User talk:Nlu/archive41

Ghirlandajo
Once again this slav guy named Ghirla is back from WP:Stalking me. I am filled with rage, and honestly he would had get his face smacked with this attitude if he ever come close with anyone. I have no other reason but to suspect he must had been peeping/watching over my edits all the time, despiting the facts that nearly all our disputes had been passed for so long. He really just can't move on didn't he, and precisely because of his actions, people get irritated, since he tired to lead someone into dilemma. As you must had noticed, I been busy recently and had tired to avoid and even ignoring him over the past few days as possible as I can. But since this demonstration of WP:Troll I don't know what can I say seriously. Any suggestion? Eiorgiomugini 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular edit, considered with all others, may be sufficient that a WP:RFC can/should be filed. I suggest filing one.  --Nlu (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. As the diff shows, Eiorgiomugini may add reasonable or unreasonable content, but he does need a person to proofread his additions. Such sentences as "Many depicting of Ordos people tend to have straighten hair" or "the presence of Xiongnu was first appeared at Ordos in Yizhoushu" look to have been generated by an online translation software. Instead of helping to make his edits easier to understand, you feed his baseless "rage". That does not impress me at all. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are the one to say that It needed to proofread? Like what you had claimed as a pseudoscientific additions of mine? A real smack right on your face again. For translation, those are edits copied out of the context and certainly not generated from any translator machine. Infact it would be much worst translating from Chinese into English by using software tool. Eiorgiomugini 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not really impressed by his behavior toward me. It required two person for involving so, I am actually thinking of giving the issue some time and see how he would react to me. Giving his good establishment of image in wikipedia, is better to wait than making an arbitrary decision. I am sorry, how would you considered it as baseless, when you are making edits after my contributions? Eiorgiomugini 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want to "get my face smacked"? An interesting attitude from a fellow contributor; it probably deserves a wider discussion. The "slav guy named Ghirla" assures you that he has neither time nor intention to follow your edits. You may lay your suspicions aside if you survey my list of contributions and take a close look at the page that I edited prior to noticing Ordos people. How you manage to trace my edits on Ket people and elsewhere is indeed a mystery. Your revert war about removing referenced academic stuff from them induced me to leave this segment of Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, and I managed to trace Ket people through the template you created of course. Certainly I had made my edits at Tashtyk and Tagar even before you came, so get that. And how you manage to trace my edits in this talk and elsewhere is indeed a mystery. My revert war? Those referenced academic, as you claimed are found in nowhere, since when is your last time that you had provided a real reference instead of a false one. "Induced you to leave this segment of Wikipedia"? While this two edits here after 3-10 days of my absence shows very clear that you certainly did not just left as you claimed. Eiorgiomugini 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, please be civil. --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me request the same from you and your friend. "Getting his face smacked" is not my idea of civility. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're interrupting between the conversation I had with Nlu, funny do you often do thing like that? Becuase I certainly don't, not even you and another guy trying to make some plot and brought me down. People are making the edits somewhere else, and here you are coming out middle of nowhere making troll whatsoever, how could you expect me to edit in such condition? There's a place called discussion board, and hope you make good use of rather than troll edit. For now, I will ignore all your questions which you had asked at Ordos people, because its not my job to answer every of your question you asked on talk whenever I made an edits at somewhere. Civility? Let's not forget what kind of straw man argument and troll you put in at Xueyantuo talk when confronting with question on the naming. And what about those that you put into my talk page, I haven't included that. Eiorgiomugini 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eiorgiomugini, please take a cup of tea. Nobody is following your edits or plotting to "bring you down" as you claim. Please edit in peace. I appreciate your edits when they are knowledgable and not hasty, but I don't like your confrontational attitude and attempts to claim a certain set of Wikipedia articles as your own. Neither do I share your idea that Chinese sources are superior to the Russian/Soviet ones. Everybody is free to edit "your" articles, and you have no right to remove academic references that you don't like on allegations of their or my "cheating" or "racism". There is no need to be so emotional and suspicious about it. Could you spend your time adding more material about Chinese history rather than bashing me on this page? Thanks for your attention, Ghirla-трёп- 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sorry but I am the one who are suffering right here, so I think I deserve a little privilege to make some responses over your accusations and trolling. First of all, nobody had claim that Chinese sources are superior to the Russian/Soviet ones, you'll be the the one who claimed something like that. Second I did not claim that I had ever own over the articles, is was you that often failed to provided a sources or proof for your claims and allegations. You have no right to removed academic references such as this few edits. If you think that I had flamed you on cheating or making false reference on your side, I might as well challenge you for the proof that you could bring out. Third, I could spent my time on else where than chatting with you if you could leave me alone, which unfortunatly this is not the cases. Your pathetic excuse that the page you edited or meddle prior to noticing Ordos people out of ton of DYK articles are really something that I would not buy, this article had been listed under DYK long before that. Fourth, I do have evidence that you're recruiting your revenge squads and attack on my edits/. There is no need to be so emotional and suspicious about it. You could spend your time adding more material about Russian subjects rather than following me around all day long. Eiorgiomugini 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Chancellor
Hey Nlu, I've run into a problem during my edits through Three Kingdoms articles (as usual, haha), so a quick question: What's the difference between a 丞相 and a 相國? (For that matter, 宰相 and 首相 as well) Can they all be translated as "Chancellor" or "Prime Minister"? Thanks. _dk 10:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a complicated question and has a complicated answer. Basically, in short:
 * 宰相 is/was a relatively informal term for a chancellor, that described his function, rather than serving as a title, per se. While it had always been used to refer to chancellors throughout Chinese history ever from very ancient times to Qing Dynasty, it was never formalized as an office title.
 * 首相 has similar meaning, but "prime minister" would work better in that where as there could be multiple 宰相 at the same time (and in Tang Dynasty, the institution of multiple 宰相 was formalized), 首 means "head," and so implicitly, there would be only one.
 * 相國 was a highly honored office for which the translation "chancellor" or "prime minister" would be appropriate but requires explanation. In Han Dynasty, for example, the only persons to be given the title were Xiao He and Dong Zhuo.  In effect, Dong took the title to equate himself with Xiao, effectively as a showing of "I'm in charge here."
 * 丞相 has less of that power context than 相國. Whereas all Western Han prime ministers used the title 丞相 after Xiao (for example, Cao Can, Xiao's direct successor) until the title was changed to 大司徒 late in Western Han.  Eastern Han changed the title to 司徒.  Cao Cao's taking of the 丞相 title was intended to get a bit of that sense of being unusual for a chancellor without having as much of a negative cannotation that 相國 would invoke.
 * Basically, by the time of the late Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms period, I'd say that 司徒 should be translated as "chancellor," while 相國 and 丞相 should be given special explanations as to their significance. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found that Rafe de Crespigny translates 相國 to "Chancellor of State", 丞相 just "Chancellor", and 司徒 "Minister over the Masses". Would it be correct, then, to say Cao Cao succeeded Dong Zhuo as Chancellor even though the name of the title is different? (also in the case of Cao Can and Xiao He) _dk 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be comfortable to say that Cao Can succeeded Xiao He. I would not be comfortable to say that Cao Cao succeeded Dong Zhuo -- particularly because several people held the title of 司徒 between them, and also, their titles were not temporally at all contiguous with each other (unlike Cao Can and Xiao).  I disagree with de Crespigny's translation, but certainly he's published and I'm not.  --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even during Dong Zhuo's reign, Wang Yun held the office of 司徒. My impression from this that the 司徒 does not actually have the same powers as a 相國 or a 丞相, although this may only be Dong Zhuo trying to legitimize his rule. I guess it only boils down to whether a 司徒 is a 宰相.... Note I'm asking you this because I've added a succession box on the bottom of the Cao Cao page, but then I've felt quite odd about listing Dong Zhuo as Cao Cao's predecessor, maybe you can give me some advice? _dk 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't give Cao Cao a predecessor at all. It simply doesn't feel right to me.  Bo Yang translates both the Western Han 丞相 and the Eastern Han 司徒 as 宰相 in modern Chinese, but leaves Cao Cao's title of 丞相 untranslated, and I tend to agree with that.  It is clear, I think, that despite title differences, it's the same continuous transition based on the Han Dynasty's division of three bureaus of government.  --Nlu (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help :) _dk 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
You'll want to participate in the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_in_AfD

Good luck! --172.131.128.25 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...only if you have time...
Hey, only if you have time, can you try to make sense of http://www.chinapage.com/calligraphy/sushi/redsite.html? I know it isn't good enough for WP:ATT, but it may lead me to better sources...

Both my Chinese reading and my Chinese geography are embarrassingly poor... I see something about "northeast Jiayu County in Hubei", are we thinking Wuhan here? Or even further east, where Su Dongpo's poems were set? And..."northwest Puqi County" ummm.. modern Chibi City, I'm guessing?

BTW, when was Puqi renamed Chibi City? Pretty recently... right..?

Thanks! Ling.Nut 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are asking me to do. Can you clarify?  (Incidentally, Jiayu County is in modern Xianning.  For a good listing of which counties/county-level cities are in which prefecture-level cities, see http://big5.china.org.cn/ch-quhua/index.htm.)  According to the Chinese Wikipedia article on Chibi City, it was renamed Chibi from Puqi in 1998.  --Nlu (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to figure out what two locations that website is discussing. It seems vague... Thanks! Ling.Nut 04:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, the article was taking the position that the Puqi/Chibi location is correct and that the Jiayu location is incorrect. (It took the assumption that the Huanggang location is totally wrong and is not worth further debating about.)  It provided some evidence, but even if its evidence is to be assumed true, the logic is not particularly convincing.  (I don't think that the article is necessarily wrong in its conclusion, just that the logic it used is faulty.)  --Nlu (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Yeah, I thought so... but is the Jiayu location specifically Wuhan? Puqi must be Chibi City... Ling.Nut 13:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, Jiayu is not in Wuhan; it's in Xianning. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm, thanks... Ling.Nut 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Nlu (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

United States housing bubble, featured article candidate, 28 June 2007
Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Featured_article_candidates. Frothy 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but it's really out of my area of expertise. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bell High School article
I just got curious enough to learn who originated the idea that the school's colors are Purple & Gold rather than Purple & White. Your edit of the article on 22 November 2006 seems to contain the first mention of gold. What is the source of your information?

Thank you.

JimCubb 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim, please forgive my eavesdropping. You need to look at the history of the Bell High School (Bell, California) article much more carefully. The first mention of purple &amp; gold as the school's colors is 22:24, 16 August 2006, by an IP editor who has been blocked twice for vandalism: User talk:63.166.226.83. This is considerably prior to NLU's first edit of 13:30, 22 November 2006...an edit which, by the way, was to revert vandalism by another IP address. Cheers! Ling.Nut 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. In any case, I don't know what the school colors are; what I was doing was reverting the vandalism to the status the article was in before the vandalism occurred.  I have no idea whether the article was correct before the vandalism.  (Thanks, Ling.)  --Nlu (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PHG in Yuezhi
Hello Nlu, since you've been here long enough do you happened to know this guy PHG. Is he a Japanese? I happened to meet him at the article Yuezhi, and he had told me that he read Japanese, and I've saw him a few times in articles like Ironclad warship and Imperial Japanese Navy. Anyway he had a strong humour on how the article should represented. Also, do you ever heard of Serindian art by any chances, do you know what it is? Eiorgiomugini 02:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know PHG, really. I do remember seeing his/her name, but other than that I have basically no memory of him/her.  --Nlu (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of Manchuria
Dear Nlu, Both parties are trying to find a solution on that template, i suggest you to put your opinion on it, as an administrator, i proposed an upgraded of the actual template, on the talk page. Hope that we will find a suitable title which would replace the actual XXXXXXXXXXX, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Regards.Whlee 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look.  I've just been very, very busy at work...  --Nlu (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting really sick of this dispute at the template. I have requested the disputants repeatedly to establish their preferred versions as the widely accepted name per the criteria recommended by WP:NCGN, and then file a Request for Move. However, they just keep arguing with little evidence behind them. So I'm thinking of doing that myself. I have already gathered considerable evidence that tests three proposed entries - "Manchuria", "Northeast China" and "Northeastern China" on the recommended criteria of WP:NCGN.

One thing I'm not sure however is whether, based on WP:NCGN, "Manchuria" would be a valid name covering the historical period of the template. WP:NCGN indicates that historical name may be used if the "place does not exist anymore" or "deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name". Some dictionaries refer to Manchuria as simply a geograhpic region, others describe it as a "historic name for a region" or a "historic region". If we take the sources that it's a "historic name" or "historic region", would Manchuria qualify for the given criteria? If it's "historic" is it a "place that does not exist anymore"? Or if the term is a widely accepted English name for the given historical periods, can it be considered "a place in a period when it held a different name"?

And if the usage of "Manchuria" does violate the WP:NCGN, would you think there is sufficient ground to apply common sense? And could other conventions also be applied here, such as Naming conflict? By sufficient ground, what I mean is the fact that "Manchuria" is by far the most common term used in relation to the entities in the template's content. In other words, under historical context, "Manchuria" is by far the most common term. It's common sense that, for Wikipedia to be a reliable and descriptive source of information, it should inform readers of the most common term that is used for the region when the entities of the contents are being discussed in other reliable sources of information.

You're a lawyer, so I figured your analysis of the conventions and the given situation would be very helpful. Cydevil38 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my feeling is that "Manchuria," if it violates WP:NCGN, is not so blatantly violative that it should override consensus as well as conventional usage. Further, the problem with "Northeast China" is that it is China- and PRC-centric.  While, for example, Gdansk is a Polish name and thus obviously Poland-centric, it's not "the city on the north coast of Poland."  In any case, my own opinion (but which I do think is subject to whether it is agreed by the consensus as well) is that "Northeast China" is not sufficiently established to be used as the name.  --Nlu (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am monitoring this Korean ultranationalist's behavior. He seems very amicable to you, so the situation becomes quite complex because you are an administrator. First, neither of you has ever lived in Northeast China, which is never called Manchuria by alive local residents. Throwing the out-of-date title upon other users who were local residents is a blatant insult and you will be held responsible. Second, rules are rules. You cannot change or ignore rules because it doesn't suit you. Cydevil38 has never respected WP:NCGN, even in all geographic contexts subject to this very rule. But this kind of rule-breaking behavior has never been properly controlled. Third, this user Cydevil38 has a hidden agenda. According to him/her, the reason why he/she treats "Northeast China" as an insult word is due to the upset from discovering that Goguryeo is no longer purely Korean according to Northeast Project. What kind of stupid reason is this? If somebody thinks Korea is an insult word because of Korean users like Cydevil38, should we avoid the word "Korea"? Blatant stupid personal reason against an ordinary word. If his nerve is so easy to break, better go back to his own home to enjoy his self-made rules and taboos.--Jiejunkong 03:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing logic. What, Northeast China being "China-centric" is a problem because it is actually Chinese? Now, don't tell me, Inner Mongolia must also be too sinocentric too, right? Look, all we want is for our home region to be named in an appropriate manner. We absolutely abhor the use of 满洲 and is a grave insult to us Dongbei people. If you think this is just another pissing contest, you are dead wrong. Please take our concerns into consideration. Assault11 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with "Northeast China," as I've mentioned before, is that it was not part of China and not Northeast China until relatively recent times (indeed, during most of the period covered, "Northeast China" would have been referring to Hebei and Shandong, not the three provinces), while this is a historical template. (I wouldn't have the same problems if this were a current status template (e.g., the industry, population, popular culture, cuisine, &c., of the current three provinces).) I'd have the same problem with it regardless of whether I'm Chinese -- in particular, note that I had the same problems and I vehemently objected to moving Sea of Japan to East Sea or coopting that page as a simple redirect rather than as a disambiguation page. By contrast, any issues with Inner Mongolia doesn't even come close to approaching the problematic of using "Northeast China." As for whether the use of "Manzhou" is an insult -- I suspect that your view would be quite different if you are ethnically Man. (In fact, although I don't know whether the owner is ethnically Han or Man, there is a restaurant nearby where I live that serves cuisine of the three provinces -- and it has, as a description for its food, "Manchurian cuisine.") In addition, the exclusion of the current Russian lands is, again, problematic for a historical template because they effectively form a single historic/geographic unit with the three provinces, and in a historical template, unless you are ready to divide up the history of the three provinces with the history of those Russian territories -- a task that, no offense intended, you are simply not equipped to carry out (and neither am I) -- simply cannot be done. (For what it is worth, I do not oppose including the northern provinces of North Korea as part of the template and/or the discussion.) --Nlu (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nlu, for your comments on the Template:History of Manchuria, my opinion is made clear in Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria. According to consensus, Template:History of Manchuria should be cut off to proper periods according to proper history records.  For whlee's efforts, it is about an existing modern geographic region, so it should not be named as Manchuria, the non-modern name, according to WP:NCGN.--Jiejunkong 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)  BTW, in the template being discussed, I have never wanted to divide the Northeastern China part (the former "Inner Manchuria" or "Inner Dongbei" in more modern term) from the Russian Far-East part (the former "Outer Manchuria" or "Outer Dongbei" in more modern term).  I always want to cover the entire region.  It is annoying that you follow User:Cydevil38's lie which puts other people's words into my mouth.--Jiejunkong 05:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nlu, this region belonged to Jurchen since medieval time. Are you saying Jurchen Jin Dynasty and Qing Dynasty are not China's canonical dynasties?  Jurchen-Manchu people are Chinese minority people, and they are even more Chinese than Han Chinese in some cities.  For example, in Beijing city, many upper-class people are partial Manchu and partial Han.  As to Han Chinese, during the Ming Dynasty, "Guanwai" (關外) was full of Han Chinese immigrants (e.g., 袁崇煥's subordinates 遼人 refers to Han Chinese people living outside of Shanhaiguan).  Even if you treat Jurchen Jin as not part of China, then you can start from Ming Dynasty which is more than 500 years from now (Note that I don't agree to excluding Jurchen Jin from canonical Chinese history.  Jurchen Jin is not a history of another country.  It is only about Chinese---between Han Chinese and a powerful Chinese minority). It was not part of China until recently?  Columbus hadn't stepped on North America at the time it was part of China.  "Manchuria" is an insult even to local Manchu residents (ask User:Naus who is partial Manchu).  For people left the region since 1940s, it was not an insult because their memory stayed at 1940s, when it was not an insult.  But it was history now.--Jiejunkong 05:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I am not only talking about History of Manchuria. Cydevil38 did the same thing everywhere, including Goguryeo's first statement on purely geographic notions.--Jiejunkong 05:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In Goguryeo's first geographic statement, I don't understand why "southern Russian Maritime province" and "the northern and central parts of the Korean peninsula" can use modern Russian and Korean names, but for Chinese names, the out-of-date Chinese name dominates?--Jiejunkong 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Korean peninsula or Korea is a widely accepted English name for the corresponding historical period.


 * Koguryo / Korean peninsula - 434
 * Koguryo / Manchuria - 378
 * Koguryo / Northeast China - 22


 * And I also object to "southern Russian Maritime province", it shouldn't be there. It should be just "southern Manchuria", which was the previous consensus, or "southern Manchuria(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" Cydevil38 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cydevil38, you are a liar and coward. Let me copy the physical proofs here to diagnose your "amnesia":
 * Fact 1: In, User:Cydevil38 did a personal investigation to compare the popularity between "Manchuria" and "Northeast China". This investigation was done within 2 weeks from now.  According to his search, searching "Manchuria" returns 1,130,000 results, and searching "Northeast China and its variants" returns 1,090,000.
 * Fact 2: In, User:Cydevil38 did an edit-warring with a blatant lie (quote: ""Northeast China" is not a widely accepted English name per WP:NCGN."). Per his own investigation 2 weeks ago, we can see "Manchuria" and "Northeast China" are widely accepted in a comparable manner.  I remember this fact, thus when User:Cydevil38 lied, I immediately went to the wikirecords and copy the proofs here.  User:Cydevil38, are you saying your brain has some malfunction like amnesia?  What a malicious liar.
 * After I filed this challenge in Goguryeo's talk page, you coward dare not to answer the challenge in the page, but smeared my personal talk page. Be a man, Cydevil38.  It is not easy to explain and justify what you have done.--Jiejunkong 06:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just didn't feel the need to respond. What I did was politely asking you to stop making personal attacks, which you are still doing now, calling me a "coward" among others. Cydevil38 06:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suddenly you don't have amnesia any more? So, was it an arithmetic problem because you don't know what numeric digits mean?--Jiejunkong 06:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Was there a concept of "Manchuria" before 1635? Can this concept be applied to the time of Koguryo, Bohai, Liao, Jin, etc.? Not according to your logic because there was no "Manchuria" back then - just like there was no Dongbei. However, even then, Manchuria was an ethnic concept coined by Huang Taiji, and the additional geographic connotations did not materialize some 3+ centuries later. In any case, Manchuria was originally/historically an "ethnic" concept - NOT a geographic one, therefore would violate the fundamental principle of WP:NCGN (simply because it is not a geographic term). In short, Manchuria is no different compared to Northeast China, but at least Northeast China was officially recognized as a geographic entity.


 * I am assuming you are from Taiwan and have never been to Dongbei before. On the mainland (same for the vast majority of Western media), most (if not all) people/organizations do not mistaken Dongbei for Hebei or Shandong, because in essence, Dongbei itself is like a provinicial entity - which it once was, briefly known as the "Northeast Administrative Region" between 1946-1954. Historically, the "Northeast" of China would have never been identified with Hebei because it did not exist and was then part of Zhili (directly-governed) and Shandong only came to be known during the Jurchen Jin Dynasty (which then included the modern Dongbei region).


 * I am a Manchu/Mongol/Han Chinese (only my paternal grandfather was Han), but how does being ethnic Man got to do with anything? I am talking about native Dongbei people - regardless of their ethnicity - being insulted by "Manchuria," (just try asking about "Manzhou" in Northeast China) not some Chinese American that owns some "Manchurian cuisine" restaurant.


 * Lastly, are you able to establish the fact that the Manchuria created in the year 1635 was historically a "geographic" concept and not an ethnic one? If you cannot, then there is no reason why the Russian Far East or Northern Korean peninsula could possibly be incorporated as part of "Manchuria" because there was never a definite border for a non-existant geographic entity. Assault11 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to have one single response to the multiple comments posted since my last one -- --Nlu (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I no longer oppose cutting off the template into a historic one and a modern/current one.
 * 2) As far as whether "Manzhou" was ethnic or geographic, I feel that the records from the Draft History of Qing Dynasty are ambiguous and, at worst, that ambiguity needs to be acknowledged rather than denied altogether.
 * 3) I do not agree that Jin Dynasty should be considered a Chinese dynasty. It was somewhat sinicized -- much more so than the later Yuan Dynasty, for example -- but it wasn't that sinicized.  Moreover, it's still not that old in the whole timeline of the region, which, even when excluding Gojoseon as legendary or semi-legendary, goes back to the clearly historical Wiman Joseon -- over 2,000 years ago.  As late as Tang Dynasty, "Northeast China" still doesn't cover it, and really, in the History of Jin you're not going find a single reference to the region as "Northeast" anything (China or otherwise), and it was never really referred to as "Northeast China" at all until well into the Republican period.
 * 4) The issue is not "confusion" of Dongbei with Hebei or Shandong; rather, the question is whether the nomenclature is historically accurate. It's not.  It's currently accurate, but I wouldn't want any historical template about the history of the southern Balkans, for example, to be called Template:History of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
 * Yes, I am from Taiwan, and I find sinocentrism to be just as distasteful as the current de-sinicization campaign carried out (but hopefully to be reversed very soon) by the ROC Ministry of Education. Let history be history.  Don't impose what is the current on what is historical.


 * Nlu, (3) Jurchen Jin Dynasty is very different from Yuan Dynasty. At the end of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, many Han Chinese in Jurchen-controlled areas died to save the dynasty by treating it as a Han Chinese's dynasty.  This's not true for Yuan Dynasty, as nearly no Han Chinese died to save Yuan Dynasty.  I've input the entire Canonical History Record of Jurchen Jin Dynasty at zh.wikisource.org.  Please check the 忠義傳. Also I personally don't treat Yuan as a Chinese Dynasty due to the existence of Mongolia country, which owns the history of Yuan. This is not true for Jurchen-Manchu, who completely merge with Han Chinese.  Nowadays Manchu people mostly have more Han blood than Manchu blood.  (4) I am pretty sure that "Northeastern China" is a directional term including Hebei and Shandong, but "Northeast China" is a proper noun referring only to the three provinces Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning.  (5) Are you saying "Northeast China" is a sinocentric term?  東北 is the term used by every local resident.  東北 is "Northeast China", 滿洲 is "Manchuria".  You cannot say that the English translation of 東北 is Manchuria.  It doesn't match. 東北 is not a sinocentric term.  Otherwise, I have to say that it is ridiculous to force local residents to rename their home region. --Jiejunkong 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, in "History of Jin" (or more formally "Canonical History Record of Jurchen Jin Dynasty"), you cannot find the term "Manchuria" either. The reason why modern name of a geographic region should be used, I believe, is any group of people can get together and point to a world map to ask each other "where are you from and tell me about your home's history".  Unless there is a time machine, you cannot edit a book/encyclopedia by asking an ancient person the same question.  "History of an ancient geographic name" is a meaningless subject (though "History of an ancient historical name" is meaningful).--Jiejunkong 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Every Korean who lives on the coast of the Sea of Japan will refer to it as the East Sea. That doesn't make "East Sea" a non-Korea-centric name.  (I believe I've already addressed your other contentions above.)  As far as "Northeast" vs. "Northeastern" -- the distinction doesn't exist in Chinese, and therefore isn't a real distinction.  (For example, when the Jin Dynasty (265-420) general Liu Kun referred to "the six provinces (州)" of the northeast, he was referring to You (幽), Bing (并), Ji (冀), Ping (平), Qing (青), and Yan (兗).  Of the six, only Ping is in what is now one of the three provinces (Liaoning, specifically).  Throughout the ages, "Northeast" simply gets shifted depending on the borders of China.  If, 50 years from now, Siberia secedes from Russia and joins China, "Northeast" will suddenly have to be referring to the region of Magadan and northeast.  (As an aside -- with no intend to unduly offend you -- the title you propose of "Canonical History of Record of Jurchen Jin Dynasty" makes no sense.  The Chinese title is brief: 金史.  That's what the English title should reflect, rather than throwing in what is effectively original research into the title.)  --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) So what, Sea of Japan is a modern geographic name, which doesn't violate WP:NCGN. It is more proper that you tell me what wikirule it actually violates and then do a comparison with the NCGN-violating "Manchuria".  (2) No. Northeastern China is 中國東北部/中國東北方，Northeast China is 中國東北.  That is why northeastern Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Shandong are in 中國東北部, but not 中國東北.  I guess that you have never been in mainland China because any Chinese with geography education, even a Shanghainese or Cantonese, will confirm this to you.  (3) Why are you starting to talk about Jin Dynasty (265-420)? Since you are aware of China's history, can't you verify the truth of my claim that "Jurchen-Manchu minority's history in Northeast China counted from Liao Dynasty, and Han Chinese's history in Northeast China counted from Ming Dynasty"?  Why throw Jin Dynasty (265-420) into the discussion? It is irrelevant.  (4) Use the modern term, we live in modern time.  When the meaning of 中國東北 changes to something else in the future, change to that something in the wikipedia at same time.  (5) 金史 is one of 二十四正史.  To differentiate it from some personally-made history like 大金國志 (which also can be translated as "History of Jurchen Jin"), it's acceptable to add canonical constraint to make difference.--Jiejunkong 07:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think 平州 is in nowadays Hebei Qinghuangdao (秦皇島). At 1123, it was the South Capital (南京) of Jurchen Jin Dynasty.  BTW again, 南京 and 北京 change their meanings constantly (e.g., 南京:Liao Dynasty in nowadays Beijing, Northern Song Dynasty in nowadays Shangqiu, Jurchen Jin Dynasty in nowadays Qinghuangdao then Kaifeng, Ming Dynasty and present time in nowadays Nanjing).  Are you saying that we cannot use 南京 and 北京?  I don't think so.  Use the current meaning and change the wikicontents at the time when the meaning does change.--Jiejunkong 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The location of Ping Province's headquarters was mostly in modern Jinzhou. The reason why I brought up Jin Dynasty (265-420) is because your discussion was overly confined to the last few centuries while ignoring even earlier times, which the template covers in addition to the time periods that you discuss. Meanwhile, what "Northeast China" violates is "common sense" (which WP:NCGN specifically says should always override itself). As far as "Bejing" or "Nanjing" is concerned, they have much more specific meanings, and in any case, they're articles, and not templates, and specifically not historical templates. (If other 南京 and 北京 are referred to in articles, they should and need to be disambiguated clearly by stating whose northern and whose southern capital we're talking about -- as I specifcally do when discussing Luoyang as Tang Dynasty's eastern capital, for example, when the context calls for it.) We're talking about Template:History of Manchuria here, not with the article Manchuria (which I worry less about). With regard to everything else, I think it's been rehashed to death. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Pingzhou is around the place of Shanhaiguan. Both nowadays Jinzhou and Qinghuangdao are involved.  (2) I don't make baseless claims.  Jin Dynasty (265-420) is not a good example. Present-day Northeast China's history before Mohe time is hardly connected to modern day Chinese.  This is same as saying present-day United States' history before 1620 Mayflower time is hardly connected to modern day American.  But neither affects the modern name.  Don't apply double standard here.  (3) Talking about "common sense", 南京 maybe fine.  But 北京 is a different story.  To remind you a historical fact, 北平/Beiping was officially changed to 北京/Beijing at the same time 滿洲/Manchuria was officially changed to 東北/Northeast.  If you say that 北京 has no naming problem but 東北 has naming problems, it doesn't make sense.  If you have problem with communist's official names, you should rename 北京 back to 北平 as well.  Otherwise, it favors Beijing people but it also annoys Northeast Chinese people by seeing the obvious double standard.  (4) I am not talking about article Manchuria (which I worry less about), I am talking about things like the 1st geographic location statement in Goguryeo.  Referring to old names like 滿洲 or 北平 in such geographic statements is a blatant violation of WP:NCGN and common sense.--Jiejunkong 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I created 南京 (遼), 南京 (金), 南京 (宋), 南京 (消歧義), 北京 (遼), 北京 (金) etc pages in zh.wikipedia. I know what you mean by disambiguation.  The question is whether "北京/Beijing" is improper as a geographic name.  The answer is obvious---nothing is improper here.  For this reason, I think "東北" is completely proper.  It is likely that you are arguing about the English translation, i.e., "Beijing" does not need a postfix "China", but "Northeast" does need a postfix "China" to eliminate ambiguity.  This argument seems to be the core of the disputation.  But this is a translation problem, it is unacceptable to kill the name "東北" for the linguistic problem.  Renaming "東北" to "滿洲" is also unacceptable in purely geographic contexts.  It is an insult.--Jiejunkong 08:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Unfortunately, the Republican-era Draft History of the Qing Dynasty is not a primary source and should be taken with a grain of salt (even you admit the ambiguities in the text provided). Again, I ask you, was "Manzhou" an ethnic or geographic concept created by Emperor Qing Taizong Huang Taiji? According the primary Qing sources (namely the Man Zhou Yuan Liu Kao), "Manzhou" was an ethnic concept. For starters, you can simply do a bit of researching online to find out more about "Manzhou Zu". This is not an ambiguity, but solid fact.


 * 2) Look, I am talking about the modern officially recognized geographic region of "Northeast China," not some non-existant "northeastern" region before the Qing Dynasty. Fact of the matter is that Northeast China has been officially recognized by the Qing as Dongsansheng (which Dongbei is a derivative of), not "Manzhou." The name of the template requires a geographic entity, which is what Northeast China essentially is (and what Manchuria is not), hence the "History of (insert geographic title here)".


 * 3) Both the Nuzhen Jin and Yuan Dynasties (BTW, there were a number of ethnic Han working for the Yuan, e.g. Yuan General Guo Kan, thousands of Song naval troops later employed in the invasions against Japan, etc. although the Yuan overall was one of the worst dynasties in Chinese historiography) were Chinese dynasties, regardless how "bad" one was. The definition of Chinese is not solely limited to the Han ethnicity and as long as they are officially part of the Twenty Four Histories, they are most certainly considered Chinese. If you think otherwise, that is your personal POV. If you think you have a case against the Nuzhen Jin/Yuan being Chinese Dynasties, feel free to convince others to remove them from the History of China template. Assault11 08:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just one response (since all other points have been completely beaten to death already): being (a very important) part of Chinese history is not the same as being Chinese. And when we look at historically at what was "Chinese," whether the people/regime was "Chinese" needed to be looked at in the context of what it was at the time, not what happened to its descendants. Otherwise, you would get wacky situations where, for example, since Kazakhstan was at one point an integral part of the Soviet Union, based on your logic, one would have been justified to refer to conflicts between Qing and the Kazakhs as "China-Soviet conflict." --Nlu (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Manchu and Chinese To Nlu, I don't know where this "beaten to death already" remark is from. This is a very improper remark.  In fact, it seems that you misidentify Manchu as non-Chinese.  This is against modern canonical view.  There are many examples.  葉嘉瑩  is a Taiwan resident who is from Manchu 葉赫 tribe.  She is one of the topmost 國學 experts in the Chinese-speaking world.  Since you are also from Taiwan, perhaps you know her name but perhaps you don't know she is Manchu.  Most Manchu people are in similar position being indistinguishable from Han Chinese.  The list goes on, 齊豫，齊秦 are all Manchu.  Their mother is from 正黃旗.  Because you made those comments about Manchu not being Chinese, I guess you perhaps are surprised when you know these people are Manchu.--Jiejunkong 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the link for 葉嘉瑩's trip to the ancient 葉赫 tribe site.--Jiejunkong 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, being Chinese does not equal being an ethnic Han. By your logic, we can assume that all non-Han states in Chinese history to be non-"Chinese". That is completely false. The definition of China does not revolve around one single ethnicity, although the core foundation of Chinese culture descended from the Central Plains region. And again, if we go by your reasoning, can we say that Tang was only part "Chinese" given the context it was in at the time? I don't think so. What about the Xianbei Northern Wei Dynasty? Are they not considered "Chinese" even though they referred to themselves as "Zhong Guo" and changed their royal clan from Tuoba to Yuan? As for your "China-Soviet" analogy, just why can't the Qing represent China? (Note: China does not necessarily imply the modern Chinese nation-state) In the treaties conducted with foreign countries, it directly referred to itself as "China." Assault11 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nlu, I am trying to figure out why you think Manchuria is a modern name. Please see my post in your zh.wikipedia talk page.  The user "Manchurian Tiger" in zh.wikipedia proclaimed that he is not Manchu but a local Korean minority.  So far all such "Manchuria"-advocators are Korean or Korean minority.  You have not even seen a single Manchu or Han local resident want to be called "Manchurian".  Is this amazing? Use your common sense please. BTW, Korean minority in Northeast China is less than 1% of the local population.--Jiejunkong 23:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that Manchuria is a modern name. Quite the reverse.  --Nlu (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you need to explain why such a non-modern name can be used in purely geographic contexts subject to WP:NCGN? For example, the first sentence of Goguryeo applies modern Russian and Korean geographic name, but an out-of-date Chinese name.  The sentence explicitly says "located in" which means purely geographic contexts.  Please don't tell me you think it is neither a modern name nor a non-modern name.--Jiejunkong 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've repeated it multiple times already: this is a historical template, not a current status template, and that's why I don't favor using an anachronism. --Nlu (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree to your response for two reasons: (1) Even for "History of X" articles, if the "X" is a geographic name, then modern names are used according to WP:NCGN. Look at "History of Gdansk", "History of Beijing", and so on.  The list goes on.  Historical names can be used as "X" only when the corresponding article is about the historical entity only.  (2) You didn't respond to the concern about 1st sentence "located in" part in the article Goguryeo.--Jiejunkong 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Gdansk and Beijing qualify as widely accepted names per criteria given by WP:NCGN. On the other hand, "Northeast China" fails the very first criteria, as both Britannica and Columbia use it as a secondary term for the primary term, Manchuria. And another point, according to the Chinese Wikipedia, another "geographical" entity comparable to "Northeast China" is "Southwest China" which includes Tibet. Does this mean that Tibet should be changed to "Southwest China" and "History of Tibet" should be changed to "History of Southwest China"? I don't think so. Cydevil38 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Northeast China does not fail the first criteria. Almost all Western/English language media corporations subscribe to this term as proven in the template talk page. Your dubious reference to Britannica/Columbia is not credible. Both also use the inaccurate term "Abahai" when dealing with Huang Taiji, you don't see Abahai being represented on Wikipedia in place of Huang Taiji, do you?


 * Tibet is called Xizang in China, which has historical/geographic backing. Manzhou does not. People in Tibet/Xizang do not call themselves Xinan Ren or associate with such terms, Northeast Chinese do. Cydevil, can you even read that Chinese Wikipedia link you provided? No, you cannot. 'Nuff said. Assault11 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the arguments from this airdropped China geography and history expert from Korea. Cydevil38 has not shown any credit which can back him up in related articles.  Like the historical Manchuria, Tibet's territory varies from time to time.  But unlike the historical Manchuria, Tibet is the modern official name, which has never been changed.  More importantly, it is not offensive at all.--Jiejunkong 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Northeast China" is directional and necessarily moves with the borders of China; that distinguishes it from Gdansk. Meanwhile, Beijing is far less directional. But I've said that already. Apparently, you disagree. I do not wish to have to repeat, repeat, and repeat my statements when you disagree and really have nothing new to add. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are the rules about "modern names must not be directional and should not necessarily move with the borders of China"? I don't understand.  Is this your personal reason or wikipolicy?  You already know that 北京，南京 are also directional terms that necessarily move with the borders of China.  Then why don't you say this baseless reason to those Beijing Chinese and Nanjing Chinese?  If you do have good faith, please confirm whether you are against "northeast China" because of the "China" postfix, which is not like ”Beijing", "Nanjing" which doesn't need the "China" postfix.  In that case, I would say that "Dongbei" is an acceptable term which offends nobody.--Jiejunkong 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc
See Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Primorsky Krai
I'm thinking of removing this from the sub-definition of "Manchuria". It seems other editors are very concerned about Manchuria being "partially Russian", hence why they want to leave out Primorsky Krai. Per dictionary definitions and encyclopedias, Primosrky krai is left out. I've also seen reliable sources(can't clearly remember which) that refer to the primosrky krai as a different region from that of Manchuria, such as referring to it as the "coastal regions east of Manchuria". While some of the kingdoms there does cover primosrky krai, perhaps it's not necessary for the template itself to cover that entire area. It's just that some of the entities there happened to be involved somewhere else. I would like your thoughts on this. Cydevil38 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll first go ahead and change Primosrky Krai to "northeastern Inner Mongolia". Please revert the change if you disagree. Cydevil38 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I don't think I can gain consensus as to my view (as much as I think the people's objections about including Primorsky Krai being geographically/historically incorrect). --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

everything's in xianning
Hi Nlu, sorry to bother you again.... Chibi City's in Xianning... Jiayu County's in Xianning... how far/which direction is Chibi City from Jiayu? A map is here but I can't get oriented amidst all those Chinese words. If there 's any way you could point them both out I would be ecstatic, but I know that might be exceedingly difficult... Thanks for your time & trouble.. Ling.Nut 02:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think the map gives the orientation on this. I have an atlas of the PRC at home (I'm not home right now).  I'll try to look at it tonight or tomorrow and let you know.  --Nlu (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In the Battle of Red Cliffs article I listed them as separate possibilities for the location of Chibi.. but the more I read &amp; think, the more I think they might be ... in this context; in the context of the somewhat vague/general locations that experts ascribe to the battlefield.. they might be the same place. I mean, literally they are different, but when experts say "Jiayu" and "Puqi" they really mean, "I don't know where, but somewhere here, including these places." So I'm beginning to suspect that instead of four possibilities (Wuhan, Jiayu, Chibi City, and Huangzhou) I should have three, collapsing Jiayu/Chibi City into one.
 * Also, is there a Jiayu City or Jiayu Town or whatever in or near Jiayu County?
 * Thanks again! Ling.Nut 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As it turned out, the map of Hubei in my atlas isn't that detailed, but based on what I can see (also off the Internet, e.g., http://221.233.232.178/jyzww/01-xzfc.htm), Jiayu County is the part of Xianning that is the northwest "panhandle" if you will, bordering Jingzhou to the west across the Yangtze. Chibi City is to Jiayu County's southwest, also bordering Jingzhou to the west and bordering Yueyang to the southwest. There is no Jiayu City or Jiayu Town in Jiayu County; its county seat is named Yuyue Town. (It should be noted that Chibi City's city seat is not at Chibi Town, which is in the extreme west part of the county-level city. (I can't find a map of Chibi City on its Web site.)  --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ... I had the idea today that maybe October-ish I could work on some Sixteen Kingdoms articles for you.. I might have little or no access to English language reference books at that time, but decent access to journals (online)... anyhow, thanks again
 * If you happen to run across more detailed info, please drop me a line on my talk.. .. thanks again..Ling.Nut 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)