Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jiejunkong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

---

• Jiejunkong (talk • contribs • logs)
• Assault11 (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Desired outcome 1.2 Description 1.3 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.4 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.5 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.6 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.7 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 3.1 Outside view by eDenE 3.2 Outside view by Mumun 3.3 Outside view by User:Mr. Killigan 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The two users (and more) are constantly pushing for CPOV often against community consensus or out of their own unilateral (but coordinated) initiatives on disputed articles.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I request that user:Jiejunkong and user:Assault11 be banned from POV & name disputing at all Korea-related historical articles. user:Assault11 already had his own Rfc but it came out as an indecisive result at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11 (although most users agreed that he was disruptive & that something should be done about it).

I think that it's legitimate to list both Jiejunkong and Assault11 b/c Assault11 was already confirmed to be disruptive from last Rfc. I'm suggesting that an action be derived from the last Rfc along with this one.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Now, let's take a step b/c you might misunderstand the situation through your stereotypical perceptions. These guys have created a lot of naming disputes -mainly ethnic. There is a movement among Chinese historians who claim that Korea is really part of Chinese culture & history, and Goguryeo and Balhae have come to be the main focus of the movement in "making them" Chinese. This really didn't happen until recently - maybe ~ 25 years since when it first began to be noticed & ~10 years since it became a well known dispute. Not knowing that this is really a recent push by the Chinese government-sponsored historian studies, you editors who take pride in being "neutral" might be like, "hmm... 2 sides... Equal representation!" Really, if you don't know much about East Asian history, I recommend that you don't take lead in making conclusions. The fact is, the CPOV on this topic is not widely accepted - i.e. even Britannica defines Silla as a Korean kingdom[1].

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Here are all the bad habits that they have.

• Making unilateral title changes on a disputed template - "dispute" was also begun by them, even under admin Nlu's oversight

• Another example

• Call people liars out of absolutely no grounds when Cydevil reverted a unilateral removal of the word "Manchuria.
• Coordinate in 2 simultaneous revert wars on 2 separate pages - notice that Cydevil38 suggested that Jiejunkong & Assault11 try a requested move to test consensus: Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#The_title_should_be_what_it_is_meant_to_be & Wangkon asked them to talk about the issue on the talk page of the article concerned, Manchuria, not the two pages that contain the word "Manchuria": Talk:Goguryeo#WP:NCGN_Violation. Who are the aggressors here?

1. Jiejunkong's unilateral removal
2. Cydevil's revert
3. Jiejunkong's revert w/ "Cydevil38 is a habitual rule-breaking user, in particular WP:NCGN, revert the plagued wikicontent"
4. Cydevil's revert
5. Assault11's revert
6. I reverted after on the threat that I'd report to here & they did revert back, so I reverted again & here I am.

1. Cydevil38's revert probably on the assumption that Bibliomaniac misunderstood the situation
2. Assault11's revert
3. Cydevil's revert
4. Assault11's revert
5. Cydevil's revert
6. Assault11's revert
7. Good friend100's revert
8. Jiejunkong's revert
9. My revert

• They fill up all talk pages related to the China-Korea dispute on the ethnic identity of the Koreans & their claimed previous dynasties with all these NCGN violation stuffs. And they put NPOV, cleanup, factually incorrect, biased, etc. tags everywhere on all of these articles, with {{fact}}s everywhere in the articles.

1. Goguryeo's NPOV & factual accuracy tag
2. There's none on Balhae - actually removed
3. expand & no reference tags
4. Grammar, no ref & cite

• Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Manchuria_still_a_violation
• Talk:Military_history_of_Goguryeo#This_article_needs_to_be_renamed
• Talk:Goguryeo#WP:NCGN_Violation
• Talk:Balhae#WP:NCGN_Violation

• It's really stupid b/c all they want is to have the articles use absolutely no "Manchuria" and only "Northeast China". I guess it makes them feel better to have these Korean kingdoms stand on Northeast ""China"" - eh he hem.

• This one really confuses me: they actually succeeded in moving Goguryeo-China Wars to Military history of Goguryeo. When that happened, I was sitting in front of my computer, rolling my eyes & saying a moderate cuss phrase. Their main reason for that move was that Goguryeo was disputed on whether it was solely Korean or Chinese, and the title "Goguryeo-China Wars" implied that Goguryeo was solely Korean b/c part can't fight the whole (at least it would sound awkward as a title) & there'd never be "Goguryeo-Korea wars". Immediately, I referred to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming which states that Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also, it simply did not make sense to change a title of an article about a series of wars to a "military history xxx" title just so that some CPOV editor with extremist nationalist view that's been rejected by the academia can be satisfied. I haven't heard of China defining what a nation's military history would be. Another reason was the the usage of the term "China" was anachronistic. No it's not, China is not a country but a conceptual reference to a group of people sharing similar culture & history. See People's Republic of China and China. They simply aren't. Even if it was, they should simply have chosen a better name fitting the article's niche. However, they chose to change the article itself to overcome the issue. And then, the move was successfully done when a bunch of anti-Korean editors (I think 1 of them is Japanese, & another American) who simply vote against a KPOV position on every single dispute - Chinese or Japanese (i.e. Liancourt Rocks, Heavenly Lake).
• They're really rude & make everyone else quarrel w/ them & get themselves look bad: Talk:Goguryeo#Shift_random_irrelevant_message_to_another_section.28previously_appended_the_above_section.29.

• More of that: Habitual rule-breaking userRule breakerMalacious liar
• It's almost as if he sees Wikipedia as a war ground. Cowardice, justice, honor... like in movies: Remove a liar and coward's smearing. This liar dare not to answer the challenge in the proper wikipage, but smear my talk page. What a coward! & After I filed this challenge in Goguryeo's talk page, you coward dare not to answer the challenge in the page, but smeared my personal talk page. Be a man, Cydevil38.
• And maybe he's a psychologist, or neurologist: User:Cydevil38, are you saying your brain has some malfunction like amnesia?
• And more: Suddenly you don't have amnesia any more? So, was it an arithmetic problem because you don't know what numeric digits mean?
• This is the most ridiculous one.... Assault11's 1st edit to Wikipedia.

• Constant original research: 1) admin Visviva sees it 2) Another disagreement by Visviva 3) He creates his own history diagram on why Goguryeo is Chinese 4) And more: [2] [3]
• And then he removes original research tags targeted at his works: [4][5]
• And then when Visviva & Cydevil added the original research tags, he strikes back a revenge: [6]

• He even tags a Cydevil's references for his warrants, which Cydevil corrects by actually giving the cites - Jiejunkong could have done this himself. He's at it again.

(02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Jiejunkong also recently violated WP:CANVASS here. 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CONSENSUS
2. WP:Civility
3. WP:NPOV
4. WP:OR
5. WP:CANVASS

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk:Goguryeo#History_of_Manchuria
2. Talk:Goguryeo#WP:NCGN_Violation

1. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Template
2. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Splitting_historical_Manchuria_and_modern_Northeast_China
3. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#most_widely_used
4. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Manchuria_still_a_violation
5. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#No_consensus_for_name_change
6. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Cydevil38.2C_what_are_you_talking_about.3F_A_non-existing_place.3F
7. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#Why_.22Northeastern_China.22_is_an_invalid_name
8. Template_talk:History_of_Manchuria#The_title_should_be_what_it_is_meant_to_be

1. User_talk:Nlu#Template:History_of_Manchuria

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I brought it up. I've dealt with these guys - usually they break a rule, & disappear - for more than a year now. (Wikimachine 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
2. This user constantly violates Wikipedia policiespolicies and guidelines, the latest one being WP:CANVASS[7]. Cydevil38 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: user:Jiejunkong did not violate such a guideline (not policy). The message was directed at me, and I see no disruptive nature in his comment. Also, please do not eavesdrop on my talk page and use them as so-called "evidence" against the user in question, I am the one who decides whether or not I am being harrassed or disrupted, not you. Assault11 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering your view on the whole subject, and considering your very first comment in Wikipedia, you don't have much to say.

We can't regard Jiejunkong as a legible editor. Namecalling me as an "ultranationalist" is a personal attack. Good friend100 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. With the observation and reservation that this dispute does not really have a "right" side and a "wrong" side -- just people with different grades of misbehavior -- and that I do believe that with time and experience that Jiejunkong will become a productive editor, I'll make a (semi-reluctant) endorsement. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2. eDenE 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Mumun 無文 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
4. We've been through this before. Good friend100 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

It is certified that User:Jiejunkong and User:Assault11 are unrelated, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jiejunkong filed by User:Wikimachine. Therefore, this blatant rule-breaking RFC should be cancelled. It violated the basic RFC rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. ", see the beginning section of this page for details.--Jiejunkong 07:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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 [8], 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 [9], 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" [10] [11][12]. 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 [13][14]. 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") [15] [16]. Not only do they ignore your questioning/rebuttals on historical issues (most probably due to historical incompetence, something which user:Cydevil38 admits [17]), 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 [18]) 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)
4. Time of flight 07:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

---

:::Again, this is another communication problem. Either you didn't read my outside comment or you don't understand what you are saying. Both your claims are easily refuted.

1. It seems that Jiejunkong doesn't understand what I commented. You keep emphasizing that the Chinese people are offended by the word "Manchuria". You keep saying that the word is offensive. Offensive to whom? Nobody here thinks its offensive or it would have been changed a long time ago.

1. Are you accusing me of having partial knowledge simply because you don't agree with me? If I'm wrong simply because I have partial knowledge, then nobody here but professors and historians can comment. Its extremely rude of you to think my comments as ill-faithed and say that I'm one of these "researchers", which I don't understand who you are talking about. I'm not here to take sides, I'm making an outside comment. Mr. Killigan 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (The above rule-breaking paragraph should be sent directly to trash can because the users who wrote in "Outside view" section must not write in the "Response" section. If you want to discuss, go to discussion page for the purpose of rule abiding.--Jiejunkong 07:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Offensive to whom? You just answered that yourself. And just who are you to tell us what is or is not offensive? Mind you, we are Northeast Chinese, and this is our homeland. Assault11 07:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He failed to see the paragraph "Offensiveness is identified by the subject being offended, typically the subject described by the offensive term, not by any outsiders". His logic is: if somebody insults him but not other unrelated people, then it is not an insult by his definition. These are all technical questions and responses, it would be improper to use ill-faithed as a weapon to label other users with no proof.--Jiejunkong 07:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by eDenE

I looked into articles that have been edited by Jiejunkong. He is a great contributor to Chinese history and China-related articles. The current problem is very simple: choose between Manchuria and Northeastern China in historical articles. Korean users generally prefer Manchuria, while Chinese users support Northeastern China.

I read through many talk pages (including user talk). The only reason Jiejunkong and other users claims is that the name Manchuria is historical term that is not used anymore. (He describes the term "expired" above) However, the term Manchuria is widely used in English-speaking countries. Maybe Jiejunkong as a Chinese living in China doesn't realize which word is preferred by English-speaking population.

I live in Toronto (Ontario, Canada) where more than 1 of 10 people are Chinese. I study at University of Waterloo, where nearly half of students are Chinese. The word Manchuria is very common in fact and many Chinese uses Manchuria to describe where they come from. Many English dictionaries also simply define Manchuria a general term describing northeastern region of China, not a historical term. I do understand how the name that many Chinese people uses in China is not preferred over to describe a region in China. However, this is English Wikipedia and by Wikipedia naming convention, the name Manchuria should be chosen.

It is not highly important, in my opinion, to decide which word to use, but to stop this dispute I would support Wikimachine. In addition, many similar disputes have been already concluded to choose Manchuria.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. That's also the case in the United States. (Wikimachine 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
2. I concur. Mumun 無文 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree with Wikimachine Jegal 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree. Cydevil38 09:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mumun

I have limited my editing to Goguryeo. I was surprised to read above that the user in question has some legitimate and/or helpful edits. From my point of view the user in question and several others are here at Wikipedia to cause disruptions. The user in question and several others have carelessly used Goguryeo and Talk:Goguryeo as their playground, inserting and re-inserting original research and other bizarre material that is inappropriate for an encyclopædia project. On the Goguryeo talk page they engage in race baiting, trolling, flaming, personal attacks, and making ridiculous demands of other editors. WP:Civil is foreign to the editor in question. More specifically, the editor in question and others engaged in a highly unseemly and potentially libelous discussion about a prominent Goguryeo scholar in the USA and have come dangerously close to slandering that individual (see 'Prominent?' on the talk page). May I also remind anyone who may not be aware that the antics at the Goguryeo article have been the subject of international media coverage -- the user in question and others are partly responsible for causing worldwide damage to the reputation of this laudable encyclopædia project. How can anyone see this user as anything but hostile toward the purpose and aims of Wikipedia? Mumun 無文 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. True, especially the racial attacks Jegal 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2. This is what I said. (Wikimachine 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
3. Agree. Cydevil38 09:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Good friend100 04:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Mr. Killigan

I haven't participated in any of the discussions, but reading this RfC seems to me like the discussion was pretty loaded with nationalism and POV.

What seems to be the major problem is the lack of understanding between the two sides. I read somewhere that Jiejunkong made good contributions to Chinese history overall, but some of his edits seems to have aggravated Cydevil38 and Wikimachine.

Cydevil38, Wikimachine, and their party are obviously angry with the Chinese editors (labeling them CPOV), and I think the Chinese side has some pretty rough editing. I really don't think anybody else has a problem with the word "Manchuria". The reason to use "Northeast China" is pretty weak and there isn't much logic behind it.

Furthermore, this side has been having a discussion here, and they apparently degrade Cydevil38 as "C-guy". That discussion is filled with personal attacks.

The Korean side doesn't have a very clean record either. User:Good friend100 has a number of blocks (looking at his talk page) because of edit warring, and Cydevil38 has not been too civil either.

However, the Chinese side has many problems, and their aggressivness causes these conflicts. "Manchuria" is the most commonly used word and its a standard word for describing te region. Also, in Goguryeo, writing sections like "Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" is not helpful. Another problem is the lack of the knowledge of english and this creates communication problems hugely. The Chinese side also claims that the name "Goguryeo-China Wars" sounds like it is Goguryeo vs. China, while Goguryeo "could be Chinese so this title is wrong". Its simply a viewpoint from China that Goguryeo is Chinese. In my knowledge of this history, most historians agree that Goguryeo is Korean. The problem stems from the Chinese editors' insistence that everybody sees things in their eyes. If others agree that something is something, it is, and trying to turn that agreement forcefully will create problems. The Chinese side tried to rename Template talk:History of Manchuria into "Template of Northeastern China" on te basis that "Manchuria" is "offensive to Chinese people". This is obviously a biased viewpoint from the Chinese viewpoint.

Even though the Chinese side editors have made many wrongs, Korean editors and others have responded in an inappropiate way, like edit-warring and joining into a heated argument with name calling and accusing. If there is an obvious problem, then report it and leave it alone. There is no need to express your personal viewpoint of the editor you reported. This isn't going to solve anything, and the administrator that looks into this is not going to approve both sides in their conduct, nor will he/she give any more advice than to stop arguing and reach a compromise, which you guys have failed to do. Both sides are in a deep hole and until one side stops causing a chaos, this fight will never end. Mr. Killigan 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I admit that I haven't been at the best of my behavior in the past, and this is something I regret and I promise I will refrain from such behavior. Nonetheless, the editor in question has been engaging in relentless personal attacks and disruptive editing from a biased point of view. Cydevil38 09:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
2. This is very near the complete picture. (Wikimachine 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.