Jump to content

Talk:Paektu Mountain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

It was considered to be in Hamgyong do

A Manual of Korean geographical and other proper names romanized (1883) p. 41 "Paik-du-san" "Ham-gyong-do" At the bottom of this picture: http://i47.tinypic.com/33kvwiv.jpg

Dangun myth

Remember that when the Dangun myth was first recorded, Goryeo's northern border was far remote from the mountain. --Nanshu 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Korean Dangun myth was first recorded, Ko-Chosun which is now Manchuria. Koryo dynasty is much later after Korean three Kindom period. Korguryo-Koryo-Korea.

Locmap

I have added a map of the location of the mountain. However, I don't this map is NPOV enough. If anyone can replace it with a version that is not completely Korea based, I'd be very grateful. It's just that I didn't have anything at hand. Sorry. Have a nice day! Kokiri 09:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name Table

Can the name table be restored to this article at this time? --68.194.108.16 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fact checking

( Wikipedia Bias)

1) Baekdu Mountain is Korean. Baekto Mountain should be called in Korean Baekdu Mountain. 2) Changbai Mountain in Chinese translation it is written in Chinese and Manchu ( No Korean!!!!). 3) Baekdu Mountain ( Wikipedia page should be written in Korean only.) No Chinese or Manchu words. 4) Baekdu Mountain belongs to Koreans not Manchu or Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreanempire (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)



Can somebody please confirm the height of the mountain? I've changed it to 2750, as found in Britannica and on a page by the Chosun Ilbo. Also, can somebody check the claim for the deepest mountain lake in the world (from Chosun)? Kokiri 30 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)

FWIW, the Naver Encyclopedia [1] and the Handbook of Korea 11th ed. (p. 12) both give 2744 as the height.
The "deepest mountain lake" claim doesn't wash, not even if we assume it means "deepest crater lake." Crater Lake in the US is 597 meters deep. It might be the deepest crater lake in Asia, but I can't find a source for that. I shall remove the claim forthwith. -- Visviva 30 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
Also National Geographic gives 2,744 m as the height in their 2004 "Japan and Korea" map. [2] What we really need is a source that will explain the discrepancy... - Visviva 1 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
Cheers, this is really helpful. Not that I was any wiser, though :) Kokiri 1 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Chinese Name

I want to remove the Chinese characters from the opening paragraph, but they somehow look different from those in the name table. Can somebody check this?! Kokiri 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They are different, because the ones in the name table are for Baitou-shan, not Changbai-shan. Not sure if they should be moved to the name table or not. -- Visviva 11:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Baitou-shan is just a Chinese pronunciation of the Korean name 白頭山. Changbai-shan (長白山/长白山) is the Chinese name. The latter should be in the name table, not the former. I don't know Hanyu Pinyin nor Wade-Giles so I can't change the table myself. --Kusunose 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed the name table and fixed zh interwiki link. Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles are based on Changbai Mountains. --Kusunose 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving page name to Baekdu Mountain

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done some searches on the mountain itself, and it turns out that western publications and institutions refer it as mount Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu (Korean variants of the name), not the Chinese variant - Baitou. Examples of such institutions are UNESCO [3], The Guardian [4], Fotosearch [5], American University[6], Encyclopædia Britannica [7], All States Flag [8], Library of Congress (United States) [9] and countless others. Search on Baekdu, Paekdu, Baektu, or Paektu on google will reveal about 20,000 to 50,000 pages for each name, while search done on Baitou reveals only 500 pages. It is clear that mount Baekdu is much more commonly used name than mount Baekdu. I'll revert the pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deiaemeth (talk • contribs) 7:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

Vote

I don't know the procedural matters well enough, and if the editor who started petitioning for requested move is not allowed to vote on these matters, I'll abstain from voting. Deiaemeth 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm South Korean but I have not heard about the South Korean claiment in our country.203.170.113.178 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the Volcano side of this mountain, and I came to this page based on the Wikipedia page on Supervolcanoes. It was only because I noticed the different language versions in the corner, and this discussion that I realized that the two mountains are in fact one. Regardless of the conclusion about the name - there should be a segment on both pages linking them. (I'm not ready to start doing so.)T Crawford (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

article title, move requested

actually, per korean naming convention, it seems the article should be named "Paektusan" (in north korean mr romanization). unless it's considered a korean place, not just a north korean place name. or if "baekdu mountain" is a firmly established english name. Appleby 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

unless anyone wants to chime in, i think we can go ahead and rename this to Baekdusan, since it is an iconic place for all of korea, not just the modern north korean state. it's in the south korean national anthem and relevant to ancient korean history. so, being a korean topic, per Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Korean) and Revised romanization of Korean, this topic should be romanized Baekdusan. Appleby 18:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As for romanization, google says mr romanization is more common than revised romanization. Another thing to consider: Mount Paektu (or Mount Baekdu) is the most common form. Paektu Mountain (or Baekdu Mountain) comes next. Paektusan (or Baekdusan) is least common. And Britanica never used the last form. It only has Mount Paektu and Paektu Mountain. --Kusunose 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

googling most korean place names will get you more mr, just because rr is more recent, & some publication simply have a policy of using mr, as opposed to wikipedia's choice of rr. e.g. pusan & koryo are more common, but we still use busan & goryeo, following rr. there are very few exceptions, such as taekwondo and kimchi, where korean words have become so firmly established in english as to be loanwords. i don't think baekdusan, in any spelling, qualifies. so it's just a matter of being consistent within wikipedia.

under either rr or mr, and to be consistent with other korean mountain articles in wikipedia, "san" is a part of the word, without space or hyphenation. i'm ok with either baekdusan or paektusan, but would prefer the former, as i said, because i think it's a korean iconic location, rather than just a north korean place. Appleby 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now understand commonness of romanazation is irrelevant and the article name should be detarmined based on whether this article is genral Korean topic or North Korea specific topic, per naming conventtion. I have no preference and don't mind whichever is used. As to the other issue, I think we should bring this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). For river names, ommiting -gang and adding river is common. For islands, -do is commonly included. For mountains, -san is commonly included in Wikipedia but seems not in many other publications. We should establish naming convension that follows common English usage before moving this article. FYI, -san is also part of the word in Japanese (e.g. Fujisan) but Japanese naming convenstion says more common English usage, Mount Fuji, to be used. --Kusunose 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

i see your point too. i'd just like to see consistency, but don't have strong feelings either way. it's really a vague judgment call, but i'd say fuji (unlike fujisan) is established in english; han river (of seoul) is truly a toss-up, though i'd lean slightly against it, & baekdu/paektu (or, for that matter, baekdusan/paektusan) really hasn't entered english to the same level. i don't think baekdu mountain is "wrong," but if i were creating an article now, i'd have chosen baekdusan as the name. Appleby 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, there's no real consensus for the move, is there? Work out a naming convention for Korean place names, maybe? —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Paektusan is an iconic Korean location, RR should only be applied to places over which the ROK has actual jurisdiction. Paektusan is completely out of its geographic sphere, ergo Paektusan over Baekdusan. Also, the conventions are, on both sides of the DMZ I believe, to include geographic suffixes (e.g., -san) when they are routinely used as part of the name in spoken Korean. Ergo, Paektusan (or Baekdusan) over Paektu Mountain or Baekdu Mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deng Beatles (talk • contribs).

That seems reasonable to me. It is also in line with the revised version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), which addresses mountain names specifically. I don't think it really makes much difference, but I will gladly support such a move. -- Visviva 12:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia naming convention for Korean is unambiguous:

  • “Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of. Thus, North Korean place names use McCune-Reischauer Romanization (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies), while South Korean place names use the Revised Romanization of Korean.”

Unless the naming convention is changed, the article should be moved to Mount Paektu (which is the official name used in Enlish-language publications of the DPRK, such as dispatches of the Korean Central News Agency 조선통신사 and publications of the Foreign Languages Publishing House 외국문출판사) or to Paektusan (as suggested by the naming convention for names of mountains). In any case, the South Korean spelling “Baekdu” is not acceptable, nor it is commonly used in western languages: books.google.com gives 24 results for “Baekdu”, 503 for “Paektu”; 142 for “Mt. Paektu”, 116 for “Mount Paektu”, and 139 for “Paektusan”, mostly transcriptions. Results from scholar.google.com are similar. “Baekdu” is a marginal South Korean spelling.

Any further comments or objections? —198.145.112.147 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The link for the lake (Cheonji) at the summit of Baekdu Mountain is completely incorrect. The lake which is linked to the page is not the lake at the summit of the mountain. Take a look at the picture on the Tianchi Lake page (the lake currently and incorrectly linked to the Baekdu Mountain page). If you notice, there are boats in the picture. How exactly would boats be carried to a lake at the top of a mountain which is 2,750 meters tall? Also Baekdu Mountain is the tallest mountain in all of Korea (North and South); the mountains the background of the picture of Lake Tianchi are taller. Furthermore, the latitude/longitude coordinates of Lake Tianchi and Baekdu Mountain are similar, but not the same. Either the picture is wrong on the Lake Tianchi page (which I tend to doubt), or the link is incorrect and should be removed.

Thanks for catching that! The link is correct, the picture was wrong. As its caption said, it is a picture of "Tianchi in Xinjiang," a different lake by the same name. I have changed the image for one that actually shows the Cheonji/Tianchi that the article is about. -- Visviva 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Monster!

There should be searches excavated in Cheonji for the legendary animals that apparently "live" in it, the same as we search for the Loch Ness in that lake. Oyo321 02:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so THAT"S where Satan lives, I knew it. 24.89.245.62 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

The article says that the border was settled by Japan and the Qing dynasty (China) in 1919. However, the Qing was replaced by the Republic of China in 1912. Is that the correct date for the Gando Treaty? 68.48.166.146 13:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the article Gando, the border was settled with the Gando Convention of 1909. I have fixed the article. Thank you. --Kusunose 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the Gando Convention only recognized the borders on the Yalu and Tumen rivers. The land borders on the mountain range weren't fully demarcated until a China-North Korea treaty in 1962. --Yuje 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:KO

Please join Wikiproject Korea! It is very new and we need more help to fully establish the article and to begin working on projects. Good friend100 15:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

google

GOOGLE CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING. Didn't we go over this already? Why does everyone believe that the Google search engine can be used as evidence that this names is bad and this name is good. There are many sites that are biased and inaccurate, and nearly everything comes up from Google. Then why not use Yahoo as evidence? Or Jeeves? It is always that "number of searches found" is most important. If we must use Google, then we would have to analyze Google Korea or Google china.

And also, why can't we leave Korea alone? Why does an issue of China or Japan always have to come to rule and destroy Korea? Does everybody wish Korea was gone? Dokdo is ours, Baekdusan is ours, Goguryeo is ours...there was no such thing as Goguryeo...there is no such thing as Korea...oh the list goes on and on. Oyo321 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Admit it, Baekdu Mountain is Korean.

Oyo321, I know your concern, but please do not be emotional. --General Tiger 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


If the concern is for the weaker party, why don't we rename the page Golmin Šanggiyan Alin? It is the holy mountain of the Manchus too, and they might need some support from us here on Wikipedia.
Seriously, if the name of the mountain is known as Changbaishan in English, I see no reason why this article should be put under a relatively recent and unknown Korean Romanization. I don't think that would be supporting Han Chinese chauvinism or anything like that. You should take this to arbitration if you can't resolve this conflict, the page has been moved once already and this moving back and forward is harming Wikipedia.
Should Google be used as evidence? I don't think it can be regarded as a final authority, but it does give you an idea what name is most in use.--Niohe 13:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I never rejected google, its just that google cannot be used as a concluding device for everything. It can be Chinese chauvanism because there is no need to move this article in the first place. The article was fine the way it was until an editor decided to pop up with google searches that Changabaishan has more search results. This discussion is underway into a move war. There is absolutely no controversies in the article that requires a move or edit and there simply isn't enough reasons to move this article. Why the hassle suddenly? Good friend100 14:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I think the principle of least astonishment apply here, and if it is the case that the mountain is mostly known as Changbaishan, then that should be the name of the article.
For the same reason, the article on Mount Everest should stay under the current name, regardless of what the Chinese government might say.--Niohe 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That might make sense if we were looking at an order of magnitude difference, such as 30,000 vs. 3,000; that would suggest that one name is much more established in English use than another. However, the difference here seems to be much smaller; both names have a certain degree of currency, but neither is much more established than the other. -- Visviva 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, actually. I'll take the back-seat in this debate from now, hope this dispute can be resolved amicably.--Niohe 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This can be anything but amicable. It doesn't make any sense in using Google as evidence. Its ridiculous. We begin to fight over the number of "hits" that come up. Can't we just leave everything the way it is? Oyo321 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You're not exactly doing very much to keep the discussion amicable.--Niohe 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You're not either. But my point is that we shouldn't be using Google as a primary source of evidence for Wikipedia articles. The "hits" that come up from anything thats totally irrelevent to the article-like "changbaishan" for example, came up with thousands of tourist, not historical evidence. Oyo321 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I don't know if there's polling involved with this RM but, if so, I oppose. This is an example par excellance of the weaknesses of trying to use Google to determine encyclopedic usage. Setting aside for a moment that Baekdu has multiple transliterations (e.g. "Baekdu," "Baekdusan," "Paekdu," "Paekdusan," "Paektu," "Paektusan") that are not given in the above results, Google does not weigh the relative importance of the topic under each name. To an English encyclopedic audience, Baekdu's status as Korea's highest mountain and its role in Korean history and culture give the Korean transliteration greater weight. Redirects and a bold mention of Changbai in the first line can solve any other issues.

(And just remember that, in Google, "fuck"[10] polls higher than "sexual intercourse"[11] but it doesn't make it right for Wikipedia.)

-  AjaxSmack  04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Eruption

The article on Balhae claims that an eruption of Baekdu Mountain may have precipitated the fall of that empire. The text reads, in part:

"Recent study suggests that the downfall of Balhae is largely due to the catastrophic eruption in the 10th century of Baekdu Mountain located at the center of Balhae territory. Baekdu mountain still has one of the biggest volcanic caldera in the world Chonji."

This article doesn't mention that eruption, or it's supposed consequences, and it attributes the creation of Chonji to a later eruption. It states:

"The crater lake was probably created in 1597, when a recorded eruption took place. Volcanic ash from this eruption has been found as far away as the southern part of Hokkaidō of Japan."

What are the facts, or arguements, what evidence is there on either side, is this controversial, and are their any sources to cite for this info?zadignose 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Smithsonian database (Baitoushan) gives some information about the eruption 1000 years ago, and lists a dozen further sources. -- Avenue 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

It appears that this page and the Changbai Mountains article each link to their own discussion pages for talking about the merge, so this discussion may take place simultaneously in two places. Anyway, I'm copying my opposition comment here:

Oppose Merge Mt. Paektu, or Baekdu, or Baekdusan, or whatever you prefer to call it, deserves its own article. The very fact that its naming is controversial, that Chinese and Koreans have interest in claims to the mountain, it's outstanding status as the highest mountain in the chain, its large crater lake, and the fact that its eruption may have precipitated the downfall of the kingdom of Balhae all argue strongly that it must stand as a unique article. zadignose 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I agree with all the above points by Zadignose. I believe any of them would be a good reason to have a separate article on the mountain; together, they seem insurmountable. (I will also copy my comment to the other talk page.) -- Avenue 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the highest moutain should called Changbai Mountain, even Korean call the moutains same name. No one know Baekdu except Korean --Yeahsoo 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • comment,it's just one name disputes.I personnaly agree to merge than let it alone.But considering there are huge name disputes in Wiki,such as Sea of Japan etc,there are constant and endless talks to favour one name than another.So if we had merged the two different mountain (I cann't find other words to describe it)there will be quarrels for good.So leave it alone maybe a good solution.--Ksyrie 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Where did you get the idea that only the Koreans call Mount Baekdu as... well, Mount Baekdu (or Paektu)? Could you please care to highlight any non-Chinese organisations that uses "Changbai Mountains" to describe Mount Baekdu on their maps? Moreover, why is it that you ignore the fact that the Japanese people call the mountain "白頭山"(Mount Baekdu/Paektu)?--DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is just a strategic move made by apparently CPOV editors, all organized & planned. Look, the Korean for Changbai Mountain is "Jangbaek sanmaek". This isn't even a naming dispute & don't call it one. Gosh, the same old CPOV editors from the Goguryeo dispute. Why, you hate having "Baekdu Mountain" or a Korean title over the mountain so much that you want to incorporate it so to hide it? (Wikimachine 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC))
Listen,and just read more about my words.I absolutely had no intention to start anymore arguments between Chinese and Korean.For naming disputed such as the bordering river or mountain,we cann't find a winwin solution for both sides.Just look at the Mount Everest,the chinese and tibetan from the north side called it Chomolungma and nepal from south called it Sagarmatha,both sides have a point.So there we choose to give both sides their article to avoid further endless quarrels.--Ksyrie 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge It says "mountain range" not just one mountain like this article. Good friend100 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge this mountain should be discussed separately from the range. Kappa 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge Per Mount Everest and Himalayas. Cydevil38 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe the Chinese name for the mountain is "Baitou Shan." Koreans however, probably use it synonymously with Changbai Shan. Assault11 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge Only the Chinese people know the mountain as "Changbai Mountain". If you look at all western map printers and organisations (such as National Geographic, World Book, etc.) they will have the mountain as Paektu Mountain. Moreover, even in Asia, mountain is called "白頭山(백두산)" (such as Japan). --DandanxD 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: As of April 19, I removed the merge proposal template, as there had been no apparent consensus to merge after three weeks. It seems the new comments support this conclusion. zadignose 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 'other names'

Saying that 'Paek-tu' is another name for the mountain is deceiving. That is simply another variation of the anglicized name. If is believed that this is absolutely necessary to mention (which I don't think it is), then it should say that 'Paek-tu' is a spelling variation of the name not an other name entirely. --Bentonia School 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Geography

Is Baekdusan geographically part of the Kaema Plateau? I have found references suggesting such, but I'm uncertain as the Plateau is, well, a Plateau and it seems unual that a volcano would be part of a tableland. Also, disregarding the name, what geological evidence is there that proves that Baekdusan is part of the Baekdudaegan? Can a volcano be part of a mountain range that was formed in a different manner from a volcano? --Bentonia School 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Baekdoosan geographically part of Korean Peninsula. Baekdoosan geography follows Korean Balhae land crust plate.

Internet Meme

Quote: "During the 2007 Asian Winter Games, which were held in Changchun, China, a group of South Korean athletes held up signs during the award ceremony which stated "Mount Baekdu is our territory"."

This has become somewhat of an Internet Meme in China. There are dozens of different photoshopped images of the event, such as one saying (where the athletes hold up the placard banners) “火星也是我们的!” ("Planet Mars is our territory"). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Here are some examples.

The original image (with Paektusan) and a few photoshopped edits are here: http://www.astronomy.com.cn/x/html/04/t-62104.html

Perhaps information regarding the meme (something like "Response within China"/"Internet Culture in China") could be added somewhere within the article? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, is there any method of obtaining a free image of a Photoshop contest type image of the meme? Or comply with "fair use" for a non-free image? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 06:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing by Benlisquare

Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [12]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the name of the mountain

I'm pretty sure here are dozens of korean and chinese who know English, and some are ethnocentric. they argue for the page name for a long long time, each can't accept opposite reasons. But this is wikipedia, I hope all people can edit after you understand what is netural view. So I'm going to make a suggestion that both side can accept.

I suggest to make a standard firstly, then according the standard to name this mountain.

We can discuss and decide the standard before June, and then according the standard to collect votes till the end of 2009.

Anyone agree? Newkiomail 16:08, 11 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.31.43.24 (talk)

known locally as Changbai Mountain in China？

why say China side is locally？ 66.7.131.197 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to imply the other name is otherwise used globally, which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources cited here. I've removed it. -- Avenue (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Baekdoosan, is official Korean name. Changbai is Manchurian word not Chinese.

IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreaBaekDooSan (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"IN CHINA IT IS KNOWN AS BAEKDUSAN OR BAEKDU MOUNTAIN. NOT CHANGBAI( MANCHURIAN) NOT CHINESE."

Wrong, all primary or secondary sources in China called the mountain Changbai mountain including the manchus. I never heard the chinese call the mountain baekdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.88.14 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In Manchu the mountain was called Golmin Šanggiyan Alin ("Long White Mountain"), and the lake was called Tamun i omo ("Tamun lake"). These names appear in the early pages of the Yargiyan i kooli, together with a drawing of the mountain, showing the sources of the Yalu, Aihū (= Tumen) and Hūntung rivers. It would be nice to include something about this, given the importance of the mountain to the Aisin Gioro origin legend.

--68.49.1.69 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, according to a Korean historical source called 李朝肃宗实录 (written in Classical Chinese), Baekdu was originally the name that the "barbarians" (胡人, i.e. non-Koreans) used for the mountain:

长白山，胡人或称白头山，以长白故也 "Changbaishan: The barbarians also call it White Head (Baekdu) Mountain, for it is long and white"

I'm glad to see that the Koreans are open-minded enough to use a barbarian name for such an important national location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.105.147 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no such book. It is Chinese fabrication. 98.203.211.87 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I provided a source for my claim, now you provide one for yours. I am curious, though--surely even you can't deny that Baekdu is composed of the Chinese words for White (baek, 白) and Head (du, 頭). Sooooo...why don't the Koreans have their own name for the mountain, in their own language? The Manchus have their own name for it, in their own language. So do the Chinese. The Tibetans have their own name for Mt. Everest. The Uyghurs have their own name for the Tianshan. So why isn't there a native Korean name for it? Why borrow a Chinese name and jump up and down shouting in capital letters about how it's Korean? --68.48.105.147 (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

李朝肃宗实录 is made up by chinese. No such book. Don't spread lies chinese 98.203.211.87 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked into your claim. It turns out that 李朝肃宗实录 is the name that North Koreans use for the 肃宗实录 section of 朝鮮王朝实录. So it is a real book, and it is part of a collection that is considered a national treasure of Korea.--68.48.105.147 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the entire text is online on a site hosted by the South Korean government, sillok.history.go.kr. I have just verified the quote. I've done my due diligence. Next time you accuse someone of spreading "Chinese lies", you should do your due diligence first. --68.48.105.147 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It said "known locally" as it is referred to as Changbai Mountain only in China. And please don't justify the "popularity" of the name with a simple Google search. --DandanxD (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What is the cause of Baekdu Mountain/Baitoushan/The Mountain Under Dispute's formation? Is it due to subduction, hotspots or a rift valley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanlongwucaii (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Eruption data

Though a number of eruptions of this volcano have been recorded (one as late as the twentieth century according to list_of_volcanoes_in_Korea ), very little information about the volcanic activity is given in the article. The tenth century eruption is discussed briefly, and beyond that there is mention in passing of records from Joseon. I have to imagine there is enough information in reliable sources to add more about the volcanic activity to the article (as it stands, the article is mostly about its cultural history related to China and Korea). 209.65.62.201 (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially seeing as South Korea and North Korea recently held its 2nd Joint Conference regarding the possibility of explosion. --DandanxD (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article should indeed be splitd, in that information about the mountain range will be included in Changbai Mountains (so this should be an article about the "peak"s), while there're currently 2 major peaks of Changbai Mountains: 2691m Baiyun Peak in China and 2750m General Kim Peak in North Korea. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The highest peak on the Changbai Mountain Ranges (also known as Jangbaek Mountain Ranges) is Baekdu Mountain. Removed the Merge Proposal Template accordingly.--DandanxD (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You oversimplified the problem, because “Beakdu Mountain” does not refers to the highest peak, but a group of hiegest peaks (numbered 13) of Changbai Mountains, say "长白十三峰" in Chinese. There's no “the highest”, only “a highest”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved without consensus

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Baekdu Mountain → Paektu Mountain – I the article should be moved from "Baekdu Mountain" to "Paektu Mountain." I've read the discussion and sadly it's apparent that none of the Wikipedians understood the subject. The naming conventions for Korean clearly say that:

"Generally, place names are romanized according to the official romanization system of the country the place is a part of. Thus, North Korean place names use McCune-Reischauer Romanization (except that ŏ, ŭ, and the apostrophe (') are not used in article titles, although they may be used in article bodies), while South Korean place names use the Revised Romanization of Korean."

In this case the South Korean Revised Romanization of Korean is used - under the system approved in 2000 the mountain is spelled "Baekdu."

Under McCune-Reischauer the mountain is spelled Paektu, which is the correct romanization for North Korean place names. There can be no other variants in between aside of added -san, spellings like Paekdu are always incorrect. Moreover, "Mount Paektu" is also used also by Encyclopedia Britannica.--Kohelet (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changbai Mountain

Its name is Changbai,no Paektu!!Thank you.--Shiouloo (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of the Mountain

I find it highly inappropriate that a Korean name is used for a site that is culturally important to a number of peoples in the region, and for the better part of its history is known by other names. This reeks of Korean nationalist historiography and I am surprised that nobody has had a decent discussion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.131 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has to be called something, and it is currently more prominent in Korean culture than elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An stub article entitled Paektusan was created, with the redirect to this article removed. It seems to have been created out of a misunderstanding. "Paektusan" (white head mountain) is the Korean name for this mountain. It is not a name for "North Korea" (and the cited BBC article doesn't say that it is), though it is used in North Korean slogans, as the stub article notes. There should be more information in this article about the symbolism of the mountain in North Korean propaganda, but not a new article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have merged this material, and fixed the redirect.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paektu Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

consistency of name

Apart from the question of what name, given the article is called Paektu Mountain, wouldn't it be better for the article if this spelling was used all through? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you, the name of the mountain requires consistency Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Great Persons of Mt Paektu

i came to this article after seeing the phrase "great persons of Mt Paektu" in a few sites. Not many to be sure. It seems to be in reference to planning anniversaries for next year (the three Kims and Mrs Kim). Is it worth mentioning in this article? http://greatpersonspaektu.blogspot.ca/ --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is something about the symbolism of the mountain in North Korea under "History: Korea". This could be expanded.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paektu Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Names in the lead

@Garam: The Chinese name for the mountain was quietly removed by an IP in this edit without explanation. As this is a border mountain between North Korea and Chinese, it's standard practice to list the common names in both languages. Please do not remove without justification. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: It happened 2 years ago. And there is no objection until now. Then, it is a Wikipedia:consensus. Also, there is already the name Changbai in Paektu Mountain#Names. For this reasons, I will undo your edits. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Garam: 1. "Changbai" was removed by IP 13 months ago, not 2 years. 2. Just because nobody noticed it does not make it consensus. 3. Listing both languages is standard practice for border features, see Mont Blanc, for example. 4. Minor variations belong to the names section, common names belong in the lead. -Zanhe (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: It doesn't matter if it is 1 or 2 years. And it’s not like the Mont Blanc in this case. Also, "Changbai" is not common name. See above. Therefore, please stop reverting. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right it doesn't matter if it is 1 or 2 years, no consensus is no consensus. Changbai is actually more common than Paektu, see Google Ngram. Why don't you remove Paektu from the lead then? Please stop your POV removal. -Zanhe (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Please see Talk:Paektu Mountain#Names above. "Changbai" is not consensus. And per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Search engine issues, we should not name articles based on search engine results only. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We're not talking about moving the article (besides, the moving discussion above was closed as no consensus, meaning both names are equally valid), only about what are the common names. As Ngram shows, Changbai is without doubt a very common name for the mountain. -Zanhe (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Already I said to you, we should not name titles based on search engine results only. And that result contains Changbai Mountains. Also see user DandanxD's reply Talk:Paektu Mountain#Names. There was not talk of the "moving the article" only. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Ngram is not simple Google searches, and is commonly used in move discussions. And Ngram distinguishes between singular and plural (unlike google searches). The discussion above makes no mention of Ngram, and DandanxD was referring to simple Google searches. -Zanhe (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Ngram's result is until 2008, but now is 2018. Then, where is data during 10 years? And as of 2008, the "Changbai Mountain" is on the decline, versus the "Paektu Mountain". Also, Ngram's result contains Changbai Mountains in China, like #1. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You're not reasoning in good faith. Even in its "decline", Changbai Mountain is twice as common as Paektu. And if we add the plural to Ngram, [14], you can see that "Changbai Mountains" is far more common than both singular forms, which means "Changbai Mountain" does not include results for "Changbai Mountains", although there must be some overlap as sources may discuss both the mountain and the mountain range. -Zanhe (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I add "Changbaishan" and "Paektusan" #2. Until 2008, the results doesn't seem to vary significantly (or meaningful). Also, I cannot found in above references, like UNESCO and Encyclopædia Britannica etc. Thanks .--Garam (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
How does that make a difference? Changbaishan is also more common than Paektusan. -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I don't think the difference is substantial because that result is until 2008 (now is 2018, not 2008), and two values keep on rising, as of 2008. Also, as I have said several times, we have no other verifiability and identifying reliable sources (e.g. UNESCO or Encyclopædia Britannica) about "Changbai Mountain", except for result of Ngrams. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Again you're not reasoning in good faith. 2008 is the latest available year for Ngram, and all results up to that date clearly favour Changbai over Paektu. Besides, Ngram uses data from published books, which are among the most reliable sources, more reliable than tertiary sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica. -Zanhe (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: At first, that's the most important thing for title is "now", not the past. So, Ngram's data isn't more reliable than above references in my opinion. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Closing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure, as it has been going on for almost two months now. I think there is a clear consensus that on Wikipedia, the article about this mountain should initially, and in the article title, refer to it as Paektu. It now boils down to whether it should be Paektu Mountain, or Mount Paektu; that's not really clearly agreed below, so a follow up, narrowly-focused discussion with those two options as the only two options to decide between may now be appropriate. Fish+Karate 09:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Question: What should be the title on topic?
  • example:
  • Sea of Japan: The Sea of Japan (see below for other names) ...
  • Senkaku Islands: The Senkaku Islands are a group of uninhabited islands ... They are also known as the Diaoyu Islands in Mainland China, ...
  • Liancourt Rocks: The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto in Korea, and Takeshima in Japanese, ...
  • etc

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Here's the Google Ngram for all the major variations. As the graph shows, Changbai Mountain is by far the most common name in English books, Paektu Mountain a distant second, Changpai Mountain a further distant third (but historically #1), whereas "Baekdu Mountain" and "Šanggiyan Alin" are negligible (too rare to show up on Ngram). Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be named "Changbai Mountain", and the lead should also highlight "Paektu Mountain". The rest can be discussed in the "names" section. -Zanhe (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I just redid the Ngram with the addition of a couple more variations [15], and it turns out "Mount Paektu" is the most common name, edging out "Changbai Mountain". So I think the article should be renamed to Mount Paektu, with the lead mentioning Changbai Mountain as a common alternative. -Zanhe (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As I already said to you, the "Ngram" alone is not congruent with other references above, such as UNESCO etc. Please give me other references. And I suggest you choose from one of example above. I think type "Sea of Japan" look better than others. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Ngram is the most widely used and reliable way to determine common names, because it aggregates a large number of reliable sources. Although the latest data are from 2008, there's no reason to expect major changes in usage patterns since then. Individual references can be cherry-picked and less reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Mount Paektu as the most common name. Also the mountain is more prominent in Korean culture and is the highest mountain in Korea. It seems fitting that it should have a Korean name and not just another Chinese mountain. But why, why, why so many arguments about the name???!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: The argument is not really about the article's name (I support whatever name that is most commonly used in English, which I now believe to be "Mount Paektu"), but about Garam edit warring to remove the Chinese name from the lead, contravening WP:NEUTRALITY. He started the RfC only after I filed a complaint at WP:AN3 against him, see here. An anom user has pointed out that Garam has been blocked many times at multiple Wikipedia projects for edit warring. -Zanhe (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Mount Paektu or Mount Baekdu(Korean pronunciation: pɛ̝k̚t͈usʰa̠ɲ), also known as Changbai Mountain in Chinese and Golmin Šanggiyan Alin in Manchurian, is an active volcano on the China–North Korea border. Correct me if I am wrong on the IPA, I copied it over from Aegukga. Koraskadi (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koraskadi: I cannot support your proposal. Because there is no need to write all terms for this mountain, and it is a poorly readable. And the word "Golmin Šanggiyan Alin" is word rarely used in today. I think the case of "Sea of Japan" (→ Paektu Mountain (see below for other names) is ...) is better than your proposal. How do you think about? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Even from a rudimentary search, Mount Paektu pops out as the common-name and most appropriate title. The term 'Changbai mountain' has aesthetic ambiguity with 'Changbai mountains' which doesn't help. I suggest a more specific RfC about the Chinese name being in the lede if that is what the true issue is. This RfC is poorly formatted as it is without more issues being brought into it. Cesdeva (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Please leave a comment for this, if you want. --Garam (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought I already made my opinion clear above: the article should be moved to Mount Paektu, the most common name in English. Changbai Mountain should also be mentioned in the lead because it's the second most common name, and because of WP:NPOV. The other names are rarely used and should go in the "Names" section. -Zanhe (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to request closure from an uninvolved editor. Cesdeva (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In order to resolve this dispute, could you all clarify a few points?

  • First: is the question here solely on the proper title for this article? Or does it extend to related matters, such as specific spelling or the inclusion/exclusion of name variants?
  • Second: are there recognized standards for establishing English equivalents of Korean names, and specifically for names of geographical features? What are the possibly relevant standards?
  • Third: do China and North Korea have official English names for this mountain? What are they?
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion: 1. The question is about the title of the article. 2. There are several different standards for the Romanization of Korean (which does not just apply to English). The South uses Revised Romanization of Korean, while the North uses Romanization of Korean (North). 3. North Korea sources use both "Mt Paektu" and "Paektusan" when writing in English.[16][17][18].--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson:
  1. This question is about in main title on article, not article title.
  2. See #Moving page name to Baekdu Mountain and #Names; A standard/common name is "Paektu" as per McCune–Reischauer.
  3. Name is "백두산" (Romanization of Korean (North): Paektusan) #1 and "Mt Paektu" #2 in North Korea, "长白山" (Changbai Shan) #3 and "Changbai Mountain" #4 in PR China, and "백두산" (Revised Romanization of Korean: Baekdusan) #5 and "Baekdusan Mountain" #6 in South Korea. But the name "长白山" (Changbai Shan) also means "Changbai Mountains" in PR China.
Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand Garam's distinction of "main title on article, not the article title" (are you thinking of the display title, used where the "main-space" name can't accomodate some character?), but perhaps that is only a detail. From the two comments offered so far I take it only the title is at issue.

The reference to Talk:Paektu_Mountain#Moving_page_name_to_Baekdu_Mountain I find underwhelming. That 2006 discussion had no "debate" to speak of, and only three comments. More pertinent would be the discussion that immediately followed, which seems to build a strong case for "Paektu". Also: that move was declined (see #Requested move, above) with the comment that the proper procedure "did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined." If reference is made to any prior discussion there should be a complete summary of all relevant discussions. As there has been long-running contention of the name to use here, there probably can't be a settled resolution of this without a summary of all previous points and arguments. (And added here for future reference.)

Both Jack Upland and Garam kindly link to articles about romanization of Korean names. However, I would point out that we have WP-specific guidance on this in the form of WP:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles (a.k.a. MOS:KO) and WP:Naming conventions (Korean). The latter clearly states (under "Mountains") that: "Articles about specific mountains should be titled with the mountain's full unhyphenated Korean name ....", unless it "differs from the common name used in English sources".

It seems to me the following points are determinative:

1- Does this mountain have a well-established English name? And by this I do not mean a preponderance of usage (and certainly not as counted by Google), but whether, among English speakers, it is known by a particular name? (Like how we know a certain city in Italy as "Florence".)

2- Is this mountain (and the article about it) primarily Chinese or Korean? Or even Manchurian? Possibly an argument can be made that (being the highest point in Korea?) it is more significant for Korea, but this needs discussion.

3- Should the Korean name be romanized by the North Korean method, or by the South Korean method? Should the North Korean method be used on the basis of the mountain being a feature in North Korea?

4- Here we have an odd point. Although MOS:KO#Romanization allows that North Korea uses a variant of McCune–Reischauer, it states: "Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division." Is this acceptable?

Might there be consensus that these points are the basis for determining the proper name here? And (leaving aside #2 for the moment), would anyone disagree to the answers to #1, #3, and #4 being no, yes, and yes? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

1. North Korea's geography is not well-known in the English-speaking world. However, we should avoid using an uncommon variant of the name, because that will cause confusion. 2. It is more significant for Korea, being the highest point, a fulcral point on the border, and the mythological birthplace of the Korean nation and the DPRK. It is unimportant for China, which is a much vaster countries with many more mountains and borderlands. 3. North Korean romanisation should be used because it is in North Korea and is usually discussed in that context, not in the context of Korean geography as a whole. 4. I'm not sure what this question and your answer means. I queried this strange policy previously, but received little interest. There doesn't seem much of a consensus for it, and its persistence is due to inertia. However, I think the main effect of this policy is the use of hyphens, e.g., we say Kim Jong-un, not Kim Jong Un, and I don't think that's applicable here. Having said that, this needs a expert in Korean, which I am not.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but please note I wasn't asking for argumentation of the points, or a restatement, but whether these points (however they are resolved) are an acceptable basis for determining the result. And whether there is any objection to where these points apparently lead.
On the last point: I would expect we would use an offcially specified method. If not, then I wonder why. Perhaps there are good reasons for that, but if not, or if not documented, then my concern is that the guideline is not well-settled, and could even be up-ended. It might be helpful (and much appreciated) if someone would go through the pertinent Talk pages (such as at WT:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#Romanization of North Korean names) and provide us with an assessment of whether the current guideline is likely to be revised in the near future. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking above, and I don't understand what questions you are answering no, yes, yes to.
With regard to the MOS, when I queried the policy in 2016, I only got two responses, one implacably opposed to change. I was prompted by this discussion, which revealed that the policy was arbitrarily determined by a banned user. There was another RfC at the same time which only got a few responses but did succeed in changing the romanisation for pre-division Korea. I have watched North Korean pages since 2012 and there aren't a lot of editors involved, apart from spurts of news-related interest. Possibly, if I started an RfC, I might succeed, but I would expect there to be a low turnout. And if I don't start it, no one else will. Again, I'm not sure if that answers your question!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
At this moment the question is whether we go with the current guidance? Or an anticipated (i.e., "better") revision? Alternately, we could try resolve the main question (of the title) to the point of which name is proper, and leave the romanization of that name "to be determined" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Which shows a need for further clarification, so I will restate my first question.
Everyone, please: Which of the following elements (one or more) are in issue here:
  • A: the article title (as appears at the top of page, and in the page URL), which is currently "Paektu Mountain"?
  • B: the bolded form of the title and variant names that appear in the lead sentence?
  • C: inclusion of various forms of the name elsewhere in the article?
Or possibly something else? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: I think it is "B" and "A". And it was first started by user Zanhe's one edit. Also user Zanhe is claiming that article title also should be changed into "Mount Paektu" #1. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So back to the first point: Is "Paektu" (or any close variant) a well-established name for this mountain in English? Alternately, does anyone dispute that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Yes. There is no doubt that "Paektu" is a well-established English name. And I think user Zanhe also agree on it. #2 Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This closure was rude, as discussion was continuing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson, Fish and karate: I quite agree with it. --Garam (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Section 1

I open new section to continue the discussion. Thanks. @J. Johnson --Garam (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is closed. Any further discussion should be in a separate section, so I am popping this up (i.e., making it not a subsection of the closed discussion). Also: you should consider renaming this to something that better indicates the intended topic. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"North and South" Koreans, Olympic incident, and ROC issue

I have replaced the expression "North and South Koreans" with "Koreans", because there is no need in this context to refer specifically to which side of the division the people who believe Mt. Paekdu is their spiritual home call their home, and indeed there are Koreans outside of Korea, hence neither North nor South, who also maintain such a belief.

I have removed the notation about the ROC claiming this territory as its own. The ROC claims the entirety of China as its own, so this point is nothing specific, or relevant, to Mt. Paekdu, and there is certainly no need in the article on Mt. Paekdu to cite a lengthy reference about internal ROC rules about defining its territory.

I have changed the description of the Olympic incident. This was not someone speaking as a South Korean claiming that North Korean territory actually belonged to South Korea; rather, the ice skaters were speaking as Koreans, claiming that this was Korean territory, rather than Chinese.

main pic caption

what is meant by the "train" here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Антон васильков (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Eliminating Traditional Characters from Lead Qualifies as "Bold name changes"

@J. Johnson: How the heck is eliminating traditional characters from the lead qualify as "bold name changes"? It was not mentioned at all (nor had anything to do with) in the RfC and what I was doing is shortening the zh-templates as well as putting the pinyin Changbaishan into the zh template and putting the romanization Paektusan into the lang-ko template. I did not change the fact that the main name of the mountain is Paektu, and kept Changbai Mountain as the secondary alternative name, not changing it whatsoever, which is upheld by the RfC. All I was doing is having the lead only using Simplified Chinese, since all Chinese-based articles use only the writing of their respective regions in their lead zh templates, such as Zhou Enlai (Simplified/mainland China) and Carrie Lam (Traditional/HK), which I was doing. I suggest you try reviewing what I did instead of claiming that I am making BOLD changes to the name of the mountain. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong issue. I don't really care about what characters are used; I do care about process. The issue I see is where you proceeded rather precipitously on a matter that has been very sensitive. Because there has been some tension before between those who see this article as Chinese-based versus Korean-based, it would be better to first mention on the Talk page what you intend to do, and why. Doesn't have to be an RfC, just a comment, and give people a few days to comment. Most of the time there is no objection, and it shows that you are considerate of others. So make a simple, clear statement of what you propose to do, and why, and ask if anyone objects. Give it few days, and then you can proceed. And note that improving the transliteration of name is proper in its own right, regardless of who the article is related to. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

2016 Science Advances study

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501513?intcmp=trendmd-adv This might be useful. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paektu_Mountain/Archive_1&oldid=1155570884"