Template talk:History of Manchuria/Polls

Survey for template name

I'd like to see where this stands. Please add support or oppose. Please do not bring the discussion here but suggest new names and other options.

As discussed below, I don't see a problem with "History of Manchuria" and I oppose "History of Northeast China" as being underinclusive and POV, but I'll propose one potential compromise solution that I myself do not particularly favor but would be geographically descriptive: History of the Liaodong-Stanovoy Region. If someone wants to second it, go ahead and add it as an option. --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A related potential geographically-based compromise name: History of the Liao-Amur Drainage Region. --Nlu (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as ridiculus as changing History of Korea to History of Han River Basin. Remember that a big part of political history is for people to identify themselves with. This is sensitive and you have no choice but to take politics into consideration if you want a lasting and realistic solution. We are not talking about natural or geographical history here.

Wiki Pokemon 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we're talking about history here. The current residents of the three provinces simply have way-too-attenuated connections to the Khitan and the Mohe to be lodging objections on those ancient people's behalf. Describing the region geographically is a potential NPOV solution. That having been said, I do not believe that they are better solutions than, well, simply "Manchuria." I am bringing them up only as potential solutions.

(As an aside, if it's a template intending to address all of Korean Peninsula, a hypothetical template of "History of Korean Peninsula," while it might draw objections, is less problematic than "History of North Korea" and "History of South Korea," which would be roughly analogous to your suggestion of "History of Northeast China.") --Nlu (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are deciding for the current residents of NE China/Russian Maritime who they should and should not recognize to be their ancestors.

Wiki Pokemon 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's something all historians have to do, at least in the context of historical articles. Regardless of whether a suggestion that Macedonians (ethnic group) are or are not descendants of the Ancient Macedonians might offend the modern Macedonians or the modern Greeks, or both, a historian writing a history of the region still has to decide that issue based on available evidence. --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchuria

Support

Support Most commonly used and recognized by english editors. "Manchuria" is not a negative word to english speakers and it is not meant to be negative. Good friend100 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most commonly used in reliable English sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. It is also the most common term used in respective languages of surrounding countries, such as Korea, Japan and Russia. In Wikipedia itself, the article Manchuria is a much more firmly established article, which is available in 31 languages. Cydevil38 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Current authoritative English-language sources use "Manchuria" to describe the region known otherwise as "Northeast China". --Dscarth 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Up to now i have only found reliable map drawn in the end of the 19th century : map of Asia dating from 1890 by Rand, Mc Nally & Co. and map of Manchuria in 1897 if someone can prove me the existence of authentic map dated also in the 19th century or before, writen in English mentionning term like Northeast China or Dongbei then i would probably reconsider my position. For two reasons : we are discussing within English wikipedia and because this is a historical template and nothing else. PS : I found in a Turkish map the uses of the term Manchuria.Whlee 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is to find modern 2007 maps which label the region of NE China and Russia Maritime as Manchuria to support your case. Using the maps mentioned here does not support your case.Wiki Pokemon 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a historical template. --Nlu (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring current conventional usage and forcing a new usage. You are also denying modern NE Chinese/Russsian their rights to identify themselves as NE Chinese/Russains AND at the same time tracing their ancestral roots to the region. And you are forcing people to accept a identity they refused to accept.Wiki Pokemon 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russians and Chinese are recent arrivals in most of this region. There is nothing to stop them claiming eartlier inhabitants as ancestors, but that does not make their claim historically accurate124.176.60.88 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making accusations. Nobody here is trying to force Chinese people to use "Manchuria". Good friend100 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still see no principled reason to use a term that -- particularly because this is a template that is supposed to be inclusive of the peoples/states that have been in the region historically -- excludes the Russian parts of the region. With that being the case, "Northeast China" is not going to work, and "Manchuria" is the most inclusive term that is used in English. Addressing the issue that "Manchuria" is derogatory -- it is not. "History of Manchukuo" would have been derogatory, but that's not what being used or being proposed. --Nlu (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as expressed in my third opinion above. Accepted English usage is accepted English usage; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of how people identify themselves. -Amatulic 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if it would legitimize this poll. I don't take CPOV nationalists seriously. (Wikimachine 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Support The term Manchuria is not synonymous with Northeast China; in some contexts it extends to parts of the Russian federation and it would be factually incorrect to include those regions under China. Northeast China came into being in the late 19th century at the earliest. 124.176.60.88 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Both the Qing government (until 1911) and the government of the Republic of China (at least until 1923) used the term 'Manchuria' for this region, and issued coins and banknotes using the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.230.18 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong Oppose Most reliable English sources admit the modern use of Northeast China over the obsolete term of Manchuria. For further details, refer to Wiki pokemon's analysis of the definitions provided by these encyclopedias [1]. Saying that "Manchuria is not a negative word to English users" is absurd. The fact that its offensive to people of the region is enough to warrant a change in the name. Likewise, replace the term "Manchuria" with a derogatory name towards Koreans would not be offensive to English users, same logic. Assault11 03:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what is offensive about the term Manchuria?124.176.60.88 (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Manchuria is an imprecise and archaic term, equivalent to words like "Oriental." --Naus 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Northeast China

Support

Support Current terminology. Self explanatory and recognized by all governments in the world today. Most authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias describes it as (1)Northeast China (2)Historic term (3) Offensive. Most commonly used and recognized by ordinary English readers. "Manchuria" is a negative word is a fact. Sensitive English reader will not want to unknowningly learn a negative word from Wikipedia that may lead to them offending people. Wiki Pokemon 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Most commonly used term in the English language is by far "Northeast China"[2]. In contrast, "Manchuria" is obsolete and almost always used in the context of early twentieth century events (when the geographic term was first coined) [3]. The people of Northeast China are referred to as "Dongbei Ren," or "Northeasterners." Referring to us as "Manchurians" is a grave insult, just try going to China and asking if there's any "Manzhouren" in the Northeast. We certainly do not need Koreans to tell us what we should call our region. We have ample amounts of evidence (refer to above discussion, the "opposing side" has yet to offer a rebuttal) to suggest that the term "Northeast China" was used before "Manchuria." The fact that the geographic label of "Manchuria" has never been realized until the early twentieth century (de jure status under the illegitimate Japanese puppet regime of "Manchukuo" - Chinese: Manzhouguo) as a result of Republican propaganda and Japanese Imperialism. On the other hand, not even the Qing/Manchus or any of its successors ever used the term "Manchuria" to refer to what is now Northeast China. In short, the name of the region is Northeast China, period. Assault11 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Manchuria is an archaic term referring to Northeast China.--Naus 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strongly opposed The name of the region is Manchuria. --Dscarth 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For reasons stated above in supporting the continued use of "Manchuria." I actually question whether the name of the region is Manchuria. (As Bill Clinton might say, this depends on what the definition of "is" is.) Nevertheless, this is a historical template. --Nlu (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Nlu Good friend100 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The most common English usage, espeically in historical context, is Manchuria. Cydevil38 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or Indifferent

Neutral. Either term is fine, but the term in common English usage (Manchuria) is preferable. -Amatulic 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I don't think there are enough votes here yet for an answer. Good friend100 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait a bit more, do not conclude so hastily. Poll has been opened since June 5th 2007. Votes should continue, and i wish that more Third Opinion users would be involved in it.Whlee 08:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there are not enough votes for an answer, if you even paid attention to what I wrote above. Good friend100 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]