Talk:Paektu Mountain

It was considered to be in Hamgyong do

A Manual of Korean geographical and other proper names romanized (1883) p. 41 "Paik-du-san" "Ham-gyong-do" At the bottom of this picture: http://i47.tinypic.com/33kvwiv.jpg

Dangun myth

Remember that when the Dangun myth was first recorded, Goryeo's northern border was far remote from the mountain. --Nanshu 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Korean Dangun myth was first recorded, Ko-Chosun which is now Manchuria. Koryo dynasty is much later after Korean three Kindom period. Korguryo-Koryo-Korea.

Locmap

I have added a map of the location of the mountain. However, I don't this map is NPOV enough. If anyone can replace it with a version that is not completely Korea based, I'd be very grateful. It's just that I didn't have anything at hand. Sorry. Have a nice day! Kokiri 09:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name Table

Can the name table be restored to this article at this time? --68.194.108.16 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fact checking

( Wikipedia Bias)

1) Baekdu Mountain is Korean. Baekto Mountain should be called in Korean Baekdu Mountain. 2) Changbai Mountain in Chinese translation it is written in Chinese and Manchu ( No Korean!!!!). 3) Baekdu Mountain ( Wikipedia page should be written in Korean only.) No Chinese or Manchu words. 4) Baekdu Mountain belongs to Koreans not Manchu or Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanempire (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please confirm the height of the mountain? I've changed it to 2750, as found in Britannica and on a page by the Chosun Ilbo. Also, can somebody check the claim for the deepest mountain lake in the world (from Chosun)? Kokiri 30 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)

FWIW, the Naver Encyclopedia [1] and the Handbook of Korea 11th ed. (p. 12) both give 2744 as the height.

The "deepest mountain lake" claim doesn't wash, not even if we assume it means "deepest crater lake." Crater Lake in the US is 597 meters deep. It might be the deepest crater lake in Asia, but I can't find a source for that. I shall remove the claim forthwith. -- Visviva 30 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Also National Geographic gives 2,744 m as the height in their 2004 "Japan and Korea" map. [2] What we really need is a source that will explain the discrepancy... - Visviva 1 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Cheers, this is really helpful. Not that I was any wiser, though :) Kokiri 1 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$== Chinese Name ==

CHINESE NAME SHOULD BE REMOVED PERIOD. CHINA AND CHINESE NEVER HAD HISTORICAL OR POLITICAL CLAIM ON BAEKDOOSAN MOUNTAIN. BAEKDOOSAN MOUNTIAN IS KOREAN. NORTH KOREA AND CHINA NEGOTITATION SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED BECAUSE NORTH KOREANS DO NOT REPRESENT KOREAN POPULATION. SOUTH KOREA REPRESENT KOREA BY POPULATION OF 50 MILLION. AS LONG 50 MILLION SOUTH KOREANS DID NOT NEGOTIATED WITH CHINESE. CHINESE OR CHINA CANNOT CLAIM BAEKDOOSAN AS PART OF CHINA. BAEKDOOSAN WILL ALWAYS BE PART OF KOREANS AND NATION OF KOREA.

I want to remove the Chinese characters from the opening paragraph, but they somehow look different from those in the name table. Can somebody check this?! Kokiri 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They are different, because the ones in the name table are for Baitou-shan, not Changbai-shan. Not sure if they should be moved to the name table or not. -- Visviva 11:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Baitou-shan is just a Chinese pronunciation of the Korean name 白頭山. Changbai-shan (長白山/长白山) is the Chinese name. The latter should be in the name table, not the former. I don't know Hanyu Pinyin nor Wade-Giles so I can't change the table myself. --Kusunose 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed the name table and fixed zh interwiki link. Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles are based on Changbai Mountains. --Kusunose 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm South Korean but I have not heard about the South Korean claiment in our country.203.170.113.178 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving page name to Baekdu Mountain

I've done some searches on the mountain itself, and it turns out that western publications and institutions refer it as mount Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu (Korean variants of the name), not the Chinese variant - Baitou. Examples of such institutions are UNESCO [3], The Guardian [4], Fotosearch [5], American University[6], Encyclopædia Britannica [7], All States Flag [8], Library of Congress (United States) [9] and countless others. Search on Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu on google will reveal about 20,000 to 50,000 pages for each name, while search done on Baitou reveals only 500 pages. It is clear that mount Baekdu is much more commonly used name than mount Baekdu. I'll revert the pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deiaemeth (talk • contribs) 7:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

Vote

• Support move to Baekdu Mountain - as noted above, from an English-language perspective, the mountain assumes more importance and more reference in the context of Korea. LuiKhuntek 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Baekdu Mountain - "Mount Baekdu" (or variations thereof) is the official name for the mountain is widely used by international publications alike Deiaemeth 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the procedural matters well enough, and if the editor who started petitioning for requested move is not allowed to vote on these matters, I'll abstain from voting. Deiaemeth 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds reasonable to me. Appleby 05:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

article title, move requested

actually, per korean naming convention, it seems the article should be named "Paektusan" (in north korean mr romanization). unless it's considered a korean place, not just a north korean place name. or if "baekdu mountain" is a firmly established english name. Appleby 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

unless anyone wants to chime in, i think we can go ahead and rename this to Baekdusan, since it is an iconic place for all of korea, not just the modern north korean state. it's in the south korean national anthem and relevant to ancient korean history. so, being a korean topic, per Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Korean) and Revised romanization of Korean, this topic should be romanized Baekdusan. Appleby 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As for romanization, google says mr romanization is more common than revised romanization. Another thing to consider: Mount Paektu (or Mount Baekdu) is the most common form. Paektu Mountain (or Baekdu Mountain) comes next. Paektusan (or Baekdusan) is least common. And Britanica never used the last form. It only has Mount Paektu and Paektu Mountain. --Kusunose 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

googling most korean place names will get you more mr, just because rr is more recent, & some publication simply have a policy of using mr, as opposed to wikipedia's choice of rr. e.g. pusan & koryo are more common, but we still use busan & goryeo, following rr. there are very few exceptions, such as taekwondo and kimchi, where korean words have become so firmly established in english as to be loanwords. i don't think baekdusan, in any spelling, qualifies. so it's just a matter of being consistent within wikipedia.

under either rr or mr, and to be consistent with other korean mountain articles in wikipedia, "san" is a part of the word, without space or hyphenation. i'm ok with either baekdusan or paektusan, but would prefer the former, as i said, because i think it's a korean iconic location, rather than just a north korean place. Appleby 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand commonness of romanazation is irrelevant and the article name should be detarmined based on whether this article is genral Korean topic or North Korea specific topic, per naming conventtion. I have no preference and don't mind whichever is used. As to the other issue, I think we should bring this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). For river names, ommiting -gang and adding river is common. For islands, -do is commonly included. For mountains, -san is commonly included in Wikipedia but seems not in many other publications. We should establish naming convension that follows common English usage before moving this article. FYI, -san is also part of the word in Japanese (e.g. Fujisan) but Japanese naming convenstion says more common English usage, Mount Fuji, to be used. --Kusunose 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

i see your point too. i'd just like to see consistency, but don't have strong feelings either way. it's really a vague judgment call, but i'd say fuji (unlike fujisan) is established in english; han river (of seoul) is truly a toss-up, though i'd lean slightly against it, & baekdu/paektu (or, for that matter, baekdusan/paektusan) really hasn't entered english to the same level. i don't think baekdu mountain is "wrong," but if i were creating an article now, i'd have chosen baekdusan as the name. Appleby 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, there's no real consensus for the move, is there? Work out a naming convention for Korean place names, maybe? —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Paektusan is an iconic Korean location, RR should only be applied to places over which the ROK has actual jurisdiction. Paektusan is completely out of its geographic sphere, ergo Paektusan over Baekdusan. Also, the conventions are, on both sides of the DMZ I believe, to include geographic suffixes (e.g., -san) when they are routinely used as part of the name in spoken Korean. Ergo, Paektusan (or Baekdusan) over Paektu Mountain or Baekdu Mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deng Beatles (talk • contribs).

That seems reasonable to me. It is also in line with the revised version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), which addresses mountain names specifically. I don't think it really makes much difference, but I will gladly support such a move. -- Visviva 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming convention for Korean is unambiguous:

• “Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of. Thus, North Korean place names use McCune-Reischauer Romanization (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies), while South Korean place names use the Revised Romanization of Korean.”

Unless the naming convention is changed, the article should be moved to Mount Paektu (which is the official name used in Enlish-language publications of the DPRK, such as dispatches of the Korean Central News Agency 조선통신사 and publications of the Foreign Languages Publishing House 외국문출판사) or to Paektusan (as suggested by the naming convention for names of mountains). In any case, the South Korean spelling “Baekdu” is not acceptable, nor it is commonly used in western languages: books.google.com gives 24 results for “Baekdu”, 503 for “Paektu”; 142 for “Mt. Paektu”, 116 for “Mount Paektu”, and 139 for “Paektusan”, mostly transcriptions. Results from scholar.google.com are similar. “Baekdu” is a marginal South Korean spelling.

Any further comments or objections? —198.145.112.147 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lake Cheonji Link

The link for the lake (Cheonji) at the summit of Baekdu Mountain is completely incorrect. The lake which is linked to the page is not the lake at the summit of the mountain. Take a look at the picture on the Tianchi Lake page (the lake currently and incorrectly linked to the Baekdu Mountain page). If you notice, there are boats in the picture. How exactly would boats be carried to a lake at the top of a mountain which is 2,750 meters tall? Also Baekdu Mountain is the tallest mountain in all of Korea (North and South); the mountains the background of the picture of Lake Tianchi are taller. Furthermore, the latitude/longitude coordinates of Lake Tianchi and Baekdu Mountain are similar, but not the same. Either the picture is wrong on the Lake Tianchi page (which I tend to doubt), or the link is incorrect and should be removed.

Thanks for catching that! The link is correct, the picture was wrong. As its caption said, it is a picture of "Tianchi in Xinjiang," a different lake by the same name. I have changed the image for one that actually shows the Cheonji/Tianchi that the article is about. -- Visviva 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Monster!

There should be searches excavated in Cheonji for the legendary animals that apparently "live" in it, the same as we search for the Loch Ness in that lake. Oyo321 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so THAT"S where Satan lives, I knew it. 24.89.245.62 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

The article says that the border was settled by Japan and the Qing dynasty (China) in 1919. However, the Qing was replaced by the Republic of China in 1912. Is that the correct date for the Gando Treaty? 68.48.166.146 13:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article Gando, the border was settled with the Gando Convention of 1909. I have fixed the article. Thank you. --Kusunose 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Gando Convention only recognized the borders on the Yalu and Tumen rivers. The land borders on the mountain range weren't fully demarcated until a China-North Korea treaty in 1962. --Yuje 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:KO

Please join Wikiproject Korea! It is very new and we need more help to fully establish the article and to begin working on projects. Good friend100 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Page rename

After some discussion on another page, some checking shows that Changbai is more common of a name than Baekdu. Search on Britannica shows gives this link on searching for Changbai [10], but searches for Baekdu yield nothing. [11] Searches on Encyclopeida Encarta give these hits for Changbai [12], but no hits for Baekdu [13]. Searches on Columbia Encyclopedia give the follwing articles on Changbai [14], but searches for Baekdu turn up nothing. [15]

• 59,600 hits on Google for Changbai mountain on Google, 10,900 for Baekdu mountain. [16][17]
• 14,200 hits for Changbai mountain on Yahoo, 2,010 for Baekdu mountain [18] [19]
• 14,400 hits for Changbai mountain on Altavista, 2,000 hits for Baekdu mountain [20] [21]
• 6,184 hits for Changbai mountain on MSN, 1,707 for Baekdu mountain [22] [23]

--Yuje 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against this. First, Baekdusan is usually written "Paekdusan" so your searches should have no results. Also, most of your searches should result in the Mountain Ranges, not the mountain itself. i have done similiar searches, and there's hardly any hits of the "Changbaishan" for the mountain itself, without any connection to the mountain range.

Also, since when did the Han Chinese have Baekdusan under their control? It was only after PRC got the whole of Manchuria. Han Nationalists will argue that they had Manchuria during the Han and Tang age, but the poblem is that both dynasties never went that far east.

Yuje, I have to say that I'm pretty tired of you Han nationalist views. Please leave Korean things alone. --General Tiger 03:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Koree things? Like Chinese characters, Confucius, Dragon Boat festival, Japan, China, Mongolia, Siberia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.116.173 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

I haven't realized that Google, Altavista, MSN, Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia have all joined hands in aiding my historial revisionism and Han nationalism. My Google-fu must be strong indeed for me to have gained such allies. --Yuje 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My google searches

changbaishan: 49,900 [24] (but we need to take out the Changbaishan hotel, 9,920 hits [25], the mountain range [26], and other such unrelated hits, so I did another search below)

changbaishan korea: 14,000 [27]

paektusan: 11,600 [28]

paekdusan: 2,260 [29]

baekdusan: 11,300 [30]

Baitou Mountain: 3,180 [31]

If we look at the above searches, it seems that the two versions are similar. therefore, we have a bit of a deadlock.

However, I advocate the Baekdusan variates since

1) Even the Chinese sometimes uses the Korean style of White-headed Mountain (which, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), should give Baekdusan variates a hand)

2) We already have the Changbai Mountains Ranges

3) The highest peak of the mountain is in North Korea, which is on the southern side of Cheonji.

Therefore, we should include the name Changbaishan in the article itself, but put the title as Baekdusan or the such.

--General Tiger 06:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To reuse Good_friend100's argument, since the mountain range is already at Changbai Mountains, it would be confusing for the most prominent mountain to feature the name using a different romanization system. So for consistency's sake, shouldn't the name of the highest peak be in the same romanization system as well? Or does the argument work only in one direction? Furthermore, this is the English encyclopedia, so our primary consideration should be English usage, not Chinese or Korean usage. As I said above, Changbai is a consistently used name not only in search engine hits, but among multiple encyclopedias as well. Also, Baekdu is used to refer to a mountain rage as well, so that applies both ways. And I don't believe that Baitou is a name used commonly in China. Baitou usually refers to a city in Inner Mongolia, and a google search that removes Wiki terms has only one mention of such a name for the mountain. [32]--Yuje 08:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I get about 35,000 hits for the various Korean romanizations and about 44,500 hits for Changbai / Changbaishan ... That is a difference, but I'm not sure if it's a terribly significant one. (Further, adding "hotel" as a negative parameter brings to total for Changbai/Changbaishan down to 38,300). If I have missed a common Chinese spelling, please correct me. Given these results, and given the above-mentioned ambiguity between Changbai Mountain and the Changbai Mountains, it seems to me that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is more relevant than Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). To my knowledge, the Korean name is unambiguous, and is therefore preferable. -- Visviva 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at your search string---

---mountain+baekdu+OR+paekdu+OR+paektu+OR+baekdusan+OR+paektusan+OR+paekdusan+-

VS

---changbai+changbaishan

DUDE YOU ARE CHEAP!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.110.227.162 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Will all involved please filter Wikipedia from their search terms by using the command "-wikipedia"? Wikipedia hits greatly inflate search terms. For example, searching for Baekdusan gives over 10,000 hits, but removing wikipedia produces only 901 hits.

Also, Visviva, i don't neccessarily agree that the term "hotel" need to be filtered from the search, since the hotel actually does appear to be located in Changbai, and thus is a legitimate hit for Changbai mountain. It doesn't appear to be a case where the hotel refers to a different location or term. Furthermore, "Baekdu" refers to a mountain range as well, (wiki article at Baekdudaegan), so Baekdu isn't any more unambiguous than Changbai is. Given that both names contain a degree of ambiguity, I prefer that we keept the name at the more common version. --Yuje 08:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that first request was directed at me, but my search links above are filtered against Wikipedia. I do learn, slowly.  :-) As for the hotel, I'm not sure either; but regardless, the difference between the Korean and Chinese frequencies just doesn't seem very striking; it's not the kind of difference that would suggest that one name has become established in common usage, while the other has not. The Baekdudaegan is a bit of a red herring, methinks, since that "range" is hardly ever referred to as the "Baekdu Mountains," while the range around Baekdu/Baitou is almost always referred to as the "Changbai (or Changbaek or Jangbaek) Mountains." This is getting a bit off-topic, but compare "Baekdu Mountains" (~70) (most of which are accidental) with Baekdudaegan (~570) -- and that's just one romanization. Cheers, -- Visviva 12:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"our primary consideration should be English usage, not Chinese or Korean usage." The we should use "white headed mountain" if that is what you truly mean. "Changbaishan" is definitely Chinese, it doesn't make sense that you want to move this page.

Like I commented at the Chonji talk page, why do you make it so hard here? Why the hassle? We don't need to move the page. Its perfectly fine the way it is, there are no controversies (save the one you began), and this article does not a have a problem. Good friend100 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Good friend100, the Chinese usage would be 长白山. Only one English title for the article is possible, so combining different romanizations and different spellings makes little sense. And pointing out facts is "making it hard"? As I showed, all other encyclopedias (you know, all the professional ones) use Changbai as the name, and Changbai enjoys a clear majority in usage on the web. I suspect that the English-language usage of "Changbai" will only increase, once the upcoming Changbai airport is completed in 2008. So if I advocate this name as well based on consistency, common usage on the net, common usage on other enclopedic sources, then I'm being difficult? Most other encyclopedias use Changbai for the name, and not Baekdu. A short search on Google scholar will reveal that professional research papers favor "Changbai" as well. Are you saying all those other encyclopedias, web pages, and research papers are wrong and you're right?

From where I'm standing, I see you making emotional appeals but not valid points. Might I ask you why you think we should ignore these facts? As I see it, those encyclopedias aren't controversial, but you're trying to make it so. On the other hand, I do see that some people who do oppose the move based on blatently POV reasons (such as Oyo321's extremely enlightened comments that a page rename will lead the destruction of Korea). If you don't think this discussion will lead to anywhere, I'm perfectly happy with us dealing with this issue through mediation as well. I'm confident that the points I brought up will stand on their own, and that I can make a strong case for it. How about you? --Yuje 11:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So I'm emotional, eh? And you are offering mediation while blatently rejecting all others? And China's plan to make a Changbai airport and to hold olympic games at Changbai mountain is just to advertise the mountain itself, its not really important in this article. Chonji obviously will not move because "Chonji" is the clearest title for that article. This article does not need to move because there is no point having a Korean lake on top of a Chinese mountain. Do you understand that?

Also, I never mentioned anything about encyclopedias. I am reffering to your googe searches, which cannot determine everything (as seen in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) talk page).

google searches and/or encyclopedia searches will most likely bring up "Changbaishan" because of the fact that

• The mountain can only be accessed in the Chinese side.
• North Korean tourism is very very limited.
• We don't hear a lot from North Korea (apart from their nuke problem)
• There are many hotels and/or restaurants named after "Changbaishan"

Good friend100 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you cannot ignore the search results General Tiger has produced. It is also important to point out that "Baekdusan" can be spelled out or named in several different names, considering how a book or internet site spells it. Good friend100 14:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof of the last one? Filtering out the term "hotel" from both terms still raise large degree of difference. All the others you raised might be true, but regardless, the conclusion you admitted yourself is exactly that Changbai Mountain is the more common English name, and Baekdu isn't. Changbai is encountered most often by English speakers, English readers, English-speaking tourists, articles, encyclopedias, and so on. There's even other sites named after it, such as the hotel located in the mountains, and the airport located in the mountains, which will make exposure all the more common. All those various websites, encyclopedias, and English-speaking tourists encounter the name "Changbai", but you're recommending that instead, we base the name on something that "can be spelled out in several different names, considering how a book or internet site spells it", which 1)will be rarely encountered, because access isn't possible, 2)tourists will never see, because tourism is very very limited, and 3)we'll never hear a lot about, apart from the nuke problem? And you're the one complaining about confusion and ambiguity? Again, if you think I'm simply being stubborn and my points completely baseless, we can try to resolve this through mediation. Or do you think such a proposal would be unfair to you?

I proposed the move not to "make things hard" for you, but obviously because I think I'm right and you're wrong, and I think I'm able to show it. Don't confuse disagreement with hostility, or all of Wikipedia might be a massive flamefest. Good_friend100, if a simple page rename proposal is drawing such an emotional reaction from you, perhaps you need to take a step back and reconsider whether or not you're really approaching this issue in a NPOV manner. --Yuje 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm interesting response. It seems you are getting emotional by writing a lot and throwing questions at me. Your attitude doesn't help either. Its all right or its all wrong for you. I'll consider stepping back, since your response is all sharp and hammered down simply because you wish to move the page.

Again, I have already asked, why do we have to go into this? Instead of heating up, why not just throw all the possible names for this article to an ambiguity page when somone searches for "Chonji" or "Tianchi" or whatever. Good friend100 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, think about it from a user's perspective, someone who just wants to learn, but not to edit. He goes to encyclopedia Encarta, and sees a picture of [33] Changbai. What would he naturally search on Wikipedia? Changbai, of course. Or suppose he sees "Baekdu Mountain" on Wikipedia, and wants to confirm it on another encyclopedia. He goes to Encarta encyclopedia, types in "Baekdu", and gets no related hits. Dissapointed, this user goes and tries in Encyclopedia Britannica instead, eagerly typing in "Baekdu" to try to learn more. Yet, this dissapointed user again finds no hits. However, by typing in the "Changbai" into such encyclopedia searches, he immediately finds what he's looking for. Which do you think is more helpful to the reader?

Also note that I don't propose combining different romanizations from Chinese, either. I'm not a hypocrite. If I did, the results would be even more overwhelmingly in favor. Changbai yields 144,000 hits [34], Chang bai yields 17,000 hits [35], Changbaishan yields 46,800 hits [36], Changbai mountain yields 40,200 hits [37], and so on. Please make no more arguments in favor of supporting your argument by combining different romanizations such as paektusan, paekdusan, baekdusan, etc, unless you believe such a tactic is fair for me to use as well. --Yuje 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First you should know that Paektusan, Paekdusan, Baekdusan, etc mean all the same thing. The tallest mountain in Korea.

Of course you would get 144,000 hits since "Changbai" can mean almost anything since you left out "shan" (which means mountain, right?). This "tactic" that I use does not apply to Changbaishan because "Changbai" technically does not mean the mountain anymore. Baekdu Mountain simply has several ways to spell it in English. Good friend100 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This page name should be CHANGBAI. right now the Korea nationlism have pose a grave threat to all neighboring countries. This should to sounding alarm to everyone. and has to be watched closed. korean nationlism is troublesome, and potentially very dangerous, more dangerous than Kim the second's nuke.

I doubt it. No matter how much anyone rants and raves, a country needs to physically send an eighteen-year old with a gun to plant his country's flag on a piece of land before it actually owns it. Obviously, they don't actually have the ability to do this to China (biggest army in the world) or Japan (second biggest navy in the world), nor do Japan or China have the ability to invade the other two, either. Politicians may pander to nationalism to gain votes, but once in office they tend to realize very quickly the importance of good relations with neighboring countries.--Yuje 05:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you can explain why China is so aggresively claiming Goguryeo and Baekdu mountain as their own. I always wonder if the Chinese historians and proffessors who study the ethnicity of Goguryeo ever feel guilty, but there's also another probability that the government forces them to study and claim Goguryeo as their own. You get pretty disgusted when you see a country claiming another country's culture and history.

The reason why I think China is claiming Goguryeo is because the fact the Goguryeo smeared the Chinese into the ground in the endless wars China waged on Goguryeo. It would be great for China to see Goguryeo as their own ethnicity since that would mean Korea never defeated China and the wars were simply between Chinese kingdoms. Good friend100 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying China doesn't actually physically own its part of the mountain currently? Anyway, I think current relations between the East Asian countries are already pretty good. I can't imagine any of them fighting a war in the future, not even Taiwan and the PRC.

I don't ever recall myself saying that the people of Koguryo were Han Chinese. I recall reading a Jared Diamond article saying that the inhabitants of Paekche and Koguryo were the ancestors of the Japanese. Their languages showed closer similarity to ancient Japanese than to ancient Korean, and after their defeat by Shilla, refugees fleeing to Japan developed into the modern Japanese people.

And I have have the greatest respect for the general who defeated the Chinese armies. He was a fine general, and I regard him as the East Asian equivalent of Hannibal. Even in ancient China, Chinese generals respected the skills and courage of their enemies. The Tang Dynasty certainly did, and incorporated foreign soldiers from places like Xianbei (Zhangsun Wuji), Gokturk (An Lushan), Persia (Pirooz), and Koguryo (Gao Xianzhi) into their armies. Betcha didn't know that after the failed invasion of Korea, some defeated Japanese soldiers were recruited into the Ming armies where they later helped fight against rebellions in western China.

I also don't see why're you're trying to attribute ulterior motives to me based on some actions a nigh-thousand years ago. Various Chinese dynasties have fought countless offensive and defensive wars against states from all four corners of the map, including Vietnamese, Nanchao, Dali, Burma, the Shan states, the Tibetan kingdoms/empires, the Tanguts, Turks, Khitans, Xianbei, Uyghurs, Xiongnu, Miao, Mongols, Manchus, Tartars, etc. Really, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone holding a thousand year old grudge against any of the peoples that they fought in the past, and the Mongols directly and indirectly killed some 1/5 of China's population. --Yuje 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not possible for a war between Taiwan and the PRC? Do you know what Communist countries want? They want a communist spread around the world. The PRC has repeatedly threatened to attack Taiwan by force even though the U.S has passed the Taiwan Relations Act to defend Taiwan's democracy from communism. Communism doesn't work, and in the end, it will bring any country to rubble.

China plays so cheep in the international market and politics. They threaten to cut any ties with a country if that country recognizes Taiwan. Thats what happened to Korea. We had to cut our relations with Taiwan to trade with China and left the Taiwanese ambassadors crying out of the Korean embassy. How sad. I feel sorry for the Taiwanese.

Betcha didn't know Chinese soldiers raped and pillaged Koreans when the came to help the Korean army. Good friend100 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen China attempt to spread any communism any time in the last 30+ years? Care to give an example? Not that I don't believe you, I just want to hear an example. Do you mean when it joined the WTO? Or opened up Special Economic Zones?

Anyway, no one is coercing SK to keep it's relationships with the PRC. SK didn't even start diplomatic relations with them till the 1980's. I'm certainly no communist stooge, so if you would rather trade with Taiwan instead, feel perfectly free to switch relations. The PRC would obviously rather not trade or have ties with any country that does, of course, but that's within their rights as well. Don't think I'm holding you back. Go ahead and give your president a call (today, if possible!), and tell him to end all relations with the mainland and recognize Taiwan instead.

I did in fact know about Chinese soldiers in Korea, and I never attempted to exonerate them. I suppose you'd probably not rather have had their help in Korea. China would have been better off for it, as well. They were fighting three simultaneous uprisings at the time, which was why the emperor delayed in sending help at all. The one in Korea had to come back fresh from fighting a Mongolian invasion, and had to leave right afterwards, to continue dealing with the wars China was already embroiled in. That they chose to send help at all while mired in debt and fighting three simultaneous wars is certainly in dire contrast to the amount of gratitude that they recieved (none). I can say the same about the modern US forces as well. The US forces loss over 30,000 lives defending SK from communist invasion, and have spent money and lives on the front line protecting them for the next several decades ever since, and up to now, the USA has been hated and reviled, and told "Yankee go home!".

If you really want to play the oppression olympics, I can up the ante. I suppose you probably didn't know about Korea's WW2 war criminals? Koreans in the Japanese armies served in many POW camps, which had mortality rates as high as 37%. Places like the Death Railway were manned by Korean guards. Of the 148 Koreans convicted of war crimes in the Tokyo Trials, the Korean government has cleared 83 of them from crimes. These weren't guards who were just doint their jobs, but people who were exceptionally overzealous and committed crimes against humanity above and beyond the call of duty.[38][39][40][41] If you want me to answer for crimes committed hundreds of years ago (and which I took no part in), then care to answer for something done only last year?--Yuje 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Internal struggles in China does not mean it gives Chinese soldiers the right to do whatever they wanted to do in Korea. Also, Chosun sent Korean arquebuse soldiers to China to repel barbarian attacks from Russia.

The issue about South Korea and the PRC's economic relations is already finished. I mentioned how China is still interested in controlling Taiwan. Any communist country likes to see the spread of communism. Thats why China is playing their cards for Taiwan and North Korea as well. Communist ideals call for a spread of communism and thats what the Soviet Union tried to do. And I'm referring to the government of China, not its economy (I'm already aware of China's economic zones and the WTO).

I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-American. You can make fun of all the Koreans who hate the U.S and sympathize with North Korean communists, I don't care, I'm not offended (but I do hate the anti American Koreans, like you said, America defended democracy in Korea).

You should know that many of the Koreans who worked for the Japanese during WWII were forced to, bribed, or because they needed to support their family. I'm not stupid, I am very interested in WWII and I know about Korean criminals who worked for Japan.

Do you even know that Chinese border guards repeatedly shoot and kill Tibeten and other travellers today whenever they see them. Its not well known because the government obviously allows this but keeps it secret. I watched this on TV when a Tibeten traveller was filmed on a video camera getting shot. Who knows why China is so antsy about their border when a few harmless travellers climbing over a mountain is shot dead? Good friend100 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you already know the answer. Why does Korea do the exact same thing to refugees trying to flee north? Why do they shoot people who flee, and imprison returnees in concentration camps to slowly work them to death while they starve? Why do Koreans get so antsy when some harmless starving people get tired of eating grass and tree bark and flee north? Apply the same towards China, and your question is answered.

If you hate Chinese people as much as you seemingly do, shouldn't you be happy that China is continuing down its current path where it should (according to you) eventually destroy itself? Me, I have no apologies to make for communism. The elder members of my family served the nationalists in the civil war, and then fought for the US forces in the Korean War. And yet as anti-communist as they are, none would hope to see their former homeland divided into two. The issue of reunification is seperate from that of proliferating communism.--Yuje 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm anti North Korea. It is easy to tell the difference between North and South Korea. South Korea does not shoot refugees fleeing north or commit crimes. The communist government of North Korea has problems not South Korea.

I'm going to suggest that Korea (north or south) and China have both done bad things in the past and also say that no country is ever perfect and has its own bad markings in its gradebook. Let's just leave it that both Korea and China have made good and bad decisions in the past. Good friend100 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, you cannot use Cold War-era red scare MacCarthyism to critisize a country. You seem to have a stigma against socialist countries. The ROC (Taiwan) claims Paektu/Changbai as well. You are an excellent specimen of nationalism gone wrong.

If you want to critisize "socialism", critisize your northern bretheren too. Oh, and don't call us communists. There is a difference between communism and socialism - socialism is the 2nd stage in Marxist theory; Communism is the 3rd stage, where everything in stores are free (i.e. utopia), which didn't seem to work. To this date, there is no such country as a communist country. Benlisquare (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

google

GOOGLE CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. Didn't we go over this already? Why does everyone believe that the Google search engine can be used as evidence that this names is bad and this name is good. There are many sites that are biased and inaccurate, and nearly everything comes up from Google. Then why not use Yahoo as evidence? Or Jeeves? It is always that "number of searches found" is most important. If we must use Google, then we would have to analyze Google Korea or Google china.

And also, why can't we leave Korea alone? Why does an issue of China or Japan always have to come to rule and destroy Korea? Does everybody wish Korea was gone? Dokdo is ours, Baekdusan is ours, Goguryeo is ours...there was no such thing as Goguryeo...there is no such thing as Korea...oh the list goes on and on. Oyo321 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Admit it, Baekdu Mountain is Korean.

Oyo321, I know your concern, but please do not be emotional. --General Tiger 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is for the weaker party, why don't we rename the page Golmin Šanggiyan Alin? It is the holy mountain of the Manchus too, and they might need some support from us here on Wikipedia.

Seriously, if the name of the mountain is known as Changbaishan in English, I see no reason why this article should be put under a relatively recent and unknown Korean Romanization. I don't think that would be supporting Han Chinese chauvinism or anything like that. You should take this to arbitration if you can't resolve this conflict, the page has been moved once already and this moving back and forward is harming Wikipedia.

Should Google be used as evidence? I don't think it can be regarded as a final authority, but it does give you an idea what name is most in use.--Niohe 13:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I never rejected google, its just that google cannot be used as a concluding device for everything. It can be Chinese chauvanism because there is no need to move this article in the first place. The article was fine the way it was until an editor decided to pop up with google searches that Changabaishan has more search results. This discussion is underway into a move war. There is absolutely no controversies in the article that requires a move or edit and there simply isn't enough reasons to move this article. Why the hassle suddenly? Good friend100 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I think the principle of least astonishment apply here, and if it is the case that the mountain is mostly known as Changbaishan, then that should be the name of the article.

For the same reason, the article on Mount Everest should stay under the current name, regardless of what the Chinese government might say.--Niohe 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That might make sense if we were looking at an order of magnitude difference, such as 30,000 vs. 3,000; that would suggest that one name is much more established in English use than another. However, the difference here seems to be much smaller; both names have a certain degree of currency, but neither is much more established than the other. -- Visviva 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, actually. I'll take the back-seat in this debate from now, hope this dispute can be resolved amicably.--Niohe 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This can be anything but amicable. It doesn't make any sense in using Google as evidence. Its ridiculous. We begin to fight over the number of "hits" that come up. Can't we just leave everything the way it is? Oyo321 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not exactly doing very much to keep the discussion amicable.--Niohe 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not either. But my point is that we shouldn't be using Google as a primary source of evidence for Wikipedia articles. The "hits" that come up from anything thats totally irrelevent to the article-like "changbaishan" for example, came up with thousands of tourist, not historical evidence. Oyo321 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I don't know if there's polling involved with this RM but, if so, I oppose. This is an example par excellance of the weaknesses of trying to use Google to determine encyclopedic usage. Setting aside for a moment that Baekdu has multiple transliterations (e.g. "Baekdu," "Baekdusan," "Paekdu," "Paekdusan," "Paektu," "Paektusan") that are not given in the above results, Google does not weigh the relative importance of the topic under each name. To an English encyclopedic audience, Baekdu's status as Korea's highest mountain and its role in Korean history and culture give the Korean transliteration greater weight. Redirects and a bold mention of Changbai in the first line can solve any other issues.

(And just remember that, in Google, "fuck"[42] polls higher than "sexual intercourse"[43] but it doesn't make it right for Wikipedia.)

-  AjaxSmack  04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Could we move this article to "Baekdusan"? The Wikipedia naming conventions for Korean states that all mountains should have a "san" after the mountain's name. Most other Korean articles on Korean mountains are named using this, and I agree that the article must be moved. Good friend100 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose. "Baekdusan" is not a common form in English. The most common form is "Mt. Baekdu". Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Naming conventions, I propose it to be moved to "Mount Baekdu". --Kusunose 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Check mountain section at [44] in the Wikipedia naming conventions for Korea. Good friend100 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Mountains: This convention applies to mountains without an accepted English name. If a different name has been established in common English usage, it should be used, per Wikipedia:Use common names. --Kusunose 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of references presented by Deiaemeth in the previous discussion which resulted the article moved here from Baitou Mountain. None of them use "-san" form and "Mount -" form is the most common usage. --Kusunose 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• UNESCO uses "Mount Paekdu" [45]
• Gurdian uses "Mount Paekdu" [46]
• Fotosearch uses "mt. baekdu" [47]
• American University uses "Mount Paektu" or "Mt. Paektu" [48]
• Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Mount Paektu" or "Paektu Mountain" [49]
• All States Flag uses "mount paektu" [50]

I agree. We should be consistent with naming Baekdusan. If users search for "Mt. Baekdu" then it can link directly to "Baekdusan," and maybe people will learn a little history behind "Baekdusan." Oyo321 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, no need to start throwing supporting facts. If Baekdu Mountain is good enough, then its perfectly fine. Good friend100 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That should be the last thing on our minds. Keeping Baekdu Mountain from turning into "changbaishan" is of greatest priority. Oyo321 05:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oyo, you need to be quiet, your word choice needs to be more carefully chosen. Good friend100 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true, though. --DandanxD 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CALLED BAEKDU MOUNTAIN OR BAEK DOO SAN. CHINESE NAME CHANGBAI SAN OR MOUNTAIN SHOULD BE LEFT OUT COMPLETELY. WHEN DID PEOPLE START CALLING BAEK DOO SAN OR BAEK DU MOUNTAIN CHINESE NAME CHANGBAI SAN????? PROBABLY RECENTLY. THIS ARTICLE BELONGS TO KOREA. ARTICLE SHOULD BE WRITTEN BAEKDU MOUNTAIN OR BAEKDUSAN. NO EXCEPTIONAL WORD LIKE CHANGBAI SAN OR MOUNTAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaBaekDooSan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Could anybody tell me why a place in China should name in Korean? And this place is usually called as "Baitoushan" in English. --Macorien 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is "Changbai Mountain" common in English?--Dunyi Loving the Lotus◈(my Shack) 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Baitoushan is the Chinese pronounciation of the Korean Baekdusan(백두산/白頭山). Why would anyone use the Chinese pronounciation for a Korean mountain?! And as for the "Changbai Mountain" thing, no one (except China) uses that title to name Korea's Baekdu Mountain- if you want more info, refer to early posts regarding this issue. --DandanxD 12:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The mountain isn't a "Korean mountain"; China owns half of it, and has owned its portion of it for centuries. The name Changba is used by the following encyclopedias. Britannica, Encarta, Columbia--Yuje 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now.--Dunyi Loving the Lotus◈(my Shack) 12:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Yuje's links are about the Changbai Mountains, the mountain range. For this specific mountain, Encarta uses Paektu (variant spelling of Baekdu): [51] Columbia uses both Paektu [52] and Baitou (not Changbai) and Britannica uses Paektu [53] Etimesoy 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out by Kusunose's list above, this article should probably be renamed Mount Paektu. Paektu is the North Korean and most common English spelling. Baekdu is the South Korean spelling and Baitou is the Chinese spelling. Changbai is the English spelling for the mountain range, not the subject of this article. Etimesoy 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eruption

The article on Balhae claims that an eruption of Baekdu Mountain may have precipitated the fall of that empire. The text reads, in part:

"Recent study suggests that the downfall of Balhae is largely due to the catastrophic eruption in the 10th century of Baekdu Mountain located at the center of Balhae territory. Baekdu mountain still has one of the biggest volcanic caldera in the world Chonji."

This article doesn't mention that eruption, or it's supposed consequences, and it attributes the creation of Chonji to a later eruption. It states:

"The crater lake was probably created in 1597, when a recorded eruption took place. Volcanic ash from this eruption has been found as far away as the southern part of Hokkaidō of Japan."

What are the facts, or arguements, what evidence is there on either side, is this controversial, and are their any sources to cite for this info?zadignose 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Smithsonian database (Baitoushan) gives some information about the eruption 1000 years ago, and lists a dozen further sources. -- Avenue 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

It appears that this page and the Changbai Mountains article each link to their own discussion pages for talking about the merge, so this discussion may take place simultaneously in two places. Anyway, I'm copying my opposition comment here:

Oppose Merge Mt. Paektu, or Baekdu, or Baekdusan, or whatever you prefer to call it, deserves its own article. The very fact that its naming is controversial, that Chinese and Koreans have interest in claims to the mountain, it's outstanding status as the highest mountain in the chain, its large crater lake, and the fact that its eruption may have precipitated the downfall of the kingdom of Balhae all argue strongly that it must stand as a unique article. zadignose 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I agree with all the above points by Zadignose. I believe any of them would be a good reason to have a separate article on the mountain; together, they seem insurmountable. (I will also copy my comment to the other talk page.) -- Avenue 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the highest moutain should called Changbai Mountain, even Korean call the moutains same name. No one know Baekdu except Korean --Yeahsoo 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment,it's just one name disputes.I personnaly agree to merge than let it alone.But considering there are huge name disputes in Wiki,such as Sea of Japan etc,there are constant and endless talks to favour one name than another.So if we had merged the two different mountain (I cann't find other words to describe it)there will be quarrels for good.So leave it alone maybe a good solution.--Ksyrie 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Where did you get the idea that only the Koreans call Mount Baekdu as... well, Mount Baekdu (or Paektu)? Could you please care to highlight any non-Chinese organisations that uses "Changbai Mountains" to describe Mount Baekdu on their maps? Moreover, why is it that you ignore the fact that the Japanese people call the mountain "白頭山"(Mount Baekdu/Paektu)?--DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just a strategic move made by apparently CPOV editors, all organized & planned. Look, the Korean for Changbai Mountain is "Jangbaek sanmaek". This isn't even a naming dispute & don't call it one. Gosh, the same old CPOV editors from the Goguryeo dispute. Why, you hate having "Baekdu Mountain" or a Korean title over the mountain so much that you want to incorporate it so to hide it? (Wikimachine 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Listen,and just read more about my words.I absolutely had no intention to start anymore arguments between Chinese and Korean.For naming disputed such as the bordering river or mountain,we cann't find a winwin solution for both sides.Just look at the Mount Everest,the chinese and tibetan from the north side called it Chomolungma and nepal from south called it Sagarmatha,both sides have a point.So there we choose to give both sides their article to avoid further endless quarrels.--Ksyrie 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge It says "mountain range" not just one mountain like this article. Good friend100 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge this mountain should be discussed separately from the range. Kappa 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge Per Mount Everest and Himalayas. Cydevil38 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the Chinese name for the mountain is "Baitou Shan." Koreans however, probably use it synonymously with Changbai Shan. Assault11 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per reasons given above. WikiWitchWest 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge Only the Chinese people know the mountain as "Changbai Mountain". If you look at all western map printers and organisations (such as National Geographic, World Book, etc.) they will have the mountain as Paektu Mountain. Moreover, even in Asia, mountain is called "白頭山(백두산)" (such as Japan). --DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: As of April 19, I removed the merge proposal template, as there had been no apparent consensus to merge after three weeks. It seems the new comments support this conclusion. zadignose 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 'other names'

Saying that 'Paek-tu' is another name for the mountain is deceiving. That is simply another variation of the anglicized name. If is believed that this is absolutely necessary to mention (which I don't think it is), then it should say that 'Paek-tu' is a spelling variation of the name not an other name entirely. --Bentonia School 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Geography

Is Baekdusan geographically part of the Kaema Plateau? I have found references suggesting such, but I'm uncertain as the Plateau is, well, a Plateau and it seems unual that a volcano would be part of a tableland. Also, disregarding the name, what geological evidence is there that proves that Baekdusan is part of the Baekdudaegan? Can a volcano be part of a mountain range that was formed in a different manner from a volcano? --Bentonia School 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Baekdoosan geographically part of Korean Peninsula. Baekdoosan geography follows Korean Balhae land crust plate.

Internet Meme

Quote: "During the 2007 Asian Winter Games, which were held in Changchun, China, a group of South Korean athletes held up signs during the award ceremony which stated "Mount Baekdu is our territory"."

This has become somewhat of an Internet Meme in China. There are dozens of different photoshopped images of the event, such as one saying (where the athletes hold up the placard banners) “火星也是我们的!” ("Planet Mars is our territory"). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Here are some examples.

• http://chn.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2007/02/05/200702050000081thumb_b_470.jpg
• http://img1.tianyablog.com/photo/2007/2/2/2580253_2922628.jpg

The original image (with Paektusan) and a few photoshopped edits are here: http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/04/t-62104.html

Perhaps information regarding the meme (something like "Response within China"/"Internet Culture in China") could be added somewhere within the article? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, is there any method of obtaining a free image of a Photoshop contest type image of the meme? Or comply with "fair use" for a non-free image? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing by Benlisquare

Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [54]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the name of the mountain

I'm pretty sure here are dozens of korean and chinese who know English, and some are ethnocentric. they argue for the page name for a long long time, each can't accept opposite reasons. But this is wikipedia, I hope all people can edit after you understand what is netural view. So I'm going to make a suggestion that both side can accept.

I suggest to make a standard firstly, then according the standard to name this mountain.

We can discuss and decide the standard before June, and then according the standard to collect votes till the end of 2009.

Anyone agree? Newkiomail 16:08, 11 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.31.43.24 (talk)

known locally as Changbai Mountain in China？

why say China side is locally？ 66.7.131.197 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to imply the other name is otherwise used globally, which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources cited here. I've removed it. -- Avenue (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Baekdoosan, is official Korean name. Changbai is Manchurian word not Chinese.

IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaBaekDooSan (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE."

Wrong, all primary or secondary sources in China called the mountain Changbai mountain including the manchus. I never heard the chinese call the mountain baekdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.88.14 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In Manchu the mountain was called Golmin Šanggiyan Alin ("Long White Mountain"), and the lake was called Tamun i omo ("Tamun lake"). These names appear in the early pages of the Yargiyan i kooli, together with a drawing of the mountain, showing the sources of the Yalu, Aihū (= Tumen) and Hūntung rivers. It would be nice to include something about this, given the importance of the mountain to the Aisin Gioro origin legend.

--68.49.1.69 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, according to a Korean historical source called 李朝肃宗实录 (written in Classical Chinese), Baekdu was originally the name that the "barbarians" (胡人, i.e. non-Koreans) used for the mountain:

长白山，胡人或称白头山，以长白故也 "Changbaishan: The barbarians also call it White Head (Baekdu) Mountain, for it is long and white"

I'm glad to see that the Koreans are open-minded enough to use a barbarian name for such an important national location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.105.147 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such book. It is Chinese fabrication. 98.203.211.87 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided a source for my claim, now you provide one for yours. I am curious, though--surely even you can't deny that Baekdu is composed of the Chinese words for White (baek, 白) and Head (du, 頭). Sooooo...why don't the Koreans have their own name for the mountain, in their own language? The Manchus have their own name for it, in their own language. So do the Chinese. The Tibetans have their own name for Mt. Everest. The Uyghurs have their own name for the Tianshan. So why isn't there a native Korean name for it? Why borrow a Chinese name and jump up and down shouting in capital letters about how it's Korean? --68.48.105.147 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

李朝肃宗实录 is made up by chinese. No such book. Don't spread lies chinese 98.203.211.87 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked into your claim. It turns out that 李朝肃宗实录 is the name that North Koreans use for the 肃宗实录 section of 朝鮮王朝实录. So it is a real book, and it is part of a collection that is considered a national treasure of Korea.--68.48.105.147 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the entire text is online on a site hosted by the South Korean government, sillok.history.go.kr. I have just verified the quote. I've done my due diligence. Next time you accuse someone of spreading "Chinese lies", you should do your due diligence first. --68.48.105.147 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It said "known locally" as it is referred to as Changbai Mountain only in China. And please don't justify the "popularity" of the name with a simple Google search. --DandanxD (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What is the cause of Baekdu Mountain/Baitoushan/The Mountain Under Dispute's formation? Is it due to subduction, hotspots or a rift valley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanlongwucaii (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Eruption data

Though a number of eruptions of this volcano have been recorded (one as late as the twentieth century according to list_of_volcanoes_in_Korea ), very little information about the volcanic activity is given in the article. The tenth century eruption is discussed briefly, and beyond that there is mention in passing of records from Joseon. I have to imagine there is enough information in reliable sources to add more about the volcanic activity to the article (as it stands, the article is mostly about its cultural history related to China and Korea). 209.65.62.201 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially seeing as South Korea and North Korea recently held its 2nd Joint Conference regarding the possibility of explosion. --DandanxD (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article should indeed be splitd, in that information about the mountain range will be included in Changbai Mountains (so this should be an article about the "peak"s), while there're currently 2 major peaks of Changbai Mountains: 2691m Baiyun Peak in China and 2750m General Kim Peak in North Korea. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The highest peak on the Changbai Mountain Ranges (also known as Jangbaek Mountain Ranges) is Baekdu Mountain. Removed the Merge Proposal Template accordingly.--DandanxD (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You oversimplified the problem, because “Beakdu Mountain” does not refers to the highest peak, but a group of hiegest peaks (numbered 13) of Changbai Mountains, say "长白十三峰" in Chinese. There's no “the highest”, only “a highest”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Names

Baekdu Mountain → Changbai Mountain —

The article claims “Beakdu Mountain” to be the common name, but google:"Changbai Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 286,000, while google:"Baekdu Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 35,900. Why is “Beakdu Mountain” the common name? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Changbai Mountains blocked:
  • google:"Changbai Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 286,000;
  • google:"Šanggiyan Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 0;
  • google:"Baekdu Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 35,900;
• “Beakdu Mountains” blocked:
  • google:"Changbai Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Beakdu Mountains" gets 300,000;
  • google:"Šanggiyan Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Beakdu Mountains" gets 0;
  • google:"Baekdu Mountain" -Wikipedia -"Beakdu Mountains" gets 36,800;
• Nothing blocked:
  • google:"Changbai Mountain" -Wikipedia gets 300,000;
  • google:"Šanggiyan Mountain" -Wikipedia gets 0;
  • google:"Baekdu Mountain" -Wikipedia gets 36,800;
• In no cases is "Baekdu Mountain" more common than "Changbai Mountain".

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a move. This is an example par excellance of the weaknesses of trying to use Google to determine encyclopedic usage. Setting aside for a moment that Baekdu has multiple transliterations (e.g. "Baekdu," "Baekdusan," "Paekdu," "Paekdusan," "Paektu," "Paektusan") that are not given in the above results, Google does not weigh the relative importance of the topic under each name. To an English encyclopedic audience, Baekdu's status as Korea's highest mountain and its role in Korean history and culture give the Korean transliteration greater weight in quality English sources. Redirects and a bold mention of Changbai in the first line can solve any other issues. —  AjaxSmack  23:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a move. Same as above. Also, 'Changbai Mountain' can refer to the mountain ranges for which it shares the same name in Chinese. If a change did occur, it should be changed to "Pektu Mountain". --DandanxD (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Ok, google:"Baekdu Mountain" OR "Baekdusan" OR "Paekdu Mountain" OR "Paekdusan" OR "Paektu Mountain" OR "Paektusan" -Wikipedia -"Changbai Mountains" gets 36,800, far lesser than 286,000. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (WP:NCGN), we should not name articles solely based on search engine results. We should also avoid arguing what the place ought to be named based on significance to specific region's history and culture. Rather, we should base on usages in reliable sources. See WP:NCGN#Widely accepted names. --Kusunose 08:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to clarify my remarks about cultural weight above. I meant that the relative cultural weight influences English usage and that subsequently should determine Wikipedia usage. I wasn't advocating cultural interpretation by editors as a means of determining titles, i.e., I agree with you that we should go with reliable sources. —  AjaxSmack  17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply That's right, but what's your concept of widely accepted names? i.e. How do you prove "Beakdu" to be a widely accepted name? Even in Google Scholar, Baitoushan is the most common name. Plus, that Baitoushan+"Baitou Mountain" hits >> that Baekdusan+"Baekdu Mountain" hits. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Most English encyclopedias and research documents use the name "Baekdu Mountain" *or* a variant of that name which includes 'Baitou Mountain', 'Paektusan', 'Paektu Mountain', etc. Have a read of the article for variants of the name Baekdu Mountain (백두산/白頭山). As an extra note, this is from the above courtesy of Kusunose - please remember to read the earlier discussions before posting:

• UNESCO uses "Mount Paekdu" [55]
• Gurdian uses "Mount Paekdu" [56]
• Fotosearch uses "mt. baekdu" [57]
• American University uses "Mount Paektu" or "Mt. Paektu" [58]
• Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Mount Paektu" or "Paektu Mountain" [59]
• All States Flag uses "mount paektu" [60]" --DandanxD (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment was that the name based on MR is more common than revised romanization and use of Mount or Mountain is better than Korean -san, using sites provided by another user. It was not an argument to uses a name derived from Korean over names derived from other languages. It was not a good list for that. For example, UNEXCO also uses Changbai[61] and some pages are not WP:RS. Back to WP:NCGN#Widely accepted names, Paektu/Baekdu does not satisfy #1 as Britannica and Columbia also uses Baitou or Changbai for China-related articles. I don't have time to research further at the moment. --Kusunose 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment:

• Your claim is challanging but false: Baitou Mountain is not a variant of Baekdu. However, both Baitou (white-head) and Changbai (long white) are variants of Shanggiyan Alin (white mountain). Baekdu is merely a Korean transcription of Baitou Mountain, thus not referential. Your claim that authorities uses the name Baekdu does not make sense:
  1. UNESCO and Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Mount Paekdu", but it's for show respect to North Koreans and Chinese Koreans, who uses the Chosŏn Kwahagwŏn or ISO11941 romanization. These Koreans, along with Manchus in China, considers Baitou Mountain to be a sacred mountain.

     It does not support the far-right South Korean nationalists, who claim Baitou Mountain to be a South Korean territory and use their new-created name "Baekdu". So your claim that those source support your "Baekdu" naming is fake, false and inappropriate.

  2. And what is Gurdian and Fotosearch anyway? They do not have enough notability.

     Like that, I may call it "Mount Yu Hai" in my home. Does it have any notability?

• Baitou and Paekdu/Paektu may be a plausible name, but Paekdu/Paektu is not as common as Baitou, so I'm in favor of the name "Baitou Mountain".
• Changbai is also plausible, I'm in favor of it, too. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)