Talk:East Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents
Archive1

[edit] Proposal

This thing has gone on with a dispute tag for way too long. There have been RfCs, mediations, etc etc. Each time the results are similar, but there are two users who refuse to budge, one or two who have sided with them for short periods, and numerous users who have wanted this page to remain essentially unchanged. We all know the facts, the factors, the motivations etc. But the mountain somehow needs to move. Hence my proposed change: the body of water to the East of Korea gets primacy and de facto 'fact' status at the top of the page, while acknowledging that de jure it is still contested. The other meanings go under the rubric of 'may mean...'. This way WP does not take sides on an argument which has not yet been settled, but gets in line with recent conventions. Then a whole bunch of us can get on with making the rest of WP a better place.Bridesmill 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your interest & efforts. that's much better than the previous version. couple minor adjustments, as the list should really be limited to english uses, not mere foreign language translations (otherwise most dab pages would bloat exponentially), and the english uses should be substantiated. so i still have problems with it not redirecting to the primary use for the convenience of most readers, and including some pretty far-out possibilities not normally included in other dab pages, but this is better than nothing. thanks again for your mediation of this obscure annoyance. Appleby 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure nobody is 100% happy (I'm not), but such is the science (?) of diplomatic compromise. Thank you sincerely, Bridesmill 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your proposal looks like Korean side still. We need more efforts. I will try, divide Sea of Japan naming dispute from Korean name.
'''East sea''' is the proposal name for the Sea of Japan by Korea. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.

East Sea may also refer to:
* Sea of Japan, a marginal sea located east of Korea, where it is called Donghae (동해/東海).
* East China Sea, a marginal sea located east of China, where it is called Dong Hai (东海/東海).
...

Open-box 03:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (clean-up, need more clean-up) Open-box 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In the English Language (and this is the English Language wiki), East Sea is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan. Period, Fact. It may mean a whole bunch of other things. Hence what this page says. The Korean POV was to make this a redir to the article, rather than a DAB. They agreed not to get their way, and the article now states English Language facts. what other wikis do, I could care less. "Forcing" a fake neutrality or Japanese POV is not on. And please, please please don NOT accuse me of having a Korean POV - Read the text above to see my position mediating this.Bridesmill 03:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your position does not pose a problem. Even if you keep that it is NPOV in mind, it cannot guarantee that the article is NPOV.　If it asks for a better description, some people will cooperate and many people approve. If it adheres to maintaining your description, as for it, article will betray your mind and word.Open-box 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Very Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Please keep in mind that no matter how this page is phrased, somebody will not like it. This phrasing is technically correct, it points out that the Sea of Japan issue is not de jure, and was arrived at by significant concession from the Korean users; this is why I would ask you to conced to this also. Thanks; Bridesmill 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's go for accuracy here. The proper name is East Sea (Donhae) in Korean, and Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English.--Endroit 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

we don't need foreign language translations here. see South Mountain, which does not contain translations of Namsan or any foreign language equivalent of south mountain. this has been discussed before. the existing entries need evidence of english uses. Appleby 05:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First, is Bridesmill's basic proposal acceptable? I think it is fine under the current political climate. But with all the edits going on tonight I thought I would ask.
Second, is "advocated by Korea" necessary? If it is, I would ask that we change this line, "Sea of Japan, a marginal sea located east of Korea" to "Sea of Japan, a name first advocated by Japan, a marginal sea located east of Korea. That would be more "accurate" and wouldn't promote a double standard in this disambiguation page.
Third, if this line is necessary: "often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications" than I propose we change "publication" to "maps" so that it would read "often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English maps" for the sake of accuracy. And I would propose to include this line, "Britannica and other major reputable sources acknowledge "East Sea" as a proper noun, by itself, as an alternate name for the Sea of Japan. There are no other alternative meanings of the term east sea in major English reputable sources." I would want the two line added so that we are being accurate and not only showing one side of the debate discussed exhaustively above.
But, all in all, I think Bridesmill's last edit would be the most fair and concise and the one I would favor.
P.S. If anyone wants to discuss any of my arguments above I would appreciate it.


I find all of this rather tasteless; people hiding in the backwoods until they see an opportunity to try and advance an untenable position, exploiting the willingness of others to be cooperative and compromise. Total lack of honor IMHO. Please do not dictate to English speakers how to speak English; what the words and disputes are in other languages concerns me not, but in the English language, East Sea IS used as an alternate for the Sea of Japan, and the other things MAY be encountered; there are plenty of cites for these things in the (archived) discussions. Check the Encyclopedic refs, check the nautical charts, check the maps. Of course, the alternative is either to litter the DAB page we currently have with footnotes, or just to do a redirect as has previously been proposed. Personally, I would rather go with a clean DAB page. Tags? Why? there is a direct link in the first sentence to the dispute page - makes it pretty clear there is a dispute.17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the recent style change. i.e. mentioning Sea of Japan seperately. Per MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic and WP:DAB#Primary topic, that style is used only when there is a consensus that the term is the primary topic and the dab page has "(disambiguation)" in the title. As far as I know, there's no such consensus. If you want to change the style, you should get consensus first. I don't object making it so. Until then, per MOS:DAB#Order of entries, Sea of Japan, the most common usage, would be at the top of entries as has been.
As for wording, unnecessary details are there for a dab page. Per MOS:DAB#Individual entries, "[t]he description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." We just need minimum information such as types and locations of the bodies of water, e.g. "East China Sea, marginal sea located east of China". For Sea of Japan, a link to the dispute article would be added as well. I don't think local names are necessary. Adding more, such as "advocated by Korea" or "often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications" should be avoided eigher.
Finally, unless someone acutually brings some credible citations for English usages, Tokai and the Bay of Bengal should be removed. As Appleby said, Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary.
See MOS:DAB. Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Please refrain from adding detailed information here. --Kusunose 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely disengenuous, and you know it. The reason for the second link in the line is as concession to the serious Japanese concern with this; now you use that as substantiation for removing the first link. WP piolicy on this is guideline, not "Law", and in this case I made teh exception in acknowledgement of your POV's concerns. Please don't try 'play' the system to your advantage, it's altogether unbecoming. Let's at least pretend that we are trying to work for a better tomorrow?Bridesmill 16:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2 critical points I cannot yield on are:
  1. East Sea MUST be a disambig page titled East Sea.
  2. The wording must NOT imply that East Sea is a synonym of Sea of Japan.
But wait a minute here.... According to Kusunose, the criteria for listing separately at top is for the article to be titled East Sea (disambiguation). If that's true, I'm opposed to listing separately at the top as well.
In that case (and only in that case), here's my new compromised wording (if NOT listed separately at top)....
Endroit's wording 4
Sea of Japan, a marginal sea located between Japan and Korea. East Sea, or Sea of Japan (East Sea), is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the Sea of Japan naming dispute. Korea's local language name for the sea is called Donghae (동해/東海).
Endroit's wording 5
Sea of Japan, a marginal sea located between Japan and Korea. East Sea, often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications, is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the Sea of Japan naming dispute. Korea's local language name for the sea is called Donghae (동해/東海).
The local Korean name is optional unless there is consensus for it. (I support it though).
--Endroit 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterproposal

I commend Bridesmill for attempting to resolve this impasse, and will try to build on it. However I will oppose any wording that implies that "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" are synonyms. In fact, I will put the POV tag there myself, if that happens to be the case.

The wording acceptable to me are (if listed separately at top)....

Endroit wording 1
East Sea, often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications, is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
Endroit wording 2
East Sea, often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications, is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan advocated by Korea. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.
Endroit wording 3 (in response to Kusunose)
East Sea, or Sea of Japan (East Sea), is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

The words "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" are clearly required according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)...a Wikipedia guideline. And the citations for National Geographic, Worldatlas.com, and American Heritage Dictionary support the wording: "often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea)". See also About.com, Mapsofworld.com, and National Public Radio.

Also requiredMay also be included
Sea of Japan, a marginal sea located east of Korea, where it is called Donghae (동해/東海).

Some people (including myself) believe that the above entry must be included somewhere in the disambig, although it may be a separate entry (as it is now). --Endroit 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Solution 1 would seem reasonable. Why would you want the "also required" line in there, as it very much implies that it 'should' be SoJ and the Koreans are wrong. It also would not make any sense to English speakers why that line was there. I am not very happy about why this page is suddenly protected by a Japanese person to the Japanese position - seems like mob rule to me.Bridesmill 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Please consider the local Korean name separately. It is not "required" and can be omitted unless there is consensus for it.--Endroit 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "East Sea is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute." Tortfeasor 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer solution 2 ("as per" sounds weird in this context). However, I'm not a fan of "often written as" since this is an unverifiable fact. Keep in mind people here aren't interested in the etymology of these names, just in finding the article they're looking for. Fagstein 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree with "often written as" being irrelevant in a dab page. i second tortfeasor's wording. simply directs readers to relevant articles with clean, verifiable wording, consistent with other dab pages. it's hard to believe we are even having this discussion, again, given the citations. i feel like alice in wonderland. Appleby 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
i disagree because East Sea is not the alternate name in English, Sea of japan (east Sea) is. I think "often written as" is very important because it is true. Very rarely in english publications not arising out of korea do you see "east sea" alone for that body of water. It is clear that there are two common names used for that body of water in English and East Sea alone is not one of them. It is strongly korean POV to make Sea of Japan the primary redirect for East Sea. Masterhatch 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Masterhatch. I agree that most maps will use East Sea in parenthesis to indicate the use as the alternate name. But that isn't the whole story. Respectfully, MH, please look at the links provided in the archive: Britannica, Bartleby, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, and Infoplease, etc. If you type the term "east sea" by itself and press enter the result states "please see Sea of Japan" or something to that effect. I don't know how else to interpret that.
I've brought this up before and it seems to be ignored. At the very least please explain why those citations should be ignored in their totality. And also, it isn't the Korean POV to point out that the only meaning of East Sea in accepted in English, as shown by the major reputable sources, is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan. Again, if anyone wants to show that the majority of citations suggest otherwise I would appreciate it. Thanks. Tortfeasor 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't having a name in parentheses suggest that it's an alternate name? The problem with saying "it's true" is that we (and more importantly the readers) have only your word to verify that fact. If you want to include it (and really, is it that important to people who want to find an article?) then you have to make it verifiable and cite a reliable source. And then we start turning this disambiguation page into an article, which it is not. Fagstein 06:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:V (verifiability) is easily satisfied for "often written as...", using this study by the Korean government (Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries). In their list of publications which have used "East Sea", 15 out of 26 are English publications. And 7 out of 15 English publications used "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". Only one out of 15 English publications used "East Sea" alone. Here is the breakdown:
  • Sea of Japan (East Sea): 7 publications (Rand McNally Atlas/Aug. '97, National Geographic/Feb. '00, Encarta/2000, Expedia.com/2001, The Economist/Oct. '02, USA Today/Jan. '03, World Heath Organization/2003)
  • East Sea (Sea of Japan): 2 publications (Lonely Planet Korea/Jul. '97, Regions 2000 Geography/Jul. '99)
  • Sea of Japan / East Sea: 2 publications (BBC News/Feb. '03, CNN/Mar. '03)
  • Sea of Japan or East Sea: 1 publication (Asia Society/2001)
  • Sea of Japan 'East Sea': 1 publication (Financial Times/Aug. '02)
  • East Sea, Japan Sea: 1 publication (The Washington Times/Mar. '02)
  • East Sea: 1 publication (Graphic Maps/2002)
What Masterhatch and I are trying to say here is that "East Sea" is rarely used alone. It is almost always used together with "Sea of Japan", most often in the form "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". If you don't mention this somehow, you are likely to be perceived as NOT being NPOV, or worse, giving false information.--Endroit 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Your source isn't that convincing, considering its entire purpose appears to be to convince people of its naming conventions. And even then, there appears to be seven different ways of writing the name even in the tiny self-selected sample given. And even ignoring all that, is it really important enough to be included in a disambiguation page? Fagstein 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's required, because of this Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea).
In terms of a disambig page, this guideline insures that there are absolutely ZERO links from "[[Sea of Japan|East Sea]]" linking to Sea of Japan. ALL occurences of "East Sea" in Wikipedia links from "[[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)" to Sea of Japan. That is why "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" MUST be mentioned in a disambig page. This is not a POV issue, it's Wikipedia guideline.--Endroit 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

in the dictionaries & encyclopedias, i searched for "east sea." i am redirected to "sea of japan." how hard is this to understand? it's an alternative name already. Appleby 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

East Sea, often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications, is an alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
--Endroit 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, redundant & awkard but not incorrect. we don't need "in english publications" nor "as per", but that's just bad writing, not content dispute. Appleby 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you Google it, "East Sea" is more common by itself than as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". In addition, the fact that it is parenthetical indicates that it is an alternate. The parentheses are not part of some strange compound word. () are not letters in the English language, they are punctuation.Bridesmill 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Look again... "without parentheses" does not imply "without 'Sea of Japan'". "East Sea" is usually mentioned together with "Sea of Japan", with or without parentheses. It just so happens that "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is the most common variation.--Endroit 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A primary usage for the phrase east sea would mean the most used form of just the two words east and sea. So far, the majority of English publications supports the fact that if one uses only the words east and sea, the definition, in English, is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan, usually stated as "see Sea of Japan." (Endroit and Masterhatch: How else can you interpret that?) Again, no one has ever provided a majority of references to suggest east sea has some other meaning in English. Yes, east sea is written often as Sea of Japan (East Sea) or some variant thereof, obviously to indicate its usage as an alternate name. But so what? It isn't relevant because we aren't talking about how east sea is written often. We are talking about, based on the reputable sources, how the majority sources understands what east sea, the term by itself, means. Ignore or don't the paranthetical examples, but the term east sea (by itself) still is the alternate name of the Sea of Japan accepted by the majority of reputable sources. The burden is on those who would suggest otherwise to actually show some decent evidence. Tortfeasor 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And what does "see Sea of Japan" really mean? Nothing specific by itself, really.... Perhaps it would help if you actually looked at the main "Sea of Japan" article in such cases. In addition, I thought the majority of us already decided to disambiguate rather than redirect to any particular article.
We are merely discussing how to compromise on the wording here, under the condition that there will be no primary redirect. How else would you propose to compromise here?
Some of us do NOT agree that "East Sea" is a valid alternate for "Sea of Japan", period. And details for that reasoning are discussed in Sea of Japan naming dispute. You just have to accept that. The compromised wording is carefully designed to be acceptable to multiple parties (with some compromise), and has redirects to both Sea of Japan AND Sea of Japan naming dispute.
It needs to be stressed that some compromise is required by EVERYBODY to come to an agreement here.--Endroit 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been no majority decision, just a lot of debate. While there is clearly a group of indeterminate size that believes this should be a straight disambiguation page instead of a redirect (and so far no on-point evidence has been given for this stance according to Wikipedia policy despite numerous requests), I don't see why that position should be the accepted one just because they are unwilling to compromise. Perhaps we should have a poll? Fagstein 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But that compromise should not be expected to come from the same quarter every time - the only people who have shown willingness to compromise and accepted any compromise in the history that I see is Appleby & Tortfeasor. I personally feel that allowing for a slight breach of Wiki protocol and putting 'the "see the dispute article" link up is probably a better thing than to try and put a redux of the whole debate on a dab page (recall that the Korean position on this in the beginning was solid insistence that this be a redir rather than a DAB)Bridesmill 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if you personally do not agree that east sea should be a valid alternate name. consensus doesn't mean a democratic head-count of personal opinions. the reality is that when you search for "east sea" at various reputable reference publications, you are referred to "sea of japan." wikipedia is required to reflect the major reputable references, by a policy that is not subject to veto by consensus. any wikipedian can announce that the sea of japan article should be renamed east sea, & that he/she cannot compromise on that. but what's the point of announcing personal opinions not backed up by reputable references? Appleby 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is really my question though, isn't it. I just want to understand your (Endroit) position as to why the East Sea isn't the valid alternate name for the Sea of Japan as per the sources. It bothers me because any other area where such sources are given, that would be the end of discussion in my limited experience with Wikipedia and naming disputes. But if my question bothers you that much, I apologize. If you want, I'll drop it. But I can't be convinced if I don't even understand your basic premise.
Anyways, I thought the compromise was the fact that even though it is plainly clear in English that East Sea has a primary usage, we were all going to ignore that and ignore the fact that the majority of Wikipedia links to East Sea as long as this disambiguation page shows the, as Bridesmill refers to it, the de facto understood meaning first. That is what I understood the compromise to be. You added the rest that is the cause of this current debate.
I still prefer the simple sentence "East Sea is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute." You adding only information from one point of view will only engage in a game of one-up-manship and make the disambiguation an article. However, if you want your version Endroit, I will compromise by requesting that other relevant information is added so that the wording is fair. Such as "Britannica and other major reputable sources acknowledge "East Sea" as a proper noun, by itself, as the alternate name for the Sea of Japan. There are no other alternative meanings of the term east sea in major English reputable sources." Tortfeasor 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the various interpretations, I have already given my proposals and cited my sources for the wording already.
Also, I note that Tortfeasor's citation for Britannica is wrong. The properly signed Britannica article for "Sea of Japan" (signed by Joseph R. Morgan) does NOT say that "East Sea" is an alternate.--Endroit 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Again, only one half of the Britannica coin. And since there aren't other citations provided suggesting the East Sea doesn't mean anything other than Sea of Japan it is still the primary English usage. Tortfeasor 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think "the alternate name" is pretty strong wording, implying there's something official about the name. Why not just "another name for"? Fagstein 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

endroit, what we're discussing is what to present the reader who comes to the entry for "east sea." note what britannica does: [1] also note what other references already cited do at their "east sea" entry.

any counterexamples would be much, much appreciated.

i'm willing to compromise to the simple wording suggested by tortfeasor. Appleby 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we, rather than having some sort of lengthy mini-article, have a footnote? This is the approach taken to these types of debates/disputes in NATO documentation, for instance. Bridesmill 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Let's please avoid it. Let's not cite ourselves as the legal basis for what articles state. Times change, WP rules are not binding, and are amendable in concert with an evolving and changing world.Bridesmill 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to make exceptions to certain Wikipedia rules, please elaborate. Please list them here. Don't leave others in the dark.--Endroit 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My impression with why Bridesmill mentions Wikilawyering is that perhaps your (Endroit's) insistence on reading the Korean naming convention to suggest that East Sea isn't the alternate name for the Sea of Japan seems like an example of Wikilawyering. I mean, it's not a leap to say the reason why no one suggested this format for example: [ [Sea of Japan] ] ([ [Sea of Japan|East Sea] ]) is that it was overly redundant or time consuming or silly to link it twice in the space of one sentence. There isn't any suggestion that the eventual naming convention decided is some endorsement of a strange compound word with paranthesis as letters. I would still suggest, just based on common sense, that the greatest number of Wikipedia links would be to East Sea, the alternate name for the SoJ, and nothing else.
One final note, I was amazed to see the number of times in that naming convention debate Masterhatch and others repeatedly mentioned the majority of reputable sources as a justification for their position. Tortfeasor 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, the reason I say tis should be obvious; the lengthy dissertation on why the WP naming convention piece "must" be followed perhaps??20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we at?

Seriously, where are we at? I feel we're at an impasse. Hopefully without sounding whiney, I want to point out that my position has changed 180 degrees in the hopes of resolving this dispute. It's discouraging when I read Endroit write "Some of us do NOT agree that "East Sea" is a valid alternate for "Sea of Japan", period." Firstly, the question isn't about whether it is a "valid" alternative which is a question about legitimacy. Instead, the question is about what the majority of reputable sources say. If anyone can just make a validity judgment and hold up negotiations than what is the point of providing sources. Secondly, does that mean there isn't going to be any compromise? That statement seemed kind of final and makes me wonder if we're negotiating in good faith. Are we just going to leave this locked in the last edit that was made without significant consensus and seems biased?

I propose this: "East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute." as the first/prominent sentence.

  • And again, no has ever provided a majority of reputable sources to suggest the East Sea means anything else in English other than East Sea = Sea of Japan so it should be mentioned first.

I would also be fine with a foot note per Bridesmill's suggestion. I would be okay with Endroit writing whatever he/she wants to his/her hearts content in the footnote explaining his/her position as long as the opposite position's evidence and information is put in as well so that it isn't biased or favoring one position. Tortfeasor 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "no [one] has ever provided a majority of reputable sources to suggest the East Sea means anything else in English other than ... Sea of Japan." Assuming you mean, rather than "majority," a "number of" reputable sources, I did that a while ago when citing a number of news sources that were clearly using "East Sea" to refer to East China Sea, South China Sea, or the Bay of Bengal. It's a relatively easy thing to do with a news.google.com search.
In the case of a search that I run today, [2] and looking at the first 10 pages, you can easily see these sources using "East Sea" to refer to a sea that is not the Sea of Japan:
That having been said, I am not particularly opposed to the "compromise" that you propose above, but I object to any implication that "East Sea" has an established, Korea-centric meaning in English. This implicitly gives the POV that the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Sri Lankan usages are improper because they are ethnocentric. They are, but so is the Korea-centric usage, which needs to be seen for what it is rather than be effectively seen as NPOV usage. --Nlu (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you search East Sea with the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp (a geographic name server suggested on Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references), the only relevant result is "Dead Sea" (the other is "East Seal Dog"). If you search "Japan, Sea of", the result does not contain "East Sea". --Kusunose 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nlu: Thanks for the sources, no one has brought those up before to my knowledge. If you're fine with the compromise that that is fine with me too. Thank you.
I'm not trying to quibble with you about details but, to me, there is a distinction between major reference works like Britannica and Encarta versus English translations of local papers (correct me if I am wrong about that last generalization). I'm sure there are Korean newspapers in English that would probably use East Sea as well. It seems to me, that, the newspapers/articles would cancel each other out.
Instead, usually, when looking for a common name, from my experience, editors turn to see what the major reputable sources say. Sources like Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all state when querried for the term "east sea" to "see Sea of Japan" or something to that effect. What I meant to get across was that I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of major third party references suggest east sea means anything other than Sea of Japan. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for your sources though, I really appreciate it.
Kusunose, that certainly is one approach suggested. But you usually seem to favor the Britannica route in these types of conflicts and there is also the google search as well per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references. Could you clarify your point? Thanks. Tortfeasor 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have been using the NGIA GNS server in addtion to Britannica in discussions such as Liancourt Rocks and Tsuhima Basin. My point is, as major English-language media outlets and geographic name servers suggests other meanings are also commonly used, primary topic disambiguation is not appropriate; although I have stated otherwise above(I don't object making it [a primary topic]). --Kusunose 02:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


ok, now, can we finally work towards a resolution:

  1. "east sea" will be a dab page. despite individual examples, it seems clear to me from the majority of english reference works that the primary meaning of east sea is the sea of japan, & thus should redirect as wikipedia usually does for primary meanings; please note that i did not oppose the existence of a dab page, i believe this page should redirect to the primary meaning article, at the top of which would be a link to a dab page, as you can see at the top of South Park. however, i have simply accepted that that's not going happen, for whatever reasons unrelated to wikipedia policy or consistency. & tortfeasor, i believe has compromised on this as well. so ok, that's done, a search for east sea will see a dab list instead of the primary meaning article. no more repetition why this page should or should not be a dab page, please.
  2. afaik, there is no dispute that majority of widely accepted reference works (WP:NPOV) define east sea as an alternate name (or another name for) the sea of japan. we are required by NPOV policy to reflect the majority, not treat all possiblities with equal weight. the first entry on this dab page should therefore say "east sea is an alternate name (or another name for [i'm ok with either phrasing]) the sea of japan." despite one insistent opposition, it seems we are close to consensus on this part.
  3. i don't think we need a footnote on this dab page, if we follow the above sentence with "see also sea of japan naming dispute." anything that would go in a footnote should already be at that article.
  4. per nlu's citations, south china sea & east china sea have been shown to be an occasional referent for the term east sea in english. i have issues with the obviously limited regional use, but we pick our battles, & i'm ok with listing these two disambiguations, under "may also refer to."
  5. i'm not happy about the biblical reference to the dead sea, because it's so obscure in actual usage, wikipedia is not a bible dictionary, & thousands of other biblical usages do not get dab pages in wikipedia. but kunonose's point will be taken & this too is ok w/ me to be listed under "may also refer to."
  6. the other possible uses currently listed have not been substantiated and should be deleted until evidence of siginificant english usage is given.

does that cover everything? can we please try to focus towards a resolution instead of repeating ourselves? thanks. Appleby 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is obviously passion. The other part is not getting that all WP is is an online encyclopedia. Its policies are not points in international law. Opinions of editors are also worth little or nothing. The reality is, is that East Sea is a de facto alternate name in English for the SofJ. It is not the de jure name for anything in English. Whether yuou like it or not, there are now plenty of documents in English which cite this, from nautical charts to encyclopedias. That this is in part due to a Korean nationalist campaign is irrelevant. That someone likes or dislikes it is also irrelevant. It just is. It is not the alternate name, and it is disputed; hence the link to the dispute article. Editors should recall that the Korean position on this in the past was that this page Must become a redirect; they have compromised on this; from the previously disputed by them (and agreed to by the Japanese POV according to the histories) page which listed all the variants as DABs ('May refer to') only the change that the SoJ link was listed as 'is an alternate'. rather than 'may refer to'. Quite a significant willingness to compromise. If you read the histories, you will note that Appleby, Torteasor & others have been at this a while, and it got quite heated on a number of occassions. During that period, the Japanes POV was quiet and had no comments supporting those who disagreed with the Korean POV; until the Korean POV showed a willingness to compromise. There will not be an "easy" solution; the serious professional diplomats haven't come up with a solution so it would be hubris for us to assume we can. I had suggested a footnote, which is not normal p[ractice for a dab but this is not a normal situation and it would be better than the 'mini-article' which seems to be at risk of developing. There needs to be a willingness of the Japanese POV to compromise on something here; otherwise methinks the next step would be Arb; Mediation requires willingness to negotiate from bnoth sides....Bridesmill 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Kusunose's willingness to at least have it a sprimary topic, In the way Apple & Tort (aside - are these names specifically made to go together? <grin>) have conceded not to 'tophat' the dab & have ES go straight to this DAB page are a step in the right direction. Does the word "another name" rather than "alternate name" move further in the right direction? And how do other people feel about a short footnote? I'm thinking perhaps we could use the following as a start point: "Attention is drawn to the (Dispute article), which explains the origins of the Korean proposal to formally change the name to East Sea and ensuing international debate, which is as yet unresolved. The non-standard formatting on this page is a concession to ensuring that all views are fairly represented here" (part of my reasoning for the last is I am assuming we are still intending to link to both SofJ and the Dispute article in the lead line) (and can we please add new comments at the bottom - it's getting a bit hard to follow) Bridesmill 03:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterproposal 2

I need to see to it that "East Sea" in not misconstrued by Wikipedia readers to be a universally accepted synonym for (ie: freely intercheable with) "Sea of Japan". Not using the word "alternate" helps tremendously! However, I still need to see the word "dispute" in the same sentence as East Sea.

Version 1
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
Version 2
East Sea is a disputed name for the Sea of Japan. See Sea of Japan naming dispute.

Regarding a footnote, an exception can be made to the Wikipedia rules for this entry only. The footnote can describe Wikipedia's position that it does not take sides on this issue. It may also say that Wikipedia uses Sea of Japan (East Sea) in its Korea-related articles only.--Endroit 15:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I like version 1. I am not sure if we want to put the naming convention in the footnote; I'm inherently against WP dictating these things (as per the BC/BCE distinction in WP:DATE, and the use of US or UK english variants, this should really be up to the writer's discretion except in those places where there is a legal preference expressed - in this case only Japan and Korea AFAIK.Bridesmill 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 1 is fine with me too. But I want to ask is there a reason why it's not just "See Sea of Japan naming dispute." Is there a reason why it should be "as described by"? They seem to mean the same thing and I would prefer "See" just because it's more simple. I'm not sure what's going on or what direction the footnote thing is going so I don't have an opinion on that. Tortfeasor 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
East Sea is another name for Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute. Fagstein 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the footnote should say nothing except to explain the deviation from the normal one wl per line on a DAB (normally, this is talk page stuff, but unless this is very clear, we'd be right back at it in no time) Or is there a tag which can be placed that warns against undiscussed edits? the Controversial item thing?: "There is a dispute as pointed out. WP has no opinion on this matter other than to point out that East Sea has not yet been legally adopted internationally. Deviation from normal WP style was deemed neccessary to avoid complex editorial disputes." I do not believe that anything further on the status of the dispute or its origins or parties positions should be stated - that is what the dispute article is about.Bridesmill 03:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one wants a foot note, that is fine with me. If someone feels it is necessary, I am fine with what Bridesmill wrote above. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel ;) Tortfeasor 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

fagstein's wording is fine with me. i still don't understand the need for a footnote though. all the fun details about the dispute are at the subsequent link to the dispute article. if having an inline link is the "deviation," i think it is minor enough that the many people monitoring this page can maintain this negotiated wording. that particular style guideline is stated to be flexible & supercedable by consensus (unlike the "non-negotiable" policies like npov), so is not a "violation" that needs any footnote. Appleby 04:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

also, shouldn't there be a "the" after "name for"? & is everyone else ok with points 4,5, & 6 of my post above, regarding the other dab entries on the page? Appleby 04:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's 4,5, and 6 are fine with me. Based on what Fagstein and Appleby wrote I'm also fine with:
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute. Tortfeasor 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Appleby has made some good points and I strongly disagree with a footnote. It is not necessary with a direct link to the dispute page.

Agree; though I think the talk page should have the controversy warning tag on it. This is starting to come together; who'd have thought, peace in our day ...Bridesmill 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a warning tag is appropriate, as Bridesmill says. The tag could also be in the form of a footnote instead, if we agree.
Also, I believe if we have dual links to Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute, they have to be treated equally, meaning that they should be in the same sentence. If you write "See also Sea of Japan naming dispute", it seems like optional reading, as if an afterthought. Therefore, I insist on the following wording:
Just a reminder... There is no consensus on deleting Baltic Sea, Tokai (disambiguation) / Tokai region, and Bay of Bengal, which should be discussed separately.
--Endroit 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So if I "insist" that this should be a redirect instead of a disambiguation page we should go back to square one? ;)
So far, I think the consensus is no foot note. (Appleby, Masterhatch, Bridesmill)
I think three users favor this version (Appleby, Fagstein, Tortfeasor):
I'm just going to disagree that the above version sounds like optional reading. Tortfeasor 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversy warning tag (suggested by Bridesmill) has not been discussed yet. And we have yet to hear from Masterhatch, Nlu, Kusunose, and Bridesmill regarding the wording. That's why I am asking others which is more appropriate:

Tortfeasor's version
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.
Endroit's version
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

--Endroit 18:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Endroit's version would be my vote, with the {controversy} tag now here rather than a footnote. The "see also" makes it sound a bit like "oh, by the way", when in fact the dispute is central to all of this whole discussion here. I would request that we try to not get silly in the rest of the dab - the Sri Lankan ref, and expanding Tokai to include anything with that root in it seems a bit much; and we should try to come to some sort of consensus there; otherwise with the first line agreed upon someone will likely start a factual dispute about each of the others in turn....EEEEK!!! Bridesmill 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

please don't make me repost the list of citations. the top dictionaries and encyclopedias, at their entry for "east sea", just say "see sea of japan" or simply "sea of japan." we are not here to vote on what we think east sea means or should mean, or what conditions we think should be attached to the term. that's not our job.
my concession as to form (redirect vs. list) doesn't make the references disappear. it doesn't change the fact that according to the top encyclopedias, dictionaries, and mapmakers, east sea is another name for the sea of japan, period. it's not merely another name "as described by" a dispute, it is in fact accepted as an entry by itself, as a term referring to the sea of japan. it is not merely mentioned in passing as a part of a description of a dispute.
fagstein's version (supported by tf & myself) best reflects that reality, clean, accurate, & policy-compliant (after the "alternate name" compromise). i guess i spoke too soon when i thought we were coming to a consensus. Appleby 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Sea of Japan naming dispute describes "East Sea" the best. This and the Sea of Japan articles both deserve equal treatmentment. By the way, the top encyclopedias and dictionaries don't have an article on Sea of Japan naming dispute.--Endroit 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

exactly. they just say "east sea": see "sea of japan". the link to the dispute page is unnecessary, & against wikipedia style guidelines, but a concession i've made. thanks for reminding everyone. Appleby 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects (in other encyclopedias and dictionaries) are NOT articles. Stop treating them like they are.--Endroit 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that other encyclopedias have redirects and use the term redirects. If that is the case than a citation would be nice. Otherwise, determining which articles are "redirects" and which aren't in non-Wikipedia sources is probably original researchc.
I guess let's see who is in favor of which version. All the arguements pro and con are above. Tortfeasor 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the first version, although this is something that I'd prefer:
East Sea is one of the names used for the marginal sea located between Japan and Korea. The other name is Sea of Japan. See Sea of Japan naming dispute.
--Nlu (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a whole lot of time lately to play on wikipedia, so i haven't been following this discussion too closely, but i want to put my two cents in. I feel that "East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute." is the best way to describe the situation at hand. It is the most accurate and least pov. the other way may lead reads to believe that East Sea is on equal footing with sea of japan, which it isn't. I also feel that we don't need a "controversial tag" on this particular article. Masterhatch 23:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi all: I would prefer we finish this sometime soon so I'm bringing it up again to get some feedback. It seems like the first version is supported by me, Fagstein, Appleby, and Nlu for a total of four votes. The second version is supported by Endroit, Bridesmill, and Masterhatch for a total of three. Kusunose, who was asked to vote, is abstaining/has not voted yet? It's a pretty close vote but I had the suggestion that since some of us "moved" on the issue of changing it from "alternate name" to "another name" perhaps there could be some reciprocity by going with the first verstion and we could end this discussion. If not, any other suggestion would be nice. Thanks. Tortfeasor 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be late for commenting. I think putting Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute into same sentence is better than additional "See also...". If I were to make them separate and desciptive, I would write: "East Sea may refer to the Sea of Japan, a marginal sea surrounded by Japan, Korea and Rossia. For detail, see Sea of Japan naming dispute." --Kusunose 09:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So now we have a 50-50 result (4-4) on the wording. I believe 7 of us seem willing to compromise, however, the wording cannot been determined.--Endroit 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite what seems to be an uncouth insinuation written above ;) I guess we're at an impasse on the current main two wordings unless either side, not just one side, budges.
So how about a modified version of Kusunose's last suggestion: "East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute."
As for a poll, it seems like there has been a lot of questionable activity with socks and meatpuppets so I'm not too enthused by that but I would like to hear what others say. Tortfeasor 17:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The two wordings are close enough not to really make all that much difference. If the Last modification above will sort the problem, I am willing to go with "East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute.". Personally, I would rather see us who got ourselves into this mess but know it reasonably well come to a compromise, rather than get a poll started which could potentially get fairly nationalistic participation & could see us right back at square one.Bridesmill 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
i'm with bridesmill. that wording is fine, i think many of us are just tired of the discussion, & once again, rationale is the point, not head-counting of opinions. anyone who has minor issues with this wording, please read the past discussions & appreciate the compromises & ad nauseum repetition that has already taken place. Appleby 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot compromise on this Tortfeasor/Kusunose version just proposed here. In my mind, there's no doubt that ending the sentence with "is another name for the Sea of Japan" is not NPOV. The offending word here is "is". With such wording, Nihonjoe's suggested version below would be more appropriate and NPOV.

However, if a compromise is necessary, I must still insist on the following....

Endroit's version
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

--Endroit 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planning a poll

In any case we need to take this to a poll, to obtain a wider consensus. 8 of us discussed a possible compromise, but the wording cannot be determined. And it's possible that some other people are against compromise, and they may reject any of our ideas. It's really unfortunate that we have 2 versions, but I suppose we have to propose these 2 versions and see if people can agree to either one of them. (Maybe we can offer Nlu & Kusunose versions as well as any other suggestions.) And multiple votes (on the various different wordings) should be allowed. Perhaps the voting we did at Talk:Tsushima Basin can be our model, except we probably should set the threshold at 51% (instead of 60%).--Endroit 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An outside view

Given that any wording chosen here will most certainly begin to be changed within hours of the article being unprotected, it seems to me that the final wording is rather unimportant. If I may be forgiven for saying so, the only important issues here are the larger-scale questions: whether this should be a dab or a redirect, and what general form the explanation of the Sea-of-Japan dispute should take.

A consensus has been reached on both points, with several editors demonstrating an admirable willingness to make concessions: it seems to be agreed that it shall be a dab page, and that it shall include a link to the article on the dispute rather than making any attempt to describe the dispute here (since that would almost inevitably lead to this rapidly turning into a POV fork of that article). The only decision people see as remaining is the wording of the first disambiguation link. Since wording is practically impossible to preserve on a wiki without violating WP:OWN, the wording used when the article is unprotected will be temporary; and since all of the proposals that are being seriously discussed are sufficiently neutral to meet the NPOV policy, and the debate appears, from what I can glean from the arguments set out above, to be largely based on very subtle implications some editors see and others don't, I have to say that I suspect the wording is fairly arbitrary as well.

So why not break the impasse by simply getting some random editor, someone who has not participated in the debate at all, to pick the phrasing that (s)he considers preferable on stylistic grounds, and go with that? In other words, WP:3O; strictly speaking it's only for disputes involving two editors, but it seems two equally-balanced groups of editors would meet the spirit of the tool just as well.

Or, failing that, toss a coin. :) — Haeleth Talk 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute has already been listed on WP:3o (that's how I got here), and it's inappropriate for listing on that page (the rules are very clear). If you want an outside opinion, just link to the page and cut down excess verbiage entirely. If you insist on linking to the naming dispute, just make it a "see also" and be done with it. Fagstein 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

[edit] Description of decision reached

The two steps below would effectively end this dispute, I believe. This isn't a choice between them as they are both part of the proposed solution. Both would be implemented if it's agreed that they address the concerns expressed by both parties in this dispute.

1. Remove the first paragraph (as it is covered by #2, below):
East Sea is the alternate name for the Sea of Japan advocated by Korea, often written as Sea of Japan (East Sea) in English publications. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.
2. Replace "East Sea may also refer to:" with "East Sea may refer to:", and replace the first point under that with the following:
"East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute."

[edit] Proposed Consensus straw poll

Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above. Please note that this is only to determine if general consensus has been reached on the exact decision described above. Any opinions or comments not directly related to the above will be deleted without comment. (Please discuss the conditions and threshold of the poll before starting it).

  • Confused I don't think the above description accurately states the general consensus reached. I can expand on my comment if anyone wants. Tortfeasor 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Also a bit confused - is this a choice? I don't think anyone now here is insisting on what the page says now, if I've been following our discussion. Seems the general consensus is towards something like the second point. This poll seems to me to be bringing back a point we left behind a while ago...Bridesmill 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion. It isn't a choice. It's listing two changes that I seem to see as agreed upon by everyone. If everyone egrees on these, then I think the dispute would be resolved. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As this "Nihonjoe's version" is more NPOV than any of the suggested "compromise" versions above, I don't mind going to the polls with this "Nihonjoe's version". However, if a "compromised" version is also desired, I insist on putting forth my "Endroit's version", which is:
Endroit's version
East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
(In Endroit's version, the 2nd mention of Sea of Japan, in the "may also refer to" section, will be removed).
If Tortfeasor desires to put forth any of his suggested "compromise" versions, that should be allowed in the polls also.
Can we make this a multiple-choice poll, where people can vote on more than one choice (or none at all)? Also, we must discuss how to conduct the poll, particularly the criteria and threshold. The poll we did at Talk:Tsushima Basin can be considered one of the models.--Endroit 12:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another try

[edit] Description of decision reached

lemme try this. the below is the proposed replacement content (replace the entire current page with the entire content of below), as i understand the discourse above. not every detail has had numerical tallies of editors, but these have been reasonably discussed by reasonable people, imho. so i'd like to see an up or down vote on this entire version by those reasonable participants. this is not a democratic election, it is a summary of the WP:CON process that has been hashed out above.

for those editors who have been actively engaged in the discussions above, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with this version immediately below this paragraph. again, this is NOT a democratic election, but a synopsis of the above consensus-building. As nihonjoe said, opinions or comments not directly related will be deleted without comment. (feel free to refactor this section for readability, i don't know how to make a text box around the below)Appleby 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute.

East Sea may also refer to:
* East China Sea, a marginal sea located east of China, where it is called Dong Hai (东海/東海).
* South China Sea, a marginal sea located south of China. Vietnam's local language name for the sea is called Biển Đông.
* Dead Sea, a salt lake located east of Israel, as used in the Bible.
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. 
zh:东海 (消歧义)
ja:東海

No. This is far from where we were going; Sorting out the first line, and the rest of it not much different from before, with the minor variants removed (every word with a local variant of Tokai, of instance). I have a sense we are further back than when we started.Bridesmill 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, not that terribly far; but I have a sense we are better off to settle on the first line and take it from there rather than try & cure it all at once.Bridesmill 23:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm i'm surprised by your reaction, cuz that's what i thought i did (removing unreferenced local variants), nothing undiscussed. i know endroit seemed against it for some reason, but i thought everyone else was ok with this principle. at this rate, palestine will be a thriving state before we can remove the page protection. Appleby 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Some of this stuff was never discussed seriously, except by Appleby, so there's no such "decision" yet. In particular here, Appleby wants to delete "Baltic Sea", "Tokai", and "Sea of Bengal". I must point out that "East Sea" can clearly refer to "Baltic Sea" in the English language, as I explained in these discussions. Also, we still need to discuss the wording on "Tokai" and "Sea of Bengal". If Appleby doesn't understand where the consensus is regarding these matters, I'm afraid it could signify another impending revert war.--Endroit 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The oriental variants other than Tokai I was totally unfamiliar with; so your argument for English Language status would apply to them; OTOH the Baltic and Tokai which you seem not to like are known as such in the vernacular in English. So it boils down to what paert of the world you are in and what other languages you deal with; as a DAB it needs to meet a standard of being "useful", and the may was paramount in this for assisting English as Second Language users navigate and use WP. As pointed out above, we are not going to be able to limit this list anyways because we don't WP:OWN, but what we can do is set a bar - in other words, only one iteration of a linguistic variant, or something so the list does not end up with every Tokai teashop and alley.Bridesmill 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys are working very hard to resolve this disagreement, which is commendable. I have some personal involvement in this issues, as when I was stationed with the U.S. military in Korea, I was aware of this debate and made sure to remind my U.S. colleagues that all of our maps needed to say East Sea, not Sea of Japan in a gesture of respect for our Korean military hosts and comrades. However, as pointed out numerous times here, Sea of Japan appears to be the most commonly used name in most of the western world. I think the text you propose above is close to a fair compromise, but not quite. I think the first line should read:

"East Sea is another name for the area of water between the Korean peninsula and Japan, which is also known as the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute." Would this resolve the dispute? Cla68 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because "Sea of Japan" is the most common name in the western world doesn't mean its common overall. The East Sea is the correct name, its just that everybody learned it as the "Sea of Japan" and believe that it is the most common. Good friend100 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That may be true but that's not going to resolve the dispute going on here. That's why my suggested sentence is, I believe, very neutral, it doesn't favor one name over the other. It may be that East Sea will one day be the accepted name worldwide (I think it will be because it's more neutral than Sea of Japan). But, you have to start-out with compromises in order to get things moving. Are you willing to compromise in order to get this issue settled for the moment so we can spend time on other things that need our attention? Cla68 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Its only a matter of time until people will realize the neutrality of "East Sea". I'll compromise, just so long as everybody else wants to compromise. Good friend100 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, we're accepting the text proposed by Appleby with the change to the first sentence proposed by me, above. If everyone else involved in this debate is willing to join Good friend100 in compromising and accepting the proposed text, please state so immediately below: Cla68 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Me! I like Cla68's proposal above. Good friend100 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I generally agree but think that the current other meanings (Baltic Sea and Bay of Bengal, in particular) should be included. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am fine with it too as long as the first sentence is distinct and prominent to indicate the current usage of East Sea in majority English sources. (I'm not sure Nihonjoe understood that part or not last time which is why I'm reiterating. However, I don't like the use of Korean Peninsula without the use of Japanese Archipelago because the current sentence seems to suggest a geographic descriptor (K. Peninsula) while the other is the name of a state (Japan). Or it could just list the nation-states that surround the body of water i.e. DPRK, Japan, etc. Also, I'm fine with most of the names in the dab but I would prefer some citations for the more obscure ones (i.e. Tokai and Bay of Bengal) or leave the citation needed tag, otherwise the dab page may be used as a foreign language translator and I don't think that is the purpose of a dab. Tortfeasor 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think we're making progress here. I support Nlu's proposal to keep those other two meanings in the article and Tortfeasor's recommendation to call Japan by the geographic name (Japanese Archipelago) instead of the national name. However, I don't support saying that East Sea is used "in majority English sources" because that's too debateable and we'll never get anywhere trying to resolve that one. That's why my proposed first sentence doesn't try to claim whichever name is used most, just that those two names are the two generally recognized. That's one of the key compromises that we're asking people to make in order get the debate over the wording of the article resolved. Does anyone have any sources for the use of East Sea for other geographic areas in the world? Cla68 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify one more time per the discussion above and the archived one. The key compromise made by Bridesmill was to at least put the East Sea=Sea of Japan designation first and seperate on the dab page because of its primary usage/de facto status as the only definition used by major reputable sources such as Britannica. That hasn't been an issue for a while. Instead this debate has been about what that primary sentence says and I think Cla68's compromise sentence is fair as long as the key point of Bridesmill's compromise is followed. I didn't mean for what I had written above to mean that I wanted Cla68's wording to change. I was just reiterating that key point which is why we're even having a discussion on the wording of that sentence. As to the other "may refers", as long as its reasonably sources, again I'm fine. Thank you Jjok for looking into those. It seems to me that the Baltic Sea is kind of a stretch from his/her research? But again, that depends on the consensus of the editors. Tortfeasor 17:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to show how close we really are, the wording I proposed was:
    " East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute. "
    This wording is short and concise enough to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) without introducing any POV ideas, either way or the other. Additionally, it clearly defines the meaning of "East Sea" to be "as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute". If you separate this line into 2 sentences as proposed, it may seem to tilt in the favor of Korean and/or Japanese POV because it relates "East Sea" with "Sea of Japan" unconditionally. The link to Sea of Japan naming dispute tells it all, and should be in the same sentence, together with Sea of Japan. Also, "Baltic Sea", "Sea of Bengal", and "Tokai" should be included.--Endroit 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, the following is fine with me also::
    " East Sea is another name for the sea between Korea and Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute. "
    .... This would be great since everything is in the same sentence. But I don't think the WP:Disambig and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) rules allow that though.--Endroit 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody write down the final proposed paragraph below? Thank you. Good friend100 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what I understand that we're proposing as the article text:

East Sea is a name for the area of water between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, which is also known as the Sea of Japan. For details, see Sea of Japan naming dispute."

East Sea may also refer to:
* East China Sea, a marginal sea located east of China, where it is called Dong Hai (东海/東海).[citation needed] 
* South China Sea, a marginal sea located south of China. Vietnam's local language name for the sea is called Biển Đông.[citation needed] 
* Dead Sea, a salt lake located east of Israel, as used in the Bible.[citation needed] 
* Baltic Sea, a mediterranean sea located east of Scandinavian Peninsula and Jutland, called so in various Germanic languages, eg. "Ostsee" in German, "Östersjön" in Swedish and "Oostzee" in Dutch.[citation needed] 
* The western part of the Bay of Bengal, known as East Sea in Sri Lanka. [citation needed]
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. 
zh:东海 (消歧义)
ja:東海

Could someone add the supporting inline citations to the end of each "bullet" statement? And then I think we'll be ready to ask an administrator to unlock the page and post this text? Cla68 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't just unlock it without getting more input from the others.... For one thing, I don't agree with the wording as I just explained above. And there are 10 of us altogether, who attempted to discuss a compromise recently. Plus there are others like Jjok who have posted without discussing any compromise.
Also, some of the citations (which you are asking for) have already been given. You don't see the citations on the page since this is a WP:Disambig page, which has its peculiar restrictions regarding what does not belong in a Disambig page.--Endroit 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of the East Sea as the East China Sea in English

Just a note. Some examples of the East Sea as the East China Sea including some official sites. People often call East China Sea as East Sea as a direct translation of Dong Hai, just like Dong Hae for coreans.

East Sea Fleet should not be there I think.

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700 Chinese (Simplified) pages for "east sea" -korea.

Results 1 - 10 of about 10,900 Chinese (Simplified) pages for "east sea" -korea -pattaya -japan

I think english speakers in china also sometimes use East Sea referring to East China Sea. Though, in the following case, it seems referring to Bo Hai.

4 Days Hiking Greatwall From East Sea to Beijing

Jjok

East Sea probably without relation to sea of japan. Most of them seem referring East China Sea.

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,300 for "east sea" -"sea of japan" -"japan/east" -"japan, sea of" china -"China East Sea" -korea

East Sea probably appearing as mono-name without sea of japan/japan sea.

Results 1 - 10 of about 411,000 for "east sea" -"sea of japan" -"japan/east" -"japan, sea of".

76,300/411,000=18.5%, thus approximately 1/5 possibility that East Sea refers East China Sea when it appears as mono-name.

[edit] Examples of the East Sea as the Baltic Sea in English

Results 1 - 10 of about 572 German pages for "east sea" -korea -pattaya -china -japan

Actually, a lot of them are not very english pages. Jjok

Not sure if we can comment on the quality of English...the point of a dab apge is after all not quite the same as an article; by definition, its a place for beople to be disambiguated, and with very few exceptions that is going to apply to English as a second language users. We are with the dab providing a service, not just a definition; one can find many, many examples of dabs which at first glance stretch the imagination - certainly the only 'East Sea' for me remains the Baltic, but that is because of my ethnocentrism - for others it's the East China etc. I think the important thing here is to keep it 'reasonable' and not list every 'Baltic Sea Marina' and 'Tokai Grocery store etc etc.Bridesmill 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are more on citations for Baltic Sea / East Sea in English:
  1. An 1851 copy of Encyclopedia Americana shows that "East Sea" is an alternate for Baltic Sea (in English) in their "Baltic Sea" article. It is not certain when (if) that notation was removed from Encyclopedia Americana.
  2. Page 7 from Endre Bojtar, Foreword to the Past: A Cultural History of the Baltic People, Central European University Press 1999 (ISBN 9639116424)
    The Baltic Sea has been called "East Sea" since 1553 (or earlier). The use of "Baltic Sea" occurred no earlier than the end of 18th century.
  3. "A Chart of East Sea". This is a map of the Baltic Sea in English, circa 1680.
  4. Wikipedia's own North Sea and Amber Road articles link to Baltic Sea in the form [[Baltic Sea|East Sea]].
--Endroit 05:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other examples

[edit] the Dead Sea

lay on the east side of the Holy Land (Joel 2:20; Ezek. 47:18) ===The Mediterranean=== lay on the west, was hence called the "great sea for the west border" (Num. 34:6).

[edit] South China Sea

I have not been able to find any examples referring Bay of Bengal. Thus, if someone find East Sea as an english mono-name, the probability is Sea of Japan>East China Sea>>South China Sea, Baltic Sea, Dead Sea, and Mediterranean. Others can be left as trivia. Jjok

This is a relatively non-recent news reference to Bay of Bengal as East Sea. Google appears to have dropped Sri Lankan news sources, so I can't find any new ones. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It seems the usage is actually exist (though I am still thinking the possibility that the sea refers one of the lagoons there. Palali, Sri Lanka) There are possibilities that the East sea referring to the Bay of Bengal was more common in previous, similarly to the Baltic Sea.
I do not think recentness and the addition of reference in the article is always necessary though it is nice to add (Joel 2:20; Ezek. 47:18) as references for the Dead Sea and East Sea Fleet and East Sea Bridge to the East China Sea as well-established East Sea usages in english. Jjok

[edit] Just to make sure

I thought there was consensus on Bridesmill's format. The only debate over the last several weeks was over the wording of the first line. Tortfeasor 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, the compromise was conditional, dependent on the wording. Since you disagreed on the wording, there was no consensus. Whatever wording you prefer, please do a poll do get wider consensus.--Endroit 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the overall format was dependent on the actual wording of the first sentence because no one expressed that concern in the talk. An informal poll, like the one that was kosher at Hideyoshi's invasion, would suggest that Bridesmill, me, Appleby (does his/hers count still), Kusonose, Fagstein, Nlu, Cla68, Goodfriend all seemed fine with the general format. The only person who has expressed being against Bridesmill's original compromise that re-jump-started discussion is you, Endroit, and you only mentioned that today. Tortfeasor 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planning for a Poll: To determine if Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute should be listed separately

There will be a poll to determine if Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute should be listed separately at the top. If listed separately, it will use the "East Sea is" wording. If listed together with the others, it will use the "East Sea may refer to" wording, but will still be at the top of the list. We will follow the guidelines of the poll being conducted at Talk:Sea of Japan right now, unless there are any other suggestions. I will start the poll after we discuss this further for another 5 days.--Endroit 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a formal poll for the moving of the Imjin War article to Hideyoshi's Invasions? Tortfeasor 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The status quo there is already "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea". You can start a poll to move it to "Imjin War".--Endroit 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going by what was okay with what happened over there. If you have a problem with it here, logically you should have a problem with what happened there. Tortfeasor 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the 2 articles are related at all. And the consensus was already clear in Talk:Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea, but not here in this article. However, just to make sure, ask the others people in both discussions. Does anybody think "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" and "East Sea" are related at all? And why?--Endroit 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I take it back ;) Tortfeasor 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a poll about the wording of the first sentence? or Is this a poll about the fact that the de facto usage is listed first and then the other usages are listed as "may refer to". I don't think the too issues were ever linked until today. Tortfeasor 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already made my suggestion in the first paragraph above: It's whether to list separately ("is" wording) or together with others ("may refer to" wording), as I said. However, I would like Fagstein, Bridesmill, and others to determine which would be the status quo, and whether it should be a 60% supermajority-required-to-change poll or a 50-50 either/or poll.--Endroit 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess the "is" wording case (separated) can be tied in with Tortfeasor's suggested wording, if Tortfeasor prefers that. But the "may refer to" wording case (together) should be left open for further discussion. What do you think?--Endroit 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm confused. ;) How bout the last version by you or the last version by me in the history for the basis of the poll? Tortfeasor 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems OK to me at this point. I'd like to see what other people say also before we start the poll.--Endroit 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Sounds good to me. Tortfeasor 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and tradition implies that it's separate at top when there is a primary meaning. Since East Sea is a disambiguation page and not a redirect we can infer that there is no primary meaning and it should not be listed separately. If we want to apply a primary meaning, we should also make "East Sea" a redirect and move this page to "East Sea (disambiguation)". Fagstein 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/s/Talk%7EEast_Sea_d836.html"