Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Northeast Asia Sea

Since this sea is shared by several countries, its English name should be neurtal that can be accepted by everyone. Maybe "Northeast Asia Sea" is a better choice.

The Controversy

I find it ironic that the Japanese were the ones who gave the name Sea of Corea and now denies it. It is clearly shown in their geographic book that the sea is named "Choseon Sea" or Sea of Corea. So what is the deal?? Japan still believes that they could police Asia but their time is long over... It is the 21st century now... No longer the 20th... So good luck to Japan... By Daniel McBeth

It is also called Sea of Japan in the map from Britain and many other sources. Which source are you looking at? Only One? I don't understand what you mean by "police Asia" when recognition of this name began from the West, not the East. So by your logic, the Western Power is policing over this issue.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant the 1895 Japanese World Atlas... There are ten different editions of this.. Before their imperial era. What I mean by policing Asia is how Japan renames every place on Asia...(Claim = "Their Imperial Era") Example such as Liancourt Rocks... Japan calls it Takeishima, while it belongs to the Koreans and its real name is Dokdo/Tokdo. Sincerely Daniel Mcbeth

Give us more example for your claim that Japan is still acting like police in Asia (besides "Sea of Japan/East sea" and "Takeshima/Dokdo" cases). This is a typical claim only coming from Koreans (and somtimes from Chinese) and not from the rest of the Asia. Who else is claiming that? It rather seems to me that the way you talk is a typical Korean who believes Korea is the center of Asian cultural evolution. Look yourself before making claim on others. Best wishes, Jean-Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.122.134.136 (talk • contribs).

Oops... Sry for the long delay of response... I had to go on a camping trip.... Well more examples of the Japanese oppression on its neighboring nations are not only between Korea and Japan.... Currently, Japan is occupying one of the Ryu-Kyu isles that belongs to China... China is demanding the return of this island but Japan is refusing... Their claim is the World War II battles over rYU-kYU islands... They're also claiming many of the underwater islands that belong to Korea and China... And also... I am not Korean.......... But I do believe that weak countries such as Korea, Vietnam, Israel and other countries are too much oppressed by other "Big" neighboring countries... Thank You... By Daniel McBeth

No way, Ryukyu (Okinawa) is habited by people that belong Japanese ethnic group. -Ypacaraí 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah~ actually.... The last ice age was proven that people of Taiwan had crossed with a boat or either when the strait emptied out.... So it'll be ethnically Chinese.... Then the Japanese invaded later on in history... See Ice Age migration routes...

Dear Daniel, "Currently, Japan is occupying one of the Ryu-Kyu isles that belongs to China... " which island are you talking about? Is it the one PR China suddenly started to claim its possesion in late 1960s, after petro have been found in the nearby seabed? I also asked you to give example of "Asian" country besides Korea and China but you do not. You think China and Korea is only Asian country? I do not agree that "Ryukyuu people are ethnically Chinese". What do you mean by "ethnically Chinese" ("Han Chinese" or what?). Adolf Hitler invaded Austria saying that "Austrian are ethnically German". Best wishes, Jean-Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.122.134.136 (talk • contribs).

The Sea of Corea

This so-called "Sea of Japan" is rightfully supposed to be the Sea of Corea. The Qing and the Wa never claimed it for themselves. The Japanese never claimed it for themselves before the problem of Dokdo happened. This is probably a move by the Japanese to claim the sea as their own. Dats one of those many things dat i cant stand bout my country's lovely, kind, honest neighbors. They're sooo honest. they NEVER lie. cough cough cough. NOT! dis isnt da first thing dat da Japs and Chinese have tried to take away from us, but i can tell you dat it will be da last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kprideboi (talk • contribs).

Hiya. First off, I'd like to encourage you to sign your comments to talk pages You can do so by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. Secondly, while your comments are appreciated, it would be much easier for all of us if you were to add them to the conversation you propose to be commenting upon rather than starting an entirely new section. Finally, while you certainly do have the right to your opinion, please do remember to be civil and refrain from using racial slurs ('japs') in making your points. Thanks. --Zonath^Yak 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please have a little bit of politeness in your comment? You Koreans can NEVER, EVER win Japan over this issue with that kind of attitude.davidmj926 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS THE SEA OF KOREA NOT JAPAN!!!! Japan is the one forcing everyone in the world to call so. The name should be changed into The East Sea! this is the fact that everyone was calling it so before Japan invaded Dokdo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongjae1981 (talk • contribs).

Japan doesn't force anyone to. People just use their heads and recognise "Sea of Japan" is the best term. John Smith's 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Media & Dokdo

Well, the International Herald Tribune uses it.

In the articles concerned with the N.Korea missile test, most maps have 'Sea of Japan' only becuase NHK (Japanese broadcasting system) was the first one to tell the world about the missile test.

Well, geographically, Dokdo (Takeshima) is more closer to Korea, and if dokdo is korean territory, we should use the East Sea of Korea.

However, because Dokdo is still a disputed area, I think it will be good to use the Sea between Korea and Japan before Dokdo's dispute ends. However, in my personal opinion, dokdo is korean territory because the koreans owned it since written history exists except for the colonnial time.

Huh? I suppose if ownership of Dokdo would actually place the Sea of Japan within the territory of Korea (just to be generous, I'll go ahead and count NK's and SK's shares together), that would make sense. But as it is, Korea's 'share' of the sea is more or less dwarfed by Russia and Japan's shares, the ownership of a jumble of rocks in the middle of the sea notwithstanding. --Zonath 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We should think from NPOV and should not think from POV. It doesn't have a meaning to talk about a supposition. In addition, It isn't appropriate to talk about the issue of possession of Liancourt Rocks here. I cannot agree to the way of thinking to connect a name of the sea with possession of Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is unrelated. Gegesongs 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, no one owns (or even pretends to own) the Sea of Japan, which is quite clearly international waters. Ownership of the Liancourt Rocks does not imply ownership over the Sea of Japan whatsoever (the Indian Ocean, after all, is not jointly controlled by India, the UK, the Maldives, Madagascar, the Comoros, Indonesia, and the other nations that have Indian Ocean territory, but rather is by and large comprised of international waters), and neither does the word "Japan" in the name (India does not own the Indian Ocean, and NATO does not own the northern part of the Atlantic, after all. And then who would own the Sea of Galilee?).--SZero 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, Dokdo is NOT a disputed area. It's clearly Korean, and Japan is just poking at it to see if they can make it theirs. I think people should recognise that. In my point of view, I think it is as stupid as saying "Oh, Canada is USA, because it's close to USA." Now, everyone would laugh at that and think you're a moron, but they don't do that to Dokdo just because it is a very tiny island, and Japan is, after all, more influential. If Korea was a big powerful country, they wouldn't have a chance to even suggest the idea. This is what I would say. IF Dokdo is Japanese, Japan is Korean. It's as clear as that. (Anonymous) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.183.153 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Japan???

There are 3 reasons why this sea shouldn't be named after Japan. First, most of the seas on earth are named after either the peninsula (e.g. The Gulf of Mexico) or the mainland ( e.g. East China Sea). Japan is just an island in the Pacific. If this sea is name after a country, it should be Korea or Russia. Second, among the surrounding countries, Korea has the longest civilization history. If this sea is named after a country, it should be Korea. Third, due to history reasons, Japan is just unpopular. Everyone in the world dislikes Japan, especially in Asia. There shouldn't be any geographic item named after Japan, except the country of Japan itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fair name (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

First of all, Mexico isn't a peninsula. It's more or less mainland, or an isthmus (if you stretch the definition). If the Gulf of Mexico was named after a peninsula, it would be either the Gulf of Florida or the Gulf of Yucatan. You might be better of going with the Gulf of California instead. In addition, plenty of seas are named after islands, including the: Balearic Sea, Andaman Sea, Bismarck Sea, Halmahera Sea, Java Sea, Koro Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Visayan Sea, and Irish Sea. Even if the second assertion could be proven, it doesn't really reflect how seas are named. And your third assertion is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be on this page. The naming of bodies of water is not a popularity contest amongst countries. --Zonath 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your comment makes no sense. Japan is one of the most popular (although I don't know what you mean by popular) countries. The only anti-Japanese countries I can think of are South Korea, North Korea, and China. Just because you and the people around you happen to find Japan not "popular", it doesn't mean much in a larger scale.

"Korea has the longest civilization history"? The Chinese may have something to say about that. Yes.... Korea does have a longer history since China's borders were near northern Manchuria.(Gogueryo era)... The Russian borders were controlled by Gogueryos back then too.. So technically, this person is right.... Also, those islands above are named like that since the mainland is no where close but to name an island... And Taiwanese, Thailand, India and other nations are anti-Japanese as well... So I agree with the "3 reasons"... By Daniel McBeth

Internaional Economy...... Now it seems to decide everything. However, it is also important to recognize the right root. Historically, the names of sea couldn`t be named after one country. Well, the gulf of Mexico...... What do U.S or Cuba people feel? Even if the two country`s people don`t feel anything, East Asins do so. Of course there is nationalism a little. Considering Korea, Russia or other Asian nations, the name - Sea of Japan -should be changed. As East Sea, Blue Sea, East Asian Sea...etc. By an internetworker

about Naming (The opinion of Korea about the map of Europe.)

[1] However, both "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan" co-existed until the first half of the 19th century.

Korea is asserted in this way but it is not said that "East Sea" was used in Europe. In fact, there was no map written "East Sea" at Europe. This is in agreement with the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This fact should be written.Objectman 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, can you add this material to the Sea of Japan naming dispute article instead? This section should be a summary only. Can you please fix it? Thanks.--Endroit 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If they say that that description is unnecessary because of a summary, it also deletes this description. "when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." It is the opinion of South Korea what relate this problem to the history of colonial rule. It is not fair to write only the opinion of S.Korea.Objectman 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that part was added by Appleby. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) And I think that part is unnecessary. In addition, I think the following is unnecessary: "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919."--Endroit 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Objectman 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Since the last post here was in February, all previous discussions are in the archives. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Japan insists that it be called Sea of Japan

Is not true. Only S and N Koreans insist on using other names on the sea. Should be modified appropriately from NPOV. It is Europeans who came to consensus on the use of the name in 19th century. Before that, there were many names applied, I agree. Japan established imperial government only in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, Japan doesn't have any power on the propagation of the name of the sea. The last sentense "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted because this is the worst propaganda. The words is here just in order to mislead readers to the POV that the name Sea of Japan have relationship with Japanese colonial rule. If you think about this by neutral and healthy mind, it is obvious that such a POV have no ground. Say, if it was Korea who have colonial rule on Japan in early 20th century, still this sea must have been "Sea of Japan" from the view of the rest of the world, because Japan archipelago (under the colonial rule of Korea) differentiate this sea from the Pacific. In that case, Koreans must have insisted Japan should be officially named East Islands. :-) Sea of Japan by The Ministry of Foreign Affair of Japan Isorhiza 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

all of these points are addressed in the dispute article & its talk pages, again & again & again. Appleby 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

so your revision was not necessary. should that go to dispute article. Isorhiza 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I delete the name listing and just leave pointer to the dispute article. Isorhiza 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

um, no, the arguments you made above are rebutted in the dispute article & the talk pages. the summary sentence in this article summarizes the dispute. Appleby 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

summary should be short and comprehensive. Isorhiza 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

and summary should not include false. I'm making arguments about the sentense, but not to the naming dispute itself. It is only you who want to include this sentense here. Isorhiza 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not fair to leave in this article your POV. Please describe your POV fully in the article of dispute. It is vandalism if you continue to paste your POV. Isorhiza 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted the paragraph is just same as your view: it is discussed in the dispute article & the talk pages. I say that the NPOV of the summary is suspicious. Isorhiza 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I deleted the phrase, because that phrase contains obvious purpose to let readers to relate the name Sea of Japan and and Japan's colonial rule on Korea. The relationship between the naming and Japan's colonial rule is under intense discussion and dispute. It is not settled at present. It is not neutral to try to add such an unsettled description in the article. The description that I deleted should be fully described in Sea of Japan naming dispute. Those who revert this edition without waiting settlement of the discussion should be banned from editing this article. I, personally like Korea and know more than a handful of Korean people and even respect them. But I hate propaganda and lie. Isorhiza 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Section merge request: Naming and Naming dispute

The section Naming and Naming dispute should be merged.Isorhiza 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919 is questionable

The International Hydrographic Bureau was formed after the discussion in the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919. The description widely used in en.wikipedia needs further investigation. Isorhiza 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming dispute subsection

What's wrong with creating Naming dispute subsection? Not everything about naming is disputed. Who's arguing there has been only one name for the sea? Who's arguing the name of the sea has never been standardized? --Kusunose 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You introduced the subcategory "Naming dispute" for the first time in Revision as of 02:15, 21 May 2006. First, I don't like the look of your edition with subcategory from the view point of esthetics. There is no other subcategory in this article. The category "Naming" and subcategory "Naming dispute" is very closely resembling and either of which does not have long description which needs subdivision. Secondly, I guess that you tried to distinguish "consensus" and "dispute". But my point is that almost nothing is settled as consensus. You placed the sentense outside of Naming dispute: "Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919." Readers may have impression that there were many names equally used before 1919, when the Bureau standardized the name. Here Korea POV can let readers think that Korea could not participate in the decision because of Japan's colonial rule, therefore the decision's effect is doubtful. However, from POV of Japan, the naming was almost settled before the Bureau standardized the name. Japan had no influence on the decision because European people decided to use the name "Sea of Japan" in 19th century. Therefore, the sentense you left there is still not neutral. My point is to leave pointer to Sea of Japan naming dispute and very brief and neutral (as far as possible) description here. Please read Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for further discussion. Isorhiza 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt rocks / Dokdo

Ive unblocked Applebys 3RR ban, accepting his argument that since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo this article should use Dokdo in the intro, and switching to a redirect is effectively vandalism William M. Connolley 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulleung Basin

just did a google for:

• "ulleung basin" -wikipedia: 9720
• "tsushima basin" -wikipedia:353

in google scholar, it's 185 vs. 55 Appleby 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I get....

"Ulleung Basin" -wikipedia 982

"Tsushima Basin" -wikipedia 357

Encyclopedia Britannica article about Sea of Japan uses "Tsushima Basin"

Did I miss something?--Endroit 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm, odd. i click on your link but get my numbers .... but i'm convinced by britannica cite, i agree it's a valid alternate name, even if far less common. Appleby 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

this is kinda bugging me, i wonder why we get diff't numbers. i ran the searches again but in english language only, & i get 508 vs. 139. endroit, do you have any ideas why? can others check & respond here please? Appleby 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How did you search? Was it hit only many Korean website? The number of hits does not become neutral basis.Objectman 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Basin is an official name by IHO since 1978. For 28 years, its been intimated with every people on earth. Koreans created the name "ulleung basin" only for distorted anti-Japan hallucination. English wikipedia must use the official name. -- Himawarichan 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We cannot trust a search result. Many Wikipedia articles of English edition is rewritten by South Koreans' organization VANK. I think Appleby is a member of VANK.Objectman 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"TSUSHIMA BASIN" is NOT a standardized name. It is a registered name, not a standardized name. Deiaemeth 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ulleung Basin" is neither a standardized name nor a registered name.--Mochi 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

it is the most common name, which is what wikipedia uses, per WP:NC. Appleby 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the google results above. There seem to be so many articles written by Korean people and Japanese people, that are not neutral. If one would like to couclude which is more common English name from the google results, he/she should filter out nonneutral ones.--Mochi 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Google is NOT an effective way to determine the most common name in English from reputable sources. You have to look at A. what is the most common name in reputable, English based (as in not from korea or japan) publications and B. the official name. Masterhatch 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V supercedes WP:NC. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable, published sources. Google results is verifiable, but contains many unreliable sources. Thank you for your input. --Isorhiza 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

do you have a source for tsushima being the more common in english? it's not surprising that the korean romanization is so common, as it is a basin off the korean coast, naturally used and studied more often by koreans, just as features off the canadian coast is probably more often named & studied by canadians, rather than australians. see above for google, google in english, & google scholar, evidence that's been good enough for you in most cases. why is it completely discounted in just this case? it's not like the entire sea of japan is japan's territory. what's with the consistent anti-korean bias? Appleby 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I could ask you the same "what is with all the pro korean bias?" anyways, i don't care what the basin is called as by the sounds of it, there is no "official" name for it. But what i do care about is that the current article is called "Tushima Basin" and so the links going there should be called that too. Also, as far as i know, there is no official dispute, so there is no reason to mention both names in an article, only on the article. If the main article name is changed to "Ulleung Basin", then the link from this page should be "Ulleung Basin". That is pretty simple, eh? (not to mention NPOV).

you gotta be kidding. "tushima basin"? that's your logic? Appleby 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My logic is that if the link going to the article is differnt than the article's name and the only reason is that Korea doesn't like the current name, then that is POV. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

the only reason that it's spelled "tushima" is because someone is trying to apply "official" name instead of common english name. unless we're going to change wikipedia naming policy, the correct name to be used in this article is the common english name, whatever errors there are in other articles. you know this policy as well as i do, in fact, you're the one who pointed this out to me, if you remember, when i asked why "south korea" wasn't named "republic of korea." as long as "tushima" is used in this article, it's not only a silly typo, but also inconsistent with wikipedia policy. it just unexpected, knowing how careful you are about applying the common name policy. Appleby 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Comparing South korea vs. Republic of korea and tushima basin vs. Ulleung Basin is like comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, i really don't care what the article is called but it makes no sense to call the article tushima basin and the link to it called Ulleung Basin. That's my point. If you want the article called by the korean name (which hasn't even been registered with the IHO yet), then lobby for it. If you are successful, then the links should be changed to match it. Masterhatch 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

if you don't care what that article is called, why don't you care about the typo and violation of wikipedia policy in this article? that article has its problems, but why duplicate the problem here? just a curious turn of events. Appleby 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this subject to get involved in an edit war of any sort. the most common English name is not always the title as there are exceptions to every rule (one exception is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim). Also, since i have done no research on this subject, i don't know why the IHO has never made the name official and I don't know where the korean name is more common than the Japanese name, and frankly, I really don't care. Has the name never been made official because the IHO never considered it significant enough to worry about? Is the Korean name only more common in English because of korean publications in English, or is it English speaking countries who are using the korean name more? What ever the reasons are, for right now, Wikipedia is using the Japanese name for the article, and the link going to the article should be the same (or similar). If you want to have the article renamed, then i suggest you go for it on that talk page. Masterhatch 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

you care enough about it to revert to the misspelled less-common name, despite the google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea. just making an observation. Appleby 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you calling "tsushima basin" misspelt or wrong? There is a world of difference between misspelling a name and using the wrong name. And for the record, my own personal POV puts offical and/or English names ahead non-official and/or non-English names in most cases even if other names are more common. That is one reason I am not a fan of google searches. Examples, i think it should be Liancourt Rocks and Pinnacle Islands. Also, I am wondering, what do you mean by, "google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea." I rarely use google as "evidence" and I think google results are seriously flawed and are easy to manipulate. Masterhatch 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, i see the spelling mistake you are referring to. I guess my eyes just glanced over the missing "s". Masterhatch 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there IS a naming dispute. Just a couple month ago, there was a standoff between South Korea and Japan. See here and here. This standoff involved the Tsushima Basin/Ulleung Basin naming dispute.

I don't care what it's called either, but don't you think the alternate name should be in the parenthesis upon first mention? I do.--Endroit 01:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I will quote from those two sorces: "South Korea delay efforts to register Korean names for underwater features in the area" and "Korea is considering proposing its own name, Ulleung Basin". Funny thing is, the way i read that, there is no dispute (yet). Unlike the East Sea, no official dispute has been made. Korea hasn't even registered their name with the IHO yet. It just sounds like the same old pissing match between Korea and Japan. Korea is trying to remove all japanese names from everything in asia and Japan is trying to preserve status quo. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The name of Tsushima Basin is the official name. But we are kind enough to write Ulleung Basin together. Korean wikipedians, if you still trying to erase the name of Tsushima Basin, the name East Sea would be also removed from the article of Sea of Japan. Because East Sea is not the official name. We can't bear any more. -- Himawarichan 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to threaten anyone with anything, now is there? Wikipedia is not about tit for tat. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

himawarichan, Japan was the one to "erase" East Sea from maps. East Sea is the official name, and I believe it is a very neutral name. Although I am against "neutral names" in the Dokdo article, the East Sea is a different matter. East Sea was not named by neither Korea or Japan. Because there is no evidence of Korea or japan naming it, I cannot support "Ulleung Basin." In fact, I don't want and don't care about "Ulleung Basin." It is an uncommon name. Everything must be kept historically true-East Sea and Dokdo. Oyo321 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"East Sea is the official name"??? It is only the official name in Korea. It's a local name.If you refuse it, you must show the evidence. Your remark is foolish. Objectman 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"East Sea" is used by 1.2 billion chinese. The only claim you have for a name is Nintendo, which happens to be derived from chinese. Hd8888 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ocean currents

I wrote about two oceanic currents yesterday, but Appleby deleted. Why? Stop vandalism.--Mochi 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby always delete topics which is disadvantage to Korea without specific reason. This user is not neutral, not suitable for English wikipedia. -- Himawarichan 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Friends, do not accuse him of vandalizing. We are no better off with our sock-puppet and Ni-channeru. Ken ta987 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of a neutral picture

I strongly recommend that this article do not use a map of the sea with the tag "Sea of Japan". Instead, I put a picture where there is no tag.

Sea of Japan is the english name, regardless if Koreans like it or not. Nevertheless, the previous map also listed alternative names where applicable, and by that is much more useful than your map. Also, watch the WP:3RR!-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the previous map too, because it's always useful to have detailed information in an Encyclopedia. It's more "encyclopedic" that way. Please change it back to the previous map.--Endroit 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... i already reverted it. Try reload. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed, thanks!--Endroit 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone edit the map to change from "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" to "Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin)" per result of the vote? --Kusunose 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated image -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kusunose 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

actually, because the recent poll was inconclusive, i think the map should remain as is, while the issue remains open. Appleby 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the poll was 57.9% for Tsushima basin, which was also the name when i first came across it on Sea of Japan, which was also the name i first use to create the map. In lack of a better option, please leave it at "Tsushima (Ulleung)" -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

i believe you labeled the map "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" yourself in november 2005, after discussion with me & endroit, & this article & map has kept that label until the current dispute that led to the consensus-less vote. Appleby 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulleung Basin vs. Tsushima Basin

The article Tushima Basin is being requested to be moved to Tsushima Basin or Ulleung Basin.
Please vote for or against Tsushima Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Tsushima Basin).
Please vote for or against Ulleung Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Ulleung Basin).
--Endroit 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

notice of poll

there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features of this sea, currently underway at Talk:Tsushima Basin. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be able to vote. Appleby 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to be offensive here, or anything, but I can't say that I approve of having page protection applied by User:Nihonjoe. Look, I actually think the position of the Koreas on this issue is patently absurd, but it can only inflame things to have an obvious Nippophile making the decision to page protect. Someone else should have done it. 68.154.210.100 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Just because I have an interest in Japan doesn't mean I can't be fair. Feel free to take a look at my edit histroy (be warned: it's very long) and you'll see that I've done my best to be fair, especially after being made an administrator. I don't take these additional responsibilities lightly. I also recommend that you create an account] rather than hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Your opinions will carry heavier weight if you take the time to create an account to which they can be permanently associated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't hide behind an anon IP; I had simply failed to remember to sign in—a great rarity for me. And what I don't understand is, that after I made my comments, and noticed that the IP was showing, rather than my username, I went back, signed in, deleted the IP, and put in my four tildes. I don't understand why it didn't change.

Anyway, of course you can be fair despite your Nippophilia. I know that. I think that I'm very even-handed despite my various leanings. I just know that this is an emotional issue for some (I'm a Seoul Man!) and I was merely indicating that someone else might have been less likely to rile up those already inclined towards passionate displays. No biggie. Have you also visited the page on the dispute over the name? They get it on over there, big time. I bowed out of that one months ago. Unschool 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

an edit needs to be made

While i strongly disagree that Dokdo should be the title of the article, it is. I think it should be liancourt, but that is a different story for a different time. but since the article is currently named Dokdo, this part of the article "Takeshima (Dokdo)" needs to be switched back to Dokdo (Takeshima)" I have been accused in the past of being a pro japanese editor (mostly by korean POVers), but i am neither pro korean nor pro Japanese here on wikipedia. If anything, I am pro English POV, which in most cases goes against Korea and for Japan. user:Mythologia is deliberately reverting to japanese pov by putting the japanese name for those islands ahead of the agreed upon name here on wikipedia (which happens to be the korean name). In my opinion, that is blatantly a POV edit and you page protected it so it can't be fixed. As for the other part, "There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community" vs. "There is a controversy between Korea and Japan" it should also be reverted back to my last edit. Why? because the international community has already decided on a name (sea of japan) and the IHO told korea and japan to work it out for themselves ei between korea and japan. Therefore, the dispute is not between korea and the rest of the world, but korea and japan. The rest of the world uses Sea of Japan, not east sea. Mythologia has been vandalising this page to add japanese pov and you edit protected it with the blatant pov still in the article. I strongly urge you to revert it back to my last edit, which is the closest edit to before the "revert war" started (which is what you should have done in the first place). Masterhatch 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of Masterhatch's comments, about the islands, but I think he is wrong about the second, and more important issue, regarding the parties to the dispute. The conflict is between Korea and the rest of the world. Japan has no motivation to discuss the issue, and the only reason that it has been a big issue over the past 10-15 years has been the efforts of Korea to persuade the world community to listen to them on this. Another way of putting this: The dispute is between Korea and the status quo (an undeniable characterization, that I hope even Masterhatch would agree with), which simply makes it their issue, not the Japanese. I think that Masterhatch is fooling himself by trying to make this into a Japanese-Korean conflict. Unschool 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While i agree that korea is trying to make it a worldly issue, it must be noted that most of the world just doesn't care. Japan cares, that is why they are ignoring it (hoping it goes away syndrome). It is between japan and korea. Since japan is refusing to deal with it, korea is trying to bring the rest of the world into it. The IHO and all other official governments just don't give a darn and are not interested in changing. It is up to korea and japan to resolve this. Status quo will remain until they do. If they never do, then status quo will exist indefinately. See, korea has no historical backing for "east sea" over "sea of japan" and the only reason korea wants the name to change is because of their dislike for japan. You don't see koreans trying to change "East China Sea" to "south sea" or the "yellow sea" to "West Sea". It is simply because of the word "Japan" that the koreans want that body of water's name changed. This is nothing more than a long series of disputes between korea and japan. Over history, korea got the short end of the stick too many times and are just trying to one up japan every way they can. I lived in korea for 4 years and i know this is how the people there feel. There is a strong "dislike" for the japanese and any way the koreans can get ahead of them, they will try. So, again, this dispute is between japan and korea, or shall i say between korea and japan. The international community made up its mind at the the last IHO meeting and has withdrawn from talks and told korea and japan to solve it amongst themselves. I will repeat, the IHO removed the international community from the dispute at the last meeting and left it up to korea and japan. Oh, by the way, i am not fooling myself into thinking that this is only between korea and japan, because it is only between them (thanks to the last IHO meeting). Masterhatch 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Well, I am glad at least to see your on-point analysis of the Korean motivations for this—I agree, their antipathy, not history, drives this campaign. I realize now that our disagreement on the parties to the issue is largely one of semantics (which, unfortunately, does not exactly solve the edit issue). You are, very understandably, citing the "letter of the law", so to speak, by giving us the IHO ruling. And of course, in that sense, you are correct. I have regarded it as a more informal debate within the court of public opinion, which is where Korea is attempting to engage the world community. Would you agree to that characterization? It doesn't tell us how the page should read, but am I correct in thinking that we are more in agreement on this issue that not? Unschool 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree totaly that korea is trying to make it an informal debate within the court of public opinion. But the key word is trying. But that isn't where the conflict or controversy is. There isn't enough people who care or even know about it outside the circles of korea and japan for it to be a controversy between korea and the rest of the international community. The part of the international community that actually might care (the IHO) made up its mind, ending any international controversy. The controversy is almost entirely among the circles of the koreans and japanese. But i think we can end this silly debate by using the sentence "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." as suggested by Zonath. Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If either of you could point to sources for your assertions you might gain some supporters for your positions. Fagstein 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything "much of the international community" is too vague to really be verifiable. What parties comprise 'much of the international community' in this case? I know that certain parties (such as map publishers and news media outlets, for example) have been dragged into the controversy, largely at the behest of Korean Internet users, but beyond those parties, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of controversy. Personally, I would leave off naming specific parties, and just say that "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." After all, the sentences immediately following this one identify the positions of Korea (South and North) as well as the common modern usage. --Zonath 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very happy with "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." Come to think of it, wasn't that what it originally said? Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

why don't we state the three facts briefly; sea of japan is the most common name; korea proposes east sea; japan opposes korea's proposal. unless anyone can cite any other country or internat'l org actually opposing korea's proposal. Appleby 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, Appleby, I think Zonath's suggestion is on-point. It's uncontestably true. I would be willing to add that the Koreas favor changing the name, but I oppose listing Japan as "the" opposing side, because, even if it's only the result of inertia, most of the world opposes the change, too. So I suggest Zonath's language as a compromise. Unschool 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

but japan is uncontestably the opposing side, no? & soj is the most common name. i guess we disagree on the meaning of "opposition", but sometimes less is more :-).

if we go with zonath's minimalism for the first sentence, for the same reason as unschool, but in the opposite direction, i don't want it implied that most of the countries are the "opposing side" either. further in that spirit, do we really need north korea's position in this brief pointer to the main dispute article? how about this version:

There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea. Appleby 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, Appleby. What say you, Masterhatch? Unschool 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Masterhatch 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Please post below a concise description of exactly what decision all of you have reached, and then indicate your support (or not) of this decision. If a consensus has been reached, then I will unprotect this page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of decision reached

There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above.

• Support. Unschool 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks ok to me i guess. Masterhatch 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) user john smith's said it all "Although Sea of Japan is the [most] commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." I give all support to that. It is fair and accurate. Masterhatch 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Zonath 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Appleby 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sea of Japan is the most common name currently sounds very weak, since pretty much everybody except Korea uses Sea of Japan. Also, where in the text should this statement go? Is in in the intro, or later in the description of the naming conflict? -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Chris said, the statement about "Sea of Japan" is far too weak. The fact is that Korea has little or no backing, so it shouldn't be given as much weighting. It's also highly vague as to the history. It would need to talk about what the most commonly used term was in the past. I do not see what is wrong with the current statement on the article. John Smith's 16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Please read this history[1]. This poll was changed its content by User Unschool. This is first version by 日本譲[2].　I think this poll is invalid.Mythologia 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, John Smith's and Mythologia. --Questionfromjapan 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, Mythologia　--Jingxin 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, John Smith, Mythologia, Questionfromjapan and Jingxin. In addition, who can understand the meaning of the "East Sea"? Allmost of the people on this earth have never live in Korea. Even Koreans haven't lived only in Korea throughout their lives. What ridiculous name the "East Sea" is! On the other hand the name "Sea of Japan" is easiest to associate the sea between Japan and the Eurasian continent. That is, Sea of Japan is the best title of the articles about the sea between Japan and the Eurasian continent. Why admins need consensus poll? Admins of english version also wanna call Hwa-byung Koreans' attack by sockpuppet like japanese version by Hwa-byung Korean admins? I think it is clear that this problem is caused only by too self-satisfied Hwa-byung Koreans. --⇒Shougiku Wine 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're the only one with "hwabyeong", you sockpuppet. Just so everyone knows, Shougiku Wine was recently identified as a sock puppet account of Mythologia.--Sir Edgar 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Kamosuke 09:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per　Mythologia--Celldea 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote doesn't count, Mythologia/Shougiku Wine.--Sir Edgar 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has any specific objections, let's scrap this poll and move on to the next one, since it's patently obvious that the consensus opposes this change. --Zonath 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Why not put my suggestion up with a second poll? John Smith's 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

polls are just not going to work until things calm down. what we need is a rational discussion of evidence and wikipedia policy, not a tally of how many uninformed votes each side can marshall. the protection will remain until some admin takes some bold actions, after taking the time to understand what's going on here. Appleby 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think my proposal is far more neutral. I think we should put it to the vote. John Smith's 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it one more try, since it seems that discussion on this topic has more or less dried up, and nobody has yet to put forward a more reasonable alternative. Perhaps John Smith's suggestion will be able to generate more consensus than the previous one. If not, we'll most likely just have to be content with leaving this page in a protected state for at least the foreseeable future, as I don't really believe that this dispute is going to just go away. Heck, maybe it's in the best interests of the article for it to remain protected -- after all, this is pretty much the longest stretch in at least a year that the article hasn't been vandalized. --Zonath 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Chris said, the statement about "Sea of Japan" is too weak. It's called the Sea of Japan in English and that's that. However, the area has many islands and resources disputed by Japan, Korea (N & S), and China. How about a short paragraph detailing the naming dispute added to a section about the geopolitical disputes? Wouldn't that be enough? It's interesting that the map in the Chinese version lists it as the sea of Japan. I don't read Korean but the Korean article's map has a slash between two names, one of which I presume is "East Sea" in Korean.Vincent 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Was the poll announced on the proper pages? (e.g. Japan/Korea portal, etc)-- Chris 73 | Talk 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. So long as everyone remembers that Wikipedia is not a democracy, everything will be fine. :) John Smith's 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't change anything! I wasn't the one who even came up with this wording. I just happened to be the first one to indicate approval of the wording that someone else picked. Unschool 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

>Unschool. You overwrote the text mentioned below and changed content of poll.

"Dcription of decision reached

Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above."

This conduct is a vandalism. Don't overwrite others' text in discussion page.Mythologia 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you have got to be kidding me. You have got to be joking. Look at these words:

Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.

Nihon was asking one of us to replace the text—that very line—with the text that we were agreeing to. He saw that we had appeared to reach consensus, but to make sure that we were all on board, he placed that line in there, requesting that one of us replace it with our consensus decision, and then leave that consensus text there to be posted, and to be voted on. If you don't think that's what was supposed to happen, then what do you think the purpose of the post was? Please have the passage read to you by someone whose primary language is English, and maybe they can make it clear to you. A request to replace a piece of text requires that the original text be removed and another piece of text put in its place. Jeesh. Unschool 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to apologize to everyone for my outburst there a few moments ago. I just looked at Mythologia's user page and realize now that, in his short time on Wikipedia, he has already demonstrated, not only poor English skills, but also has a good deal of difficulty in getting along with others. I should have reviewed his page before I wasted my time on such an outburst. Anyway, the poll is not invalid, the poll was not vandalized, and Mythologia is not worth arguing with yet (though I hold out hope; many newbies do come along and eventually learn the ways of Wikipedia. I made a few misteps in my first week or two.) Unschool 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made two warnings for you about Civility on this talk and Personal-Attack on user:Mythologia. Please be civil and please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 23:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you read the writing which 日本譲 wrote? > Unschool. He wrote that writing to make consensus of unblocking this article. Not about the renameing this page. You changed his aim. This poll is limited it's effect by 日本譲's definition. You changed the contents of poll. So your vote is invalid. Mythologia 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that this was ever about renaming this page? As best as I can tell, that has never been an issue here. There is already an entire article about the dispute of the name of the sea, and that was not what the discussion was about. We were only discussing the actual wording of the final paragraph of this article. That paragraph currently reads:

• There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community over what the name for this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Most countries use the name Sea of Japan, but South Korea insists on East Sea. North Korea supports South Korea's position but uses East Sea of Korea.

and Appleby, Masterhatch, and Zonath and I were discussing wording of that final paragraph that would be more acceptable. I believe it was Zonath who suggested this wording:

• There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.

There was no discussion about renaming the article, just over what would be a reasonable, non-POV wording of the brief mention about the dispute of the name. Because this article is about the Sea in general, and not just over the dispute, the mention of the dispute needed (we all thought) to be short. And this version seemed to be accurate and non-POV. Look, I really must respect you, Mythologia, for having as good a command of English as you do—goodness knows that I speak no foreign languages as well as you speak English. Nonetheless, it clearly is making it hard to discuss matters with you, because you are consistently misunderstanding the fundamentals of what is being discussed. I would recommend for you the same advice as I need to take myself—be patient before making accusations; ask questions before making assumptions.

Anyway, the reason the page was being blocked was because of problems with this last paragraph, n'est-ce pas? Unschool 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The beginning of blockings has cause in a raid of changing of Liancourt Rocks to Dokto. So I might be too nervous about naming dispute, but I cannot help feeling your aim of this points. And if people in Japan didn't read the articles about Japan, those articles will be rubbish with one-sided way of looking those things like you know as Dokto.Mythologia 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just finished reading over the entire discussion page (which I should have done earlier). And, Mythologia, I must say, though there are a couple of comments about these tiny rocks, it seems that you have again missed the point. The point here, the issue upon which we were voting, was simply about the name of the sea, and the issue of the rocks needed to have nothing to do with it.

Beyond that, to those of you anti-Koreans who are voting against this because you think that this was pro-Korean language, you need to reconsider. Although it is subtle, I indicated that I favor Zonath's language not because it mentions the Korean name East Sea, but because it more importantly establishes that Sea of Japan is the status quo, and that only Korea wishes to change things. Personally, I think that Sea of Japan should remain the name, and I think that that VANK is on a Nippophobic witch hunt with this change. But so many of you—on both sides of this issue—are so full of vitriol that you can't recognize a fair compromise when you see it. Unschool 06:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You know VANK? So you are sure to know the real state of affairs. What I want to do is only to make wikipedeians known another viewpoint of things that isn't brought by VANK. In far east Asia, particularly North Korea, South Korea and Japan are in social unrest situation which are brought from lack of information in North Korea, South Korea and Japan. If we are well-informed, this situation will be changed to better one. So I struggle as far as I can.:-).Mythologia 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys, let's take time-out here. To be honest I think it's obvious the edit that was proposed is not as good as everyone originally thought. I doubt a consensus will be reached with the current suggestion, so let's open it up and discuss a better one. John Smith's 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it a great edit? No way. But with a subject as volitile as this one (I assume you've spent some time looking over the archives of the discussions at Sea of Japan naming dispute) sometimes vanilla is as good as you're going to get. Frankly, given the history of the debate, I think both sides would be giving a lot of ground to accept such laconic phrasing. I would really like to put Zonath's wording in the final paragraph and get the page unblocked. Unschool 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but another edit war will start if anyone tries to change it, won't it? Seriously I can think of something better. Let me try.

"Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."

How's that? It gives proper reference to how the current term is accepted, without trying to say Korea is "causing trouble", etc. John Smith's 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I really don't see this as a huge deal, and I can't believe that I've allowed myself to expend so much energy on it. This dispute is going to go on for years, will not be settled here, and probably is best left to the hypersensatives who a) won't let it go, and b) really are in no position to do anything (vis a vis the real world) about it. To top it off, I've just had somebody on my user page accusing me of instigating an edit war! My god, I've literally made one edit on this article in the last 9 months, and some hypersensitive accuses me of "instigating an edit war"? How does one instigate an edit war without editing an article? Some of you people must walk at an angle from weight of the huge chip you're carrying on your shoulders. Yes, my tone is non-civil right now, but I tend to get a bit annoyed with people who fabricate statements and try to pass them off as facts. Good night! Unschool 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of nerves are getting frayed regarding this as well as other protected pages relating to Japanese/Korean disputes. It's obvious that the current suggestion isn't generating the sort of consensus that would be necessary to get this page unprotected, so I would personally like to invite those that have opposed the current suggestion to step up and suggest something that would be acceptible to them. Simply jumping into the discussion once a poll has started (more than a week after the last comment was made to this page) in order to indicate opposition without suggesting a reasonable compromise is unhelpful in the extreme. As for John Smith's suggestion, while I can see where some might object to it, I would be perfectly willing to live with it. --Zonath 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't really see a solution to this until some neutral admins just invest some time to read through what's been going on here. nationalist mob rule will prevent any rational discussion of evidence and policy. time and again, i've been fooled into negotiations and concessions only to have all the work crapped on by last-minute barrage of bs. i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesn't see any "discussion" to participate in on these poisoned talk pages. Appleby 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile putting my suggestion up for a vote. It is undeniably more neutral, while still showing Japan's term is the more widely used one. John Smith's 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution

Description of possible solution

Replace the opening paragraph:

The Sea of Japan (East Sea) is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean. Like the Mediterranean Sea it has almost no tides owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific.

with the following:

"Sea of Japan is the International Hydrographic Organization term for a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean. While Sea of Japan is more commonly used in international English language publications, South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea and North Korea has argued for the East Sea of Korea. It is surrounded by Japan on the south, Japan and the island of Sakhalin on the east, South and North Korea on the west, and Russia on the north. The sea is accessible by the Korea Strait on the southwest, the Tsugaru Strait and the La Perouse Strait on the east, and the Strait of Tartary on the north. Like the Mediterranean Sea, it has almost no tides owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific."

This would replace both the first paragraph and the last section (Naming), and do it in a way that still preserves neutrality and fairness.

Thoughts on the above proposal

After poring over the discussions above, I have come up with what I believe is a very fair, accurate, and neutral opening paragraph for this article. I think it fairly addresses all of the concerns expressed here, while still adhering to the neutrality that Wikipedia requires. It also follows common descriptive opening guidelines for geographic locations.

Please post your thoughts on the above proposal here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm slightly confused here. I thought the problem was the last section. Is there also a problem over the introduction as well? Is this proposal to replace the current introduction and the last section as it stands now?

Can someone just clarify - I've withdrawn the new poll until now. John Smith's 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've clarified that. I forgot to include the bit about the last paragraph. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the above proposal, I think it should read "While Sea of Japan is the most common name used in international English language publications", given that it is the most common name used. John Smith's 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Using "more" is more correct, and still accomplishes the same thing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that much of the original dispute was over the wording of the 'naming' section of the article, rather than that of the first paragraph. I suppose we could always just return the mention of the dispute to the top of the paragraph, delete the 'naming' section, and put the 'dispute over the naming of the sea of japan' article in the 'see also' section, but that pretty much enc

ompasses more radical changes than we've been discussing, and might be a lot less likely to achieve a consensus as a result. --Zonath 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I think your proposal might be too bold. Can we put that on the back-burner and try mine out instead, first? John Smith's 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think with the change I'm suggesting it will address all of those concerns. I do agree with including a link to Sea of Japan naming dispute in the "See also" section. I think it is good to make sure people know about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

in general, I think this is a good suggestion. I guess the question would be which of the current proposals we should vote on first, whether there should be a concurrent poll, or what. I'd like to see some more suggestions from other quarters, but it seems like there's a lot of people waiting in the wings to oppose whatever suggestion is made, rather than discussing anything. --Zonath 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of silly? People coming here want an article on a body of water, not a naming dispute. If they wanted a detailed explanation of the naming dispute they would go to the article created on that subject. Common sense would say that the intro should be about the Sea of Japan, not the use of the term "Sea of Japan" worldwide. Fagstein 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Fagstein. To many Korean Wikipedia users, the naming dispute is certainly the most important aspect of the Japanese Sea, but to people in general who want to read about the Japanese sea, it is rather unhelpful. Mackan 11:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. The naming dispute should not be at the top. John Smith's 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, should we go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion, then? --Zonath 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, his suggestion is the best by far.Mackan 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I included it at the top is because WP:MOS indicates that all of the common names for something should be mentioned right at the beginning of the article. Mentioning them in the way I did presents the alternate names in a neutral manner, and provides a link to the naming dispute should people be interested in reading about that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sea of Japan (East Sea) accomplishes the goal of mentioning all the common names of this body of water rather elegantly. I think a lot of people on the Sea of Japan side seem to oppose mentioning the dispute in the first paragraph, since that could give undue credence to what is, essentially, a minority view. Modifying the first paragraph so drastically might end up causing more problems than it proposes to solve. While your suggestion is a good one, and worth considering, I think we should go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion for the time being, seeing as how discussion has (once again) more or less dried up here. If nothing else, maybe we can get a little more insight into the positions of the relative parties. --Zonath 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, come on. Just put my suggestion to the vote and get it over with. :) John Smith's 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's--forgive me for being a bit dense; which is yours? It's a little confusing--is yours the "above proposal"? LactoseTI 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine is "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." John Smith's 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we move it to the "West Sea" (of Japan) (This is a joke! :D) John, it seems like a decent proposal; I assume this is intended for not the opening so much as the farther down part? I'll watch for if someone sets up a vote. LactoseTI 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to go lower down. And I'll do it myself. John Smith's 12:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal, new vote

Ok, guys, let's try this again, as it's clear the first proposal isn't going anywhere. I have changed the proposed edit to what I think is fairer. If it's still not going to get a consensus, then fair enough - but I want to try. John Smith's 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of decision reached (mark 2)

Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition.

(This will replace the "Naming" secion)
(The poll will run for 2 weeks from 31.7.06 or until 1 week has elapsed since the last vote - whichever comes first)
(For a "consensus" to be reached, there will need to be a 60-40 majority)

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your opinion of the decision described above, by writing Support or Oppose with the reason why you wish to vote that way.

• Support, for reasons outlined above. John Smith's 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per above. LactoseTI 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. seems about as Japan-POV as possible. Korea "pushes" instead of "proposes", factually incorrect about "international recognition" as most major internationally respected encyclopedias, dictionaries, and mapmakers have adopted east sea as an alternate name, creates impression "internal community" is against korea, when in fact japan is the only actual opponent of korea's proposal, and no international body has rejected korea's proposal. seems carefully worded to be pro-japan in every wayAppleby 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, not perfect, but acceptable -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as per Chris 73. The proposed wording is more accurate than the current text in the article.--Endroit 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, let's get this over with. (per above)　Mackan 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose No vote yet. "pushes" and "argues" etc. are odd words and are unreferenced. Fagstein 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "advocates" and "insists" respectively, myself. But the current wording is OK also.--Endroit 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest we make small changes like that after the page is unlocked. Otherwise I'll have to shut down the poll and start it again. John Smith's 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. We should deal with wording issues after we agree on the wording. Fagstein 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Sounds fine to me. Hermeneus (user/talk) 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I have only ever heard of this referred to as the Sea of Japan. I would imagine the vast majority of those sources that call it "East Sea" are either Korean or going out of their way to be especially politically correct. And they are in the minority. (The actual article title isn't being touched, right?) LordAmeth 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the title is not being touched at all. Just the bit at the bottom of the page. John Smith's 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Needs slightly more neutral wording (as others have mentioned) but otherwise good. CES 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think most reasonable people should be able to live with this one for at least awhile. While some of the words might seem problematic, they're not necessarily overly loaded towards one side or the other, and we can always discuss further changes once this poll is over. For now, this is a good baseline. --Zonath 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good to me. Komdori 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• No vote yet per Fagstein, CES, and Tortfeasor. Then I'll pledge my support full-heartedly. —Mirlen 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The first and the last sentenses is intrinsically the same and I think it is too much. I also prefer the wording of Endroit like this:

Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea advocates the other names to be used. South Korea insists that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. --Jjok 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The basic content is fine, but the wording and phrasing have some neutrality problems that should be fixed first. --Reuben 00:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with no sense of hope for the future; it's not perfect, but even if it were, as soon as this is unlocked, the edit wars will rage again. Unschool 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Masterhatch 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no state called "Korea" and the term "push" is POV. Also, the sentence, "However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." is inaccurate as some sources have used "East Sea" alone or in conjunction with "Sea of Japan". This one needs to go back to drawing board.

A better paragraph would be something like...

"Although Sea of Japan is the standardized name of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and a widely used term worldwide for this body of water, South Korea has advocated the use of East Sea instead. There is an ongoing dispute about this naming issue."

By the way, the opening paragraph needs to delete "East Sea" in parentheses. It should only say "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" must be mentioned as only a proposed name by South Korea. "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" can be used in Korea-related articles though, just like "Dokdo (Takeshima) is used in Japan-related articles".

If there is greater recognition of "East Sea" as an alternative name for "Sea of Japan", I can certainly see such use in this article's title and text. However, as it stands, "Sea of Japan" should be used alone.--Sir Edgar 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Appleby and others. Publicola 05:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Questionfromjapan 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- this is a neutral and fair wording that reflects the reality of the situation; perhaps the word Korea could be changed to "the Koreas" or "North and South Korea" ", etc. --Westee 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Appleby. It's apparently neutral, but wording and nuance are too Japan POV. Ginnre 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support per LordAmeth. Gegesongs 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support Reuben's paragraph in the discussion section below: "This body of water is most commonly referred to internationally as the Sea of Japan. South Korea has proposed the alternate name East Sea, and North Korea has proposed East Sea of Korea. These names have not attained wide international usage outside the context of Korea." Dekimasu 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You last statement is not exactly accurate. Many major news and reference sources are increasingly using simultaneous labeling as they recognize the IHO's stance on such.--Sir Edgar 01:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weak and weaselish. In English it's called the Sea of Japan. FWIW, look at the Korean version version of the article: the name on the Korean map separates East Sea and Japan Sea with a slash (East Sea is first though). I don't read Korean, but I compared the title of the Korean article on Japan and found the two characters matched the two characters after the slash. In the Chinese and Russian articles, the maps label it "Japan Sea" without "Eastern Sea". Vincent 02:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page has already been unlocked so I think we should work on a more neutral wording. Tortfeasor 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed

Votes: 15 for, 10 against = 60% majority Result: Poll conditions reached = Poll successful John Smith's 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hold your guns: The vote needs a clear ending date (e.g. 2 weeks), how to count the vote (e.g. 50% support or more is needed), and voting criteris (e.g. 1 month activity and 100 edits before start of vote), and the vote should be announced on the respective portals, projects, and poll pages. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it was a straw poll... I think that's what this is. LactoseTI 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, I would suggest to do it properly, otherwise the loosing side does not feel to be bound by the vote (based on my previous experience) -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited it. 2 weeks or 1 week from last vote; 60-40 majority. But this is an informal poll to get the page unlocked - please don't over complicate it. Besides, if people REALLY want to cause trouble, they'll never accept the decision. If they are reasonable, they'll use common-sense to see whether there's a consensus or not. John Smith's 13:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Appleby is someone that will never be happy. John Smith's 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fagstein, we're trying to get the page unlocked. If we can do that references and small changes can be made. But I'm not stopping a poll if people want to pick at words. Otherwise the page will stay locked like this forever. John Smith's 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i think the urgency is getting a properly grounded consensus, not in getting the page unlocked in a hurry. probably best to get more input on the wording, and have the 2-week period start after the poll has been posted at relevant japan/korea discussion pages, as a lot of editors have tuned out the endless diatriabes on this specific page.. Appleby 18:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Appleby I disagree. I think what we have is fine to start with. John Smith's 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus to halt or redo the poll, we'll see it in the vote counting. As of this moment, there's no such consensus.--Endroit 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we add a sentence that includes the fact that many reference works and some reputable English-language news sources use the term East Sea, in many different combinations with the Sea of Japan or by itself sometimes? (For the evidence just look in the East Sea discussion page archive.) It seems a little one-sided right now espcially since the UN seems to be using the current name to preserve the status quo until both countries compromise. Tortfeasor 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not now that the poll is running. Further proposals will have to wait until afterwards. John Smith's 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is preferable to protect the page until the naming dispute settles, because as soon as it is unlocked, edit war will resume. --Isorhiza 03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at the above proposal, the more biased it appears. It basically says, "Although everyone in the world uses Sea of Japan, Korea is being a pushy little brat and wants its own name. Both the names South Korea and North Korea are proposing have been rejected by all." This is not true and totally POV.--222.233.205.70 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And remember this... "In 1974, IHO released technical resolution A.4.2.6 independently of this dispute. This resolution is frequently referred to, although it only gives general guidance. It endorses the principle that when the sharing countries of a geographical feature do not agree on a common name, the different names should be recognized simultaneously."

Also... "Rand McNally and the National Geographic Society have used both Sea of Japan and East Sea concurrently. Many other publishers have responded similarly, such as The Times (of London), Financial Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, World Book Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary, World Atlas, and About.com, usually including "East Sea" as the secondary label."

Totally agreed. The proposed text reads like an argument against the alternate name "East Sea" rather than a description of it. To make it neutral: 1. Break up the first sentence to avoid somewhat loaded comparison; 2. Replace emotional word "pushed," and try to avoid "argued" as well; 3. Avoid reference to nebulous "international community"; 4. Rewrite bit about "formal international recognition," as it's not clear what that would mean. --Reuben 02:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"This body of water is most commonly referred to internationally as the Sea of Japan. South Korea has proposed the alternate name East Sea, and North Korea has proposed East Sea of Korea. These names have not attained wide international usage outside the context of Korea." --Reuben 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where were all these great suggestions a week ago when we were still trying to hash out a decent proposal for the poll? Just a couple of notes on the arguments against the current proposal:

• No formal international recognition - I take this to mean recognition by either nations other than Korea (South and North) or by international organizations such as the UN or IHO. I'm not entirely sure either that the official positions of the international organizations in question (i.e. we'll use 'Sea of Japan' until you all settle this) would count as 'formal international recognition.' And we can always add in the fact that the name 'East Sea' is used as an alternative name for the body of water in several influential publications later. This is not necessarily to be the entire content of the naming dispute portion of this article, but rather a good baseline that will hopefully quell some of the more contentious edits.
• No state known as 'Korea' - True, but both North and South Korea take a fairly common position on this. However, I don't think that substituting 'Both North and South Korea' for 'Korea' would be a controversial edit to make once the page is unprotected.
• "Pushes" is POV" - Although I can see where some people might feel so, I can't really agree that 'pushes' is POV enough to scuttle this whole proposal. Again, once the page is unprotected, replacing that term with some kind of more neutral synonym might be a wholly uncontroversial edit. If not, we can always bring it back here and discuss further.

I feel that the above propsal is reasonably NPOV, despite whatever shortcomings that might exist. Again, I don't believe the above proposal is perfect either, but it's the one that came out of the discussion between the 8 or so people who have been trying to hash out a proposal that will satisfy a majority of the people who are interested in this article. --Zonath 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is completely POV. There is substantial opposition to it and I don't expect it to remain stable. Another paragraph will be needed because it will just be edited again.

After doing my research, I've changed my mind from my previous position and think the title should be changed to "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in accordance. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not what is right or wrong, and the reality is that this simultaneous use is being more commonplace. Even the IHO has said that "the different names should be recognized simultaneously".

So, simultaneous recognition is a growing trend and the use of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is increasing, not decreasing. Wikipedia should act progressively, not as a backward, outdated source of information that opposes change. We must reflect changes, not deflect them with statements that sound like POV retorts.--Sir Edgar 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sir Edgar. Simultaneous usage of East Sea (together with Sea of Japan) does not qualify it as an alternative name for Sea of Japan. East Sea is almost never used alone except in the context of Korea. Perhaps Sea of Japan (East Sea) (intact with parentheses) may be used almost as often as Sea of Japan alone, but rarely East Sea alone. East Sea used alone in the English language is obviously NOT an alternative for Sea of Japan except in the context of Korea.--Endroit 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The following are recent usage of Sea of Japan (used alone without East Sea) in the news media: BBC News, The Times (of London), MSN (MSNBC), USA Today, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Chinese People's Daily, ABC News, Fox News, New York Times, Taipei Times, Korea Herald, Wall Street Journal.

If any of you are claiming that East Sea is a widely accepted alternative name for Sea of Japan, I ask that you show a significant amount of links showing East Sea-only usage (witout Sea of Japan).--Endroit 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said use East Sea alone. Read carefully.--222.233.205.70 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: I guess they do, because they try to say something along the line of "East Sea is intenationally used." In reality it's more like "Sea of Japan (East Sea) is internationally used." It's wrong to say that East Sea is internationally used or accepted.--Endroit 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Endroit. Masterhatch 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a logical conclusion. Gegesongs 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, I'm really sick of your sloppy reading skills. Where did I say "East Sea" should be used alone? Where? Show it to me. What I meant by simultaneous use is the phrase "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".--Sir Edgar 08:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Right here, Sir Edgar. You were implicitly saying that "East Sea" was in wide international usage.

First, in response to Dekimasu, you are in fact denying his statement "These names have not attained wide international usage outside the context of Korea." By denying his statement, you are suggesting that "East Sea" is in wide usage. According to my definition, wide usage of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" does NOT mean "East Sea" is in any wide usage. Dekimasu was correct in saying that "East Sea" has NOT attained wide international usage outside the context of Korea. And that was the first point for which I was disagreeing with, Sir Edgar.

Secondly, Sir Edgar, you have suggested "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" as the title of this article. But in reality, "Sea of Japan" is the primary name, used primarily throughout the world. "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is the secondary name. "East Sea" is not even used much at all. In any case the title and the first mention in this article should both be "Sea of Japan" (alone). That is the second point I disagree with.

Also, Sir Edgar, I object to your wording "simultaneous use" because it is terribly unclear. "Simultaneous use" may imply "alternative use of East Sea (alone) is common" to some people. You should have said something like "simultaneous use such as in Sea of Japan (East Sea) is also commmon".--Endroit 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion is you just don't read very carefully. I never said "East Sea" should be used alone. Find that statement. Instead of claiming I "implicity" said or "suggested" it, find it. Otherwise, I think you should apologize for another sloppy interpretation of the written word. And you can object all you want to my wording of "simultaneous use", but the IHO uses the term simultaneous recognition and this has been increasingly adopted by the international media and academia.--Sir Edgar 23:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, perhaps your intentions are not so bad. However, the real conclusion is that you don't write very carefully. If you did, you wouldn't use such sloppy wording as "simultaneous use". You only have yourself to blame. And nobody wants to elaborate on the IHO's position in this passage except you. Try to understand that this passage is intended to be a short summary, to redirect people to the Sea of Japan naming dispute article, if they want to know the details. Also, try to get everyone's consensus first, before you start editing this passage. Otherwise, you'll end up getting reverted.--Endroit 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is you can't find where I said "East Sea" should be used alone. Please read my statements carefully going forward and refrain from assuming I said something. There is nothing wrong with the updated paragraph. It is more NPOV and introduces the reason why there is a naming dispute. If the IHO did not recognize the validity of simultaneous use, then the previous version might be more applicable (despite being POV).--Sir Edgar 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar--you seem to be saying that there are two alternate names that can be used. That's the only way the quote from the IHO you keep giving would apply, no? I strongly doubt you will find a consensus to back up your current paragraph. LactoseTI 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's partly because the IHO recognizes the dispute, that there is a dispute. Also, I did not say alternate names. I said simultaneous use which is like "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", an increasingly popular term for the body of water.--Sir Edgar 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper conduct in poll and carrying out of it.

I object to the proceedings of the poll as the version that has been put forth in the article's edit is different from the one we're voting on. See here:

Poll proposal- "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."

Current edit- "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, both North Korea and South Korea have advocated for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."

You cannot say one thing and do another. People voted on the poll's initial proposal, not the current edit. Just because you realize that the wording is highly biased, doesn't mean you can try to soften it and it will be acceptable to all.

Also, the current vote shows 15 in favor and 10 oppose. That is exactly 60%. Hardly consensus. And Wikipedia rules suggest more than 60% to avoid future conflict.

By the way, you need a comma after "However".--Sir Edgar 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Many voters opposed the Push as POV, hence it was changed. And, e.g. for page moves, 60% is acceptable. Where did you get the Wikipedia rules suggest more than 60% from? -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the real "feeling"spirit behind the votes, several expressed full support if "push" was changed, and I doubt any of the "supports" would be lost because of such a minor thing. Furthermore, at least one more oppose would disappear if we reheld the vote even as is, due to a permanent ban. When you look at it in this light, the consensus is pretty clear--though it doesn't stop us from trying to improve it even further. LactoseTI^T 01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Common sense. Getting a bare majority will not stop the edit wars. But rather than spend the extra day or two to get everything ironed out in the wording, people are pushing for a quick poll and then get surprised when a large minority expresses opposition. Fagstein 08:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris73, please see Wikipedia:Consensus which states, "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds... The numbers are by no means fixed, but are merely statistics reflecting past decisions. Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision."

Fagstein is right in saying that there is a large minority who expresses opposition. You cannot assume anything. And, LactoseTI, "feelings" are not important (especially when they are in quotations). Whose feelings are these? How are you to know how people feel? Also, you cannot assume that you have more than 60% support because the POV wording has been softened.

The fact of the matter is, the proposed paragraph for the poll is different from the one actually put into the edit. Invalid poll. Case closed.--Sir Edgar 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This case is certainly not closed just because Sir Edgar thinks so. And besides, Sir Edgar is advised to gain significantly more consensus on his wording before inserting it into the article. At the point when Sir Edgar unilaterally imposed his own wording, he had only 1 out of 25 people supporting him (himself), which is only 4%. Thats' called editing against consensus. Sir Edgar is advised to read Wikipedia:Consensus himself.--Endroit 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, people have done such polls with simple majorities in the past on other pages. I said a 60/40 majority was necessary. Yes it was close, but as was mentioned some of the terms have been changed already. Now you had every chance to object to the terms of the poll before it finished. But you didn't. Objecting now that you have "lost" is not good sportsmanship. I suggest you wash out the bitter taste in your mouths and let it go. John Smith's 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. There was always an objection and it was for the entire text. Ad hoc adjustments do not make the paragraph any more acceptable. In addition, the poll became effectively invalid because of these makeshift changes. By the way, your interpretation and wording are not only inaccurate, but insulting to others. In fact, it is you who seems to be exhibiting poor "sportsmanship" by your behavior and rude comments. I suggest you get some manners.--Sir Edgar 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an somewhat informal poll to get us "set up"--now we can work on something better if we want. Sir Edgar, if you are unable to understand the meaning of "feelings", I will change it to spirit (without quotes). It's clearly enough to get us started (better than we were). LactoseTI^T 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a sport. Or an election. We're trying to reach consensus. Saying "you lost, tough" isn't likely to lead us in this direction. Fagstein 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point; what's the next proposal? The last one got us enough power to have a decent "placefiller"--do we want to dive right into an election for one with the small changes suggested throughout the previous poll? LactoseTI^T 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be fine to make further edits to that section without the need to bring every small change back here to vote on. If some change doesn't make certain people happy, they'll revert the section and bring their concerns here to discuss. I think as long as people act reasonably, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. --Zonath^Yak 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there was consensus. If some of you strongly believe so, then I suggest getting a lock on the article.--Sir Edgar 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So work on a consensus then. The majority feel it is a good start--don't force a completely different change on everyone that isn't close to what most people seem to want. Clearly, you should be discussing such a radical change here rather than just putting it forward. No one is putting forth your version but you; I really don't think we need to lock the article based on a lone user's persistent edits. LactoseTI^T 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should East Sea be bolded?

Should East Sea be bolded? Please give a response and a reason just to see where the consensus is. Thanks. Tortfeasor 22:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be, because although it is another way to refer to the SOJ it isn't nearly as prominent. But I'm happy with whatever consensus occurs - make sure to give this at least several days, if not a week. John Smith's 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be bolded simply because East Sea isn't common enough in English yet. Today i walked through Chapters book store and thumbed through a handful of atlases. Not one that i looked through even used East Sea as an alternate name. They all used SEa of Japan alone. So, no, it shouldn't be bolded. Masterhatch 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, per Masterhatch. It shouldn't be bolded. Also, according to our recently reached consensus, "East Sea" has NOT achieved any formal international recognition. If there isn't international recognition, it should NOT be bolded. "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (intact with the parentheses) may have, arguably, limited usage in a minority of publications. But "East Sea" (used alone) has practically zilch usage internationally at this time.--Endroit 09:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be bolded. What happened to NPOV? Plus, I visited Dymocks yesterday (since I missed out on the vote) to check out what some of our atlases say and around half of the (7/15) atlases puts the so-called "Sea of Japan" first then in bold (or in parenthesis), East Sea. -dandan xD 15 Sep 2006 3:35 pm AEST Yes. The boldedness includes "variations", according to the style manual. "East Sea" may not be official, but it is an alternative name. Fagstein 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether or not (in English) the name appears significantly alone. Perhaps we could change the opening to:

The Sea of Japan, also known the Sea of Japan (East Sea),...

or something along those lines. I believe there is a push these days among some to make East Sea a name by itself, but it's not common in any Atlas or book that an English speaker would come across. —LactoseTI^T 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

East Sea or Donghae is one of several local namese of the Sea of Japan. So I think "East Sea" should not be bolded.--Mochi 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, exactly, East Sea is a local name, not an English name, that the Koreans are trying to push on the English world. Most English pubications i run across don't even mention East Sea at all. In fact, the only time i see East Sea outside of the internet is when i am in korea or reading a book published by a korean. Masterhatch 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

East Sea is just one of many alternative names for the Sea of Japan, and that's not even the only name that the Koreans are using (they are also suggesting "Korean Sea," "East Korean Sea," etc. as a replacement). There is no reason to single out East Sea only. --Saintjust 21:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Should "East Sea" be mentioned at all in the lead section?

There may be some other alternative names, but East Sea is the main one that English Speakers are likely to come across. That's a reason to single it out, when the context involves or includes Korea; and it's the reason behind the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Korean). --Reuben 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the naming section and that's enough. It's not much of a difference if one alternative name is more widely used than others as far as it's not the formal international name. The Korean East Sea isn't even the only sea that carries the name "East Sea." See Talk:East Sea. The Koreans don't own the sea or the name. --Saintjust 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is common practice to mention only one name in the lead and leave others to a section or an article concerning names of the subject matter when such a section or an article exits (for examples, see Korea and Japan). Here, we have Naming section (and a naming dispute article) so I inserted (see [[#Naming|Naming]]) in place of "(East Sea)". (by the way, my wikilink works. It's just that there's too few text after the section header that a browser can't bring the section to the top of the window.) With regard to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea), this article is about a sea bordered by Japan, Korea, and Russia, meaning it's not Japanese and/or Korean specific article but an international article. For these reasons, I think "(East Sea)" is not necessary in the lead section however significant compared to other alternative names. --Kusunose 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Kusunose is absolutely correct about the naming convention. It says....

1. For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]

Sea of Japan is "perceived" to be related to Japan/Korea only, but in fact, part of it is also in Russian waters as well as in international waters. So the naming convention DOES tell you to omit "East Sea" in the naming altogether. Question is, was there consensus to overide this convention to begin with? Perhaps Masterhatch can help answer this? --Endroit 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is, when that consensus was put together, where would the boundary between "Japan and Korea articles" and "International articles" have been taken to lie? You may be right, but it also seems to me that Sea of Japan is sufficiently "Japan/Korea" that rule 3 would have been intended. I think I understand the reason for using "Sea of Japan" alone in international articles as preventing the cumbersome prose that results when alternate names are enumerated again and again, even when they're not relevant to the article. That doesn't seem to be the case here. The talk page presents two other reasons (following interepretation of naming convention, countering perceived Korean nationalism) that don't directly address the quality of the article. Without denying the validit of an argument from naming conventions, I would be interested to hear other editors' take on how the inclusion or removal of "East Sea" from the Sea of Japan intro helps the article quality. It seems to me that the article on the Sea of Japan itself is rather a special case, and need not necessarily follow the same style as references from other articles. Personally, I find it helpful in general for alternate names to be given in the intro of an article, since I often search for something in Wikipedia that I've read about elsewhere, and it makes it easier to be sure I've found the article I'm looking for. --Reuben 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think; the "East Sea" should probably be included in the lead section since it has been adopted as an alternate English name. This is basic article style, and doesn't really require calling on the naming conventions. It applies even if (as some argue) the use of "East Sea" is limited to Korean-influenced publications. However, I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) also supports this, since it's difficult to think of any argument pertaining to Russian/Korean/Japanese contexts that wouldn't also apply to Korean/Japanese contexts. An "international context," as discussed at the time of the poll, would be something more like Pacific Ocean. -- Visviva 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is the consensus wording, upon first mention. Moreover, this appears to have been the consensus ever since the naming convention was decided upon, regardless of the technical details. (Technically speaking, the consensus overrides the naming convention in this case.)--Endroit 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! As a new editor, I thought I'd weigh in on this issue. For what it's worth:

• The International Hydrographic Organisation refers to this body of water (in Limits of Oceans and Seas and on their authoritative 1953 map) as the Japan Sea (Mer du Japon) NOT Sea of Japan, though of course the last is indisputably common and appears in any number of atlases.
• Encyclopædia Britannica (Ready Reference and online) details this body of water under the entry Japan, Sea of, with "or East Sea" in the lead.
• The National Geographic Atlas of the World and the National Geographic Atlas of the Ocean indicate: Sea of Japan (East Sea).
• The recent 11th edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary indicates: Japan, Sea of or East Sea (p. 1548); however ...
• the 3rd edition of Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary details this body of water under the entry Japan, Sea of (p. 548) and mentions no other title; its entry for Eastern Sea (p. 340; none for East Sea) refers to China Sea.
• The New Oxford Dictionary of English solely indicates: Japan, Sea of (p. 977).

Based on this, i.e., given that it is a common local name noted in a number of reputable English texts, I believe the article lead should read as follows:

• The Sea of Japan (East Sea) ...

OR

• The Sea of Japan, sometimes referred to as the East Sea, ...

with, perhaps, some sort of upfront note or link to the naming dispute article. And while this body of water may be referred to any number of other ways (locally or not), they are uncommon enough to deserve notation in the introduction. There you go. Quizimodo 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, please do not push a POV just because you don't think there has been a consensus. If you want to be like that, maybe we (or I) should interpret the naming convention decision mentioned above to say this is an international or Japan article, so should not have "East Sea" in the title at all. John Smith's 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. First, edits in recent days seem to indicate that there is no consensus on this; if there is, please demonstrate. Second, please interpret away -- it merely demonstrates your own bias. I've provided clear citations in common English publications (and thus not merely an 'Asian' point of view as to why it should appear in the lead, bolding the text is merely for consistency. Indisputably, this is an 'international' article since the body of water borders a number of countries. Quizimodo 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I believe the current version was reached as an "acceptable compromise", because there was so much wrangling over relatively points in the past. I think Endroit was right to hold up the current version as a consensus at the time. Now, of course we can open the discussion again. But sometimes for the sake of harmony it's best to accept a compromise. Maybe you could win enough support to use bolding, but then again maybe opinion might decide it would be better to have "East Sea" removed completely. It rather depends what you're after. John Smith's 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- I would like this topic revisited. A glance at this article's history reveals there to be much wrangling over this detail. I don't necessarily want to add to that -- since I find the article lacking in physiographic details. Anyhow, in my opinion, the rendition of East Sea should be dealt with in an equitable manner in the article: unbolding a common rendition in the lead diminishes it and, stylistically, looks rather odd. And I'm sure that an argument supporting removal of this rendition would yield even more ... article instability (and not from me). Quizimodo 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In all of your examples, "East Sea" is never used alone. I can accept that "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (intact with parentheses) may be considered as an alternate to "Sea of Japan", but never "East Sea" alone. Therefore it would be terribly misleading to bold "East Sea".--Endroit 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite -- there are a number of examples above (Encyclopædia Britannica, M-W's Collegiate Dictionary) where -- separate of entries using parentheses -- East Sea is separated from Sea of Japan with the conjunction or (and unbolded, at that). The fact that the former is included with the latter is a parallel that Wikipedia would not be erroneous in adopting. Quizimodo 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because some sources separate the names does not mean "East Sea" should be bolded. For one thing I do not take the Britannica to be that reliable a source, as was always explained to me throughout my education. The fact the IHO makes no reference to East Sea is a reason why if it is to be in the top line, it should not be bolded. John Smith's 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does -- you cannot retain and discard information so wilfully because you alone question its validity. I find it ironic that we are debating about Britannica's authority, when there is no agreement herein. And, I point out that the IHO renders the name of this body of water differently than the article title (Japan Sea) ... which is possibly a basis to propose that this article be moved instead, nothing more. Quizimodo 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Brittanica article only says that "(The Korean name means “East Sea.”)" in parentheses. The Collegiate (Webster's) says "Main Entry: Japan, Sea of" in the 1st line, and "Variant(s): or East Sea" in the 2nd line. They are not alternate names to be used alone in real life. Since "East Sea" isn't an alternate name, you cannot bold it.--Endroit 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As Endroit pointed out, there even seems to be a conflict depending on how you access the Britannica. John Smith's 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes: renditions differ -- that's the point. Even the two M-W volumes I've cited above differ regarding this; yet, East Sea remains fairly common. Otherwise, Endroit's rationale is nonsensical. What do you think "or" means? Not "in addition to" -- it can be used alternatively and independently. Quizimodo 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quizimodo's link is from Brittanica's "Concise Encyclopedia". Mine is the actual "Encyclopedia Brittanica".--Endroit 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There you go then - if we abide by the EB we should strike East Sea completely from the lead section. John Smith's 15:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They are both of Brittanica (sic), and the Ready Reference is as cited above (with "or" in lead). If we abide by EB, both should be noted with primacy placed on the first -- as I indicated initially above. I see no rationale for wilful myopia and removing this from the lead (as JS seems to advocate). Quizimodo 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Brittanica mentions "East Sea" in their Concise Encyclopedia article without explanation, but the Encyclopedia Brittanica article clarifies it as the Korean name in English, not the English name. Wikipedia could be creating a similar confusion, if we bold the "East Sea" in parentheses. Fortunately, our article already clarifies the naming issue further down, in the "Naming" section. Taking the cue from the Encyclopedia Britannica article (not the Concise Encyclopedia article), we should either delete the word "East Sea" from the lead section, or mention it unbolded.--Endroit 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, please make sense. Demonstrate why we should disregard references in volumes, no less legitimate, as you propose -- very subjective and similarly 'confusing'. Note that Britannica has a discreet, referential entry for "East Sea". And various non-Britannica volumes indicate the same thing -- i.e., not at all misleading. Rationalising this erroneously will not make it go away. Quizimodo 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's what Appleby said. Are you, by any chance, Appleby? You just provided a non-article link, which has even less information. Your argument is getting bogus now.--Endroit 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are equally bogus -- and you just demonstrated why they will not be indulged. You first argue, using flawed rationale about parentheses in cited works, that East Sea is not used independently -- yet I have provided reputable citations that differ (i.e., use of or). You then use the crutch of the 'real' Encyclopædia Britannica (BTW: spelled with one T, two Ns), while dismissing other 'imaginary' citations from related products. You seem to morph the appropriate citations to suit your needs. I already indicated the link above was referential; I have no idea who Appleby is -- please feel free to prove otherwise. However, if another editor is arguing the same thing, perhaps you should re-evaluate your ... rationale. Quizimodo 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment ... I swear this is the last thing I'm going to say on this subject. Anyway, it strikes me as frankly bizarre to not bold an alternate name as widespread as "East Sea." The unending and contentious debates here over the proper way of referring to this body of water, and over the content of the article about the dispute, make it painfully obvious that a legitimate dispute exists. Both names are legitimate; we may choose not to use one for our own reasons, but it is certainly not "misleading" to recognize that both names are in use. OK, that's it, I'm done. Enjoy this interminable and pointless debate. -- Visviva 15:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Quizimodo 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are recent usage of Sea of Japan (used alone without East Sea) in the news media: BBC News, The Times (of London), MSN (MSNBC), USA Today, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Chinese People's Daily, ABC News, Fox News, New York Times, Taipei Times, Wall Street Journal.

If you are claiming that East Sea is a widely accepted alternative name for Sea of Japan, I ask that you show a significant amount of links showing East Sea-only usage (without Sea of Japan).--Endroit 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an online search yields 338 000 instances of "East Sea" independent of "Sea of Japan" (both related and not). Quizimodo 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them appear to include "Japan/East Sea" anyways or refer to some other body of water (not the "Sea of Japan"). You should list the links individually, like I did.--Endroit 15:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And preferably from credible, non-Japanese/Korean sources. John Smith's 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try, but I'd like to point out that I already have (e.g., M-W products are published in Springfield, Massachusetts) and the case has already been demonstrated -- little of the above discourse has changed this position. Quizimodo 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And Endroit has one disputed what the MW reference means, two shown your EB reference is flawed. If little of the discussion has changed your position, it hasn't changed ours either. This isn't about us convincing you. John Smith's 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And this means? One: that is Endroit's opining (not authoritative) ... which is disagreeable and, frankly, nonsensical. Two: you have also fallen back on EB to justify your arguments and prefer to exclude. OK. Are all such references that do not meet with your approval flawed? How many more rabbits are there? Hardly: this is not about me convincing you or the reverse -- it's largely about making content editions which are verifiable, which has been done. You have both already demonstrated a degree of bias towards the topic by reverting my editions without prior related discussion and placing harpsicord warnings on my talk page. I have fully read this talk page and, coupled with the history, know there is no consensus on this and even less on your position. Since there appears to be no consensus on this, demonstrated or otherwise, I shall be back later and will make judicious edits as needed. Quizimodo 16:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quiz, if you're going to take unilateral decisions then I will just revert back. John Smith's 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, you already are making unilateral decisions. You initially reverted my edits with cryptic edit summaries despite mine and with comments herein; at first, none was received. Attitudes and discussion since have been ... perplexing. I will continue to make judicious edits and discuss -- my intention is to not instigate an edit war, but you must both start making sense and stop insinuating consensus where none exists. Quizimodo 17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If I used the talk page every time some troll (not accusing you of being one) made POV edits to pages, I'd spend most of my time doing nothing but that.

Besides, why do we have to accept your versions when you don't want to accept ours? We've tried to discuss matters with you, but you're refusing to accept what we had to say. Saying "I'm right" doesn't cut any ice. John Smith's 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted regarding trolling, but I'd hardly call mine an unreasonable perspective. I deliberated as to whether to weigh in and researched the topic briefly before doing so ... and being new, there are so many articles I want to edit, so little time!

Anyhow, can you not tell me that the article lead looks odd as is? It certainly bucks the Manual of Style. I would 'accept' your version (this being the key point) if it made sense and was rooted in the consensus you invoke, which does not appear to be the case: note that at least one other editor has a different understanding of what the consensus means within the context of this dispute -- you reverted them, remember?

I've made a mild edit to one of the versions I propose above, which hopefully will address this issue somewhat. Peruse and comment, please.

And, regarding this, I think I am right ... but at least I'm willing to admit if and when I'm not. :) Quizimodo 08:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say that the person who brought the possibility of removing the "bold" on "East Sea" or "should East Sea be mentioned at all" is infinitely regressive to the overall efforts of the Wikipedia. I'm not going to debate on this issue further because it's so obvious. The intention behind bringing these issues up... definitely JPOV. (Wikimachine 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

"East Sea" (actually 동해 Donghae or whatever you might call it in Korea) is a Korean toponym. This article is part of the English Wikipedia and thus has no obligation to indicate foreign (e.g. Korean) toponyms that refer to the same geographical entity. If you claim that "East Sea" is relevant to an article about the Sea of Japan on the English-language Wikipedia, then you must allow anglophone American editors, such as myself, to add American English toponyms to any article about a geographical entity on the Korean-language Wikipedia, Chinese-language Wikipedia, and so forth. Ebizur 09:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When the places in question are in an English-speaking part of the world, it's already typical for the Korean-language Wikipedia to mention the English-language name in the intro. See for instance ko:멕시코 만 and ko:영국 해협, the Korean-language articles on the Gulf of Mexico and the English Channel. They give the name in English and Spanish or French in the first sentence. If you wanted to go over to the Korean Wikipedia and add American English toponyms to articles about geographic entities that are in an English-speaking part of the world, I imagine that would be quite welcome - but you might find little to do, because they're already there! --Reuben 19:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, Reuben, they ought to be adding references to "동해" or "Donghae," not "East Sea." "East Sea" is neither a Korean name nor an English name for the Sea of Japan. "East Sea" is a form that is not used anywhere on Earth to refer to the Sea of Japan. The reference is only valid if it is made in the Korean language, namely in Hangeul as 동해 or in the form of a standard romanization, such as "Donghae." Ebizur 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're shifting arguments here. I responded specifically to your point above about adding American English toponyms to other language Wikipedias, but now you seem to have jumped tracks to head off in a different direction. To respond to your new point, it only requires one counterexample to disprove the claim that "East Sea is a form that is not used anywhere on Earth to refer to the Sea of Japan." Here's one place: Aitkin High School, in Aitkin, Minnesota. --Reuben 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Reuben! That page was hilarious. It is an introduction to Korean culture and geography produced by Korean exchange students. I should not need to tell you that it does not constitute a valid refutation of the claim that "East Sea" is not used by anyone other than misguided Koreans who have attempted to translate their local language term, i.e. 동해 Donghae, verbatim into English. Ebizur 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, your argument shifts again. First, East Sea was - and I quote your claim verbatim - "not used anywhere on Earth to refer to the Sea of Japan." Now it's "by anyone other than misguided Koreans." After all, it's not very sporting to criticize me for failing to refute a claim that's different than the one you actually made in the first place! Nevertheless, I'll provide a counterexample to your redacted claim. Besides Koreans (misguided or otherwise), the term East Sea also has some currency among Westerners traveling, living, or submarining in and around Korea. See, for example, blog #1, blog #2, blog #3, US Navy newspaper. --Reuben 06:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the facts get in your way of bashing these "misguided Koreans":

• American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) [3]; East Sea: See Sea of Japan [4]
• National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [5]
• Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
• World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [6]
• Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [7]
• Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, [8]; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [9]
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea [10] [11]; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of [12] [13]

Your arguments and these links are repeated in the archives. East Sea is not the main or official name, but it is another pretty common English name for the sea. It was one of the names used in European maps for centuries. Just accept reality instead of making things up about Koreans.

It should be included in the lead section because it is another name for it. For example, they use Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) as a title while using a common Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea in the very beginning. Good friend100 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a new and, dare I say, neutral voice in this conversation. All I know about the substantive issue here is (don't laugh) what I've read on the Wikipedia articles and Talk pages. Here is my synopsis:

1. most current English-language atlases label the sea as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)"; a few have "Sea of Japan" alone. 30 years ago, say, they all had "Sea of Japan".
2. English-language journalism sources (except for Korean-oriented sources) always refer to the sea as "Sea of Japan", but sometimes additionally mention "East Sea" as being another name/the Korean name.
3. international organisations which need to refer to the sea tend to be unwilling/unable to reach a definitive resolution on the name and use "Sea of Japan" but say "we're only using that name because we have to call it something and it doesn't mean we think any other name isn't just as valid yadda yadda yadda".

Based on (1) and (2), I think it would be misleading to remove "East Sea" altogether from the intro. However, I do think from (2) and (3) that "East Sea" is never really used as a name in English; Koreaphiles may use it, but in a deliberate, artificial way, as when Argentinophiles (or Brittanophobes) talk about "The Malvinas". That leaves two options:

1. the current use of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". This is certainly inelegant. It is also not immediately obvious to an uninformed reader what the "East Sea" parenthesis means. One might guess there was a separate "Sea of Japan (West Sea)" from which it was being distinguished. At a minimum, it would be better as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".
2. mentioning the naming dispute in the intro, rather than waiting to a separate section. I think this nettle should be grasped. Here is my suggestion for such an intro:

The Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Japan, Korea and Russia. Like the Mediterranean Sea, it has almost no tides due to its nearly complete enclosure. Because of Korean objections to the name "Sea of Japan", some English-language publications refer to it as Sea of Japan (East Sea), incorporating a version of the Korean name.

I realise my initial wording is underinformed and so may reflect inaccurate or prejudicial assumptions. But nuances can be teased out by those better informed than I. Does anyone think an intro para along these lines might be acceptable to all? jnestorius^(talk) 23:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Update Hokkaido as Hokkaidō

Would it be possible to update the links Hokkaido to Hokkaidō within the body of the page as Hokkaido is only a redirect to Hokkaidō.

Pygenot 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE CALLED "East Sea"!!!

What? The Sea of Japan is unfairly named because Japan freakin' took over Corea!! It should be refered to in textbooks, internet pages, and atlases as East Sea! It's only called "sea of Japan" because of the Japanese dudes! There are so many Japanese Invaasions of Corea, yet they changed their history books to make themselves look good, and to make sure that the other countries don't figure out what they did to us! Now they're trying to take our creatoin of kimchi now that it shows that it helps the immune system!

WHAT THE ----?!? Those Japanese people may have contributed to the world a lot, but look at what they did to us koreans!

GAAHH!!!

I assume that you probably have a double-digit IQ, judging from your tact, spelling, and writing style. Because of that, I fear that I am only wasting my time by posting a response to your rambling claims, so I will make my response concise in order to type it as quickly as possible.

I am a typical citizen of the United States of America, of European descent and a native speaker of English, and I have never once in my life heard an anglophone refer to the Sea of Japan, verbally or in writing, as anything other than "the Sea of Japan." FIN. Ebizur 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats pretty obvious since Japan simply suppressed Korea and used Sea of Japan to give the impression to other countries that it is theirs. Good friend100 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the anoymous person is wrong about kimchi. It was already classified as Korean a while back. No need to argue there. Good friend100 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about fair names. It's an encyclopedia. Fair or not, the more commonly recognised name is Sea of Japan. --Peregrine_^AY 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)