connection to the main article.

Example: I checked over 1,000 sites by typing "Tianchi," and most of them was either about the Tianchi in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, or the Monster. Now, considering that the Monster is pretty much a Chinese idea/belief/sighting, we can call the monster the "Tianchi Monster," but the lake itself should be Cheonji/Chonji.

Also, some google search results:

tianchi: 110,000 hits (most of them not related to the lake we're taking about)

tianchi korea: 10,600 hits (out of which about 1,030 is connected to the Monster)

Cheonji: 10,600

Chonji: 9,850

As you can see, the Korean version of the lake is more widely spread than Tianchi.

As I said, please look into your searches, you may find that it isn't all that you see.

Also, I'm considering adding a Tianchi article for the lake in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, so that we can save Cheonji/Chonji

--General Tiger 04:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone please be welcome to examine the Google results for Chonji or  Cheonji. Filter out wikipedia, and the entire first page of hits on both searches doesn't come up with a single hit related to the lake. Most have to do with Taekwando. That's why the search term "lake" is included in searches. Add in the word lake to the search, and the number of hits comes up to less than a thousand. --Yuje 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I did what you said, and here are my results:

tianchi lake: 27,800 hits (but still most of them are for the one in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region or the monster, which I say should be the Tianchi Lake Monster)

tianchi lake korea: 767 hits

cheonji lake korea: 748 hits

chonji lake korea: 412 hits

It seems that even if we take your method into account, Cheonji/Chonji combined still has more hits then Tianchi (about 1.5 times bigger) Therefore, the Korean version is more spread.

Also, we have an article for the Tianchi in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, so it seems to me that Naming conventions (precision) is more relevant than Naming conventions (common names). To my knowledge, the Korean name is unambiguous, and is therefore preferable.

--General Tiger 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The search term including "tianchi lake korea" is flawed, since the lake partially lies in China, not all mentions of it will include Korea. To give an example, let me present such a search in the opposite direction:
 * cheonji lake china 96 hits
 * chonji lake china 270 hits
 * As you can see, both methods greatly deflate the number of legitimate hits. Lake Tianchi produces some 25,000 hits, but based on a lot of filtering out of other lake locations, it seems that around half of those hits refer to the lake near Korea. At over ten thousand hits, it shows that it's still orders of magnitude more common than Chonji.
 * Like I said, I believe I have a legitimate and NPOV case. Based on every single criteria, (Tianchi alone, Lake Tianchi, disambiguated by filtering out alternative lakes, the monster as named by foreigners) there's still a vast gap in common usage. The criteria is the most common name, and I think combining terms from different names, (such as combining results from Cheonji and Chonji) works contrary to that purpose. If ambiguity is really such a big issue, then I wonder why no one is supporting a disambiguated Tianchi page, which would still be more common name, instead of preferring the 500-hit Chonji. General Tiger, if bringing up these legitimate points makes you think I'm pushing a POV and makes you angry at me (like you stated at my talk page), perhaps you need to cool down and evaluate both your own views and those of others. --Yuje 07:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuje, you have to remember that there are maybe a dozen ways to romanize Korean - Ch'ŏnji, Chonji, Cheonji, with each one sometimes with a hyphen or a space between the two syllables. You need to search for all variations because the question is whether English documents use the Korean version or the Chinese version. Wikipedia happens to follow a rather unique and complicated rule of spelling Korean-derived words, but other publications have their own style manuals. As others have mentioned, Tianchi has other prominent meanings, making it very difficult to use Google to find the common name. It's silly to use the Chinese romanization for the lake on top of Baekdu Mountain. Korean-derived spellings are more common than the Chinese-derived spelling, and "Chonji" is specific and unambiguous.

Yuje, I respect your points, but I believe that Cheonji/Chonji is still a better name, especially in the face of the new article Tianchi (which has no connection to me, by the way). I say we talk about the new page also.

And please look at your talk page, for I have added a new message to you.

--General Tiger  14:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just rely on google alone, and conclude anything by just simply presenting that "Tianchi has more results than Chonji".


 * Also, why the hassle suddenly? The article is fine the way it is and it is not a subject of heavy controversy. Good friend100 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you've been paying attention, I haven't being relying on Google alone. The results have been confirmed on various other search engines, through searches on Google Scholar of research papers, and through various filtering criteria as well. What are you providing? --Yuje 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, this article stood at Lake Tianchi (and later Tianchi) for years without anybody having much of a problem with it; look through the article history, or just scroll to the top of this very page. If anyone is guilty of raising a sudden hassle, it would have to be General Tiger, who moved the article away from its long-standing title on September 27th, less than a month ago. -- Visviva 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now we have two Tianchi articles.
Before arguing on whether Google searches are important or not:

People, other than the question of whether Chonji/Tianchi is better for the title, we have the situation where there is another Tianchi article for the one in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. My current concern, is what are we going to do about this?

My opinion is that since we now have another article for the more widely known Tianchi, I say that we just leave Chonji alone now. It seems to me that Naming conventions (precision) is more relevant than Naming conventions (common names). To my knowledge, the Korean name is unambiguous (meaning that there isn’t any other Choenji/Chonji, unlike Tianchi), and is therefore preferable. Unless we’re going to argue to go against Naming conventions (precision), we seem to have a conclusion.

Any other opinions?

--General Tiger 12:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that Chonji is an unambiguous name. If you actually went and searched for "Chonji", the most likely results you would get would be Taekwando-related material. For this reason, I don't feel that Chonji is neccessarily superior in being unambiguous. If we're all debating about precision and ambiguity, then I propose that both Tianchi and Chonji be disambiguiation pages, Tianchi to disambiguate the various lakes, and Chonji for Taekwando and the lake. --Yuje 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tianchi, theres an article on it if you type in the exact words on the search bar. Its an article about the lake in a place called "Urumqi" which I have already mentioned of the unclearness. Good friend100 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It even says that the name refers to "several lakes in China and Taiwan". Good friend100 14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your choice of words is striking. Such careful, well-balanced sentences; it reminds of something I've read somewhere.  ... ;-) -- Visviva 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, if you are complimenting me, I suppose you are linking this article with the Baekdusan article. Good friend100 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chonji" is part of Hyung, which is a part of Taekwondo. And I don't think that there is an article for "Chonji (Taekwondo)". Also, "Chonji" in Taekwondo means "heaven and earth" for some sort of movement or attack in Taekwondo, it really does not have to do with the lake Chonji on Baekdu mountain. Good friend100 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, "Tianchi" has way too many other names. There is a Tianchi lake in a place called Urumqi, there is a person named Liu Tianchi, and there is another person named Zhao Tianchi, all of which come out on searches.. Good friend100 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Red herring. Such pages would be located at Liu Tianchi, not Tianchi, and have nothing to do with disambiguation. Or do we put George Washington's page at George now?--Yuje 01:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Red herring =) This is not a criminal investigation. And whoever Liu Tianchi may be, he doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Liu Tianchi is not the only name that can be confused with other places or people.

Also, we're tending to get off topic, with George Washington, red herring, and Liu Tianchi is coming in. Good friend100 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Different Move Request
Chonji → Cheonji

Simply, since we have problems with both Tianchi (several different lakes) and Chonji (lake and Taekwondo), I say that we use Cheonji, which only refers to the lake we're talking about.

--General Tiger 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As an alternative, we might reconsider the part of Naming conventions (Korean) which dictates that we use McCune-Reischauer without diacritics and apostrophes for NK place names. When that was written (long long ago), technical restrictions prevented diacritics and apostrophes from appearing article titles.  However, those restrictions no longer apply.  At any rate, if the article is to remain at the Korean name, it would seem best to follow North Korean romanization practice for a landform that lies (partially) in North Korea; hence, I would consider Ch'& as preferable to Cheonji.  -- Visviva 08:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Then we would have to change Baekdusan as well. It would be easier to just change it to Cheonji.  --General Tiger 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually in fact, Baekdu Mountain itself is incorrect in that the name is supposed to include "san". According to the naming conventions for Korean, I think we should move the Baekdu mountain article into "Baekdusan". Good friend100 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After we get the Changbai thing over. --General Tiger 03:09, 10 October 2006  (UTC)

tianchi
Tianchi. Is this the right link to the right article? Is "Chonji" a pain enough for you to write a whole new article under "Tianchi". Its going to confuse outside readers. This is really ridiculous. Good friend100 22:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good friend100, it's about the one in Shinjiag. Don't wory about it. -- General Tiger


 * It is still going to confuse readers. Two different pictures (even though they both show Chonji) is going to throw people off. Good friend100 02:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's a different picture of a different lake. -- General Tiger

Chonji
Quality over quantity. It seems to me that the only evidence you can come up with is that "Tianchi" comes up with more "hits." LmAO. Wow. Its nearly getting annoying hearing you talk. Everyone gives you the same response because you say the same stuff over, and over again. To me, your only intention is to try and impress on wikipedia users that Korea is China. I read your political opinion boxes, and they're purely imperialistic and outright aggresive towards East Asia. Stop it. You know that Baekdusan is Korea, and that Kim Jong Il has sold the Chinese side of it to China. You know that that is a fact. And you know I'm not going to tolerate any crap you hurl at other users in the Chonji article. Its just so easy to just admit it! I want to impress on you that I agree with you that China was a world power long ago, and is again becoming a power today! It doesn't matter whether I like it or not-its a fact! But that doesn't give you the right to put on mr. tough-guy and be aggressive on Korea-China relations! Be modest! Oyo321 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This message was posted on my talk page, but I think this page would be a more appropriate place to address his concerns.


 * My response:

The fact that there are more publications using the name Tianchi than Chonji isn't sufficient evidence? That's been my position since the beginning. The WP:Google test isn't everything, but it gives a good indicator of trends, and those trends tend to show Tianchi being used to a far greater degree than Chonji. That said, at the moment there lacks a strong concensus to change it back, even though the initial change occured improperly without concensus, but I'm content to leave it be for now.

As for accusations of my alleged imperialistic attempts, Oyo321 seems to think I'm trying to annex Korean territory with a simple romanization proposal. To which my advince is: Chill the fuck out. Korean sovereignty wasn't threatened by years of this page existing under the name Tianchi and it won't be by a return change, and I'm sure the country will continue to survive whether or not online teenagers rush to its patriotic online defense.

And lastly, the widespread claims that the entire mountain was once Korean territory until Kim Il-Sung sold land. Do you have any evidence that Korea sold any land to China? I see you making a lot of claims, but not producing any sources. In fact, signs point in the opposite direction. The stele that demarcated the China-Korea border in 1712 is located on the southern bank of the lake, meaning that the border was originally demarcated at that location. There's a Korean article in the from the publication 역사비판 (Historical Criticism, Fall, 1992) that says North Korea actually gained approximately 230 km² from China in the 1962 treaty.

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

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

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

On another rather amusing note, it does seem my userboxes are being quite effective experiment in showing which users are capable of judging others by the content their edits, and which prefer to judge a book by it's cover and lash out emotionally. --Yuje 06:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Google is vague-the numerical value of the hits are mostly way off the topic. As another has written before, tourist locations, random names of other cities etc. come up in these hits. Google cannot be used to show trends of the popularity of controversial topics. It was never meant to. Korean soverignty has nothing to do with the name of the article being names "Tianchi." It is that it is historically incorrect, and misinforms users about the name of the article. And I have never claimed that Korea sold land to China. North Korea may have-secretly offering a concession for the 2008 Olympics on Baekdu Mountain. Oyo321 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chill the fuck out Oh my, the language is way too harsh. Oyo321, you can stop your nonsense, and Yuje you should stop calling names and telling people to fuck off or a variation of that can get you blocked. I can refer to an admin and then it would get nasty for both of you. Stop it Good friend100 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So....
Everyone happy with the current article? I personally what it to be "Cheonji," but I can get over it. -- General Tiger

Tianchi/Chonji
Could an admin move this article back to Chonji so that all the links work. There was a discussion and vote above, but one user just moved it without any discussion. BAmonster 06:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The result of the vote above was no move. We should use the most common name which is Tianchi. LionheartX

Exactly, no move from Chonji to Tianchi. Do not change unless there is a change of consensus. BAmonster 06:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was originally titled Tianchi. There was never consensus to move it to Chonji. The status quo before the move should be restored until disagreements are settled. LionheartX

Look above. The vote was to keep Chonji, and against moving to Tianchi. Disagreements were settled. BAmonster 07:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the discussion above. The page was originally at Tianchi but unilaterally moved to Chonji without consensus. The vote should be about moving it to Chonji rather than vice versa. LionheartX

The consensus is to keep it at Chonji. Don't play games. BAmonster 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The vote was conducted improperly. Please refrain from personal attacks. LionheartX

Your moves are conducted improperly. Stop vandalizing my user page. BAmonster 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag says suspected sockpuppet. You are not allowed to remove the notice until you are cleared of sockpuppetry. LionheartX

Clear away. BAmonster 08:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Cheonji lake → elsewhere — The move warring must stop. The current title is not acceptable, because the lake's name is a proper noun and must be capitalised. As I see it, there are many options. Please indicate support or opposition to each name in turn, with full reasoning. The past history of the article is irrelevant, so please confine yourselves to the future title of the article, and avoid any personal attacks. --Stemonitis 07:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This move request has been noted at User talk:LionheartX, User talk:BAmonster, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lakes. --Stemonitis 08:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * points to Cheonji lake. As a result of templates including other templates, "What links here" says that thouusands of Korea-related pages that include point to Cheonji lake. Anthony Appleyard 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ . Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * This survey is way too confusing. The first question is whether to use the Korean or the Chinese spelling. It should be Korean, like you see on this map . Chonji (or other variants of Korean spelling) is more common than the Chinese. North Korea has more of the area of the lake, and it is critically important to Korean history and identity, while it is obscure trivia to the Chinese. Google is not useful because most results for Tianchi is for different lakes (see Tianchi), and there are a dozen variants of the Korean spelling. The second question is, for Korean, which romanization to use. South Korean (which is usually used in Wikipedia) is Cheonji, North Korean is Chonji (apparently Wikipedia does not use diacritics). The word "lake" should not be used, because "ji" already means lake. People need to understand the issues before they vote. BAmonster 06:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lake Cheonji

 * Support Keep it consistent with Baekdu Mountain. "Tianchi" is also associated with a place called Urumqi, which has nothing to do with Cheonji, that gives so many results on google. Good friend100 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strange. Searching for
 * "Tianchi lake" gives 9,990 hits
 * "Tianchi lake" Urumqi gives 1390 hits
 * "Tianchi lake" -Urumqi gives 750 hits (Not sure why these two don't add up to 9,990 - maybe google is stricter about eliminating duplicates for the extra search term?)
 * "Lake Cheonji" gives 9 hits, mostly on Wikipedia, or copied from it.
 * Anyway, you're right about Urumqi, but common usage still seems to be Tianchi, not Cheonji. I know Google is only indicative, but if people are talking about Lake Cheonji online, they're not doing it in English, or they're not doing it in forums that Google is looking at.  That doesn't say anything about what is used offline, especially in North Korea, which doesn't really have a lot of stuff on the internet.  But this sort of question should be about two things: (1) what is the official name and (2) which is the most commonly used.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that both are official in the different countries?  And on the evidence that I've can find I think Tianchi is far more common that Cheonji.  Which is why I support Tianchi.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Why should we even have a vote on such an obvious matter? This gives some legitimacy to CPOV attempts to make Korean articles Chinese. (Wikimachine 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm inclined to agree that a vote is not a good way to settle arguments. It can sometimes work, if there is a strong majority one way or the other.  But a majority can still be wrong. The best thing is always to look at the arguments on both sides.  For Tianchi, the argument is common usage.  I'm not sure what the argument for Cheonji is?
 * We aren't here to be fair to both sides of the Chinese/Korean debate, at least, not in the sense of one lake for you, one lake for them, one mountain for you, one for them...  We're here to create an encyclopedia, to describe the facts on the ground.  If China has won the propaganda war, and persuaded everyone to use the Chinese expression, then we use the Chinese expression.  It's a bit rough, but it's the only way we can operate.  You are right that some people here are motivated by a CPOV.  But pointing that out isn't enough.  They can still be right.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * CPOV can be right? Good friend100 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I'm only putting support here because the structure of the poll is flawed. The different romanization and diacritics and hyphenization of Korean spelling should not be different choices for people to vote on. It's a style issue, and Wikipedia's Korean style guideline has already been determined by consensus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Korean%29#Place_names No matter which of the Korean spellings people vote for, if we follow a consistent style in Wikipedia, it should end up at "Chonji" because it is North Korean and Wikipedia doens't use diacritics or hyphens in this case. Listing different Korean spellings as a choice just shows that people do not understand what they're voting for.  Encarta uses diacritics and hyphen between the syllables, but that's not a different spelling to be voted on, it's the same thing as Chonji at Wikipedia, just compliant with Wikipedia's own style guideline: http://encarta.msn.com/map_701527915/Paektu-san.html.


 * Support Better than Lake Tianchi, which would be confusing with the other, more famous, lake Tianchi. Google is inconclusive. This lake is best known as the birthplace of Korea. WikiWitchWest 06:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Like I've mentioned before, Lake Cheonji is the only name that can and that should coexist with Mt. Baekdu. Why would a famous Korean mountain retain a Chinese name in one of its most significant geographic feature? Oyo321 02:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lake Chon

 * 1) Oppose. Can confuse readers. Good friend100 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tianchi Lake

 * support per most common usage, as measured by google. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Tianchi is far more common of a name than either Chonji or Cheonji. A Google search shows nearly 30,000 hits for Tianchi, and and less than 1,000 each for Chonji and Cheonji. That's two orders of magnitude in difference. LionheartX 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly, searching for "Tianchi Lake" -"tianchi lake monster" is more like 10,000 hits, but that's still a lot. Regards, Ben Aveling 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * support This is ridiculous, Tianchi is by far more common than "Cheonji Lake." Not only that, this article is directly related to the Lake Tianchi Monster. Assault11 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * support I can't believe this name issue is still going on after so many months; reading up on what has happened over the past six months or so, it seems kind of clear it should be here. — LactoseTI T 14:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe these "I can't believe"rs at all. Can't you all see that something very wrong when you are naming a lake in Chinese that is located at the peak a mountain named in Korean? (Wikimachine 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
 * As mentioned above in the arguments, there is quite likely a case to move the mountain name as well. Besides that, you could easily make a similar statement--a monster named in Chinese in a lake named in Korean.  That being said, there isn't a contradiction at all if the world is more interested in the lake (perhaps because of the monster) than the mountain.  Besides, we can always explore the issue of potentially renaming the mountain at a different point in time.  — LactoseTI T 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True. But only renaming of the mountain gives access to the renaming of the lake & the monster has nothing to do w/ the lake b/c it's mainly a Chinese media phenomenon. And, currently... the renaming of Mount Baekdu is 100% Oppose. (Wikimachine 18:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment How come the only arguments I seem to come across deal with "number of hits" "popularity." The only reason why Lake "tianchi" Monster is named that, is because the Chinese named it. This issue comes up over and over-Google searches. Who couldn't use Google searches in all the other naming wars? Oyo321 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When Tianchi is an article about another lake, I don't see how this is a viable title. As the naming conventions state, we should be precise when necessary. If this name were to be chosen, it would need a parenthetical. Better to choose one of the other proposed titles, I think, assuming that they aren't vague as well. Dekimasu よ! 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

Stemonitis, you began this poll. Well, what's your opinion on the matter? What's more, could you show me the links that verify that there was a move war? I am suspecting that there actually wasn't & that you might be a straw man sock puppet.

And guys, let's just go for something more than Google search results b/c they don't really apply here. I might really have to get into sock puppetry case right here. I'll explain why if you're willing to argue otherwise, however, I'm busy right now so... cya. (Wikimachine 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Accusations of straw-man-ness and sock puppetry are not to be made lightly. Who am I supposed to be a sock-puppet of, exactly? The evidence for the move war is clear to anyone who would care to look. The page history shows five moves in one day on the 1st of April. I have no opinion about the best location of the page, knowing as I do nothing of Korean geography, but I do want the location to be stable, and the best way of achieving that is to establish a clear consensus for one name over all others, which is the purpose of WP:RM. Please consider your words before making bold and unfounded allegations which could easily be refuted by a modicum of effort. --Stemonitis 08:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Stemonitis. I've got you mixed with the image of other CPOV editors who have been plaguing several other China-Korea related articles. (Wikimachine 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Agree with Stemonitis. Good friend100 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this survey is seriously flawed, for the reasons stated above. BAmonster 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of your comments in this survey above, the only part that directly refers to the survey itself is that it is "confusing". Your other arguments are good reasons for supporting or rejecting specific names, and should be used as such. For example, if you believe that only Korean-based names are useful, and no Chinese-based names, then you could note your opposition at each of the Chinese-based names, stating that reason. This discussion is complex, but that's partly by design. I did not want it to be a simplistic two-way discussion between two imperfect solutions, but rather lay out all the possibilities (including many that probably aren't at all tenable) in order to make the result as unbiased as possible. Having people pause to consider the options is actually an advantage in cases where discussions have previously been too heated. If you have any further complaints about the format here, I'd be happy to hear them, but I have yet to discern any "serious flaws". --Stemonitis 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the serious flaws about using Google web search result as a justification medium.
 * There are more than one "Tianchi" lakes in China (--> more Tianchi than Cheonji, of course)
 * Cheonji Lake is located in the Baekdu Mountain in North Korea.
 * Umm.... why should a lake in a Korean mountain be named in Chinese?
 * I see that this move is related to the recent page move attempt by Chinese editors to integrate Baekdu Mountain into Changbai Mountain Range (I see no reason to merge a mountain into a mountain range, they both deserve a page that fully details their geography, history, cultural significance, etc.) - a strategic move to get rid of "Baekdu" and make the Korean mountain more "Chinese".


 * I bet that most of the websites in Google under the search term "Tianchi" and other variations don't refer to the Cheonji Lake at all... So.... Good luck with that. (Wikimachine 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * But I still don't see that that's a flaw in the poll. You are not required to rely on Google for your evidence. These are factors to be taken into account when indicating your support or otherwise for the different options. --Stemonitis 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a flaw in the poll. (Wikimachine 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

A brief foray into the Internet
Here are the results of a few Internet searches. The greatest number I got was below 1,000, so any search receiving more than that was probably misleading (one must search English-language pages only and exclude Wikipedia and its mirrors). "Tianchi" would seem to be more widely used than "Chonji" (and related spellings), although the fact that "Ch[e]onji" is used for other topics as well as the lake complicates matters (see, for example, here and here). (The fact that there are more Chinese websites than North Korean ones also weakens this result.) It does, however, look like the most commonly-used name for the lake in English is "Tianchi Lake" (the language that this derives from is irrelevant, especially since the lake straddles the border; if the lake were most widely known in English by a Swahili name, we would use that). However, this brings up problems of disambiguation with Tianchi (the one near Ürümqi). I'm beginning to think that the best solution might be to merge this article into Baekdu Mountain, have redirects at Tianchi Lake (categorised in Category:Lakes of China) and Cheonji Lake (categorised in Category:Lakes of Korea), and avoid the whole debate. --Stemonitis 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Urumqi is not the only other Tianchi. See http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E6%B1%A0 There are at least six possible meanings. Also, some publication use style guidelines that separate -ji with a hyphen or a space, so you should include those in Googling, since it's the same name under different style guidelines. It might also be described as a caldera or a pond (see definition of ji), so not have the word "lake". Since we're talking about a few hundred difference, these details can matter a lot. It's hopeless to rely on Google, really, and the people that relied on Google searches need to explain and modify their evidence, or their votes are meaningless. BAmonster 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stemonitis, this article is not very long and could be easily incorporated into Baekdu Mountain and solve this dispute. Good friend100 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. There is no reason to limit development of an article for a topic/subject by incorporating it into a larger article just to avoid the risk of having disputes. When I see that Cheonji Lake is in Mt. Baekdu, which is widely called Mt. Baekdu & is located in North Korea, I won't take any concessions. Just debate logically with me & see where we head. (Wikimachine 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Suggestion
Hi. I don't know anything about this lake, or the conflict over it, nor anything about Korean or Chinese names of any geographic feature. I just say that to declare my lack of clue upon which to base a bias. I arrived at this discussion in the course of noting what a good job Stemonitis has been doing with requested moves lately.

As far as the dispute, I think I understand the salient details. The suggestion that occurs to me, since it's difficult to filter the google searches for results that we can trust to be applicable, is to use the name that's more commonly used in the sources from which the article was written. So, I was going to say that, but then I clicked through to the actual article, and I don't see any sources. How am I supposed to verify that this lake's average depth is 213 meters? Or what its name is, and how it's spelled?

Can we come up with a list of English language sources, and see what they call the lake? Are there any reliable English language sources, that we can cite in the article? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No current news on Cheonji:.
 * One current news on Tianchi:.
 * But I'd ignore "Malaysia Star" (???).


 * BBC
 * Cheonji Lake:
 * Tianchi Lake:


 * New York Times: none
 * CNN
 * Cheonji Lake: none
 * Tianchi Lake:


 * MSNBC: none
 * Fox: none
 * Usatoday: none
 * ABC: none
 * Chicago: none
 * Washington Post: none
 * CBS: none
 * Reuters: none
 * Boston: none
 * Los Angeles: none

I'm not sure if that search was fair because most of the Tianchi came from the Lake Monster article...
 * for Tianchi: 0 additional
 * for Cheonji: 0 additional

Both of the names are so rare that the naming shouldn't be based on commonality.... duh. My question is why did we even submit to these CPOV attempts to change a lake's (in another country) name in the first place? It's like trying to change the Great Lakes to some Canadian Indian title. As far as I remember, the name stays with the nationality of the object if commonality in English language cannot be determined. Then we must cross out the Chinese alternatives & go on to Lake Cheonji. (Wikimachine 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Wow. I didn't realize how scarce the English language sources are.  I found a page at nasa.gov that uses "Tianchi", but I agree, the numbers are too small to speak to any established tradition of usage.  Is it true that we use nationality as a tie-breaker at that point?  How does that work for a lake that straddles a border?
 * I'd still go with my initial instinct, which is to get sources lined up that cite the facts in the article, and go with what they call it. Right now nothing's attributed, which is worse, to my mind, than having the wrong name. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I remember that N. Korea owns 75% of the lake while China owns 25% (right? or something like that). Also, the mountain's name is in Korean. It only makes that the lake's name also be in Korean. Also, many top scientists in NASA are Chinese. (Wikimachine 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Can you please add sources to the article? Improving it in that way would be worth so much more than arguing over the name.  Moving it from one controversial title to another sounds like a bad idea to me.  As to how much of the lake is in which country, I have no idea - our article on it provides no sources to help me find out, either.  Where did the numbers in this article come from anyway?  Did we make them up? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Search results?
Could somebody specify where are the google search results used in this debate? Didn't somebody already mention that Tianji applies for more than one lake? That's probably why it might show larger google result... (Wikimachine 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Google search
And yeah, "Lake Cheonji" gives 3,000 hits, not 9. You either spelled something wrong, or not just giving the right facts.

Personally, I think fighting over these dumb search results on google is really not the way to determine a name because there are so many things named Tianchi/Chonji/Cheonji/etc that can affect the search results.

Chonji
 * 23,300 hits

Lake Chonji
 * 1,200

Cheonji
 * 132,000

Lake Choenji
 * 3,000

Tianchi
 * 99,100

Lake Tianchi
 * 23,200

Lake Tianchi changbai
 * 1,220

If you see the results, Chonji and Cheonji have so many hits because of the Taekwondo chonji. And the Tianchi variants have so many hits because of the Lake Tianchi in Urumqi, China, which is not even close to Korea. Also, Tianchi variants hit on the "Lake Tianchi monster", a legend like Loch Ness, which is only believed and discussed about in China. South Korea doesn't really care about a monster on the lake. The Tianchi lake monster article in Wikipedia is a separate matter.

And, the hit on Lake Tianchi changbai gives you only 1,220, out of which many are on the lake Tianchi monster.

The thing that doesn't make sense is that the argument is carried out here in the Cheonji lake article and not Baekdu Mountain. The name of this article should be analogous to the name of the mountain, which is in Korean. It certainly would be funny to see a Korean mountain with a Chinese lake on top of it. Good friend100 14:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling the Baekdu Mountain "Korean" is very POV and controversial. The article clearly states Baekdu Mountain "is a volcanic mountain on the border between China and North Korea". There is currently a dispute on Talk:Baekdu Mountain about whether to use the name "Changbai Mountain" or "Baekdu Mountain". LionheartX 20:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "And yeah, "Lake Cheonji" gives 3,000 hits, not 9"
 * An explaination for this is that Google gives different results at different times. I guess it has more than one database, with slightly different contents.  Even at the same point in time, it can give inconsistent results, as per one of my searches above.  Regards, Ben Aveling 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the search results for "Chonji" or "Cheonji" are misleading because of the Taekwondo chonji. The relevant searches are "Lake Tianchi" and "Lake Cheonji". "Lake Tianchi" seems to be the most common name for the lake. LionheartX 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As as been repeated stated, "Lake Tianchi" more often refers to a completely different lake(s), see Tianchi. There are many many problems with using Google, especially for a handful of results. What is clear is that there is no overwhelming English prevalence either way. So far, the best objective reference anyone has given about THIS particular lake (more than half in North Korea) is the Encarta map, which uses the same as Wikipedia-style spelling "Chonji". http://encarta.msn.com/map_701527915/Paektu-san.html BAmonster 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I have clearly stated that the large number of results for Cheonji, chonji are because of the Taekwondo chonji. Good friend100 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, don't accuse others unless you know what they are talking about. I'll make it clearer then. Baekdu Mountain is in the language of Korean so therefore this article should be analogous to it. I didn't say "Baekdu Mountain is Korean". Good friend100 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing anybody. What I meant was that the name "Baekdu Mountain" itself is disputed and is subject to change. There have been several requested moves on Talk:Baekdu Mountain. We should use the most common name per Naming conventions (common names). LionheartX 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is the most common name? All of the Google searches so far include "Chonji"s and "Tianchi"s that have nothing to do with THIS lake. Nobody has done a search that shows the most common name for THIS lake. The only relevant evidence anyone's provided so far is that Encarta encyclopedia uses "Chonji" (with diacritics not used in Wikipedia style). BAmonster 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, for the sake of consistency, we should simply stick to one form of romanization - Chinese. Baitou/Baekdu is part of the Changbai mountain chain, therefore it should be expressed in Pinyin. Changbai - like Tianchi (simply put "Jilin" or "Korea" after their respective names and there you have it) - is by far more common than its Korean counterpart. Or we can simply change this page back to the original name "Tianchi" and maintain the status quo for Baekdu and Changbai. Its that simple. Assault11 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't think of any reason why the two names must derive from the same language. There is no problem in knowing a mountain by its name in one language and a lake on/in that mountain by its name in another language, if that follows common usage in English. Consistency is a weak argument. --Stemonitis 10:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely my point. Assault11 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not hit ambiguous spots & say "actually, I think the sky is brown." It's like this. Near the Han River in Seoul, there was a massacre of Chinese. Suddenly, there is an explosion of Chinese forums, newspapers, etc. online about the massacre & demand for retribution & repayment... and they all use the Chinese name for the Han River. All right, Chinese nationalists! Here's your chance to rename the Han River on Wikipedia to something Chinese! (Wikimachine 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

More Accuate Google Search Analysis
The way the two previous Google search results were conducted is ridiculous & seriously flawed.

Revised Search Results w/ NO Similar Pages

 * Chonji:489
 * Lake Chonji:337
 * Cheonji:162
 * Lake Cheonji:121


 * Tianchi:723
 * Lake Tianchi:702
 * Tianji:711
 * Lake Tianji:398

The result shows that there is no big size difference between 500-350-150-100 range for Cheonji variations & 700-700-700-400 range for Tianchi variations. This is pretty minor & should be overrided for other concerns. However, if you still insist on Google search, let me set up a very accurate way of ascertaining the # of sites that actually talk about this lake -using statistics. Only by using statistics can we know the exact number of sites that actually talk about the lake. (Wikimachine 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Statistics Inference of the search result

 * Procedures:
 * Designate SRS of sites n>0.1N
 * randInt (1,481,98)-->A
 * randInt (1,337,68)-->B
 * randInt (1,162,34)-->C
 * randInt (1,121,26)-->D
 * randInt (1,723,146)-->E
 * randInt (1,702,142)-->F
 * randInt (1,711,144)-->G
 * randInt (1,398,80)-->H
 * Apply SortA( to all of the lists.
 * Identify the sites as either related or non-related.
 * L1
 * Yes: 117, 178, 251, 251, 273, 273, 319, 319, 324, 435,
 * No: 2, 10, 22, 24, 30, 50, 50, 51, 65, 76, 77, 89, 95, 103, 110, 115, 125, 127, 135, 136, 148, 149, 149, 159, 197, 202, 205, 222, 225, 231, 233, 234, 235, 235, 236, 247, 271, 281, 309, 325, 326, 328, 328, 329, 330, 337, 347, 348, 355, 367, 368, 373, 382, 386, 387, 389, 390, 394, 396, 397, 399, 401, 402, 405, 408, 415, 415, 428, 428, 433, 433, 437, 444, 447, 447, 447, 450, 450, 451, 452, 457, 457, 462, 469, 474, 478, 487, 489
 * L2
 * Yes: 332, 332, 296, 262, 160, 138, 83, 73, 66, 49, 30, 18, 16, 6, 4, 2
 * No: 335, 330, 311, 288, 281, 275, 267, 263, 259, 254, 242, 236, 234, 232, 229, 213, 205, 203, 200, 197, 193, 184, 182, 179, 177, 177, 176, 175, 173, 170, 164, 162, 151, 148, 146, 136, 134, 122, 115, 111, 105, 102, 102, 101, 96, 87, 75, 62, 60, 47, 42
 * L3
 * Yes: 97, 97, 75, 73, 57, 55, 10, 10
 * No: 150, 148, 143, 142, 139, 139, 132, 132, 129, 122, 122, 118, 118, 114, 88, 66, 56, 56, 53, 49, 47, 42, 35, 24, 20, 15
 * L4
 * Yes: 110, 88, 85, 79, 78, 73, 69, 68, 67, 62, 58, 58, 56, 42, 35, 26, 25, 15, 2
 * No: 109, 95, 95, 89, 53, 48, 48
 * L5
 * Yes: 697, 686, 644, 644, 503, 500, 493, 489, 474, 464, 450, 426, 399, 336, 313, 240, 240, 216, 162, 156, 53, 23, 11
 * No: 722, 713, 712, 700, 698, 685, 678, 666, 666, 657, 650, 648, 646, 646, 643, 640, 626, 618, 617, 615, 607, 596, 594, 592, 591, 590, 589, 583, 574, 572, 564, 554, 553, 552, 552, 551, 543, 529, 524, 521, 506, 498, 490, 486, 480, 454, 454, 447, 425, 425, 419, 403, 390, 387, 384, 378, 371, 367, 367, 360, 351, 350, 341, 335, 333, 325, 321, 321, 315, 311, 305, 305, 303, 302, 297, 287, 281, 278, 269, 269, 258, 252, 251, 241, 239, 237, 235, 234, 232, 225, 224, 218, 206, 199, 196, 196, 189, 182, 170, 153, 152, 147, 145, 144, 137, 136, 124, 123, 117, 117, 112, 101, 93, 90, 68, 55, 52, 49, 46, 35, 27, 4
 * L6
 * Yes:
 * No:
 * Note: I just realized that all the Taekwondo stuffs about "Chon ji" and "heaven and earth" etc. actually was talking about the Chonji lake, as used in 296th site for L2. However, for now, since L1 was already conducted w/o the assumption that Taekwondo referred to the lake when using the phrase within its own terminology, I'm not going to include them unless I see that the data is biased because of my neglect.
 * Additionally, the Google results change in # constantly - I don't know why...
 * Note: As for L5, I didn't know that the Tianchi Lake near Jilin Province was the same lake discussed here... so, there should be error of about - 3 sites.

(Wikimachine 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, for those people just reading along for now, what do your statistical notations mean? How did you determine which hits refer to this Baekdusan lake as opposed to the other Tianchi, for example? WikiWitchWest 05:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not done yet, so all that I put don't mean anything yet. (Wikimachine 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Google searches should exclude "Wikipedia" and be limited to English language. You are not distinguishing between "Lake Chonji" and "Chonji Lake" since you don't use quotation marks. So if your #2 Lake Chonji turns out to be the most common, you won't know whether that means "Chonji Lake" or "Lake Chonji" or just "Chonji" with the word lake somewhere else on the page. And don't forget the diacritics, hyphenated and spaced variants. BAmonster 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about the order of the words or the exact title.... English is a language that can be molded & varied. What I'm concerned about is Cheonji vs. Tianchi. And the statistics procedure already excludes Wiki sites. (Wikimachine 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Heaven Lake
Given the relatively even split between those preferring the Chinese name and those preferring the Korean name, I would like to suggest a compromise. It is my understanding that both Cheonji and Tianchi translate at "Heaven Lake". Would participants here be satisfied with moving the article to Heaven Lake, allowing the article to cover the naming issue equally and fairly, with both names in the infobox, and so on? I'm not looking for arguments or discussion here, just a brief indication of whether or not participants in this discussion could live with this compromise. --Stemonitis 08:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be most comfortable with this choice if the name is used by any English language sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How's Science? "Biologists, volcanologists, and meteorologists would winter at a cliff-hugging station with stunning views of Heaven Lake (in Korean, Lake Chon)." I don't have access to the whole article, but that's enough to convince me that this is an acceptable compromise. The only problem is that Tianchi would be translated the same way, so it would still seem to need some sort of disambiguator. In general, support moving the page to an English title. Dekimasu よ! 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a good compromise, but the rule that forces us to use the most common name does not give us that option. Good friend100 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I won't take that. Using an English alternative should be a last resort. It just seems very ridiculous that a lake within Korea & a Korean mountain should be named in Chinese. Wikimachine 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the main reason why I won't back off is that I see this name move as part of a sudden CPOV attack - probably by same guys organized within an internet forum. Goguryeo, Korea, Mount Baekdu, Balhae... They are all under attack at the same time period - right now.
 * Their strat? Make some edit wars & move wars... call in surrounding editors into attention & then call for a mediation! And all of these articles are basically Korean, so they've got nothing to lose - (if they did this on articles about Chinese subjects, then they have a risk that a "compromise" will lead to a more "Korean POV" version of the article). And these editors - some of which are ignorant about Korean & Chinese history but take pride in their "NPOVness" make some sort of "compromise"! Wikimachine 03:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"1909년 청·일 간에 체결된 간도협약으로 두만강이 국경선으로 결정되었으며, 지금 백두산은 천지까지도 분할되어 천지 북쪽 2/5는 중국측에, 남쪽 3/5은 북한측에 속한다". 60% North Korea, 40% China. (Wikimachine 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
 * And that was from a Sino-Japanese treaty in 1909. I'm sure that the Korean boundary used to encompass the entire lake (let me find the source). (Wikimachine 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, Joseon & Qing made a treaty in 1700s where the national boundary would be set over a lake. This led to disputes on the correct interpretation of that treaty. (Wikimachine 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Are you saying that this lake was named in a border treaty in the 1700s? That sounds like good content for the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There do seem to be a few English-language sources, not as many as for other names, but a few. This travel guide, and possibly this article in Science (I haven't got access to the full text, so I can't confirm that it's not just a report of a translation), along with these:  — they're not the best sources, but they're something. To reply to Goodfriend100, the guideline WP:NC(CN) suggests that we use the most common name. WP:IAR is core policy, and I'm tempted to invoke it, for the first time in my life, here. Wikimachine, kindly lay off the rants about others' supposed POV (even if you're right) and stick to the matter at hand. --Stemonitis 06:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like WP:IAR it gives you flexibility =) Good friend100 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this editorial will be soothing to everyone. (Wikimachine 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I believe the best approach is not to look at what other articles are named so much as at this lake individually. Although you say it is in a Korean-named (on Wikipedia) mountain, the mountain is in a Chinese named mountain range, and has a Chinese named monster in it.  It just as odd to have the Lake Tianchi monster in a Korean named lake, and we really can't change the monster name since it is clearly named that way in the English speaking world.  This lake is on the mountain right on the border of the two countries with both of them having pieces of it, perhaps that provides a reason why  the names seem fairly evenly split (ie there is perhaps no single widely accepted English name).  I think the translation (which represents both names) is a great way to meet in the middle, especially considering there are ample English sources endorsing this name as well.  — LactoseTI T 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then let's go with Lake Heaven or Heavenly Lake. (Wikimachine 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Isn't it a bit awkward? Good friend100 03:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose Heaven Lake or Heavenly Lake, which is a translation of all the Chonji/Tianchi's, so would still be ambiguous, not to mention the paucity of sources. I don't know why everyone's ignoring what seems to be the most notable general reference citation so far, Encarta's "Chon-ji". BAmonster 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

''There seems to be a fair level of support for my suggestion of moving this article to the language-neutral "Heaven Lake". Of the two arguments against it, only one stands up, namely that this is not the most frequently-used name. However, since that would require a decision between two equally partisan names, I feel compelled to ignore that guideline. The argument about disambiguation is false. Disambiguation only applies to other topics with the same name. The only other subject called "Heaven Lake" as frequently is a book by John Dalton, about which we have no article, so there is no need to disambiguate. It is clear to me that there may never be consensus about the naming of this article, so I'm putting my foot down; any future moves must be preceded by a clear demonstration of consensus, ideally assessed by an impartial outsider. This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.'' --Stemonitis 08:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This verges on the absurd. Dalton's book "Heaven Lake" refers to the other lake at Tianchi. People looking for "Heaven Lake" are looking for that book or that lake, according to Google. People searching for "Tianchi" are looking for the other lake, too, according to Google. I think the Encarta reference qualifies as the English name, so this article should be named Chon-ji. If you decide there is no established English name, under Wikipedia naming rules, it should be the local name, which is Chon-ji, since the majority of the area is in North Korea. This does not require a choice between equally partisan names, one name, Chon-ji, has slight but sufficient advantage under existing Wikipedia naming policy. "Heaven Lake", considering that it is best known as a book about a different lake, is a silly name for this article. BAmonster 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NCGN says if a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. (#6). So when there is no established English name, under Wikipedia naming rules, it is preferable to use an English translation over the local name. --Kusunose 06:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorely disappointed in this decision. Is this the best "mediation" the administrator could really think of? This article is named in an unnatural definition. So, to continue consistency, I am assuming that we should all move the disputed articles Dokdo, Goguryeo, Sakhalin etc into English "neutral" names? Oyo321 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)