Talk:Northeast Project (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

Strange places in this article (suspected Korean nationalists)
According to Chinese Encyclopedia 360, Goguryo was not kinship to the rulers of the Goryeo Dynasty (The ruler of Goguryo had the surname Gao, while the ruler of Goryeo had the surname Wang.). but,Chinese Encyclopedia 360 says that some of the refugees from Goguryo entered the Goryeo dynasty and integrated with its.

1.As mentioned below, the Hongshan culture and other so called "Korean culture", but the Hongshan culture gene test results are N1, O2 (originally called O3), C, not the South Korean O1B2.However, the part of the N1 gene in the "Hongshan Culture" Wikipedia entry had been changed to read "N1 is a Korean gene" and later changed back by someone else,and correct. Then an enthusiastic German user changed O2 back to its old name (O3).  Among them, a lot of Chinese and Mongols have N1, O2 (formerly known as O3), and C genes. Haplogroup N-M231

Haplogroup O-M122

Haplogroup C-M130 This just shows that before the Northeast Project,Korean people think Hongshan culture is Korean culture. Otherwise, how could they consider Hongshan culture as their own?They may not even know about the Liaohe region (Liaodong Peninsula) and the Longshan culture from the Yellow River region 2.Moreover, the Northeast Project thought that the Goguryeo rulers had nothing to do with the Goryeo dynasty, but admitted that the Goguryeo were not Han and that the ethnic integration of the Goguryeo branches was related to Korea. It did not deny that the Koguryeo provided the genes for Korea but the Northeast Project believed that it was a minority ethnic group in ancient China.There is no mention of Dangun in the Book of wei （ This is the directory of Book of Wei, click on the chapter title to read it）So, who are the thieves?Is it the author of Book of wei?Doesn't the entry of Dangun entry and story that Dangun history cited the book of Wei ?Excuse me, why is this?How does the Wei book not have this paragraph?The Koreans, however, claim that Dangun ruled Manchuria, but it has already been proved that Dangun was a fabricated figure,

3.In this article, it was claimed that China extended the Great Wall to Heilongjiang Province in 2012, But the Great Wall in Heilongjiang is the Great Wall of Jin and Liao Dynasties，The Great Wall of the Jin Dynasty and the Great Wall of the Liao Dynasty were clearly identified in the 2008 Wikipedia entry on the Great Wall， And in the history of China, there are many dynasties built the Great Wall.The Chinese government is not on the Great Wall to extend, can click on the link to see the Great Wall in 2014 entries and compared 2008 entries, Please find the photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" in the entry of the Great Wall in 2008 and in the entry of the Great Wall in 2014 and compare them, 2008 Great wall entry and 2014 Great wall entry, both the Great Wall entries contain photos of "Map of the Whole Wall Constructions" which need to be looked up 2008 Great wall wikipedia entry photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the fifth photo on the left of the article.

2014 Great wall wikipedia entry photos of"Map of the Whole Wall Constructions"In the second photo on the left of the article.

Secondly, in the news of China Intranet in 2006, there was a mention of the Jin Dynasty Great Wall （Jin dynasty border trenches）,Han Dynasty Great Wall    was greatly damaged，2006 Chinese great wall new.And in a 2009 news report about it, it said that the early Great Wall (The Great Wall other than the Ming Wall) could not be repaired (because it was too damaged)2009 Chinese great wall New.According to the Book of Liao, [Liao tai zu]  built the Liao dynasty Great Wall：《辽史》载：太祖二年冬十月“筑长城于镇东海口”

This is just China and Japan found evidence that Korea stole history, South Korea dissatisfaction and rumour, warning South Koreans: do not think that after deleting your web page we can not find the original content, please remember there is a thing called the original content of the web page backup!

(Someone else): Only China claims Goguryeo originate from the Hongshan culture which is Western Manchuria. Japan, Korea, and most modern East Asian historians thinj that Goguryeo, Buyeo, Gojoseon, and the Yemaek people likely originate from Northern Manchuria or Southern Siberia. Hell we know the Ye maek even exist because of Chinese records. This is backed up by Ancient Chinese books recording the approximate location of each dynasty. And they knew Buyeo definetly came from the Northern parts of Manchuria not the Western. And genetic studies done by the Europeans (one specifically specializing in these types of genetics) also seem to think that Goguryeo came from Buyeo which came from the Ye Maek or the fragments of Gojoseon. Also what Koreans claim Hongshan as Korean? Far as I know they don't even know what Hongshan is since historically it's never involved them. They don't need to know Chinese history and it's ethnic groups so they don't. Far as I can see from your citations you don't show any definite proof that Goguryeo was the Hongshan people only what the Hongshan people are today not that Goguryeo came from that area. Literally everyone knows that Dangun isn't real he's mythological. That's like saying the Greek Gods were real obviously they're not. There might have been a Dangun like figure in Gojoseon but there was no Dangun himself. That's only something North Korea thinks.

I am not a Korean nationalist I am from North America. I like learning all of East Asia. I think China has an amazing history, is the reason for many of Japan and Korea's modern very well known attributes like their distinct yet familiar architecture and clothes. However Goguryeo is not one of those things. Goguryeo for the longest time including the Chinese has thought it to be Korean. Kublai Khan considered vassalizing Goryeo the same as Goguryeo, a Ming general was disappointed with Joseon considering to them they're Goguryeo's direct descendants, hell MAO ZEDONG thought the same. Turkiye does as well as Goguryeo and the ancient Turkic Khagnate had good relations until the Tang beat them up and sent them packing to Turkiye. However they still kept in contact with Later Silla, Goryeo, and Joseon considering them the same as Goguryeo.

There's even evidence that Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla shared the same language and their cultures were noted by the Chinese to be so similar they also called them Samhan later on since there wasn't really a need to differiate them if they're weren't dealing with them individually.

Your info you gave is very interesting. It's just not Goguryeo since the Hongshan and them to most historians outside of China are not the same. I say this in goodwill because I do respect China and its very rich history. But I also respect Korea and its rich (yet not well known) history.

As for sources they're all on this wikipedia I just don't know how to cite sources since I don't do stuff like editing or replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F825:7400:21FA:8090:BA43:B14A (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

POV
A fine start, and a rather interesting and important topic. Though, I do think it should be fleshed out to better represent that this Korea/Goguryeo thing is only one aspect of the impact of the project. I think a longer, more thorough main section about the project should come before discussions of impact or controversy. right? (BTW, I recognize of course that this is a work in progress, and I don't mean to criticize that you have to get on it right now. Just, for later editors who come by and look to see what needs doing or whatever...) LordAmeth 11:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A little comment on the article
can any knowledgeable people please revised this. this is sooooo subjective all sources led to shady korean article wrote by korean. suprising!!. all i know its always hard to pin point ancient ancient civilization because it's simply not korean or chinese yet! but the korean seems to completely dismiss it as anything else than korean which is false, biggoted, and ignorant. the chinese on the other hand is comprised of almost 57 ethnic groups, the han chinese itself are essentially mixed ethnic group that forget where they are from and just called them han — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1003:6D86:69FE:F7D9:FE6E:D213 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article is wayyyyy... to subjective. Just take a look at the references: NOT A SINGLE CHINESE SOURCE. It seems that the author is refusing to use Chinese sources (deliberately or not, I do not know) to present only ONE SIDE of this extremely controversial topic. And I've never heard (I've been researching too) of any Northwest Project or Southwest Project being carried out anywhere...(notice the lack of reference?).

And about the use of the term Turkestan... This is a very sensitive issue, especially for Chinese. The name Xinjiang should be used instead of Turkestan because 1) it is recognized by individuals and governments world-wide to refer to northwest China, both geographically and politically, therefore should replace the less common term of Turkestan. And 2) East Turkestan Islamic Movement is a well-known terrorist/separatist movement responsible for many terrorist acts throughout Northwestern China, and their goal is to establish a so-called "East Turkestan Republic". To China/Chinese, using the term Turkestan to refer to Xinjiang is equivalent to supporting this succession movement and is comparable, if not more offensive than to call the Province of Quebec the Quebec Republic in Canada.

Finally, the link to turkestan and tibet is TOTALLY unecessary, what does it have to do with the Northeast Project (unless the "Northwest" and "Southwest" projects mentioned actually EXIST).


 * Agreed. I just removed a whole bunch of gibberish/copy-pasted content (see Goguryeo). Much of the article has nothing to do with the so-called "Northeast Project" at all. Just a brief skim-through of the Northeast Project's official website indicates nothing about the article's assertions regarding "Zhonghua Minzu" and/or other Original Research conducted by the user in question. And this is not even mentioning the most blatant provocation - the complete disregard for Chinese sources. Assault11 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These are all sourced. Don't vandalize the article. Cydevil38 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They have nothing to do with the topic (e.g. The "Background" information on the Northeast project has nothing to do with Gaogouli). Assault11 14:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm this article is supposed to have a background info because its supposed to explain to the reader what the Northeast Project is. Good friend100 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not all about Goguryeo. Good friend100 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The background information you're referring to has nothing to do with the Northeast Project at all. Its a mere rehash of the non-sense from the Gaogouli article (which is in dispute). The prime focus of this article (as the title suggests) should be about the Northeast Project itself - not ridiculous one-sided POV Research that has almost nothing to do with the topic. Assault11 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

how is the Goguryeo dispute not related to the Northeast Project? Also, isn't the Northeast Project all about Goguryeo?

The Korean and Chinese arguments section should definitely kept in this article. Isn't that what the Northeast Project is all about? challenging the history of Korea and challenging Goguryeo's conventional position?

It is not original research. Many of the points on each side has a source. If this article and the Goguryeo article is so POV, then add unbiased sources. Good friend100 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) No, the Northeast Project is not all about Gaogouli. 2) No, its not what its "all about." The Northeast Project focuses on various aspects of Northeast China (e.g. archaeology, minorities, etc.) not limited to Gaogouli. 3) Very well then. Please explain to me how exactly this project applies the "ideology of Zhonghua Minzu" to "ancient ethnic groups"? What does Tibet, "Turkestan" (which itself is a highly controversial and provocative term), "historical revisionism," and "Pseudo-history" got to do with this article? This is the opinion of the original author, not a fact. Also, as LordAmeth indicated earlier, this "dispute" on Gaogouli is only one small aspect of the Northeast Project. This article is about the Northeast Project - NOT about Gaogouli. Assault11 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Goguryeo takes up the majority of what the Chinese historians are studying on. The PRC government has adopted a policy of "one country, one people" to assert claims over various ethnic groups living in China and they centered themselves as the center of the "one".

Also, most of the international community agrees that the PRC's claim on Goguryeo is an attempt on historical revisionism. Its not simply a project to study the history of northeastern China and its artifacts, etc. Good friend100 02:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just absurd. A third-rate Tang tributary such as Gaogouli certainly does not command the same type of influence as any of the mainstream Chinese dynasties. There is no such thing as a "One country, one people" policy. Zhonghua Minzu is not a "PRC government" policy, its modern derivative could be traced back to the Qing-Republican eras.


 * Look, I don't care what the "international community" thinks (which is your POV). It has nothing to do with this article. Like I said earlier, Gaogouli is only a small part of the entire Northeast Project, this is my main rationale behind my past reverts. And yes, the Northeast Project (as its name suggests) is primarily focused on the study of Northeast China in general . Assault11 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting entire section without discussion, which is vandalism, maybe you should add more information about the Northeast project in general instead of deleting information about Goguryeo.

The information you have deleted has much sources that are from various sources and they are not POV. Also, you are wrong about the international community. How can what the international community be POV? It would be if it disagrees with China, but most of the sources agree about the information on Goguryeo.

You cannot simply delete information because you think its POV. Most of the points are sourced. Its vandalism and you will be warned.

If you can speak Chinese, then you have much more access to sources about the Northeast Project in Chinese sites. Or you can research and add more information to this article. Good friend100 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Definition of vandalism by wikipedia: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The "information" you keep reverting to (whether they be sourced or not) has NOTHING to do with the Northeast Project. Can you even read Chinese? The link I just provided comes directly from the NEP official website. I have made my point clear and I will continue to remove content that has nothing to do with the article (I have no objections however, to a small section regarding Sino-South Korean disputes, but this clearly is NOT what the Northeast Project is all about). Frankly, what you are doing fits the description of Vandalism as defined by Wikipedia, I suggest that you should take your own advice.


 * Like I said many times before, the issue of Gaogouli has nothing to do with the Northeast Project. The Northeast Project is a regional study of Northeast China (Dongbei) and has nothing to do with South Korea (or the insertions regarding Tibet, Xinjiang, Pseudo-history, Historical Revisionism for that matter - all of whom are heavily laced with sinophobic connotations). Assault11 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not mediating, but I would like to ask both sides to refrain from using the word vandalism, as it is rather inappropriate because we are all here to improve the article. Although we disagree each other because of our own point of view, but we should recognize that nobody is truly wrong; we are all right in our own aspect, but we need to find the balance between them.

The statement of this topic's supposed irrelevance with the issues of Goguryeo is puzzling. The Northeast Project is a study of the general history of the region in the present day northeastern China, which includes Goguryeo. This should be a known fact and should not have any objections, and the coverage on the Goguryeo issues in the background section should not be grounded to deletion, but modification.

I'm ethnic Chinese, so I understand Assault11's point of view. Since the establishment of Yan State, the Han Chinese have influenced the region to a great extent, and since 1950, we tend to associate the region as "our" region. However, it should be noted that other races have influenced this region to a equal amount of extent, and in this case, the Chosons. Although the present day South Korea possess no territory in Manchuria, they are ethnic Chosons, so it should not be objected that the history of Goguryeo is part of their history also (and they still possess some parts of Goguryeo). (AQu01rius • Talk) 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why I need to repeat myself so many times. The information is relevant because Goguryeo is studied as part of the Northeast Project to be scientifically proven that it is Chinese. Goguryeo IS part of the Northeast Project THEREFORE information about the dispute should be added.


 * Again, if you think there are no information about the project, then add more.


 * And its quite unfortunate of you to say that what I'm doing is vandalism. Are you accusing me because you don't like the information on there? Goguryeo is part of the Northeast Project. Several sources mention the project with Goguryeo. Good friend100 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I even added a source of Zhonghua Minzu. Good friend100 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good friend100, if you bothered to read my replies correctly, you'd see that we are in agreement with regards to the Sino-South Korean dispute over Gaogouli. However, this dispute does not form the basis of the Northeast Project as a whole - which seems to be the case with your reverts. This dispute should be limited to only a section long (since most of the content is merely a rehash of the Gaogouli article) briefly explaining the dispute, the rest should either be relocated to Sino-South Korean relations or to the Gaogouli article. Lastly, the removal of "Pseudo-history," "Historical Revisionism," "Zhonghua Minzu," "Tibet," and "Turkestan" is a must to comply with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. They have nothing to do with this article and the choice of words clearly exemplifies the POV nature of this article. They must be removed.


 * Nowhere does the NEP website mention anything about the application of Zhonghua Minzu in this project. The opinion piece/editorial (your source) does not state this as a fact (it doesn't even mention "Zhonghua Minzu" directly), but an assumption. Assault11 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It mentions it as the "one people, one country" policy, which is basically what the Zhonghua Minzu is. The information is relevant and I already said to add more information about the article as you like.

You are simply accusing historical revisionism, tibet, turkestan, etc to be POV. What is your reasoning for that? The claim on Goguryeo is historical revisionism, as seen by most of the international community. Good friend100 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it, NE project is a simple effort to study history of what constitutes present-day NE China, and its people, broadly termed "Zhonghua Minzu", which encompass all Chinese citizens (inc. Korean Chinese), SO LONG AS they remain Chinese citizens. It's in fact the Koreans who took it in the wrong way. The fact that it's funded by the Chinese government means nothing. All research projects are funded by the government.

Goguryeo, along with a number of other states, has always been considered a tributary state by the Chinese emperors, no matter what dynasty we are referring to, and with good reason. Plus, a large part of Goguryeo does contribute to the genetic pool of modern Chinese NE. It's understandable why Koreans wants to deny some of the more embarrassing historical facts though (the same way everyone else does). 68.162.138.245 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny you bring that up. I hear it is quite popular for Chinese youths to claim Korean (Goguryeo)/northern heritage. Makes them seem more "exotic" to the locals I guess. Even the Chinese government aren't bold enough to claim Goguryeo lineage. Kuebie 06:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since PRC is trying to claim the entire cradle of Northern Asian civilization as Chinese civilization, PRC started this ridiculous project to aim to claim much NE Asian history as possible, in order to acheieve this China need to claim on ancient Korean past thus this controversial discussion came about. Even with world scholars condemnation, China still continue with this project however China too realize this is too much handle seem that they could become laughing stock of the century, China decided to hold on until they become superpower. Korsentry 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Request for Mediation taken by Armed Blowfish and Daniel Bryant
We strongly recommend private mediation. To request an account on the private Mediation Wiki, please click on the mail link in my signature. Include "Goguryeo" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Goguryeo mediation". If you do not have email enabled on your account and are unable to use the mail link, please click on my username in my signature and let me know on my talk page. You should also read the Mediation Committee policy on confidentiality. This message is being posted elsewhere. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection
The current edit warring is inappropriate. I was tempted to block both and. I won't do that at the moment, but I am protecting the article in the alternative. Please discuss your changes, and don't intentionally insert your POV that you know is disputed into the article. I'm going to probably unprotect tonight, to see if parties have sufficiently calmed down. Resumption of edit warring will draw 3RR blocks, and particularly since these parties have been guilty of doing this previously, they will be blocked a particularly long time if they resume the behavior. Please watch yourselves. (For reference for any admins who might take a look here -- for Cydevil38's former edit history, see .) --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nlu, I feel deeply insulted. I've been abiding by the 3RR rule, and I've been reverting blatant vandalism, not edits made in good faith. And it's funny you only accuse me of "edit warring", when Goodfriend has been also engaging in similar behavior - reverting vandalism. Also, the Northeast Project fits every meaning of the term "historical revisionism", so why did you delete that link? Tibet and Turkistan are also relevant links, as China's been doing the same to those regions. This article has much potential for expansion, but not deletion. Cydevil38 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And do have in mind, Assault11 was deleting most of the article's contents, not just the "See Also" links. I just didn't feel any need to respond to such blatant vandalism except simply reverting them, though I did add a source attesting to the existence of the Southwest Project and the Northwest Project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cydevil38 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Nlu, if the mentioning of Tibet, "Turkestan," (I think you know quite well the reasons behind the use of this term), "Zhonghua Minzu," "pseudo-history" and "historical revisionism" is not POV, then I don't know what is. The complete neglect of Chinese sources is something to be taken account of as well, especially considering that this is a Chinese-themed article.

Secondly, if you look at one of the last revisions made before the lock, just about 3/4 of the entire page was copy/pasted from other articles with no explanation on what the Northeast Project is about.

Its interesting how Cydevil retorts my edits as "vandalism," considering that none of his "additions" have anything to do with the subject at hand. Its even funnier seeing how he assumes moral superiority by advocating his stance against "vandalism" and the supposed edits of "good faith." I'd take it that he wasn't expecting any opposition with his choice of words (e.g. Turkestan).

Oh, and just the other day, a friend of mine sent me a link to a website, here's an excerpt:

''Someone just accused me as a sockpuppet of Nlu. I guess I've been making too many compromises? Anyways, Nlu is a miserable failure as an admin. He has only been exacerbating the problem, not improving it. By being CPOV himself, too much consideration is being given to the opinion of CPOV editors, even clearly disruptive ones such as Assault11. My opnion is that let them have their way. Let it blow up.''

He found this through Google searching my Wikipedia username. And in case you're wondering Cydevil, allow me to make this clear for you: I don't know you and you sure as hell don't know who I am. Perhaps you need to learn to practice what you preach and assume good faith. In any case - IIRC - I have not violated the 3RR policy with my reverts, if there's any further problems, please let me know. Assault11 02:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of the parties' apparent inability to see how their behavior is inappropriate, unprotection won't happen for now. I'll leave unprotection in the discretion of the mediators.  --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I said no such thing. My reply was only directed at your suggestion of imposing 3RR blocks, which is something I have not violated. I admit that my past behavior was not up to par with Wikipedia's standards, and to this, I stand corrected. However, I still consider my past reverts - not necessarily actions - to be legit and in compliance with the NPOV policies of Wikipedia. Assault11 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is vandalism without general consensus and discussion at the talk page. You have no specific reason as to why the information should be deleted. You simply say that Goguryeo has nothing to do with the Northeast Project without any sources. There are sources that say how Chinese historians went about studying Goguryeo tombs and paintings, etc. Good friend100 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this already. I have provided a link to the official NEP website and stated time and again that the Gaogouli dispute does not represent the entire Northeast Project. If you can read Chinese, please verify it, if not, don't reply. I have no interest in arguing over semantics. Assault11 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo controversies
Would it be better if we merge most of the information that talk about the Goguryeo Controversy, text book incidents and its history etc. to this page, and just briefly mention about it here in the Northeast Project page? I think it would satisfy both sides. (AQu01rius • Talk) 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. However, Goodfriend integrated the background section into Goguryeo controversies, a part of which I believe has more relevance in the general background of the subject than on Goguryeo specifically. Well, we can't edit the article right now anyways so lets wait unil it's unprotected. Cydevil38 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding problems
A few issues that need to be addressed:

1) This project applied Zhonghua Minzu, an ideology started in the 1980s, to ancient ethnic groups, states and history of the region of Manchuria and northern Korea.[1] Under the Zhonghua Minzu ideology, it is assumed that there was a greater Chinese state in the ancient past. Accordingly, any pre-modern people or states that occupied any part of what is now the People's Republic of China are defined as having been part of that greater Chinese state.

The source does not mention the term "Zhonghua Minzu" directly. Since the official NEP website does not mention anything about the application of Zhonghua Minzu, this is not treated as a fact.

2) Similar projects have been conducted on Tibet and Turkestan, which have been named Southwest Project and Northwest Project, respectively.

Source is in Korean, thus unverifiable. The use of the term "Turkestan" is highly controversial and POV, especially when this is coming from a Korean article trying to make a connection between this dispute and Tibet/Xinjiang (completely irrelevant topics).

3) Due to its claims on Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae, the project sparked disputes with Korea.

These are Korean accusations, not facts.

4) The PRC's revision of Goguryeo history, in an attempt to recharacterize it as a Chinese provincial state rather than an independent Korean kingdom, has received international criticism for making a flawed and politically motivated rewriting of history. Such criticisms came from numerous scholars from other countries such as the United States, Russia, Mongolia, and Australia,[5] including prominent Goguryeo experts such as Mark Byington of Harvard University Korea Institute,[6] and R. Sh. Djarylgashinova of Russian Academy of Science Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography.[7]

''The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history and denied Chinese connections.[8] He has expressed disagreement with the CASS institute, the PRC government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.''

The section on criticism is redundant (see Goguryeo controversies), and is considered to be POV/Content forking WP:CFORK.

These were the reasons behind my recent edits on this article, if you have any further questions, please discuss.

P.S. I would assume that the Korean editors here have already reviewed various articles directly from the Northeast Project. It would be greatly appreciated if you could share some of these. Thanks. Assault11 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

References have been given, and Wikipedia allows verifiable non-English sources. Cydevil38 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sources do not support your claims (e.g. Zhonghua Minzu). Address the points I have made above. Assault11 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because you keep deleting the referred source in your reverts. Cydevil38 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You source does not support your claim. Where does it even mention Zhonghua Minzu? It doesn't. I ask you once more, are you going to address the points I have made above or not? Assault11 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

''In keeping with the politically sensitive intellectual milieu of the time, Jin opens his work with the declaration that the history of the Northeast is nothing more than one part of the history of China (guoshi) (1:2A). He maintains that the basic element of history is the nationality (minzu) rather than the state (guojia), and he notes that a state may encompass multiple nationalities, while a single nationality may span multiple states. For Jin, the history of the Northeast is precisely the history of its nationalities. “The Northeast” is itself defined primarily in terms of its nationalities and secondarily in terms of the territories occupied by those nationalities. The territorial extent of the Northeast therefore shifted through time as the various nationalities expanded and contracted, and at times the Northeast included parts of the Korean peninsula. Throughout time the nationalities of the Northeast always represented an integral part of the greater Chinese nation (zhonghua minzu) (1:15B-25B). Jin conceived of the history of the Northeast as a complex and ever changing process defined by the movements of and competition among its various nationalities. He periodized the history of the Northeast into six phases on this basis, using both the relative strength and weakness of the Han presence as well as the changing permutations among the indigenous nationalities as the criteria for delimiting historical eras (1:25B-27B).'' From the referred source. Cydevil38 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The source in question does not contain the excerpt from above, instead its the editorial from Asia Times Online . Please provide the URL of your "referred source," assuming its from an online source. It does not appear in the paragraph dealing with the application of Zhonghua Minzu: This project applied Zhonghua Minzu, an ideology started in the 1980s, to ancient ethnic groups, states and history of the region of Manchuria and northern Korea.[1].


 * Also, it does not seem that that the author is referring directly to the Northeast Project (Dongbei Gongcheng, not to be confused with the region) itself, rather the work of one historian. Can you provide the full name of "Jin" (Yufu?) - if possible, in Chinese? Assault11 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you even bothered reading the article, you'd know what the referred source is. Cydevil38 05:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Spare me the ad hominem attacks. I read everything up until the point you changed your source. The paragraph you have provided does not refer to the Northeast Project. I am assuming the above excerpt refers to Jin Yufu - a historian with no connections to the Northeast Project. And judging from your last few edits on the article, the source you referred to comes from this Korean article.


 * I have no problems with mentioning the application of "Zhonghua Minzu," but this coming from the same source that tries to make a connection between the Dongbei Gongcheng and Tibet and "Turkestan" (completely irrelevant) clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I have yet to see a Chinese/English source confirming any of this.


 * I have made a list of issues above, please address them. Assault11 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I have removed the mention of "historical revisionism," on the grounds that it violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. You have been previously warned by an administrator to stop POV-pushing . Assault11 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on topic overview, retrieved from the official site in Chinese. Hopefully we can remove some unnecessary POV talk and Goguryo controversy now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.252.13.93 (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

protected
I protected this article. Both involved parties ought to know by now that the edit warring won't help anything. CMummert · talk 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to discuss, but Cydevil38 repeatedly ignored my questions I have asked (refer above). Instead, he kept insisting on his sources even when the accuracy and neutrality of them are being called into question.


 * Also, it has been recently confirmed by Checkuser that Cydevil38 is a sockpuppet . Nevermind, it has been shown to be unlikely. Proceeding with the discussion. Assault11 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Funding
I added a request for a reference citation on the figures for funding. Also what is the source of the funding. The article seams to be saying that this Northeast Project is closely connected with the Chinese government and government policy, however, it rather seems to be just a collection of research papers published by one, albeit quite distinguished, college. Rincewind42 (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Refernces on this article
Today I fixed two broken ref links on this article, however one other ref link appears to be broken and I am unable to source the new page for that content. See reference 6. "项目介绍 (Topic Overview)" (in Chinese). Centre of China's Borderland History and Geography Research, CASS. 2007-07-04. Retrieved 2009-07-28.

In addition, several references point to Korea or Chinese language websites without translation. As per WP:NONENG an English translation of the relevant section of the source should be included in the reference. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest this page be merged into Goguryeo controversies. This article doesn't have much content on the Northeast Project itself - except for the "list of research topics", which indicates that the Project is much more than the article talks about. Some of the sources cited in this article don't even mention the Northeast Project, but rather just the Goguryeo controversies. Per, it seems that this article is a POV fork from Goguryeo controversies, created to suggest that the Chinese government endorses a particular view in the controversies, when this seems to be unclear, or even opposite to the truth (for example, China has agreed in 2004 to censor the view that Goguryeo was solely Chinese from its textbooks, in order to please South Korea's government). The actual content on the Northeast Project could fit into a section of the Goguryeo controversies article. Shrigley (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Northeast Project is an important topic that is still discussed widely in both the academia and the media. Even in the past couple of days(Sept. 6th and 5th), there were numerous articles mentioning the word. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This page contains little info about the Northeast Project itself. The topic may be as a controversy in Korea, however it is not actually proven by the current article, that the Northeast Project even exists outside of the Korean media hype. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, there has been enough time for discussion among interested parties. Rincewind42, thank you for your reasoned argument. Cydevil38, you do not address the main argument, which is that this page is not about the Northeast Project itself, which is a list of research topics. To write an independent article about a subject, we need to have sources that deal with only this subject, or at least deal with it in depth, which we don't for the specific CASS research with that name. As this article is redundant, it is merged. Shrigley (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article covers the background, contents and its ramifications, and possbility in the future current status of the project. This article has respectable counterparts in diffrrent languages, attesting to the validity of the topic and its significance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.216.50.137 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This matter has been brought to attention in the Korean Wikiproject, and I ask other editors to cease and desist from vandalizing this article until proper discussions are conducted on this matter. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's funny and interesting how you've only seeked to beg for help from one side, as opposed to notifying all relevant sides, per WP:CANVASS. It's also quite interesting on how you've pretty much begged the question with loaded lexicon in your notification message (after all, everyone who disagrees with you is a POV editor, right?) --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing problems in this article.
Despite the recent rewrite of the article, several issues remain.

In the opening paragraph it says "project launched by the Chinese government". We need a reference that this project was launched by the government and not lower down the chain of authority. We also need a citation that it was really conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Science. We need a citation for the funding given at 20-million-yuan (2.4 million US dollars) and the dates of 2002 and 2006. In addition notes [1] and notes [2] are duplicates and don't seem tell anything about the Northeast Project - only about the meaning of Zhonghua Minzu which I doubt actually needs a citation. The second half of the opening paragraph goes on to explain what Zhonghua Minzu means. It fails to say what the Northeast Project reported.

The who sections entitled, "Historical Revisionism" is opinion not fact. The two citations given do not back up the claims made about a large body of research. The term "These projects" is not defined. What projects, what research exactly. What did they publish. The line "Research in the Northeast Project has claimed Gojoseon, Bueyo, Goguryeo and Balhae as regional governments of the ancient Chinese empire." is without citation. Just what has the Northeast Project published. Links to papers in journals for example.

In the section "Reactions" the line, "The Northeast Project's historical revisionism on historical Korean kingdoms" is not neutral. Term "historical Korean kingdoms" is Korean ethnocentrism. Neutral dispassionate language must be used that respects the opinions of both Koreans and Chinese equally. The line, "many other countries including China." seems to make grand small points. Using the word "countries" and "including China" implies national consensus or government statements which is not shown in the citations. In particular citation [17] uses the words "A Chinese historian" not "China". Instead the wording could be similar to "...many non-Korean people including at least one Chinese historian..."

The line, "The Northeast Project has become a key terminology in South Korea to represent China's historical revisionism and political expansionism, which continues to be widely used well after the Northeast Project was officially concluded in 2007." is grammatically incorrect. In its current form it says that political expansionism continues to be used widely - which is clearly not what was meant. In addition it is opinion. Continues to be used how, where and by whome?

Finally, the section, "List of Research Topics" is referenced by note [18] but this link is broken. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising all these issues. It's true that the article looks odd in many places. Just a quick note: the "list of research topics" might actually be the titles of books published in the "Northeast Frontier Research Series" ("Dongbei bianjiang yanjiu congshu" 东北边疆研究丛书) of the CASS press. Check this list.
 * As for government support, I added a new section called "Organization" with some relevant info. The CASS is directly connected to the central government, but it seems that in this case the project started in Jilin province. Still, many contributors to the Project state that their research aims to serves the political needs of the central government. We have statements like "this is not only an academic project, it is also an important political task" (它不仅仅是一个学术课题，同时也是一项重要政治任务) and "the academic research we are conducting is not purely academic; it is academic research to serve the interests of the state" (我们所从事的学术研究不是纯粹的学术研究，而是学术研究为国家利益服务). This seems like relevant info, but I'm not sure how to introduce it into the article without doing WP:OR, because these statements appear in publications by the Northeast Project (technically primary sources) rather than on secondary studies thereof. Any advice is welcome! Madalibi (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correspondence.


 * Introduction/Background - I have linked an article(Korean) that attests to the fact that the Northeast Project was a government project, with specific budget figures. Byington's work well explains the ideological background and the historical discourse that lead to the of the Northeast Project, and therefore relevant. Zhonghua Minzu, or the multi-ethnic unitary state, is an ideology that has lead to the Northeast Project, and therefore explaining it as the background is necessary.


 * Historical Revisionism - Indeed, claims of historical revisionism is made on a large body of research. This large body of research is a consistent group of research that applies ideology to revision history, and therefore I thought they can be generalized in this context. Explaining every journal articles in the projects would seem rather redundant. "Research in the Northeast Project has claimed Gojoseon, Bueyo, Goguryeo and Balhae as regional governments of the ancient Chinese empire." is an elaboration of the cited material "The Northeast Project consists of research on historical kingdoms, polities and ethnicities in this area, and also modern issues such as territorial disputes and immigration." Therefore, they come from the same source. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reactions - It has been discussed extensively to an uneasy consensus at Goguryeo that Koreanness of Goguryeo is not equal to Chineseness. There is a predominance of sources that refer to Goguryeo as a Korean kingdom and of Korean history, with very little connections to China. As for your concern for "countries", I will make the appropriate edit that you may address your issue.


 * I've looked into this matter "countries" again, and I don't think this is a problem. The point of it is that academic experts on Goguryeo, regardless of nationality, are critical of China's historical revisionism, and one of them includes an academic expert in China. This does not mean countries at their official capacities are criticizing the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Key terminology - Later on, I'll expand upon this part to explain how the Northeast Project has come to define various aspects of China's historical revisionism and political expansionism with specific cases. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * List of Research Topics - Actually, there is an official website on the Northeast Project, but it seems to be in relatively flux. I'll try to get a fixed website linked ASAP. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reqeusted translations
 * Historical revision of Tibet was done under the name of Southwest Project (西南工程) in 1986.
 * Northwest Project(西北工程), which is a comprehensive project on history and geography of Xinjiang and Uighur peoples started along with the Northeast Project in 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydevil38 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 January 2013

On "historical revisionism"
It might be preferable, for the sake of WP:NPOV, to explain who calls this "revisionism" rather than just present the whole project as revisionist as if this were a pure fact. The Chinese source I've consulted actually accuse "a minority of Korean scholars" and the government of both Koreas of "historical revisionism" when they consider Bohai/Parhae and Koguryo/Gaogouli as part of Korean territory in ancient times. We need to explain this controversy. As things are right now, we mostly have Korean criticism of the project, without an explanation of the project from the Chinese side. We're facing some kind of double bind, here: either we use the NEP's own publications and risk falling into WP:OR, or we only use secondary sources, but we end up giving undue weight to one position because most secondary studies are critical and written by Koreans. Once again, any advice is welcome! Madalibi (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think whether it's "historical revisionism" should be decided upon by NPOV sources, not Korean nor Chinese. In this case, it would be prudent to look to NPOV sources on Goguryeo and Balhae and see whether they are considered part of Korean history or Chinese history. Any POV that deviates from NPOV sources should be considered historical revisionism. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Cydevil38. I agree with the spirit of your post (prudence and looking for NPOV sources without relying on sources from either side), but I think your proposal risks falling into WP:SYNTHESIS, because this would mean proposing a conclusion ("this is historical revisionism") that doesn't appear in our two kinds of sources: (1) historical studies of Parhae and Koguryo that don't discuss the Northeast Project explicitly; and (2) sources on the NEP that discuss Parhae and Koguryo but don't speak of "historical revisionism" explicitly. Not to mention that we would have to solve the problem of whether Parhae and Koguryo are treated as "Chinese," "Korean," or something else entirely in a large selection of secondary studies, which seems like a daunting task! :) A simpler (and more neutral) solution would be to say that Koreans (scholars, government, public opinion) have viewed the Northeast Project as a flagrant example of Chinese historical revisionism for such-and-such reasons. We then need to balance this with the NEP's own point of view, which worries that the two Koreas are trying to appropriate the Chinese Northeast into Korean history. Both positions are (to some extent) political, so all points should be clearly attributed, and none taken for a fact or presented as such. Then we will have a neutral encyclopedia that presents controversies in an informative way without taking sides. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then I guess we would have to use our WP:Common Sense. Articles on the Northeast Project almost always deals with a radical shift in historiography in China. Historical studies of Balhae and Goguryeo aren't really relevant here. They have their own articles. This article is about the Northeast Project. It was created as an offshoot of the Modern Politics sections of Goguryeo. IF CPOV is an issue I'm sure there is a room for that kind of material. A new section on motivation or implications perhaps? It used to have one, but some editor, I wonder whom, deleted it for no reason. An important aspect of NPOV is putting radical and fringe theories rejected by the international academia aside, and giving weight to the mainstream perspective of the subject matter. Whether Parhae and Koguryeo were "Chinese" or "Korean" is a problem already solved, with the consensus defining both states as "Korean". Then again you can always see editors like Shrigley trying to rekindle the flames with disruptive edits like this. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the ultimate problem of framing the article as "Northeast Project" rather than "Goguryeo controversies". Because, if we worked on the latter article and merged "Northeast Project" into it, we could cite the views of Sun Jinji and the like without running into the primary source problem. What if I created an article for the Goguryeo Research Foundation (GRF, which actually has a much clearer relation to the South Korean government: answering directly to the education ministry!) and made that article all about the relevant arguments in the Goguryeo controversies? It would be a recipe for the same sort of bias and primary-secondary source restrictions, which is why all the relevant arguments need to go into the neutrally-framed "controversy" article and not onto an article dedicated to arguing that one side is "revisionist". Actually, in the PRC-ROK diplomatic talks, China accused South Korea of provoking the controversy when SK scholars started irredentist probes into the "Gando dispute". But speaking of all the illuminating articles that we could create, wouldn't it be interesting to know that in the Bohai controversies, Korean nationalist interpretations rub up against the decades-old scholarship of not only China, but also of Russia? The controversies around Goguryeo and Bohai are related since the primary "Bohai is Korean" argument is, "Bohai's king was a former Goguryeo person". And how about Japan's reaction to the government-created Dokdo Research Institute? Should these red links become blue, it will be untenable to argue that the South Korean government is not involved in the same measure, if not more so, than the Chinese in these disputes.


 * As for the question of whether Goguryeo was "Korean" or "Chinese", those who have seriously considered the issue, rather than simply piled up arguments in order to fashion a predetermined conclusion, have serious problems with denying the regime a "Chinese" pedigree. I have seen in more than two sources (from GRF, and English-language apologists for GRF such as Byington) construct a hypothetical situation where Goguryeo people deny that they are Chinese (based on some essentialized idea of "Chineseness" that excludes Manchurian peoples, we are left to assume), and we are left to assume that the only other option is Korean&mdash;not very firm "pro-Korean ground". There is some dissent in South Korea, less well-known than the Chinese dissent of course, to the nationalist Goguryeo narrative. They are associated with leftists, especially of Sogang University, who argue that to deny China's recognition of Goguryeo as part of its own heritage is "an act of violence". And there was the well-publicized case of the South Korean who published a book saying that Goguryeo was part of the "history of Liaodong" (in the broad, extra-peninsular sense), separate from both Korea and China. Related to this argument are those Koreans who argue that Goguryeo was "Manchurian" as opposed to Korean or Chinese, and that conventionally "Chinese" dynasties like the Liao were not really "Chinese". Sorry for basing this comment off of memory rather than digging up the sources for every statement (time spent arguing on such articles is not very rewarding), but I wanted to clear up the misconception that there is one "Korean" POV, when there are "Korean" views all over the place, which if you search for you can find. However, it is true that the mass media in one country went hysterical, and there were serialized newspaper tributes to Goguryeo, period dramas on television, etc. Shrigley (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome to make an article on Journal of Northeast Asian History published by the Northeast Asian History Foundation. While you're at it, please make sure you make mention of the diversity of its editorial board, which includes scholars from Korea, Mongolia, the United States, Russia, Australia, Germany and Japan. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced sources where necessary(plenty of where they come from) to address issues on Byington's work. As for Background,


 * It was not until the 1980s that minority’s rights were guaranteed and protected by law and their place in the state clearly defined. The PRC constitution of 1982 describes the state as a “unitary multinational state built up jointly by the people of all its nationalities,” and guarantees the equal rights of all nationalities.
 * Such arguments do not hold up well under scrutiny. Zhang apparently introduced the notion of nationalities spread across state borders in order to justify the exclusion of Paekche from the Chinese nation even though it had sprung from the same nationality as had Koguryo. But if the criteria for Koguryo’s inclusion as part of China are its having been established on territory previously governed by Han commanderies and its acceptance of formal investiture, it is difficult to understand Zhang’s exclusion of Paekche, which was established in the former territory of the Daifang commandery and whose kings accepted investiture at least as often as did those of Koguryo. An extension of this argument can also be made to apply to Silla, yet Zhang, without explanation, explicitly excludes Paekche and Silla from his conception of ancient China and instead identifies them as the forebears of the modern Korean states. Unless modern state borders are a concern in Zhang’s definition (despite his assertions to the contrary), there is no logic in the inclusion of Koguryo and the exclusion of Paekche and Silla based upon the stated criteria.
 * The problem, of course, lies in the insistence on conceiving of ancient China, characterized by a soft, graded, and fluid periphery, in terms of a modern multi-nation-state with a rigid, sharp, and permanent periphery. Another way of expressing this ill fit is to describe it as imposing the new Nationalist state model upon the Culturalist tradition of the pre-modern past. On one level such an attempt to redefine the pre-modern state might seem practicable (if inaccurate), since one could simply conceive of the larger Chinese tributary network as encompassing a kind of super-state, inclusive of outer tributary states that were not directly governed by the Chinese emperor. Unfortunately, this idealized tribute system, to the extent that it ever existed at all, was far too fluid and complex a system to be represented as a rigidly bound polity of any kind. Nevertheless, Zhang Boquan attempts to account for the political inclusion of tributary states in the Chinese nation by invoking the concept of a duel system of government, with an internal mode for the central territorial administration, and an external mode for regions like Koguryo that were entirely autonomous (that is, for states over which the Chinese emperor could exercise no direct control). Zhang appears to have had the current policy for governing autonomous regions in mind when he formulated his model, and he even draws terminology directly from the 1982 constitution and the 1984 Minority Region Autonomy Law when he states that ancient China from the Qin period onward had been “a unitary multinational state” (Zhang and Wei 1998, 19). Ultimately, however, Zhang’s model fails in the Northeast because, as we have seen, it cannot as stated simultaneously justify the inclusion of Koguryo and the exclusion of Paekche and Silla. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope this explains enough.


 * Yes, thanks for providing the citations! Madalibi (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again! There are a lot of issues to go through. I'll try to address a few, and I'll try to be brief.


 * Shrigley, you said: Actually, in the PRC-ROK diplomatic talks, China accused South Korea of provoking the controversy when SK scholars started irredentist probes into the "Gando dispute". This would sound like relevant information to include in the article. Could you find a source for this claim somewhere that links these matters to the NEP?


 * Cydevil38, you said: An important aspect of NPOV is putting radical and fringe theories rejected by the international academia aside, and giving weight to the mainstream perspective of the subject matter. I quite agree with that. This is why we wouldn't present the Northeast Project's claims as fact in the wiki on Goguryeo. But here, the article is about the NEP itself, so we need more statements about the NEP, and fewer about Koguryo and Parhae. And this is where we face a problem: if we use only secondary sources, the NEP has no voice in this matter.


 * Shrigley again: ...which is why all the relevant arguments need to go into the neutrally-framed "controversy" article and not onto an article dedicated to arguing that one side is "revisionist" I think this wiki on the NEP can legitimately exist, but I agree it shouldn't be set up as a refutation of the NEP.


 * Now back to historical revisionism and neutrality. The religious movement called "creation science" has no scientific credibility whatsoever, yet the wiki on creation science still manages to be neutral. Instead of calling the movement "pseudo-science" (or its promoters wingnuts), the lede only claims that "Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts." And there is no mention of "pseudo-science" in the wiki on the IDEA Center, an organization that promotes intelligent design on American campuses.


 * I'm not saying that the NEP is like the IDEA Center or "creation science." I'm saying that if wacko theories like creation science and fringe groups like the IDEA Center can get neutrally worded articles, then the NEP can definitely get one too! What also attracted my attention is that the main source for IDEA Center is the IDEA Center's own website, which includes the center's mission statement, their religious affiliations, etc.


 * So I propose we reshape this NEP wiki as follows: we first present the project in the language of its own promoters, being careful not to pick only passages that support what we personally think of the NEP. No promotion, no refutation. Programmatic statements by Chinese scholars and politicians appear at the beginning of the NEP's own publications starting in 2003, so this info is easy to find. From what I've read, these statements emphasize three important themes: (1) the concern that "some neighboring countries" (mostly Korea, actually) are trying to appropriate parts of Chinese territory into their own national histories; (2) an emphasis on the importance of high-quality scholarly research; and (3) the explicit goal of serving political aims. After we present that, we can explain (briefly) why the project has created controversies, and then refer to Goguryeo controversies for more details. If a number of sources have called the NEP revisionist, then the lede can say "a number of scholars [or "critics", or "journalists", or whatever] have called the NEP revisionist because..."


 * This format would clearly distinguish this wiki from Goguryeo controversies (making merging unnecessary) and solve this article's neutrality problem at the same time. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A few issues about the footnotes
Could I ask people who have access to the sources cited in the footnotes to indicate the exact page number for each piece of info that is referenced? Right now all we have is a range of pages. According to WP:page numbers, this is not specific enough.

Second issue: could someone add the Korean original to the translated article titles (those by Kim Ji Hoon, Seo Gilsu, Park Yangjin, and maybe more)? Otherwise there's no way to find these articles, even for people who read Korean!

Finally, could someone translate the title that is given only in Korean? My translation for "중국 동북공정에 앞서 '서남공정'은 어떻게" is "What was the “Southeast Project” that preceded the Chinese Northeast Project?" Is that correct? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about specifying page numbers for journal articles. I believe it is customary not to cite specific pages for journal articles. I'll add the Korean original names to the translated names. Your title translation for the Southwest Project would be adequate, but it would be more accurate to replace "What" with "How". Cydevil38 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of Korean articles are as follows:
 * Kim Ji Hoon, 한중 역사갈등 줄이기: 동북공정과 중국의 역사교과서
 * Park Yang Jin, "중국 역사공정의 비판적 검토: 하상주단대공정과 중화문명탐원공정을 중심으로
 * Seo Gilsu, 중화인민공화국 동북공정 5년의 성과와 전망 Cydevil38 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, Cydevil! All we're missing now is the original name of the journals where they appeared (Critical Studies on Modern Korean History, Koguryeo Balhae Research, and Critical Review of History). Oh, and just to make sure: were the articles by Yoon Hwy-tak and Pankaj Mohan originally published in Korea as well? And does Dong Gook Sa Hak (東國史學 in Hanja?) mean "Korean Historiography"?
 * As for journal articles, I'm not sure what's customary, but citing page numbers would seem like best practice. Otherwise it looks like we're saying, "this info appears in this 30-page article: you go find where!" So it would be great if you could add the page numbers if you have access to the articles concerned. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've converted the footnotes to Harvard format to make them more legible, and I've included many links to the relevant articles. I also tagged most notes for "pages needed" so that the references can be improved further. I've already found three page numbers in Byingtong 2002, and I'm now looking for more in Gries 2005. This is taking a while, but the article will look better as a result. Any help is appreciated! Madalibi (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The NEP's budget
One source cited in the lede says that the project's budget was 15 million yuan, or 2.4 million US dollars. This sounds like nothing for a project of this scope. An article titled "What China's Northeast Project Is All About" on the Chosun Ilbo ' s English-language website claims that the project cost "an astounding 20 billion yuan" (= 3.21 billion US dollars). Another article titled "China's ascendancy and the future of the Korean peninsula" (by Kim Taeho, in Korea in the New Asia: East Asian Integration and the China Factor, edited by Françoise Nicolas, Routledge, 2007), claims a budget of "three trillion Korean won" (= 2.83 billion US dollars). Unfortunately, neither article cites a source for this information. Anyway, if there are no agreed-upon budget figures, we should present the budget issue in a separate paragraph, probably in the section on "Organization." Madalibi (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've presented the three figures in a short paragraph in the "Organization" section and removed the low budget figure from the lede. Madalibi (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This document I downloaded from the website of the "Research Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography" 中国边疆史地研究中心 (affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, or CASS) is dated 28 February 2002, the date of the first organizational meeting of the NEP. It states that the budget of the Northeast Project will come from three sources: (1) the Chinese Ministry of Finance (财政部); (2) the CASS itself; and (3) the provincial committee of the Communist Party of Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang. The budget for the first year was supposed to be 15 million yuan (split between the three sources of funding), with an additional 2.5 million every year afterwards . This must be the source of the claim that the whole project had a budget of 15 million yuan , but this is obviously a misreading . Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you check the original Korean language versions of "What China's Northeast Project Is All About" and "China's ascendancy and the future of the Korean peninsula". Have they translated the numbers correctly?


 * A better idea might be had of which buget figure is correct by clarifying just what the project did. Was there field work involved? How many staff? Names of those leading the project? Rincewind42 (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Kim Taeho's article ("China's ascendancy") has a Korean original, and I'm not sure how to find the original for the Chosun Ilbo article, because I don't read Korean. Very high budget figures appear in earlier sources than these two 2007 articles. Page 118 of Yoon Hwy-tak's article "China's Northeast Project: Defensive or Offensive Strategy" (2004) says that the NEP's budget was "20 billion yuan (some 3 trillion Korean won)". I have no idea where he or the person he's citing got that figure, though. 20 billion should be 200亿.


 * It's possible that Korean commentators misread the numbers. The Qing History Project (清史纂修工程) that also started in 2002 had a highly publicized budget of 600 million (六亿) yuan, but serious English-language sources (like this one) say that the project's budget was 6 billion renminbi, which is ten times higher than the real sum. If our Korean commentators also thought that 亿 means billion, then the NEP's real budget could have been 20亿, which means 2 billion. Some sources (Yoon 2004, p. 118, note 30) say that part of the NEP's budget went toward restoring ancient Koguryo objects. Others speculate that the NEP had a military budget inside it (see also Yoon 2004, p. 118).


 * A few other finds: a retired Korean historian said this about the NEP's budget: Firstly, what is the Northeast Project? This is China’s enterprise to develop its northeast provinces, and the comprehensive project focusing on improving social overhead capital (SOC), and historiography is only part of it. However, the news media in Korea focused on this part, as if the entire project is about rewriting the history of Northeast Asia. They even mistook the enormous budget for the whole project as that of history writing. This is sheer nonsense. Apparently many Korean historians share this misinformation.


 * A blog (August 2008) says this: The Center has a ridiculously large budget that covers costs for preserving relics and relocating residents.


 * These may not all be reliable sources, but at least we have a few clues about what the project may have been apart from history writing. Madalibi (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Korean source I cited discusses the budget figure in some detail. Various figures were given, including the alleged 20 billion yuan budget given in a news paper article, but it was discarded due to insufficient evidence and the figure of 15 million yuan was chosen. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I found first-hand confirmation for the 15 million budget, so that's not a problem. I suspect the "20 billion yuan" we see everywhere confuses the Northeast Project with the entirely different Northeast Development Project, which is a government-sponsored investment program designed to develop the economy of the region. Cydevil38: could you translate or paraphrase what your source (Kim 2007) says about the 20 billion yuan figure lacking evidence? That would be a helpful addition to the budget paragraph. Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 'The making of china’s koguryo: political motivations and cultural strategies in the borderlands' by Chua Pei Jun Jermaine at the National University of Signapore says 'The biggest sponsor of this project was the Ministry of Finance, which provided one million Yuan under special project funds; CASS provided 250,000 Yuan and the special projects funds of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provincial government provided 375,000 Yuan in total.' and it gives it's source to be '“Dongbei bianjiang lishi yu xianzhuang yanjiu gongcheng jingfei guanli fangfa”, , 28 February 2002. Accessed on 29 March 2010.' however that source seems to be offline now. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this this. I don't know if it can be considered a reliable source (because it's only an M.A. Thesis), but it does contain lots of interesting and relevant information. The budget source it cites has now been moved to . It's the same document I cited above. Unfortunately the author of the thesis got it completely wrong. The actual figures are as follows:
 * Ministry of Finance: 10 million, or 2 million a year (财政部专项经费1000万元，每年拨付200万元);
 * CASS: 1.25 million, or 250,000 a year (中国社会科学院重大课题经费125万元，每年拨付25万元);
 * Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning provincial governments: 3.75 million, or 250,000 per province every year (黑龙江省委、吉林省委、辽宁省委共同筹措的专项经费共计375万元，各省每年拨付25万元).
 * Total: 15 million, or 3 million a year. Madalibi (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with your translation. It looks like Chua Pei Jun Jermaine miss translated the the same source. He seems to have taken 万 to mean thousand when it should be ten thousand and he has confused the amount from each province and the annual equivalent. I also agree that a masters thesis isn't the best source but it does beat blogs and new reports, largely because he does give sources for everything giving us leads to follow and check. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some more sources
I managed to dig up a few more sources that might be useful on this article.


 * China's "soft" clash with Korea by JH Chung - Asian Survey, 2009. (paywall)
 * China’s Nationalist Historiography of the “Northeast Project” and the Australian Response to Its Challenges by Pankaj N. Mohan, The University of Sydney.
 * China and Northeast Asia: A Complex Equation for 'Peaceful Rise' by JH Chung - Politics, 2007. (paywall)
 * History of Koguryŏ and China’s Northeast Asian Project by Park Kyeong-chul - International Journal of Korean History Vol.6, 2004. (paywall)
 * History as a Strategic Weapon The Korean and Chinese Struggle over Koguryo T Roehrig - Journal of Asian and African Studies, 2010. (paywall)

Rincewind42 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Identity Politics, Nationalism and the Future of Northeast Asian Order C Moon, SW Suh - The United States and Northeast Asia: …, 2008]

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016223934/http://chinaborderland.cass.cn:80/show_News.asp?id=1837 to http://chinaborderland.cass.cn/show_News.asp?id=1837

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This debate started by stupid Koreans
Laugh die me, in the northeast China claims in koguryo is an independent country, has nothing to do with Korean nationality and han nationality, the ruler of the second northeast before four county is han han, but the branch of China's acknowledgement of the koguryo is Korean ancestors, can check 360 wikipedia or baidu "northeast engineering", the second Gija is shang dynasty,If Gija is a part of Korea, then Han people are the ancestors of Koreans. Today Han people do not recognize Han's kinship with Korea at all.After the liaohe region, followed by South Korea early even South Korea people think hongshan culture is their, unfortunately the hongshan culture YDNA is N1 and O3, C, and south Korean people are of the opinion that liaohe bone carving is their, it's a pity that these bone carving earlier in the Yellow River, and the Yellow River and liaohe also has the longshan culture (bone carving inventor),In addition, the YDNA of Longshan culture is O3, which is the main gene of all the Han people (the Han people also have a small amount of O1, R, C, N1). However, R is the indigenous people of the Central Plains, and the Han people migrated from Shandong

South Korean nationalists rule en.wiki?
Read this page while researching Balhae. Immediately checked the Talk, because of its obviously fake claims. I see it was removed many years ago. Who let it back?

Sources cited are ridiculous even in that they are Korean only. I checked one, #5, China’s Northeast Project: Defensive or Offensive Strategy? (p. 103).

The claims on page 103 of this "research" article are backed by nothing. Citations don't back them at all.

This page is little more than an attack on China by South Korean nationalists.

Suggest removal. I'm not biased, I'm Russian living on top of Balhae ruins in Russia, Chinese nationalism is not in my interests at all. 77.34.158.133 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move the first one. (non-admin closure) History6042 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

– The article about the PRC's research project could simply be renamed "Northeast Project", but what about the other article about the Italian political party? Could that be renamed "Northeast Project (political party)"? Or should the PRC one also be renamed "Northeast Project (research project)" (or take its actual full name, Serial Research Project on the History and Current State of the Northeast Borderland)? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences → ?
 * North-East Project → ?


 * Rename to Northeast Project (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) and Progetto NordEst. Then turn Northeast Project into a disambiguation page and redirect North-East Project to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, I should notify WikiProjects Italy and Politics, then, as this request also affects the North-East Project article which is about a political party in Italy. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.