Talk:Paektu Mountain

Archives (Index)

1

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 www.britannica.com/eb/article-9022423/Chang-pai-Mountains, but searches for Baekdu yield nothing. www.britannica.com/search?query=Baekdu&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 Searches on Encyclopeida Encarta give these hits for Changbai [1], but no hits for Baekdu [2]. Searches on Columbia Encyclopedia give the follwing articles on Changbai [3], but searches for Baekdu turn up nothing. [4]

• 59,600 hits on Google for Changbai mountain on Google, 10,900 for Baekdu mountain. [5][6]
• 14,200 hits for Changbai mountain on Yahoo, 2,010 for Baekdu mountain [7] [8]
• 14,400 hits for Changbai mountain on Altavista, 2,000 hits for Baekdu mountain [9] [10]
• 6,184 hits for Changbai mountain on MSN, 1,707 for Baekdu mountain [11] [12]

--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 [13] (but we need to take out the Changbaishan hotel, 9,920 hits [14], the mountain range [15], and other such unrelated hits, so I did another search below)

changbaishan korea: 14,000 [16]

paektusan: 11,600 [17]

paekdusan: 2,260 [18]

baekdusan: 11,300 [19]

Baitou Mountain: 3,180 [20]

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. [21]--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 [22] 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 www.britannica.com/search?query=Baekdu&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 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 [23], Chang bai yields 17,000 hits [24], Changbaishan yields 46,800 hits [25], Changbai mountain yields 40,200 hits [26], 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.[27][28][29][30] 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)

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 [31] 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" [32]
• Gurdian uses "Mount Paekdu" [33]
• Fotosearch uses "mt. baekdu" [34]
• American University uses "Mount Paektu" or "Mt. Paektu" [35]
• Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Mount Paektu" or "Paektu Mountain" www.britannica.com/search?query=paektu+&ct=&searchSubmit.x=11&searchSubmit.y=11
• All States Flag uses "mount paektu" [36]

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): [37] Columbia uses both Paektu [38] and Baitou (not Changbai) and Britannica uses Paektu www.britannica.com/search?query=Paektu&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 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)

Names

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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 none of you presented "Baekdu" to be common with reliable sources, even though DandanxD presented that "Paektu" is a common name (not the sole, Changbai and Baitou are also common). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:38, 18 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" [39]
• Gurdian uses "Mount Paekdu" [40]
• Fotosearch uses "mt. baekdu" [41]
• American University uses "Mount Paektu" or "Mt. Paektu" [42]
• Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Mount Paektu" or "Paektu Mountain" www.britannica.com/search?query=paektu+&ct=&searchSubmit.x=11&searchSubmit.y=11
• All States Flag uses "mount paektu" [43]" --DandanxD (talk) 13:45, 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)

(@DandanxD) 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[44] 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)

Feel the same. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hey User:虞海. How about taking it easy on the unilateral moves until this discussion has concluded and been adjudicated. Baitou Mountain was not even your requested target. Visit WP:OWN while you're at it. —  AjaxSmack  16:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been without new post for several days, even though I tried to let everyone not to evade the problem, so do you think there will be any further progress on the discussion? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know but

1. That's probably not for any of the discussants here to decide absent a clear consensus. That's why we have the WP:RM process.
2. Baitou Mountain was not originally presented as an option and doesn't appear to have consensus. —  AjaxSmack  17:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Cleanup

Hi, I recently gave the article a once-over (Apr 2023), but there’s still a lot of work left.

I put request for updated info on upcoming eruption research.

Also the grammar in the geology and history sections is still spotty.

finally article is also currently a bit repetitive.

thanks to anyone that can help address these issues Toobigtokale (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)