Template talk:History of Manchuria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment from WP:NCGN[edit]

As a native English speaker, and a member of the consensus that established WP:NCGN, I do have several comments:

  1. WP:NCGN is intended to refer to proper names, which are marked in English by capitalization. China is a proper name; so is Manchuria; northeastern China is not a proper name, it's a description. So is northeast China; and NE China which is equivalent to it; the last is capitalized only because the abbreviations for points of the compass always are, by idiom.
  2. On the other hand, Northeast China, so capped, would be a proper name; but I have never heard or seen it used for Manchuria. I do not believe it can be widespread English usage.
  3. Please note also that it is English usage we are concerned with here. "This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers." The section above, which displays a Chinese instance of the translation is therefore irrelevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Point (1) accepted, it is simply the way things work. Point (3) accepted, this is a well known wikipedia policy. First sentence of point (2) accepted, it is indeed a proper name. Remaining part of point (2) not accepted, your personal experience is contrary to evidence presented. Don't you worry, we are working very very hard to comply with the spirit of WP:NCGN here. In fact we are fighting to enforce WP:NCGN here, which some editors seem to deliberately ignore. In addition we strive to comply with all wikipedia rules.
Wiki Pokemon 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Very well, the name I am arguing for is Northeast China, which - as you noted, is a proper name. However, NE China can also be interpreted as Northeast China, and in most cases, the term "northeastern China" and "Northeast China" are coterminous (refering to the three Chinese provinces of Jilin, Heilongjiang and Liaoning).

2) Wrong. Northeast China is both a historic and geographical term synonymous with Manchuria (see above), solely referring to the Three Provinces of Northeast China. "Manchuria" only refers to the region of Chinese-administered areas, not including former territories in what is now North Korea and Russian Far East. This is confirmed by all teritary sources for "Manchuria"/"Northeast China":

[4] Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[5] Encarta Dictionary
[6] American Heritage Dictionary
[7] Collins Dictionary
[8] Answer.com
[9] Columbia Encyclopedia
[10] Britannica Encyclopedia
[11] Worldbook Encyclopedia
[12] UK Encarta Encyclopedia
[13] Catholic Encyclopedia
[14] Encyclopedia of Modern Asia
[15] AncientWorld.net
[16] Nuttall Encyclopedia

Note: (from user:Wiki pokemon)

  • All references above say that Manchuria is Northeast China or a region of Northeast China or Northeastern division of the Chinese Empire or province of China. All indicated the region consists of the three northeast provinces of China.
  • 5 references say Manchuria is a historical name, or historical region.
  • 3 references say Manchuria is coined by Japanese /Russians for sinister purposes and considered offensive.
  • A few references say Manchuria was the homeland or historical homeland of the Manchu, but also includes many other tribes and immigrants.
  • Note that none mentioned the Russian Far East, Primorsky Krai, Khabarovsk Krai, or North Korea (all of which were former Jurchen territories).

3) Yes, we understand this is an English-language encyclopedia. But realize that all of us here (proponents of Northeast China and/or its variants) live in English-speaking countries (North America). The "Chinese translation" you're referring to (Dongbei) is not a translation. "Dongbei" is the romanized version of Northeast China in Hanyu Pinyin. Many Chinese historical/geographic names use this form of romanization in modern vernacular English. For example, Peking was a former term referring to the city of Beijing, nowadays, the use of Peking in place of Beijing is almost non-existant - just like "Manchuria." Also, there are many English websites that use this term in place of both Northeast China (its English counterpart) and Manchuria, prime example of this being Encarta Encyclopedia [17]. Also, Northeast China is a very well established geographic term in the English language, as pointed above - almost all Western news corporations (e.g. NYT, ABC, CNN, etc.) adopt Northeast China in place of Manchuria [18][19][20][21][22][23] [24][25].

The reason why we Northeast Chinese abhor the use of Manchuria is primarily due to historical reasons. For one thing, this term is highly offensive in the eyes of us Northeast Chinese, especially due to its association with the Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo (literally "state of Manchuria"). This term can be compared to other offensive terms such as Shina or Zhina, which many Chinese consider to be derogatory. (see WP:AVOID)

Another reason why Manchuria cannot be used is because this term is not even a geographic term to begin with. "Manchuria" is rendered as "Manzhou" in Mandarin, but this name was originally meant to refer to the Manchu ethnicity, with absolutely no geographic connotations attached. As described above, the Qing Dynasty (the era which the concept of "Manchuria" was created) referred to this region as either Northeast China or "Eastern Three Provinces," Dongsansheng. However, there was never a geographic region of "Manchuria" in historical records. Therefore, Manchuria fails the WP:NCGN simply because it is not a valid geographic concept to begin with. Assault11 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that "Northeast China" is used in none of Assault11's media examples as proper nouns. And Wiki pokemon, you're still using dictionaries entires that only attest to Manchuria as the widely accepted word. Also, about uk.encarta, it should be pointed out that it is different from Encarta 2007. Cydevil38 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but just judging from the first link "Explosion Kills 25 in Karaoke Parlor in Northeast China," (from NYT) there are plenty of examples which pits Northeast China as a proper noun. In contrast, there are almost zero examples of "Manchuria" being used in a modern context. Manchuria violates the fundamental principle of WP:NCGN, simply because it is not a geographic concept. (Note: the UK version of Encarta is currently up-to-date). Assault11 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow you. If "Northeast China" is used as a proper noun in that NYT article, why isn't it capitalised?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the title. Assault11 04:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What? "Kills" and "Karoke Parlor" are also capitalised! Are those proper nouns as well?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
At least those sources completely ruled out Manchuria to be a modern name for the region. The facts are pretty much established, and this case is pretty much closed. Manchuria is the historical name, and Northeast China is the modern name, for the region. There is no dispute about that among all editors. Now it is just about how to comply with WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To PMAnderson: According to original wikirule texts, WP:NCGN is not the guideline for proper names/nouns (Please do a string search on "proper", which only appears in the "See also" section, not in the central contents). In contrast, Wikipedia:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". Let's go back to WP:NCGN, which is the guideline for geographic names. WP:NCGN does not apply to non-geographic names, but for any geographic region, it is the critical one. Here and now what is being disputed is the geographic name, as there is already a consensus saying that "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the historical entity between 1635 and 1945. The historical term is offensive to local English speakers if used anachronistically as a modern geographic name.--Jiejunkong 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, there is no such consensus that "Manchuria" can only be used for the historical period between 1635 and 1945. If you have a problem with the title of this template, please file a request for move. Please work through consensus. Cydevil38 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Manchuria" as a historical entity, existed from 1635 to 1945, accordingly "History of Manchuria" will have contents from 1635 to 1945. If you use "Manchuria" as a historic geographic name, then it must be accompanied by (Northeast China), accordingly the title must be "History of Manchuria(Northeast China)".
Wiki Pokemon 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Manchuria" is not a historic name. It is a consistent and standardized name for the geographic region like Siberia and Transylvania are. It has been called by different names throughout history like it is called "Northeastern region of China" today. However, we should call it Manchuria since it has long been standardized along international community. I don't think there is a rule stating naming such places have to be parallel to what the containing country calls it. Dagvadorj (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
To Cydevil38, you cannot convince me that "Manchuria" is a modern name in the English-speaking world unless you can convince all private sector media tycoons, in particular CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, to rename "northeast/northeastern China" to "Manchuria" in their news report about present-day China. Your "English-speaking world" argument is not solid either. The base of your arguments is being challenged.--Jiejunkong 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC) BTW, the term "Manchuria" can be used to refer to the region between 1635 and 1945 is a consensus. Don't add the word "only" to my original sentence.--Jiejunkong 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire argument appears to rest on ignorance of English idiom. All of Wikipokemon's examples above use "northeast China", "northeastern China", or "NE China". None of these are, or can be, proper nouns. One of them refers to use in Chinese of Dongbei, "Northeast". This is not English usage. As far as I recall, all of them deal with present usage, and are entitled Manchuria. I am not sure what Cause all this fallacious argument is intended to foster: if it were made straightforwardly, I might be willing to agree to amend WP:NCGN accordingly. But this sort of thing might as well be calculated to lose the sympathy of relatively neutral observers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please quote original texts from "WP:NCGN" to present your "proper name/noun" case. This is a request for meaningful discussion, since it is mentioned above that Wikipedia:Proper names is the guideline for "proper names/nouns". The current contents of WP:NCGN say nothing about "proper name/noun". Contrast to what you said, WP:NCGN defines guidelines for geographic names.--Jiejunkong 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're making. "Geographic names" and "proper names" are not mutually exclusive at all. The examples mentioned in its "examples" section are things like Gdańsk/Danzig, Volgograd/Stalingrad, Istanbul/Constantinople, etc. ... proper names all.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about Wikipedia:Proper names, then create a section to talk about Wikipedia:Proper names. Since the section title is WP:NCGN, let's stick to the rule WP:NCGN, and discuss based on what the rule WP:NCGN exactly says, is this the proper way a discussion should go?--Jiejunkong 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we can put it this way, "geographic names" is a subset of "proper nouns". Therefore Wikipedia:Proper names should provide guidelines about "proper nouns" for WP:NCGN, and not the other way around. PMAnderson might be over stepping jurisdiction when he/she decides to dictate "proper nouns" out of WP:NCGN.
Wiki Pokemon 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Proper names]] does not define proper name either; it just says we should use them as titles — which we should. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Anyone else still interested in this topic of discussion? There hasn't been a change in months. Dscarth 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging Northeast China into Manchuria. The article admits that its subject is commonly so called in English, and indeed it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Both Northeast China and Manchuria stated that Manchuria is a historical region. Period of "Manchuria" history is generally from 1635 to 1945, which is the main focus of Manchuria. It is very uncommon (almost never in English news and by governments and companies) to use "Manchuria" to refer to present day Northeast China (after 1945). The most common usage of Manchuria is when it is used in the context of the Qing dynasty and Manchukuo in WWII. For period before 1635, it is a mixture of Northeast China and Manchuria.Wiki Pokemon (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wants to change this template's name should request a move. Otherwise, it should stay as "History of Manchuria". Cydevil38 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above discussion, and there is a rather large dispute about the template. Since there hasn't been a change in months, it should be stay as is until some sort of agreement is reached. If discussion is still ongoing, I would like to join in as I've been referred here in several articles about Northeast China. Laoganma (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Lack of changes does not imply consensus. Rather, the title you keep reverting to is the result of persistent edit warring. Lets play this by the rule of consensus, on which Wikipedia is built upon. The template title is History of Manchuria, so lets keep it that way within the template as well. If you have a problem with it, please request a move. Cydevil38 (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ye gods, just let sleeping dogs lie. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said consensus was reached. The title of "History of Manchuria" was kept within the template, it was not removed - only that "Northeast China" was added in parenthesis. I agree with the other editors that this should not be removed. As for Russian Far East, it can be argued, when taking into account the non-Chinese regions ceded during the latter half of the Qing Dynasty. Laoganma (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The pluarity consensus, as well as neutral opinions, was to keep the title as "History of Manchuria". If you want any changes to this title, please make a request for move and make the change based on consesus, not edit warring. If you revert the title one more time, I'll assume that you intend to change the title of this template, and I'll kindly make the request for move on your behalf. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the absurdity of this all. Did anyone check, say, google news, which reports a good deal of hits for "Manchuria" in 2009? Personally I learned 'Manchuria' in an American history class, and later Chinese revisionism is not a good reason to change titles of commonly-accepted words in the English language. I have a good friend with Manchurian ancestry, and I can definitely tell you he uses the term himself with no hint of irony and would be startled to know that his family supposedly 'found it offensive'. The words "northeast China" have unreasonably large opportunity for false positives. Note "in the northeast China", for one, has no logical relation to the northeastern part of China (more often it is "in the northeast, China" or "in the northeast China Sea/shop/etc."), and has 15k hits on its own. How many other phrases are there? Reading the discussion is an education in how two or three people backing one position can sound like an actual faction. (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

History of ManchuriaHistory of Manchuria(Northeast China) and Russian Far East — First, I make my position clear that I myself is against this move. I am making this request for move because some people have been persistently changing the title within the template that is different from the title of the template itself. Many steps were taken to help establish consensus, such as 3rd opinion, RfC and RfCU[26][27][28][29][30][31] and a survey[32], but these editors still persist on the name "Northeast China". I have repeatedly asked them to request a move if they wish to change the title, but they just kept changing the title within the template without changing the template title itself, which lead to continued edit warring. So I make this request for move in hope to estalish consensus on the title of this template and put an end to the edit warring. —Cydevil38 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: I would support this move because "Manchuria" is indeed offensive to people of the Northeast region of China because of the imperialist overtones associated with it. I say this as a person who comes from this area of China. I would certainly advise most people to not openly refer to the region as "Manzhou" when visiting.

The usage of "Manchuria" in recent years has diminished greatly, giving rise to "Northeast China," especially in modern media.

Some examples of why it is an offensive term:

1) Fu Sinian (傅斯年), the first director of the Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica, rejected the use of "Manchuria" in his "Dongbei Shigang" report to the Lytton Commission on the grounds that "Manchuria" was historically inaccurate and a geographical misnomer.
2) Top Japanese scholars such as 中見立夫 (Zhongjian Lifu in Chinese, not sure about its romanization in English/Romanji) of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies also agree that "Manchuria" was never used as a regional name. This was even echoed by Japanese historian supporters of the Japanese puppet regime Manchukuo during the 1930s.
3) And according to Associate Professor, David Edgington at UBC:
"Although prewar Japanese came to perceive "Manchuria" as a separate or discrete entity, the term is of abstract utility only and is not a genuine geographic term. Of European origin, it designated only the homeland of the Manchus, but imperialist competition resulted in its reification. Chinese refer to the region historically as the "three eastern provinces" (dongsansheng) or, since 1945, as simply the "northeast" (dongbei)."
The above is why I would support the move. Laoganma (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Manchuria is the common English name for this entity, whereas Northeast China is, if used, either a secondary or local name for this entity, or an uncommon name, or a non-proper name that cannot be the title of a Wikipedia template or article. Also, the title and contents of a template should remain concise. For details, people may click on the link to the article on Manchuria to see what it consists of, the geographic definition of which may vary based on different historic periods, context and interpretation. Most importantly, this template was created for the intended purpose of concisely organizing historic articles related to Manchuria, not Northeast China or Russian Far East.Cydevil38 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given by User:Cydevil38 above. If the title were currently Template:History of Manchukuo, there might be some credence to the imperialism charge. However, Manchuria is the common English name for the region (even if not common in Chinese) and it predates the Japanese creation of Manchukuo. — AjaxSmack 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the English name of the region is Manchuria. (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 192... The English name of Manchuria is Manchuria; what it is called in Chinese, or whether it represents 17th century usage are valid questions which the article should discuss; but not to the detriment of clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. The name 'Manchuria' is clearly archaic, potentially offensive and technically incorrect; I don't see what's so bad about 'History of Northeast China and Russian Far East', myself. Terraxos (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Evidence for any of this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps see my post above? There's also some examples laid out in previous discussion and pages too. But if still in doubt, we can create a new discussion and I can go into a bit of detail into this matter if you wish. But as for "Manchuria" being archaic and offensive, it is definitely so. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The nominator opposes the move. And 'Manchuria' is certainly not an archaic word when it is the most common name in reliable sources published between year 2000 and year 2008. This issue has been discussed extensively, so it may be helpful to track back on the discussion here. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Editor Cydevil38, I think he was referring to me. You're partially correct. Although it must be stressed that the use of "Manchuria" is largely (though exceptions remain) relegated to the early 20th century time frame and many respectable historians acknowledge that the use of this term is largely for convenience and context, but not for historical accuracy. But definitely, there is greater awareness in academic circles about the use of this term than ever before. I can give a few examples later if you want. But I see that you are still around. Is it possible that you reply to my message I had left on your talkpage? I would be interested in your personal opinion. Thanks. Laoganma (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The history of Manchuria should not be confused with the history of North East China due to (i) the different geographical location of Manchuria and Northeast China until recent history and (ii) the history of Manchuria englobing parts of current-day north korea and russia which have nothing to do with "northeast china". I recommend to keep this article as it is and not mention northeast china; if really necessary we can look into creating a NEW article on the "history of NorthEast China" with the latter focused on the history of the north-eastern section of the kingdom/empire of China since the start of the Qin dynasty. Only for limited periods did the latter include parts of Manchuria. --Cypoet (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. If we are to use "History of Manchuria", the content should be changed to Manchuria Timeline with starting year on 1635 and ending year on 1945. Wiki Pokemon (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I could argue that in the same way as Ming, Tang, Song, Han are different names for Qin (China), Manchu is a different name for the Jurchen, Mohe, Xibe, or Balhae people who have been around in Manchuria since the 7th century AD. However, this was not my point. For most people in this world (except perhaps in China), "History of Manchuria" points to the region located between the Great Wall and the Yalu river while "History of North-East China" is ambiguous at best. Cypoet (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still firmly believe that "Manchuria" is the more common English variant of the name of the region. Dscarth (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Manchuria is Manchuria, once a separate state, a foreign land to Chinese and Russian. The truth is that Russia and China tore Manchuaria off piece by piece. (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:


The template is protected due to the continued running dispute over whether the wording of "(Northeast China and Russian Far East)" should be included in the template. Folks, please discuss rather than simply making unilateral changes/reverts. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think more discussion will be helpful. Personally, I feel its not necessary to "move" this template because a the title only adds "Northeast China" in parenthesis. In fact, I can't find any Wikipedia policy or guideline that says you have to move the template. As indicated in previous discussions, Northeast China is not an uncommon name used nowadays, and is definitely gaining in use, both in academic works and the media (I can cite some examples if requested). Not to mention it has historic credibility as a typonym (unlike Manchuria, which was intended to be an ethnic group) and is officially known as such by locals of the region. I think "Northeast China" should definitely be emphasized one way or another. But I'm open to suggestions. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Didouyu (地豆于)[edit]

Please, add the Didouyu to this list. Yug2 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple links[edit]

There has been a user who is actively trying to add multiple repeated links for an entity on this template when in fact the template was created with only one links per entities. This is not based on timeline but simply a template featuring all the entities existed in the history of Manchuria. There is no reason to add a bunch of duplicate links solely for one entities and distort the overall format of this template.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You should understand what coexistence mean. Some kingdoms existed in this regions very long and span the timeline of several other entities. Former Yan, Later Yan etc have never occupy the whole regions singlehandedly AND occupied only a small southern part of this regions. You can't put these entities as the only thing on a row as if they were the only one there. The format you are promoting is misleading. What is important is accurate information not just looking good. Besides, it looks better with all the entities matching their timelines. Elknz (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Also History Temple shoul be based on timeline to be informative. This template is also based on timelines, for example Han is not placed below Tang. Elknz (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The template was created that way, and for you to make such a drastic change to the template you'll need major consensus. You can start a consensus and ask for editors opinions of whether to add these links.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm making a dramatic change here. I'm trying to correct mistakes. Elknz (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a drastic change when you are basically changing the whole format of this template by adding multiple duplicated links. By the way, all of the links on this template are sorted in a chronological order, i.e. in order of appearances (it doesn't mean that these entities ceased or how long they've lasted).--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a History template not a list of kingdoms. It should be created according to history. Elknz (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The multiple-links form is not good layout. If this template is changed to reflect the coexistence, it should adopt the form of Template:History of China. Otherwise, I don't support to add so many same links to this template.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make this template look that good, it is fine with me. But please don't prevent people to improve the contents of this History template. Elknz (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to improve the content. But it's not good to make the template ugly. The template clearly states that it is "not based on timeline". If you still worry that it may confuse the readers, we may change it to alphabetical order. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Accuracy is before beauty. Besides it is not ugly at all. As I said if you think it is ugly, you can improve on the look if you like. Elknz (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really care about accuracy, then why did you only add multiple links to Goguryeo. Why not add Khitan? How many links should also be added? You will find how ugly it will be. And, this template is not inaccurate. As I said, it clearly states that it is "not based on timeline". --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Elknz, I don't think Neo-Jay is talking about "beauty" per se. It is about the basic layout and the format of how a template should be, in which all of the same duplicate links you inserted would distort the format of the article. Also, as I said above, this template is already sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You two are talking about "List of Kingdoms". I'm not familiar with Khitan. That's why I didn't add it. If you know, you should add. Why didn't you add then? Since this is a History template, it should provide information according to history information. Elknz (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This template DOES provide information according to history. As Balthazarduju said, it is sorted chronologically based on the order of appearances of these entities. If you want to solve the coexistence problem, the only way is to adopt the format of Template:History of China. Otherwise, please don't change. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The current format is misleading and inappropriate for History Template. One row on the template should represent a time frame. All entities existed in the timeline should be on that row. That's the way history template should be. There is nothing wrong with repeating. It adds for imformation and make it look better Elknz (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the current format is not misleading and not inappropriate. Period. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2009 Revision and Revert[edit]

I'm sorry, but I have to believe that the revisions done by Altaicmania (talk · contribs) are inappropriate for the template for several reasons:

  1. It breaks consensus -- it took a while to reach the current version by consensus;
  2. It eliminates a large number of states and peoples which were fully or partially within Manchuria for no good reason;
  3. It ties the timelines down in ways that are not sufficiently justified.

I've therefore reverted. Discussion on this is, however, welcome. I can be convinced with good argument. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic consensus[edit]

"An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
"Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
"Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
"The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
"If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."

First posted on Template talk:History of Korea, reposting here as these are clearly related to the current discussion and will be useful for expanding and/or rewriting the article with more reliable sources.-- (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC), please do not copy-and-paste other users' messages without attribution. Your posting is identical to the one I made at Talk:Gojoseon. -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)