User talk:Jiejunkong/Archive2

Heishui Mohe redirection to Jurchen

Dear Junkong, I've seen that you added a redirection from Heishui Mohe to Jurchens on Chinese Wikipedia. I think the descendant of the Heishui Mohe are most probably the Yeren Jurchens but having few informations and sources concerning the direct lineage between the Jurchens and the Mohe, i will leave that from now. Zaijian. Regards.Whlee 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Volume 1, there were 7 Wuji tribes at the time of Northern Wei Dynasty. At the beginning time of the Tang Dynasty, only Heishui Mohe and Sumo Mohe survived. At the time of Khitan Liao Dynasty, Mohe turned into Jurchen. Those, including descedent of Sumo Mohe and part of Heishui Mohe, conquered by Khitan Liao Empire are called "Well-done Jurchen" (Shu Jurchen). Otherwise, they are called "Raw Jurchen" (Sheng Jurchen). Raw Jurchens are mostly descedents of Heishui Mohe. It includes Wanyan Tribe, the founding tribe of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. From political perspectives, Heishui Mohe descedents took the most powerful positions (e.g., Bojilies) in the Jurchen Jin Dynasty, then on the ladder there were Sumo Mohe descedents from Balhae, then Xi and Khitan people from Khitan Liao Dynasty and Han Chinese people from Northern Song Dynasty. It is valid to say that Heishui Mohe defined the Jurchen Jin. This is supported by Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty. Fortunately, this book is fully available now on zh.wikisource.--Jiejunkong 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Heishui Mohe in zh.wikipedia is redirected to Mohe directly.--Jiejunkong 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

Could you write up what you drew in the picture in paragraph form with citations throughout? I think it is worthwhile to summarize the version described in the Twenty-Four Histories, since it represents an "authoritative source of traditional Chinese history". You might be able to add it as a section. Given this section is there, a summary picture might be more well received. There are unfortunately few Wikipedians on en.wikipedia who are able to do this task. It is a shame that older works of history, which the authors went to great pain and effort to record, are becoming lost now because of their age.

Perhaps you still have the quotations handy that let you draw the picture. Let me know if I can help, but keep in mind my ability to read ancient Chinese is almost zero. --Cheers, Komdori 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do it as soon as possible. As quoting Chinese texts is inevitable in this case, I will also do an English translation for every Chinese sentence quoted. The only thing I worry about is that there are some guys who don't respect authoritative canonical history records and insist on deleting the contents.--Jiejunkong 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the best thing you can do, give the quotes using Chinese and English and the source. No rational person will say the Twenty-Four Histories is unusable. These books are indeed canonical in terms of traditional Chinese history. When it's summarized, as long as it says that it is according to traditional Chinese history, is relevant to the article, and is not horribly unbalanced in terms of length (that is, as long as you don't turn a one page article into four pages of Chinese quotes and one page of other stuff) people will protect the quotes against revision. One more note: be sure not to interpret the text (that is, don't draw conclusions from it that aren't obvious to everyone). I don't think you've done this so far, but it's something to keep in mind.

Don't worry about your work being wasted, en.wikipedia has plenty of people who will make sure legitimate sources are not eliminated. --Cheers, Komdori 13:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Some guys even call "Twenty-Four Histories" as something under PRC government. You look like a reasonable person who is aware of certain standard we are talking about here. I equally respect Samguk Sagi and "Twenty-Four Histories". They are surely not perfect, but their quality speaks. From my experience, the ancient authors of these canonical records may avoid to say some negative things due to some reasons (shutup is not a lie), but I haven't found intentional lies for the purpose of cheating.--Jiejunkong 01:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo

It seems you are involved in the Goguryeo disputes. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about Chinese history, it would help if you joined the mediation. The following is a quote from User:Daniel, from the mediation committee, explaining how to join:

• "If you are involved in this dispute, and feel you should be a 'party' to the Mediation, please add yourself to the list of participants, agree to mediation, and contact Armed Blowfish to arrange an account on the private Wiki. Armed Blowfish (mail) and Daniel, 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

Whenever we have disagreements, mediation is an important part of WP:DR. I'll look forward to seeing you there.--Endroit 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please do not allow your content disputes to spill over onto the Administrators' noticeboard for 3 revert rule violations. The complaint is not moot. Please use the two days for which the article is protected as an opportunity to work out a version satisfactory to all parties on Talk:Goguryeo. Do not discuss the article content further on WP:AN3. --Selket ^Talk 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't want my filed 3RR reports to be diluted and smeared by some kind of vandalism behaviors you are warning against. So next time, can I delete the redundant followups that are not directly related to the 3RR reports? Please give me a direct answer.--Jiejunkong 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Be careful about deletion

The reason behind my deletion was based on (what seems to be) an agreement to merge most of the information into Gaogouli controversies [1]. A lot of the information in the article is twisted to suit Korean arguments (e.g. application of Zhonghua Minzu). Ironically, this seemingly "Chinese" project - as of this posting - so far has no Chinese sources. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. Assault11 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you should leave a {{Main}} article link on the page for the users to find the deleted contents in the main article. With good faith.--Jiejunkong 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, it seems that Cydevil has just reverted my recent NPOV edits/clean ups of the article. Apparently, he insists on using highly controversial/insulting terms like "Turkestan" in the article. Not only that, many of his sources does not support his points (e.g. application of Zhonghua Minzu) or are in Korean, thus unverifiable. Assault11 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Goguryeo

We need to prevent User:Good friend100, User:Cydevil38, User:219.253.79.115 (Seoul IP address) from making mass reverts and blanking of our objective edits on the Goguryeo et al. articles. It appears the bulk of malicious activity is coming from these three users (who might in fact be the same person). --JakeLM 18:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between Jurchen/Manchu and Koreans is tenacious at best

Manchu founder Nurhaci have specifically wrote that they are not related to the Korean peoples. It is very apparent from history that the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu line have always kept a distinction between itself and that of the indigenous peoples of the Korean peninsula (this distinction was also recognized by Chinese historians at the time). The names Joseon and Jurchen are only similar in English transliteration, but radically different in pronunciation in the Archaic and Middle Chinese pronunciations. Joseon/Chosun (朝鮮) starts with a voiceless consonant /tS/ (朝 = tSAu), while Jurchen (女真) is a voiced consonant /dZ/ (女 = dZnjo). Chinese transliterations at the time (pre-Yuan Dynasty) were acutely aware of the difference between voiced and voiceless consonants and would have never mixed them up. The Japanese language still retains a lot of Archaic and Middle Chinese voiced consonants and you see clearly that in Japanese 朝鮮 = Chousen (ちょうせん) and 女真 = Joshin　(じょしん). --JakeLM 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am open to listening to any information from reliable source. What you have said could be useful, and if you can provide reliable source (books and publications from internationally recognized academic places), you may consider writing a language section of Jurchen. My previous statement was based on Twenty-Four Histories, according to the "Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", Wanyan Hanpu, the first recorded ancestor of Wanyan Aguda, was from Goryeo, and there was no record that he had serious language problem after he moved into the Wanyan Tribe (of Heishui Mohe) at that time. So I think the language gap between Heishui Mohe and Goryeo may not be too big to block communication between these two groups of ancient people.--Jiejunkong 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion after briefly checking up on yesterday's message, hope you don't mind if I add in a few points. About Wanyan Hanpu, the primary source Jinshi does not state exactly what his ethnicity is, just where he comes from. If anything, he could be an ethnic Mohe from Gao Li considering there used to be a considerable Mohe population in the area. There is no conclusive evidence (as far as primary sources are concerned) that Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Gao Li, so the relationship between NuZhen and Koreans (Silla) is highly questionable at best. Assault11 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I know some Japanese scholars even argued that all Wanyan ancestors before Wanyan Shilu, including Wanyan Hanpu, were forged by Wanyan Xu. But it would be hard for Wanyan Xu, the author of the original Jurchen Jin records, forged people like Bao Huo Li and their ancestral lines toward Wanyan Hanpu. Go back to the language issues, even if Wanyan Hanpu was an ethnic Mohe, as he had lived in Goryeo for quite a long time as an adult, it shows that at least there was an area in Goryeo using similar language with Heishui Mohe so that Wanyan Hanpu can communicate with people in both areas. I am not going to make more conclusions and leave this conservative statement as a feasible remark.--Jiejunkong 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

work together

Jiejunkong, I share your viewpoints in Goguryeo. We need to drive out the POV pushers and nationalists and make the article fair. DefenseofChina 18:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what you mean here. Doing anything that is not conforming to wikipolicies is not going to solve the problem. --Jiejunkong 08:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong , be careful of what DefenseofChina is telling to you, we have to calm down and write interesting articles instead of doing fruitless revert edit war and respect other user by adding relevant sources instead of laughing at their face as he is doing. For example, i am a Korean French guy and i am very intersted in writing articles related to history of Manchuria or Northeast China or whatever : i wrote articles about Khitans (before 907) (see List of the Khitan rulers) before the Liao dynasty (907-1125) which have no history connections with Korean peninsula. Zaijian. Regards.Whlee 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Actually I was informed that the user posted this "alliance notice" may not be a Chinese user. It is too blatant and incorrect.--Jiejunkong 09:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As to Khitan Empire history, I have input the entire Canonical History Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty (135 volumes) into zh.wikisource.org and am now doing the Canonical History Records of Song Dynasty (496 volumes), which is a tremendous amount of work. After that I perhaps will move to work on the Canonical History Records of Liao Dynasty (116 volumes), which is the last one of Toktoghan 3 histories.--Jiejunkong 09:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Changbai

Hey Jiejunkong, I saw your citations at the Changbai Mountains. They are in improper format. See WP:REF, WP:CITET, and create a new section called Notes where you put the <references/>.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've fixed the format according to your suggestion.--Jiejunkong 05:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Say hello

I haven't realised you are also a Cwiki editor until I saw your id 霍枯燥.I got the same id in Cwiki.Nice to meet you.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

• Hi, thanks for the info about fonts on User talk:Nlu.
• There's an error on your user page; you try to instantiate the template {{Wiki user|Jiejunkong}}, but no such template exists. Try {{subst: User|Jiejunkong}} instead, or to include additional data try one of its variants such as {{subst: User6|Jiejunkong}} Don't forget the "subst"
• Also check out WP:3K. Join up if you're interested!
• Thanks again Ling.Nut 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the disappeared template. As to WP:3K, I am relatively good at history of Song Dynasty and Jurchen Jin Dynasty, maybe at a semi-professional level. My history research on other dynasties is merely above the average. But thanks a lot for the invitation coz I didn't know the existence of the project WP:3K.--Jiejunkong 07:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then. See ya 'round! Ling.Nut 11:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this ID is a sock puppet of another ID

According to wikipedia records, this ID was created "23:25, 30 March 2007", when disputations about Goguryeo, Goguryeo-China wars, Template:History of Manchuria were at heat. It is unethical to create sock puppets to disrupt wikipedia. Therefore, I will not be polite towards this kind of ID (although I will always follow wikipedia rules). Any activity done by this ID is considered potentially malicious.--Jiejunkong 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am matching this ID's behavior with a pool of suspected IDs. Once I have reduced the pool to a reasonably small set, I will file sock puppet check requests to system admins.--Jiejunkong 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Same goes to you, for your nationalistic bias. Cydevil38 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a checkuser request against you at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikimachine. BTW, as to me, I don't have any sock puppet, so your "Same goes to you" doesn't work. This sentence also shows that you've implied that you are a sock puppet---you don't even bother to deny, but you counterattack on the challenger's morality.--Jiejunkong 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also about your "nationalist" charges, my personal judgement is: if I am an ordinary user, then you are a nationalist; if I am a nationalist, then you are an ultranationalist.--Jiejunkong 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, you suspected Cydevil38 as a sockppuppet but i dont think this ID is one. According to me Cydevil38 former ID was Cydevil but the former ID is not used anymore since March 23rd. Therfore Cydevil38 is allowed to be used as an ID.

I can ask you the same question do you think about Assault11, can he be accused of sock puppetery? I dunno who he is this ID was created "03:12, 22 Feb 2007" maybe he got a former ID too? Anyway. See you around.

PS: i dont think you adopt a nationalist policy, up to now . Dont worry; ZaijianWhlee 12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the existence of ID "Cydevil" and the connection between these two IDs.--Jiejunkong 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But I still think this ID is a sock puppet, or a malicious ID dedicated to edit-warring. This ID has done nothing but edit-warring in all articles he has no background knowledge. Fighting with baseless POV is his expertise.--Jiejunkong 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

By scanning over wikirecords, from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive46#User:Cydevil38_reported_by_User:Komdori_.28Result:.29 I find that User:Cydevil and User:Cydevil38 fought with User:Komdori, a Korean teacher with background knowledge in the articles he editted. Komdori also fought with User:Good friend100 on those articles. It's not a surprise that I am again fighting with the same user group User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100.--Jiejunkong 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Template:History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia and Eastern Tartary ?

This template is the best prototype that can be use as a compromise up to now but the title History of Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia still reamin heavy, and some terms are missing where will you place the term Guandong for example. I would eventually support that template if there is any much shorter name. up to now the best i found was East Tartary or Eastern Tartary it is a historical term suitable with was template and it doesnt sound as offensive to Chinese (like Guandong or Manchuria do although there were not initially) Regards.Whlee 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipolicy WP:NCGN is aware of the controversy in using old names, as it states "in a modern context" as a constraint. Compared to "Manchuria", East Tartary is not offensive, but is also out-of-date. My approach to reduce nationalistic connotations is to use two or more nations in the name, so that no nation can prevail. Hence comes the long name "Northeastern China and Far Eastern Russia". The best way is still unknown.--Jiejunkong 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that i would add Mohe/Moghe/Malgal, Daurs, Nivkhs, Evenks, Solon Khanate,Nanais|Ulchs, Governement-General of Eastern Siberia / Russian Empire, Li-Lobanov Treaty, Siberian Regional Government of Kolchak, Far-Eastern Republic, Siberian Intervention, Far-Eastern Oblast, Operation August Storm, Far Eastern Federal District instead of RFE those info wer based on various researches i made on Internet which were put into Template:History of the Priamurye region Whlee 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree to adding the contents for encyclopedia purpose.--Jiejunkong 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We can say that history of Manchuria start at 1817 previously it was called Chinese/Eastern Tartary. Eastern Tartary became obsolete from 1858 (a coincidence with the Aigun Treaty between Qing and Russian Empire). Here are the results of my researches based on Westerners point of view (because we are edit on English wikipedia). According to me, Manchuria remain still remaines commonly employed up to now. Sources. I will continue my reasearches Regards.Whlee 11:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on your template, here is my versionWhlee 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the trend in your template making. The list is also quite comprehensive and professional. I will perhaps fix something directly in your template. For example, in the item "Warload era (Republic of China)", the region was typically called "the eastern three provinces (东三省)" by the local warload Zhang Zuolin in his official announcements. Meanwhile it was also called Manchuria by some other people including most westerners. I think it is equally acceptable to keep the current one, or list this item under "History of Manchuria" subsection.--Jiejunkong 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a /snapshot of Whlee's template at 22:45 29 June 2007 for backup purpose because I find somebody changed the contents without consensus. I agree to the contents in the snapshot, but there is no guarantee to agree to changed contents.--Jiejunkong 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Xi-Ping Zhu

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Xi-Ping Zhu, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Danko Georgiev MD 06:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions to the Xi-Ping Zhu article. I was unaware of the letter from Hamilton and it is a great addition to the article. Personally, I don't think Zhu or Cao really did anything that other mathematicians don't do, and I believe they did make a valid contribution to the topic, they just got caught up in a high profile subject. -Weston.pace 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still troubled by some users' calling Cao-Zhu's paper as a "scandal", which is the derogatory impression of a mass media campaign projected to the mind of the outsiders of the pure math field. The insider Perelman said he didn't like the Cao-Zhu paper due to lack of novelty, and complained on Cao-Zhu's "crowning achievement" claim. The insider User:Mathsci described Cao-Zhu's claim on "crowning achievement" as "misattribution". This is more reliable and NPOV, while the words from mass media campaign are not. In fact, if this is indeed a "scandal", then every paper author would be dragged into such a "scandal" when his/her papers are scrutinized. If you are a paper author, I think you understand what I mean---in the "publish or perish" culture, self promotion and credit oversight could be identified in any paper. In a nutshell, the trend of rating loud mass media campaign above expert's remarks is IMO driven wikipedia to Uncyclopedia.--Jiejunkong 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think the current contents you added today present a two-side story, which conforms to NPOV. Thanks.--Jiejunkong 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, after Cao-Zhu removed "crowning achievement" from the introduction and attributed Lemma 7.1.6 to Kleiner-Lott by a formal apology _{(oversight of one lemma in hundreds of theorems and lemmas is also possible. There is no need for Cao-Zhu to intentionally steal 1 lemma in such a paper expected by them to be high-profile)}, the insiders find no problem in Zhu's revised paper. See User:Mathsci's comments for details. Stronger accusations are not supported by the insiders.--Jiejunkong 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong. (Wikimachine 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for the notification. But your RFC looks awful. Why? Because you falsely believe two different people with different characters as a single person. You filed a sock puppetry report against User:Assault11 and me. This report is doomed to be a fiasco, but you cannot wait for the result and file another fiasco report by confusing me with User:Assault11. This demonstrates your impatience and narrowmind, which lead you to failures.--Jiejunkong 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failures in what? I promised you 2 presents. You got both as promised, not b/c I'm impatient. Also, I understand that "narrow mind", "cowardice", etc. can be seen plenty in some ancient Chinese literature, etc., but they really don't apply in English Wikipedia. Nobody goes around telling others to be a man, etc. Keep that in mind. (Wikimachine 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

You promise what? All local residents of Northeast China become the same person? Whatever you do, don't get into areas you are not good at. It seems that you forgot to understand that "narrow mind", "cowardice", etc. can be seen plenty in some ancient Korean literature, etc. Can you see it from Samguk Sagi, which was written in classic Chinese?--Jiejunkong 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Formal Reply about the invalidity of the RFC It is important to note that User:Wikimachine violates the RFC rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. " According to the rule, this RFC must be immediately deleted because User:Wikimachine misidentified User:Assault11 with me and filed the RFC against two users. He filed a sock puppet report against User:Assault11 and me yesterday. And based on his personal belief, he thinks he is right. However, User:Assault11 is a hybrid of Han Chinese, Manchu and Mongol, while I am Han Chinese only. We represent different ethnic groups in the same region for the same opinion that calling us as people from "Manchuria" ("Manchurian") is unacceptable. User:Wikimachine's RFC is thus invalid.--Jiejunkong 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I have no contact with User:Assault11 except in en.wikipedia. I don't know his zh.wikipedia ID and I don't know where his physical presence is. His ethnic background is in his own post, and I believe his self-introduction is true because he shows consistent point of views in Manchu and Mongol related articles.--Jiejunkong 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Response on the disputations As a local resident of Northeastern China area, which is historically Manchuria (1635--1945) and Mohe-Jurchen (prior to 1635), I have all the editing right to inspect the related wikiarticles to correct geographic and historical errors. These articles include Goguryeo, Balhae, Mohe, Liao Dynasty, Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Manchuria, Manchukuo, Northeast China, etc.

User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 form a side representing ultra Korean nationalist's POV, including ignoring reliable historical records like Twenty-Four Histories and/or Samguk Sagi, citing ultra-nationalistic websites like mygoguryeo.com as sources in their writeup, violating WP:NCGN by forcing non-modern names in purely geographic contexts, etc. In particular, these ultranationalists force many local residents of Northeast China to call their hometown an expired name in geographic context subject to WP:NCGN. This is unacceptable and considered as an intentional insult by many local residents including me, User:Assault11 and User:Naus. In a nutshell, we represent the local residents of ethnic Han Chinese and Manchu Chinese people, who don't accept the intentional Korean naming of "Manchuria" in any purely geographic context subject to WP:NCGN and in any anachronistic context where Manchuria is a misnomer. Also based on reliable canonical history records, I also do not accept the ultranationalists' claim that Goguryeo and Balhae are purely proto-Korean historical entities. In contrast, the two entities are both proto-Korean and proto-Manchu.--Jiejunkong 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In summary, my stand is consistent with my above claim from the beginning to the end. My point of view has a head-on clash with mygoguryeo.com fans User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100, but my point of view is based on reliable history records and wikipolicies (I also quote original wikipolicy texts in discussions. This is not like User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100, who refuse to discuss based on original wikipolicy text even upon urgent requests). I also disagree with a Taiwanese administrator User:Nlu in en.wikipedia on his personal conclusion that "Manchuria" is not an insult to most local residents if used in modern context. User:Nlu has never been to the Northeastern China area and the subtle situations between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese prevent him from being a neutral third party.--Jiejunkong 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I hate liars. The major problem of liars is that they can never make their sentences consistent. In this case, I don't revoke my challenge against User:Cydevil38 because he clearly shows inconsistency in his behavior. Let me copy the physical proofs here to diagnose his "amnesia":

1. Fact 1: In [2], User:Cydevil38 did a personal investigation to compare the popularity between "Manchuria" and "Northeast China". This investigation was done within 2 weeks from now. According to his own search, searching "Manchuria" returns 1,130,000 results, and searching "Northeast China and its variants" returns 1,090,000.
2. Fact 2: In [3], User:Cydevil38 did an edit-warring with a blatant lie (quote: ""Northeast China" is not a widely accepted English name per WP:NCGN."). Per his own investigation 2 weeks ago, we can see "Manchuria" and "Northeast China" are widely accepted in a comparable manner. I remember this discussion, thus when User:Cydevil38 shows obvious inconsistency in his words, I can immediately went to the related wikirecords to illustrate his funny behavior.--Jiejunkong 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical reply User:Cydevil38 immediately stamped "Original research" on the image "Image:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg". But in the corresponding talk page Image_talk:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg, he disappeared without trying to clarify his reasons. This is completely irresponsible. In the talk page, all technical proofs are canonical history records used by professionals (according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the canonical history records are reliable because they are authoritative sources. User:Cydevil38, User:Wikimachine and User:Good friend100 rejected the reliable sources even for now. This is rule breaking because by this strategy they can block any reliable source at their free will). As a group of complete amateurs of the history and geography topics, User:Cydevil38, User:Wikimachine and User:Good friend100 either rely on no sources at all, or rely on unfiltered web search (which includes many factual errors in search results). They are not qualified to judge original research in the topics being disputed.--Jiejunkong 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to make it very clear that I have no connections to Jiejunkong in real life and I am certainly not a sockpuppet(eer). It should be noted that user:Wikimachine is prone to falsely accusing and making personal/ad hominem attacks against editors that do not subscribe to his particular POV as "sockpuppets" [4] [5][6]. In the past, user:Wikimachine (along with sympathizer user:Cydevil38, formerly known as user_talk:Cydevil) conducted a few sockpuppet and checkuser cases against various editors, including myself - all of which have been debunked and proven false [7][8]. It should be clear that this is merely another weak attempt by user:Wikimachine in trying to establish a connection between user:Jiejunkong and I. Again, the only thing that I have in common with Jiejunkong is the fact that we are both Northeast Chinese, it should be no coincidence that we share many similar views regarding our homeland (Northeast China).

Regarding the issue of Northeast China/Manchuria, it is clear that Manchuria is not an acceptable term to use for the naming of the region. The term "Manchuria" is a reminiscent of the old Japanese puppet regime of Manchukuo, and is en par in its offensive nature as terms like "Shina". user:Cydevil38, user:Good_friend100 and user:Wikimachine often made unproven/dubious conclusions that have no historical/factual backing whatsoever, and consistently ignored historical arguments/rebuttals when presented against them (e.g. "Prove that Manchuria was a historical geographic concept, and not an ethnic one") [9] [10]. Not only do they ignore your questioning/rebuttals on historical issues (most probably due to historical incompetence, something which user:Cydevil38 admits [11]), they continue to present completely irrelevant "evidence" concerning geographic/naming issues. user:Cydevil38 even managed to pull out a source mentioning the southern Chinese province of Jiangsu as a province of "Northeastern China". It is impossible to come to any terms with people who have no authentic interest in the history of Northeast China, after all, most of them are either South Korean nationals (as is the case for user:Cydevil38 [12]) or Korean Americans, who have very little understanding of Northeast China.

As for user:Wikimachine's accusations of trying to "claim" the Korean peninsula as "Chinese," this is more like the other way around. Koreans have a reputation among Chinese for their notorious record for distortion of Northeast China's history. This could clearly be seen through Korean efforts to claim the Sumo Mohe (ancestor of the Jurchen and Manchu) kingdom of Bohai. And I'll just leave it at that, consider it a "mutual understanding." Assault11 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute happening here has been heated. But there are big differences between Wikimachine and Jiejunkong in the dispute. Jiejunkong discussion is always on the subject matter, always following wikipedia rules and always use reliable sources for support of his views. Wikimachine on the other hand, does not discuss on the subject matter, not interested in wikipedia rules, do not provide reliable sources, always focusing on editors with different views from himself and sometimes threatening them with unjustifiable action such as this. Wikimachine should just work on the subject matters and stop harrassing and attacking editors. (the above was from User:Wiki pokemon according to wikirecord)

As "racial attack" is mentioned by a Korean "outside view", I need to make it clear that I have never made any racial comment against anybody. In contrast, I think "Manchurian" is a racial slur against local residents of Northeast China, and that's reason why I feel offended.--Jiejunkong 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 throws in a Wikipedia:Canvassing charge today. Actually, let's look at User:Wikimachine's call for help in the outside reviewer User_talk:Edene's talk page. And the list goes on: User talk:Odst, User talk:Nlu, User talk:Visviva, User talk:WangKon936, and even Template talk:History of Manchuria. We immediately know that who is canvassing.--Jiejunkong 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, User:Assault11 is also listed as the target in the ill-formed RFC, so I don't think my comments about this RFC on his talk page are classified as canvassing. Except Assault11's talk page and my own talk page, I have never discussed this RFC elsewhere. User:Cydevil38 is randomly citing wikirules, but fails to discuss based on original wikirule texts again. Such random rule citing is awful, in particular he then runs away and leaves the cited rule rotten there. It is almost like a denial-of-service strategy, which makes communication impossible.--Jiejunkong 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A Japanese user had a look at User talk:Assault11 and then put his own POV (which is not my POV at all) by saying "C-guy" is a trouble term. Actually, I was imitating Hong Kong media by using letters to avoid trouble. The so-called 字母男星,字母女星 are some terms like "Mr.X, Ms.Y" to avoid trouble in entertainment news. Unless the involved person explicitly says he/she wants to be mentioned by name, there is no need to mention the name directly to get yourself into trouble. The current contents of User talk:Assault11 are about User:Wikimachine's RFC against Assault11 and me. Except User:Wikimachine's user name, I have intentionally avoided mentioning other RFC participants' names directly. It has nothing to do with derogation or whatever. --Jiejunkong 08:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical reply to User:Mr. Killigan's view

1. Offensiveness is identified by the subject being offended, typically the subject described by the offensive term, not by any outsiders. For example, the offensiveness in the N-word describing African American is identified by the African American people, not by third parties like European or Asian (Of course, the N-word doesn't offend you European and Asian. Why are you coming out to deny the offensiveness?). Likewise, the offensiveness in the term "Manchuria" and "Manchurian" describing northeast China geographic region and local residents is identified by the local residents living in the region, not by people from the nearby Korean peninsula, pacific islands or even another remote continent (Of course, the terms do not offend you. Why are you coming out to deny the offensiveness?). "Manchuria" has no offensive meaning before year 1932, when Puyi's puppet state "Manchukuo" (romanized name of the "State of Manchuria", which is controlled by Japanese militarists) selected the term to name itself. Horrible things happened in the "State of Manchuria"---even Zaifeng, father of Puyi, refused to stay in this so-called "State of Manchuria" and immediately went back to Beiping (nowadays Beijing) after seeing what this "State of Manchuria" really is. Many Manchu Chinese and nearly all Han Chinese at the moment were against this puppet state. Since Japanese militarists surrendered in 1945, this term "Manchuria" has become a negative one amongst Chinese. In particular, after 1980s, when Unit 731, General Shiro Ishii, etc. were exposed by mass media, we really know how horrible this "State of Manchuria" was (I think it is necessary to mention General Shiro Ishii's response to human vivisection recorded by Nicholas D. Kristof, and the recent documentary film "Nanking" made by Ted Leonsis, Bill Guttentag and Michael Jacobs). But Japanese and Korean sources keep on using the offensive term for some reasons (In the "State of Manchuria", many Koreans were recruited as policemen by Japanese militarists). It is arguably impolite for ja.wikipedia and ko.wikipedia to keep on using the historical terms to name modern geographic entities in China. But since I cannot read Korean or Japanese language, I am fine with whatever they write there. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable for Korean and Japanese users to push these offensive terms in en.wikipedia.
2. It is not valid to draw conclusions on Goguryeo based on partial knowledge. Because User:Mr. Killigan has contributions in history of Japan and history of Korea, but no contribution in history of China, I want to point out that his conclusion that "Goguryeo is a purely Korean polity" is not true due to his partial knowledge on this subject. Mohe people lived in Changbai Mountains area and to the north of the area. The size of this area was almost half of the largest Goguryeo's territory size. Mohe people's presence in Goguryeo is significant. Also it is a consensus amongst Chinese, Korean and Japanese researchers that Sumo Mohe's Balhae is a descendent of Goguryeo. _{For example, in Second Canonical History Records of Tang Dynasty, Volume 219:"Balhae's founder, whose surname is Dae, was originally Sumo Mohe joining Goguryeo. When Goguryeo was destroyed, he led his people to guard Dong Mou Mountain, located to the very east of YinZhou, with southern border touching Silla separated by River Ni, eastern border at sea, western border touching Khitan. They built cities to reside in, and Goguryeo remnants joined them." (渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高麗者，姓大氏。高麗滅，率衆保挹婁之東牟山，地直營州東二千里，南比新羅，以泥河爲境，東窮海，西契丹。築城郭以居，高麗逋殘稍歸之)。} Later Balhae was conquered by Khitan Liao Dynasty. At the time, about one-fifth of Balhae people fled to Goryeo (according to User:WangKon936's estimation in his message posted at 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)), but most Balhae people stayed. These people's descedants joined Wanyan Aguda's Jurchen Jin Dynasty during 1110s and 1120s, later became modern Manchu Chinese. The connection between ancient Balhae and modern Manchu Chinese is comparable to the connection between ancient Goguryeo and modern Korean_{(In Goguryeo, Mohe/proto-Manchu was a minority, non-Mohe/proto-Korean was a majority; but in Balhae, Mohe was a majority)}. If modern Korean claims that Balhae_{(where non-Mohe/proto-Korean was a minority)} is a proto-Korean kingdom, then modern Manchu Chinese surely can claim that Goguryeo_{(where Mohe/proto-Manchu was a minority)} is a proto-Manchu-Chinese kingdom. I think both views are correct---Balhae is a proto-Korean kingdom and Goguryeo is a proto-Manchu kingdom. Contrary to my view, if some researchers want to delete the Mohe-Jurchen-Manchu inheritance line from Goguryeo, then they should delete Goryeo-Joseon-Korea inheritance line from Balhae by the same standard. I wonder if User:Mr. Killigan is one of these researchers.--Jiejunkong 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sign.--Jiejunkong 04:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2. I am in agreement per Jiejunkong's assessment. Assault11 01:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Wikimachine is abusing this rfc as a political weapon to silence his opponents. He hardly dispute or even discuss on the subject matter, instead focus on harassing editors only.Wiki Pokemon 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(backup --Jiejunkong 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC))