Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Peer review 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.
Sea of Japan naming dispute is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do:
Map of Korea This is part of WikiProject Korea.
Archive
Archives
1 • 2 • 3 • 4

Contents

[edit] Inconsistency Section

This section should be deleted. There are no references and sounds like someone just thought this up in their head. More importantly Korea's "South Sea" is a colloquial term that's not being advocated for international change. That means it doesn't present any inconsistency for the purposes of this naming dispute. The section also doesn't make sense from the previous section which already stated the Korean position that "east sea" argument is not based on translation of Korean name but from alleged historical usage which is of course is the heart of this dispute. This article is really crappy. Melonbarmonster 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] This article is no longer neutral

There is so many questions and discussions below that are not answered. The article needs full rewriting. Japan's opinion and Korea's opinion should be separately written in separate section, and should not be touched each other as long as it has good verifiable reference. Links to unverifiable source (blogs) should be cleaned up if it is still there. --Isorhiza 02:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My opinion about Wikimachine's comment

Wikimachine's Comment 4 Dear Wikipedians:

How are you doing? I am fine except that I caught cold. Yet, I have returned. For 1 thing, this is about the dispute on the name of the sea between Korea and Japan. Therefore, whether the official name of the sea is Sea of Japan or not does not matter -this is the logic that my many smart Wikipedians seem to miscomprehend.

If you want to find out about the official name, go to Sea of Japan article, please. If you want to know about the historical reasons, then welcome to this article.

Wikipedia should be neutral and it's not fair to refer to only pro-Japan articles.

You see, one great Wikipedian said that the international community is supporting the Japanese claims, and this tells something!

That's mainly because Japan has more money and recognition.

But, everybody fail to remember that the international community tends to favor Japan in everything. Why? They introduce great ideas! They industrialized and westernized before Korea and China! They make great cartoons, cars, robots, etc! Yay! Vote for Japanese -no matter what!

So what? It doesn't matter which country makes better cartoons or which country westernized earlier.

You see, already the odds are against the Koreans, and, even more, Japanese government is trying to wipe away its dirty past.

I don't think so. They are still trying to spread new history textbooks that distorts and justify Japan's history as an aggressor nation

This article should try to pinpoint the truths behind biases. It doesn't matter how the international community thinks.


To Wikimachine; I support "Sea of Japan" but I wish you have a fair point of view.

If this is a dispute only between Korea and Japan, Korea doesn't need to request medias and publishers all over the world to change the name. Korea should request only Japanese publishers to change the name. But the fact is that Korea is trying to change the international consensus. What is official name? In IHO, countries standardize name, but it is for nautical charts and for the sake of maritime related matters. --02:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 03:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding a part of facts is not neutrally.

  • Japan asserts it is irrational about the South Korean opinion that "Oriental Sea" is the variants of "East Sea".
  • As few as 2 maps use "Eastern Sea."

These are asserted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Although it is exact information, why does it delete? Is it because it is inconvenient to South Korea? We have not deleted inconvenient information to Japan. Please bring forth a counterargument, if this description is wrong.Objectman 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan claims that it is irrational to consider "Oriental Sea" to be variants of "East Sea". But, readers shall judge whether it is irrational. this description is required as a judgment material.Objectman 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimachine's Comment 4

Dear Wikipedians:

How are you doing? I am fine except that I caught cold. Yet, I have returned. For 1 thing, this is about the dispute on the name of the sea between Korea and Japan. Therefore, whether the official name of the sea is Sea of Japan or not does not matter -this is the logic that my many smart Wikipedians seem to miscomprehend.

If you want to find out about the official name, go to Sea of Japan article, please. If you want to know about the historical reasons, then welcome to this article.

You see, one great Wikipedian said that the international community is supporting the Japanese claims, and this tells something!

But, everybody fail to remember that the international community tends to favor Japan in everything. Why? They introduce great ideas! They industrialized and westernized before Korea and China! They make great cartoons, cars, robots, etc! Yay! Vote for Japanese -no matter what!

You see, already the odds are against the Koreans, and, even more, Japanese government is trying to wipe away its dirty past.

This article should try to pinpoint the truths behind biases. It doesn't matter how the international community thinks.


To Wikimachine; I support "Sea of Japan" but I wish you have a fair point of view.

[edit] Dispute between Japan and Korea ?

Despite what Wikimachine says, this opening section seems strange:

"There is a long-running dispute over the name of the sea bordered by Russia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea. The Koreas and Japan disagree over the sea's international name."

The problem is that "Sea of Japan" is the de-facto international name used in English-speaking countries (and most other languages as well). There is a Korean campaign to change that. To say that "the Koreas and Japan disagree over the sea's international name" is misrepresenting the issue. It's not between Korea and Japan; it's between Korea and the current convention. Indeed, Japan may support the current convention, and may even defend it, but that's not the point. The point is that Koreans want to change the current internationally accepted name.

Does anyone else feel that this introduction is misrepresenting the issue? Bathrobe 08:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point. I never quite thought about it that way. Masterhatch 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

actually, this has been discussed i think a few times in the archives. the only party actually opposing the change is japan; all the other countries & organizations either don't care or have explicitly deferred to the two parties to settle it. nobody but japan has said that sea should be called "sea of japan," the iho & un have only said that they have no jurisdiction to decide the matter, & are merely using the current most widespread name, & if japan agrees to "east sea," un & iho will follow suit without their own objections, as will other countries & publications. Appleby 00:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That't not true. Japanese government says, "We do not have to change the international name, because the claim of Koreas is a lie, or has no evidences found. There is no relation between the change of the name and the Japanese Empire. There is no merit to change."Check the page 2 of the PDF.--Mochi 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it South Korea who says "it should be East Sea"? Please read Japanese claim
Hey All: I read what Bathrobe wrote and I want to point out that in a dispute there needs to be two parties in disagreement. That is just the plain usuage of the word "dispute". True, one can have a dispute against a policy, but in this case, the Korean position is not in disagreement with the policy. The IHO policy is, if there is a dispute on the name of a body of water than the parties in the dispute should figure out a compromise. In fact, if anything, the Japanese position seems to be more in dispute with the stated policy because they want to keep the status quo and not change the name. In this case, there is only a dispute because there is a disagreement between both Korea and Japan. If Japan did not have any objections to the Korean proposal and did not have an actual position on the matter (keeping the status quo) than both parties could come up with a compromise name as per IHO regulation. It would be a mischaracterization to say Korea has a dispute with international law. Simply making the claim that the Japanese government wants to maintain the status quo or that Korea has started the controversy as stated by the two previous posts is clearly not evidence to that claim. Unless there is evidence to show how the Korean government has a dispute with specific internation law rather than Japan's position on the issue than it is clear this is a dispute between two countries and not a dispute between one country and a policy. Simply put, to characterize this as a solely Korean controversy would omit Japan's stated stake in the issue, which is at least 50% of the reason why there is an issue. To make it seem this is soley a Korean issue would mischaracterize the issue. Thanks for reading. Tortfeasor 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I didn't write that introduction. (Wikimachine 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)) That's pretty interesting.

Then perhaps it shouldn't be called "Sea of Japan naming dispute". Perhaps it should be named "Korean initiative to reinstate former name of Sea of Japan".

Bathrobe 06:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bathrobe: I'm confused and I hope you can clarify what the issue here is. Earlier, you suggested that the introduction was misleading and because it was misleading we should change it. And I think it's pretty clear that your earlier suggested change would make the introduction more misleading because it would omit Japan's response, which I will concede was in reaction to Korea's initiative, but because Japan has a problem with the proposed change too it makes it a dispute of two countries, not one. Now you want to change the title of the article, but I'm not sure why. Is your suggestion that because the Koreas raised the issue, that is how it should be titled? Is your general principle that the "initating" party must somehow be incorporated in the title? Like change Attack on Pearl Harbor to Japanese Initiative to Reinfore the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Thanks! Tortfeasor 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason I suggested a change is because you said: 'I want to point out that in a dispute there needs to be two parties in disagreement. That is just the plain usuage of the word "dispute"'. Well, if your title is going to focus on the word "dispute", obviously your article is going to focus on those elements that make a "dispute". (Although I am not convinced that the dispute is purely between Korea and Japan. One aspect of the dispute appears to be that even the Koreans themselves can't agree on what name to revert to.)
So rather than focusing on the "dispute" aspect, perhaps it might be a good idea to step back and look at the issue from a wider perspective. As you yourself admitted, "Sea of Japan" is the status quo. So the problem is one of changing that status quo, and that is the task that Koreans have set themselves.
Changing the status quo requires a great deal of effort, lobbying, a good case, and a well orchestrated campaign. I don't take it as a given that the IHO supports Korea. I would not be surprised if they simply didn't want to get involved. At any rate, the ball has been thrown back into the court of those proposing the change: "Get a consensus and we'll go with the consensus". If the international community requires Korea and Japan to come up with a joint proposal before the status quo is changed, then it is obviously in Korea's interest to find a way to convince Japan to agree. We all know this will be difficult because:
  • The Japanese are just as attached to the name "Sea of Japan" as the Koreans are to the earlier name(s).
  • Korea has to come up with a single proposal, whether for "East Sea", "East Korea Sea", "Korea Sea", or "Corea Sea" -- but not all of them.
  • The proposed names all pose difficulties for Japan. "East Sea" is obviously hard to accept as it doesn't lie east of Japan (and difficult not only for Japan; both China and Vietnam have their own "East Seas"). "Sea of Korea" runs into the problem of what to call "Korea" in Japanese.
To these we need to add in elements and sentiments lingering on from the former colonial relationship. All this makes for a truly difficult situation.
So rather than focusing on the "dispute" aspect, I suggested adopting a title that gives a broader perspective. I suspect it might also put the Korean initiative in a more sympathetic light. Do you understand what I am driving at?
Bathrobe 01:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bathrobe: I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at but anything that makes the article better is good with me. I'm assuming that you want to title the article something like Korean campaign to change the name of the sea between Korean Peninsula and Japanese Archipelago and Asian Mainland and if I'm guessing your intention right, I can see your point. I think the current title is simplest so probably best. Tortfeasor 01:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"It found no maps that bore the name "East Sea"." I'm sure that this Japanese survey was accurate. Just shows how Japan whitewashes its history. No wonder China & Korea are having protestors right now against Japan. You wikipedians should consider this point also. Wonder why they are protesting about Japanese history when it's accurate? It's not. (Wikimachine 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

It is vandalism that Masterhatch deleted the comment which was not suitable for the Koreans or their supporters in this DISCUSSION area,not in the ARTICLE. Show the grounds for judging the opinion whether "East Sea" is really easily recognised when just hearing the name to be trolling. If you delete this comment once again, you ARE NOT qualified for the DISCUSSION, it will be the Korean propaganda.Wikipedia IS NOT VANK(Voluntary Agency Network Korean).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.159.231.103 (talk • contribs).

This is a discussion page, but that does not mean that trolling is permitted. For the record, Masterhatch is neither a Korean nor (as far as I can tell) even very fond of the country. -- Visviva 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Visvia, long time no see. For the record, I do love Korea very much and I am engaged to a lovely korean girl. I am not in Korea right now and have not been since November 2005. I shall return to the land of the morning calm in September 2006, though. Masterhatch 03:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever seen Masterhatch's passport,Visviva? If not,it is hard to conclude that Masterhatch is not a Korean.Well,there is a possibility that Masterhatch has naturalised as other nation's citizen from Korea.....
Visviva is correct, I am not Korean. He knows this because my user page used to say that I am a WASP from Canada and also because i told him a long time ago. Masterhatch 07:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the benefit of changing the name of the Sea for the world(not for the Koreans)?

"Sea of Japan " has been stable or matured to recognised easily.
Even though some Chinese-speaking have anti-Japanese sentiment, they do use the name "Sea of Japan" and what they call as "East Sea" is East China Sea.--Jusjih 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We are not aiming for any material benefit other than the search for truth, Jusjih. That's the same thing as what good does it do to credit the Koreans for inventing the first iron printing press? Currently, Gutenberg is credited for the achievement, although this is false. (Wikimachine 22:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
Sorry, if you are searching for truth, please don't put "Koreans inventing the first iron printing press" as a FACT. If I were not wrong, Koreans have credited lots and lots of inventions to be accomplished by Koreans, which are not proven (yet).218.186.8.10 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what ethnicity you are but im sure you wouldn't want me or anyone else to sterotype all of your people either. you just sound plain ignorant. No doubt using Ultra-nationalist or idiots on the internet as a "reliable source" to try to represent 10's of millons of people. Metal and then eventually Iron Moveable-type Printing whether it was Printing Press or not is debated. but was developed before Gutenberg Jegal 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I do not fully understand your message. It is the common truth that Chinese people say "Sea of Japan". Chinese-like compound 東海 literaly means "East Sea", but the same writing means different things. In Chinese, it is East China Sea, but in Korean, it is East Sea (of Korea) more commonly known as Sea of Japan. . Speaking the Sea of Japan naming dispute, I have not heard of non-Koreans saying "East Sea". After all, please be advised that I also search for truth.--Jusjih 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s

Appleby added

Koreans argued for a change to the international name since the early 1970's.[2]

but according to the source, it says

"In documents written since the early 1970s, many citizens and scholars have pointed out the unreasonableness of naming the East Sea the "Sea of Japan."".

It is hard to interpret "Koreans argued for a change to the international name" from the source. We should write "Some Korean people complained the international name of the sea in 1970s.", shouldn't we? The Appleby's edition seems that the changing-the-name-campaign started in 1970s, but the source does not say so. --Mochi 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summary of korean position

from http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/ungegn/session-20/working-papers/working-paper-48.pdf:

Historically, the sea area between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, which is inappropriately known as the “Sea of Japan”, had been referred to by various names such as “East Sea,” “Sea of Korea” “Sea of Japan” and “Oriental Sea”. Before the 18th century, no single name had been consistently used to designate this body of water. The absence of Korea’s diplomatic representation in international affairs during the first half of 20+ Sentury when Korea was occupied by Japan, gave Japan the freedom to promote the term “Sea of Japan” with virtually no opposition. The active promotion by Japan and its enhanced political stature in the world at that time led to the gradual replacement of such. names as- “Sea of Korea, ” “East Sea” or ” Oriental Sea” by the term “Sea of Japan”. The Republic of Korea believes that the sea shouId have’ a neutral name. The name “East Sea”, besides its neutral’ character, has an additional advantage in that the adjective “East” perfectly fits with its geographical position, Iocated in the Far Eastern part of Asia. Similar nomenclature for a body of water can be found, for example, in the North Sea, which derives its name from its position relative to the European continent. Appleby 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but i think you missed the point. The opening paragraph of this article is about the main arguement in an historical context for each country's desired name. Korea's main argument is that historically, the original and most common name for the sea is East Sea. That's it. Japan's position is almsot the same. The way you are wording it makes it sound like the best arguement for change is because of the relationship of the sea to Asia. That, at best, is a very poor argument for name change and can't stand alone as an argument. The koreans are compiling a list of arguments for name change, and that just happens to be one of the many reasons. Also, Korea's view that "East Sea" is a neutral name is also a very weak arguement. Neither "neutral name" nor "because it is east of asia" are strong arguements and are definately not worthy of leading off the opening paragraph of a dispute article. This dispute article should be headed off by each countries strongest arguements and should leave the petty stuff for somewhere in the middle. Masterhatch 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, as everyone knows, the opening paragraph of an article or essay should introduce or lead up to the main body of the article or essay. Almost the entire article is about the old maps and who has the most old maps showing which names. Besides, the north sea things is already mentioned in a very, very small paragraph near the middle of the article. By putting the north sea thing in the beginning, you make it sound like that will be a major issue later on in the article when in reality, it has almost nothing to do with the article. Masterhatch 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

that there was no single prevalent name is not describing korea's argument, that's just a premise from which the argument for "east sea" begins. with your version, there is no argument for "east sea" in the introduction. i think we can fit in the argument in one sentence in the intro. the main body of the article is about the history of the debate. north sea is certainly one of the main element of korea's position, as seen in korea's own position paper for the u.n. Appleby 18:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As a Korean, I personally believe that it used to be Sea of Korea before anything else. Seriously, through the trade with the Arabians during the Koryo Dynasty, a period in which Korean porcelains were renowned world-wide, Korea became known.

It must also be noted that it used to be Corea or Coree. But Japan changed that during the occupation because C comes before J, and in any means, symbolically or practically, Korea must not come before Japan.

Show the evidence that Japan changed "Corea" into "Korea" during 1910-1945.


It must be noted that Japan is very well known for white-washing its history. Anyone not knowledgeable of this must research more. Therefore, there is more likelihood that the Japanese research of the maps on this body of the water is biased, unlike the Korean version. (Wikimachine 04:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC))

Somebody asked for evidence on whether Corea was changed to Korea under Japanese imperial rule. Here it goes.

"Korea Used to Be Spelled Corea: Why That Is Now Important (posted 9-17-03)

Barbara Demick, writing in the LATimes (Sept. 15, 2003):

Yes, say Korean scholars and politicians who have begun a drive to change the official English-language name of their country to "Corea." The seemingly arcane campaign is based on an increasingly prevalent belief that the original "C" was switched to a "K" by the Japanese at the start of their 1910-45 occupation of the peninsula so that their lowly colonials would not precede them in the English alphabetical hierarchy.
The controversy used to be fodder only for linguists and historians, but lately the debate has seeped out of academia and into the realm of the political. Twenty-two South Korean legislators last month introduced a resolution in their parliament calling for the government to adopt the Corea spelling -- the first time such a proposal has been made in official quarters in South Korea.
North and South Korean scholars, who rarely agree on much, also held an unusual joint conference last month in Pyongyang, the North's capital, and resolved to work together for a spelling change. They hope it can be accomplished in time for the 2004 Olympics in Athens, when the estranged countries intend to field a joint team.
"Scholars who have studied this more deeply than I believe it was part of the legacy of Japanese imperialists to eradicate our culture," said Kim Sung Ho, a South Korean legislator who was one of the sponsors of the new resolution.
Most evidence supporting the claim is circumstantial. English books and maps published through the 19th century generally spelled the country's name as Corea, as did the British government in laying the cornerstone of its embassy in Seoul in 1890 with the name "Corea." But sometime in the early 20th century, "Korea" began to be seen more frequently than "Corea" -- a change that coincided with Japan's consolidation of its grip over the peninsula.
Chung Yong Wook, a historian at Seoul National University, believes the Japanese -- who controlled the peninsula for four years before officially colonizing it in 1910 -- changed the name by the time of the 1908 Olympics in London so that Japan would come ahead in the ordering of athletes. But the closest thing he has found to a smoking gun is a 1912 memoir by a Japanese colonial official that complained of the Koreans' tendency "to maintain they are an independent country by insisting on using a 'C' to write their country's name."
"I am sure, though, if the Japanese archives were opened you would find much more evidence to support the claim that the name was changed," Chung said.
The North Koreans have embraced the movement to restore the "C" in Korea with much more enthusiasm than their Southern counterparts. Following the conference Aug. 21 at Pyongyang's Kim Il Sung University, the North Korean news agency KCNA referred to the current spelling as "a never-to-be-condoned, state-sponsored crime."
"The Japanese imperialists deliberately changed the English spelling of the country's name in a bid to hurt the pride and dignity of the nation, while stretching their tentacles of aggression to it," declared the official news agency.
Lee Sang Tae, a South Korean government historian who attended the Pyongyang conference, notes that North Korea, unlike South Korea, has not yet received reparations from Japan over the occupation and therefore might want to add the spelling manipulation to its claims for damages."

by the way here's the site: http://hnn.us/articles/480.html#korea9-17-03

The article above does not show the ground evidence that Japan changed Corea into Korea.It shows just a mixture of some happenings on the change.Or it shows the circumstantial evidence even if it is favourablely interpreted.Show the official evidence(act ,the government ordinance or something like that). Trilozengy


This is not a POV site held by Koreans. It's American historian-community news network. (Wikimachine 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

I added colons to the LATimes article though it can be found at the site and it is not necessary to copy all the text here. jjok

[edit] "East sea" in Historical maps

Appleby added

South Korea proposes "East Sea" because it is one of the various English names found in historical European maps

But according to the investigations by the Japanese government, there are few maps of "East Sea" or "Eastern sea" French library US library British libraries. Please do not muddle "Sea of Korea/Korean Sea", "Oriental sea/Sea of Orient", and "East Sea/Eastern Sea". They are different.--Mochi 05:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus Korean government says;

The name East Sea was introduced to the Europeans as the Korean peninsula and Japanese islands began to appear on world maps following the worldwide voyages of discovery in the 16th century. Until the 19th century, the sea area was variously called, the Sea of Korea, the Gulf of Corea, the Eastern Sea, the Oriental Sea, and Sea of Japan.[3]

Korean government admits "East Sea" does not appear on European historical maps, so "It is one of the various English names found in historical European maps" is not suitable.--Mochi 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

from the un position paper cited above: "had been referred to by various names such as “East Sea,” Appleby 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I will show below that "East Sea" was NOT a popular name historically, using the data provided by Korea. Also, I will show that they have resorted to statistical trickery to try to boost the counts in their favor....
Here's a study by KOREA.NET....
68 (65%) - Sea of Korea,East or Oriental Sea
3 (3%) - Sea of Korea and Sea of Japan
13 (13%) - Sea of Japan
20 (19%) - Other
This is based on the detailed data shown in their "Findings" section....
16 - China Sea (Ocean)
1 - China Ocean and East Sea
9 - East (Oriental) Sea*
4 - East Sea and/or Sea of Korea
55 - Sea of Korea (SOK)
3 - SOK and Sea of Japan
14 - Sea of Japan
1 - Manchurian Sea
* Includes East Sea, Oriental Sea, and "Kleine" (Small) Oriental Sea
This shows how the counts for "East Sea", "Sea of Korea", and "Oriental Sea" are combined, to boost their overall data count. It also shows that "East Sea" was NOT a popular name, historically.
--Endroit 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is South Korean government's own map study. They use 2 tricks to try to boost the count for "East Sea" in people's minds....
  1. They combine the counts for "East Sea" with those of "Sea of Korea", "Oriental Sea", and variations. Specifically, they say "References to Korea include the East sea, the Sea of Korea (Corea), the Sea of Joseon (Korea), the Oriental Sea, thu Gulf of Korea, Mer de Coree, Mar Corai, Корейское Море (Sea of Korea), and the Eastern Sea".
  2. They include the count from USC's "East Asian Map Collection ('Sea of Korea' Map Collection)", which essentially is a collection of maps using only "Sea of Korea". Specifically, they say that their sources are: "Collection of old maps and atlases preserved at the British National Library and the Cambridge University Library, London, UK; East Asian Map Collection ("Sea of Korea" Map Collection), East Asian Library, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA; Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress, Washington, DC, USA; Russian State Library, Russian State Archives of Ancient Documents, and Russian State Archives of the Navy, Moscow, Russia; French National Library (BNF), Paris, France; Hye Jung Cultural Research Institute, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea; Hiroo Aoyama's survey in 1995".
South Korea DOES admit that "Sea of Korea" was more popular than "East Sea". And they leave it up to you to make your own conclusions about "East Sea" in their statistical data.
However, the Korean argument is weakened because they provide statistical data which clearly show "Sea of Korea" was popular (not "East Sea"), then argues that "Sea of Japan" was made popular during Japanese occupation, then they request the international community to use "East Sea" instead now. Based on all the statistical data, "East Sea" was not a popular historical name at all.--Endroit 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Endroit: I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by saying that "East Sea" was not a popular term used in the past. The term may have not been as prevalent but perhaps the Korean position to use East Sea rather than Sea of Korea or its variations is because it is, at least, facially neutral. From the Korean position, it would be silly to argue that Sea of Japan is biased towards Japan and then suggest Sea of Korea as an alternative. What argument is actually weakened by you "proving" that the Koreans resorted to "trickery"? Without any more evidence than what we have here, I could just as easily make the suggestion that the reasoning behind grouping Sea of Korea, East Sea et al together was because those names were favorable to the Korean position. The fact that the Koreans, like you say, admit that Sea of Korea was more popular suggests to me that there is no trickery any where. How can you trick someone when you admit what you do? Without actual evidence, however, we are both merely speculating. While you have "proved" that the East Sea wasn't used as much as other names in the past, you haven't stated why proving that weakens the Korean position. The basic dispute is still, because two countries disagree over the naming of a geographical position they share they should work together to resolve the issue. Perhaps the Koreans should suggest the Sea of Korea because it is more backed by historical precedent but since both countries have to compromise an alternative name maybe East Sea is a better, more politically correct, and at least historically precedent alternative. Thanks. Tortfeasor 02:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I already clarified what I wished to prove above, so go ahead and read it again. Also, the sea (Sea of Japan) is located in-between Korea and Japan, so "Central Sea" would seem to be a neutral NPOV name. However, "East Sea" is a Korean POV name, just as much as "West Sea" would be a Japanese POV name. Only the Koreans believe that "East Sea" is a neutral name.--Endroit 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Endroit: Thanks for the response. Yes, I read your post and I understand you want to "prove" that East Sea was not a popular name. That part is clear. It's just not clear, to me at least, what the point of proving that is. If I am understanding your stance, you proving that the East Sea was not prevalent means you've proved that Korea used "trickery" to boost their data count? If you could clarify I would appreciate it. And like I said before, without any more evidence than what we have here, we are both merely speculating about why the Koreans grouped those names together. Further, because another fair position is simultaneous use of names if countries sharing the geographic feature disagree with the name, even if East Sea is POV it is a viable option if that is what the proposing side wants. Either way, if you think East Sea is not neutral, I can see where you are coming from but I think the fact that there are some maps with the name at least proves that the sea was at one time called that because of its position from the over-all Eurasian continent and Western POV, not the Korean POV. So in that sense it is facially neutral and the reasoning of its naming is analgous to the North Sea. Thanks!Tortfeasor 03:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my claim of "statistical trickery" by South Korea, I should have said "statistical fallacy" instead, which is a more widely accepted terminology.... I'm sorry if anybody was confused by that. Anyways, everybody is urged again to refer to this report by the South Korean government for proof. As I've already stated above, this report includes the count from USC's "East Asian Map Collection ('Sea of Korea' Map Collection)", which essentially is a collection of maps using only "Sea of Korea". This is clearly a use of a biased sample. The use of such biased sample amounts to statistical fallacy in the South Korean government's data. And in my own words, "statistical fallacy" is the same as "statistical trickery."
In response to Tortfeasor.... There is no point in proving anything here. I am just continuing a discussion started by Mochi, and would like to hear his response. Also, "East Sea" remains a Korean POV name, as is "Sea of Korea". And "Sea of Japan" is a Japanese POV name. None of these are neutral NPOV names. Nevertheless, "Sea of Japan" is the internationally used name preferred by other nations.--Endroit 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I already posted in a previous thread that the reason why Korea is promoting East Sea is because promoting Sea of Korea would be way too offensive to Japanese & too much of a dramatic change. That's why, although Sea of Korea was used more often, East Sea is a neutral name in today's political environment. So... if last thing the Koreans want is Sea of Japan, then of course they would go for East Sea, which is more likely to be enforced than the other. (Wikimachine 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC))
The funny thing is, is that East Sea is not a neutral name. It is the korean name translated into English. Masterhatch 05:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

that would be funny, if sea of japan wasn't the japanese name translated into english. of course, japan says no, westerners called it "sea of japan." but then, westerners also called it "east sea." can't have your cake and eat it too. so, of the western names sea of korea, sea of japan, and east sea, which is the most neutral and acceptable choice? why can't japan be more mature and agree to a compromise like europe did with North Sea? Appleby 05:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Japan is claiming that SEa of Japan is a neutral name. It is funny because korea is calling East Sea a neutral name when it is no more or less neutral than sea of japan. Masterhatch 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

east sea certainly is more "neutral" in the sense that it was a name used by westerners and it is not country-specific. Appleby 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Masterhatch & Appleby & all other Wikipedians... Let me state this again.

Let's consider Sea of Japan. It's NOT a neutral name because it is implying that the sea is Japan's. Also, the name was supposedly re-enforced (yes, there were few Sea of Japan maps before the Japanese occupation) internationally.

Let's consider Sea of Korea. This SHOULD be the map that Koreans should be advocating for. And, yes, this is, linguistically and historically, the most neutral name...

But, do you think that the Japanese will ever ever agree to this? They would rather destroy all of Korea than to allow this to happen.

Let's consider the East Sea. If the last thing that the Koreans want is Sea of Japan, and Sea of Korea is impossible to introduce into the international community...

then East Sea is the best way to go. Plus, I suppose that East Sea was named so because it was called that way by the Koreans.

Remember that back in the good old days when Arabians loved Korean porcelains & trade was not restricted, nobody cared for Japan. Today's world is different. But, back then, Korea was famous for its porcelain, and Arabians loved it too. They probably introduced Corea (eh hem, not K) into their maps as they got to know us through trade. (Wikimachine 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine, the Japanese are hardly saints (no one is), but I seriously doubt that "they would rather destroy all of Korea than to allow" 'Sea of Korea' to be adopted!
At any rate, to offer "East Sea" as the second best choice because it is "neutral" seems rather poor reasoning.
For a start, I don't think "East Sea" is quite the same as the "North Sea" (formerly known as the "German Ocean" among other things). Unlike the East Asians, the Europeans have got over some of the excesses of nationalism thanks to their experience in two world wars. I don't think even the British got particularly worked up about calling the sea that runs up their entire east coast the "German Ocean" (which never implied "possession" by the Germans) and they don't seem to have any qualms about "North Sea", which according to the Wikipedia article is the north sea in reference to tiny, harmless Frisia. That alone makes the situation quite different.
Secondly, unlike "North Sea" in Europe, Asia has at least three seas that could lay claim to the name "East Sea": the South China Sea (Biển Đông to the Vietnamese), the East China Sea (东海 to the Chinese), and the Sea of Japan (동해 to the Koreans). So this doesn't concern only the Japanese: you need to at least confirm with the Chinese that they are happy with calling the Sea of Japan the "East Sea".
If you are really serious about convincing the Japanese that the name should be changed, why back a name that is so patently unacceptable to them? To expect them to call the sea on their west coast the "East Sea" is probably even worse than asking them to call it the "Sea of Korea"! If a name change ever does take place, the Japanese will always be aware that their western sea is called the "East Sea" for one reason and one reason only: to accommodate the Koreans. It is really no more neutral than "Sea of Korea". So why push for it?
User:Bathrobe 14 April (not logged in)
Thanks for your reply, Bathrobe. Let me get this clear. East Sea is not called East Sea because it's in the eastern part of the Asian continent. It's called so because Koreans call it Dong-Hae, which means "sea east of the land".
Also, if you think that enforcing East Sea would seem as if it was the accomodate the Koreans... that applies as well to Sea of Japan.
So... in order to avoid any favoritism or unfairness, why not let the historical evidences decide what the name of the sea would be? (Wikimachine 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
You seem to be contradicting yourself. This is what you wrote: "the reason why Korea is promoting East Sea is because promoting Sea of Korea would be way too offensive to Japanese & too much of a dramatic change. That's why, although Sea of Korea was used more often, East Sea is a neutral name in today's political environment."
Let me reiterate the point I was making:
1) The "historical evidences", as you call them, seem to point to "Sea of Korea", not "East Sea".
2) If you want to promote a name that is less "offensive" to the Japanese, "East Sea" is no better than "Sea of Korea".
So why push "East Sea"?
(An additional point that I was making was that "Sea of Japan" does not imply "possession" by the Japanese, any more than "Sea of Korea" would imply "possession" by Korea. But "East Sea" does imply the centrality of Korea and the marginalisation of Japan. So it is even worse, in a sense, than "Sea of Korea".)
User:Bathrobe 17 April (not logged in)
Not true. A name implying that the sea is possessed by Korea is far worse & offensive than East Sea -which does not imply the possession by Korea, but the Arabians decided to favor the Korean language in making the name of the body of water when they were making the maps. I do not contradict myself in anyways, Bathrobe.

Think of this. One day there was Sea of the US. Then, the next day it changed to the Sea of Taliban. How offended would you be if that sea had been named that way for more than last 100 years? Same applies to Japan. Also Korea. If East Sea was the most dominant name used & Koreans dislike Japan because of what they did in 1900s are equivalent to that of the holocaust by the Germans (I wonder why the Jews get so much attention with their holocaust, but half the world doesn't know about Korean holocaust), how frustrated would Koreans feel & by how much they would be urged to change the name to anything BUT Sea of Japan. (Wikimachine 04:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Ok... I don't think that you guys are getting this. Bathrobe is weaving through with his smart arguments. Let me explain this in plain logic & mathematics.

Sea of Korea, Sea of Japan, and East Sea favor a country (either Japan or Korea) (although East Sea favors Korea less than Sea of Korea).

Sea of Korea and Sea of Japan imply ownership by a country.

Favoring a country & implying the ownership by a country (which is false, by the way) are both bad.

But... if you map it out mathematically, Sea of Korea & Sea of Japan have 2 negatives while East Sea has only 1 negative (that is favoring a country). Got it? (Wikimachine 04:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Wikimachine's "Sea of Taliban" is a good example. I like it! But let me modify it somewhat with the following changes....
  1. Replace Korea with the United States.
  2. Replace Japan with Taliban.
  3. Let's say that the United States was ruled by Taliban for 35 years, until 1945. And since 1945, the United States has been independent for 60 years.
  4. In the post-war period, Taliban has retained it's name, and the Sea of Taliban has retained its name.
  5. The United States would like to change the name of the sea to "East Sea", but is facing opposition from Taliban.
  6. The United Nations has told the US to work it out with Taliban.
Now what do you do? Remember that the Taliban has changed in the last 60 years, after Karzai took over. And so I think the United States would be wise to consult with the newly born Taliban: ask them which alternate names would be acceptable (or not) to them....
That's right Wikimachine, your mathematical model lacks the Taliban (Japan) figures. To be meaningful, you need to do a statistical survey of random people in both Taliban (Japan) and the United States (Korea), with perhaps a statistical sample of at least 2000 people in each of the 2 nations. Ask everybody which name sounds more neutral, and come up with a new name, together with Taliban (Japan).--Endroit 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, my mathematical model has no fallacy. It's not even a model. Just logical reasoning that tags the three choices with bad and good.

Second of all, your arguments are based off from the viewpoint of the Japanese. To think that Koreans ought to consult the Japanese is ridiculous from historical point of view, when it used to be East Sea or Sea of Korea until very recently. Some random occurences of Sea of Japan were at most around 300 years ago. Sea of Korea & East Sea have been around since the height of the maritime trade between Middle East & East Asia -around 700 years ago.

So... let's modify the US - Taliban theory once more.

Sea of US, the body of water east of US, was used for around 700 years. When US restricted active maritime commerce for social, economic, and philosophical reasons, Sea of US lost its dominance and, over the years, Sea of Taliban began to be used more and more.

In the 17th century, US became a hermit kingdom -completely closed away from the contacts of outside world -even with Canada (China in Korea's case), its closest ally. This policy was in hopes that nobody would attack the US because they would not know about the country.

At the same time, Taliban became very active in maritime trade. By the 19th century, it was rising as one of the world's greatest naval powers. US, on the other hand, lagged behind in military, technology, and intellectual culture as it found no exchange of ideas and competition amongst nations.

At the beginnning of the 20th century, Taliban annexed the US. American hatred against Taliban broils over a century until even today. Talibans have murdered the Americans, used them for experiments and testing of new chemical weapons, abducted teens to work for the factories, forcefully drafted Americans so that they could be used as cover in the front line for the Talibans in the back.... Overtaxation, starvation... And finally... lie about it all.

Talibans claim that all those never happened, and that the Americans should be thankful for them having built the railroads. Their textbooks barely mention these horrors. Their prime ministers apologize over and over and over again, but most of the Talibans have never heard of these. Half the world doesn't know about it, but they sure do about the holocaust of the Jews by the Germans.

Furthermore, the culture between the Talibans and the Americans are very similar. When there is a an American sword, people automatically think of it as the honorable Terrorist sword (Samurai, in Japan's case.) This angers the Americans because that sword was of American origin back in 8th century. Many of cultural aspects that are similar between the two countries are referred to the Talibans. Americans never get any credit.

And this is why (now switching to Korea) Koreans are very eager to spread their culture & hold on whatever is left of their culture.

Right next to Korea is China, a cultural hearth, and, justly, it takes much of the credits of the East Asian culture. And another neighbor is Japan, world's 2nd largest economy, consisting of people known for politeness and busy habit.

During the countless foreign invasions (it's a miracle that Korea survived all those), many of the Korean artifacts were destroyed -one of the reasons why many people don't see many Korean ancient buildings, porcelains, etc. During the Korean War, the two forces swept across up and down the peninsula 3 times. And ultimately, the Japanese during the ealry 1900s occupation have workd so hard to destroy the Korean culture so that the Koreans would lose their identity & be integrated into their empire.

So... how would you feel, Endroit, as a Korean if the body of water was known as Sea of Japan?

How would you feel when people ask you to negotiate with Japan in order to reclaim the sea's name -especially when it was Sea of Korea from the very beginning? From Koreans' point of view, it was theirs from the very beginning. There is no reason for Koreans to see whether Japanese would like to have the name changed- they would definitely say no.

(Wikimachine 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC))


Ultimately, what I don't get is how people here tried to point out that Korean source was biased while Japanese source wasn't. That's the dummiest opinion I've heard in my entire life.

Why are there protests in China and Korea against Japanese policies regarding its past? Don't people get that the Japanese have whitewashed their history? Considering this, definitely, all should support Korean claims. If you look at the Korean history, everything -good and bad- corruption, assassination, revolts, starvation, overtaxation... every bad things about Korea are listed -as well as the good things. In Japan's case, sometimes, they mention them, but many times they let them slide with a summarizing statement -as if it was no big deal. (Wikimachine 00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

While Wikimachine paints a rather moving picture of the history between Korea and Japan, it isn't very dispositive of the issue at all. Certainly, if I were in a similar situation, where the culture of my ancestors had been nearly destroyed by foreign invaders, I might well want to see any mention of those invaders wiped from the international maps, especially where I might see those names as encroaching on some territorial sovereignty of my country. I might even argue that because of those wrongs, the name should be changed (perhaps as a sort of reparation?). This is, of course, a classic example of an appeal to pity.
Certainly, there may be overwhelming evidence that the name of the sea should be changed. However, such proof must first be divorced from overly-sentimental arguments of 'past wartime agression' and 'historical atrocities' to have much probative value at all. By alluding to Japanese imperialism every time the argument is mentioned and then showing that the cited cases 'prove the point' that the name should be changed, the entire case for changing the name is diluted, since you invite focus upon facts which appear over-sentimental and indicative of bias on the part of the people moving for the name change. There may be some worth in mentioning that, for example, the name "Sea of Japan" was formally adopted at a time during which Korea had little or no control over its external affairs, and thus the name as it stands should be re-evaluated. However, references to 'imperialistic atrocities' just serve to muddy the waters, and aren't really relevant. Even if it is true, saying that "The name "Sea of Japan" should be dropped because the historical Japanese were bastards" doesn't really prove the point, and might even make some who would be inclined to agree with a real argument turn away from what they might perceive as evidence of bias or even racism.
Of course, there is also the issue that the situation of Korea certainly is not unique -- South Korea (and to some extent, North Korea) may simply be the most vocal advocates of such a change. There are undoubtedly thousands (if not millions) of native place names which are now either marginalized or wholly forgotten due to the aggression of one country or another. Certainly, the Gulf of Mexico was known by many different names by the native tribes who lived around it. The Black Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea might each have had hundreds of historical names, all largely forgotten because of various conquests and absorptions of cultures. The East Sea might have been known under different aliases by the various tribes that inhabited the Korean Peninsula before any one was able to establish hegemony, and by different names under each of the Three Kingdoms (Silla, Goguryo, and Paekche), all of which were largely lost once the peninsula was conquered by Silla. Certainly, it can be argued that the Wikipedia entry for every geographical feature should be changed to reflect every native name it has had (or at least each that could be verified). Of course, such a system would almost certainly be pretty cumbersome, and still leave open the issue of which native name to use for the page title. There also remains the fact that "Indian Ocean", "Black Sea", and "Mediterranean Sea" have been recognized, for good or ill, as the official English names of those respective bodies of water by a substantial number of people, many (or most) of whom are probably wholly unfamiliar with the indigenous names for them.
The fact that Wikipedia usually uses the official name as recognized by various international bodies might not be perfect, nor even completely NPOV, but it does seem to be the best solution at hand in order to prevent confusion and preserve at least a pretense of neutrality in the various disputes floating around. --Zonath 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's go back to the discussion about the survey thing from Endroit's comment.

Sea of Korea, Sea of Japan, and East Sea favor a country (either Japan or Korea) (although East Sea favors Korea less than Sea of Korea).

Sea of Korea and Sea of Japan imply ownership by a country.

Favoring a country & implying the ownership by a country (which is false, by the way) are both bad.

Sea of Korea and Sea of Japan both favor a country and also imply ownership by a country, but East Sea only favors a country and does not imply the ownership of the sea by Korea. This is why East Sea has only one negative while the others have two. Thus, according to the previous arguments, East Sea is the most neutral name.

Another issue is that there are some arguments about why East Sea is promoted while Sea of Korea is the historically most frequent name? It's because it would be too much of a dramatic change and would be very offensive to the Japanese. I just wanted to get this clear.
The major argument that I would like to counter is that there are plenty of geographic features that are not recognized internationally and have been lost over time. But that probably is because those people who were associated with such features have been conquered by others or have lost their nationality. Well, then that still does not limit Korea from searching for equality and fairness in the international community -extending even to the scholarly communities. (Wikimachine 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC))
  • It's an interesting argument to reduce the whole conflict to a mathematical formula, but unfortunately it doesn't really work (or, at least, only works from one perspective). One could just as easily argue that:
  • Sea of Japan and Sea of Korea both identify countries which border the sea. (+2)
  • East Sea only identifies the general direction of the sea, and then only from certain perspectives. (+1)
  • Most people would recognize either Sea of Japan or East Sea as referring to this particular sea (+1), while Sea of Korea isn't a generally-recognized name (0).
  • Thus: Sea of Japan (+3) wins, while East Sea and Sea of Korea are tied at (+2) a piece.
Even the terms you use to define your equation are slightly arbitrary. Taken as granted that either East Sea or Sea of Japan would favor one country or the other, that still leaves open the question of whether naming a body of water for a country implies 'ownership' of that body of water. After all, the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of California, Colorado River, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf (etc) are all named after specific countries or regions, and none of those bodies are (to my knowledge) assumed to 'belong' to the named countries -- the name simply acts as a descriptive tag to differentiate the body of water from others, without necessarily implying title of ownership. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
--Zonath 20:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I need Einstein to counter these arguments, but here goes nothing. Although it's true that one can make such lists of criteria randomly, I did not do that.
Direction of the sea does not matter because that is in relevance to where you are (because world is round).
We aren't talking about how well the name is recognized nor whether the sea identifies the country adjacent to or owned by (additionally, such name would be implying the ownership of the sea by the country, which is a negative that I pointed out). We are trying to choose the correct name of the sea based off of historical evidences, happen to find that there are several that could fit in, and are trying to see which one fits best (and I'm defending a potential name -East Sea- while you are defending the other -Sea of Japan).
Additionally, I did not intend to make this topic a real big issue. Somebody else said something in the previous posts, and I used this mathematical logic to counter it.
People are constantly bringing up these NPOV names such as the Central Sea or whatnot, but that's not what this is about. We are not trying to create a new name for the sea. We are bringing back the historical evidences to change it as it was before Korea lost voice in the international community and Japan did everything as they wanted to. East Sea, Sea of Korea, and Sea of Japan are the top three choices. There are other variations according to different languages (i.e. Choson Sea, Mare de Coree, etc.), but among these three most frequent and oldest names, we need to choose one.
Also, remember that before the occupation, even in Japanese maps, the sea was named Choson Sea or something like that. Why would the Japanese name it like that? Especially when it was theirs?
A Wikipedian posted something against my US-Taliban model on the fact that Japan is open and willing to negotiate or something. Don't you think that the Koreans tried that already?
Ultimately, I would like to say that reason why the article Sea of Japan naming dispute exists is to describe the dispute between Korea and Japan, and to present the arguments of both sides. It's not at all about NPOV. If you want that and how the rest of the world is playing, go to the Sea of Japan article. That's the article for you to read if you want to learn about it as NPOV. This article has to be POV. There's no way it can't be. Why? Because this article talks about the POV's of the both sides of the dispute: South Korea and Japan.
I would like to say that this article is a little too Japan-sided. It was so in the Dokdo island article as well, in which the situation between the claims between Korea and Japan are presented. So... few others and I fixed it -all under agreement.
Here is an example of Japan-sided statements. These are not direct, but the tone of the statements definitely support Japan.
  • "Korea even points out that a select few 19th century Japanese maps referred to the sea as the "Sea of Joseon (Korea)", including the 1855 Matsuda Rokuzan's Chikyubankoku zenzu, and the 1870 Meizi kaiteibankoku yochibunz"." "select few"... It really weakens the Korean side. Somebody ought to change it, or I will under permission.
Finally, are these claims in the article really true. Has anyone actually participated in an official South Korea-Japan conference over this dispute before? How do they know about these arguments from the both sides? (Wikimachine 23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Aside from those arguments, this is a pretty neat evidence. It's not POV or Korean-sided or anything. But an interesting fact.

"In ancient times, Asians tended to be conservative in naming the seas. They just used East, West, South or North, according to the location of the seas. For example, China called Korea's West Sea as its East Sea, Korea called the sea lying to its east East Sea, while Japan named the sea in the direction of the Pacific Ocean as East Sea."

"The references to Sea of Japan mostly appear in the maps based on Oriental maps that were produced in China after a Chinese translation of the Italian missionary Matteo Ricci's (1552-1610) world map was introduced. The map is the oldest surviving Chinese map known to have used the term Sea of Japan. But as we have observed, Sea of Japan gained currency only in the late 19th century as a result of increasing international recognition of Japan.

In short, before the 19th century, East Sea or Sea of Korea was the more common usage in the world maps. Sea of Japan appeared frequently in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 and the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910, and the name later became predominant."

http://www.korea.net/news/issues/html/eastsea_world_2.html

(Wikimachine 00:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

" East Sea in Use for 2,000 Years

The first record of the name East Sea can be traced back to a description of King Dongmyeong of the Goguryeo Kingdom in “The History of the Three Kingdoms.” The period corresponds to 37 B.C.

The name East Sea also appears on the epigraph of a monument in Jian, on the north side of mid-Amnokgang (Yalu River), northeast of China. King Jangsu erected this memorial to his late father, King Gwanggaeto, in A.D. 414.

The appellation Sea of Japan first appeared in 1602 in a map dubbed “Mappamondo (Complete Map of the World)” by Matteo Ricci, an Italian Catholic missionary based in Beijing. Therefore, the name Sea of Japan was first used about 1,600 years after the Koreans began calling the sea area, the East Sea .

Korea's old maps, most of them produced after the 16th century, carry the name East Sea . For example, the name East Sea is clearly indicated on “Paldo Chongdo (Map of Eight Provinces of Korea)” in “Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji-seungnam (Newly Expanded Survey of the Geography of Korea)” published in 1531."

"The world academic community consistently maintains that ‘history and representation' should serve as the standards for geographical names. 1) Following this principle, the sea area lying between Korea and Japan should be called the East Sea , which has represented the sea area for over two millennia, while the name Sea of Japan is barely 200 years old."

"2) Japan argues that the name Sea of Japan is 200 years old in the official pamphlet issued in August 2002 by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs."

http://www.momaf.go.kr/eng/intl/eastsea/I_eastsea01.asp (Wikimachine 00:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC))


How long it is used is not very important here. What is important is how Europeans and English speaking people decided the name of the sea from 19th to 20th century. This is not the same problem with occupation of rocks or islands. Isorhiza 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Why does the usage of the name from 19th to 20th century matter the most?
Please, don't try to make your way through with willy arguments.
Simply, no. That's the most incoherent argument I've ever seen.
Exactly how is that how the European and English-speaking people spoke the sea? It probably is insult to many people here, and you ought to edit it.
Just because English is the international language does not mean anything like that.

(Wikimachine 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Why deleted ?

Appleby deleted this. Why? I'm sure

  • The treatment of "Orient sea" is important, because Korean government considers it as an equivalent name of East Sea, and Japanese government does not.
  • It is not fair to igonore the fact that Japanese called the Pacific Ocean "日本海"(Japan sea) and Sea of Japan "朝鮮海"(Chosen sea).

--Mochi 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and restore them. (Wikimachine 00:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)) PS that is if they are not there.

I think that Japanese (Koreans) called the sea whatever is not important at all here. What is discussed here is how the sea has been called internationally (ie among Europeans). Japan did nothing to commit the consensus. Isorhiza 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That does not limit the significance of the fact that Japan respected the sea as being under Korea's authority. I think that the general consensus is that Japan urged for Sea of Japan to be used as the international de facto in one of the IHO meetings. (Wikimachine 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Neutrality of the name 'East Sea'

Some people pointed out that East Sea is West to Japan, South to Russia and North to China and therefore not neutral. Since we are talking about the international dispute here I think we should look from a more global prospective. From this point of view the 'East Sea' is neutral. --Optimus2005 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't because it is not the most eastern sea from asia and the origins of the name are from Dong hae, which is the korean name for the body of water, not a neutral name. Neutral names would be Oriental Sea, Friendship Sea, or Beautiful Sea. I just came up with those last two off the top of my head, but it serves the point that those are far more neutral than East Sea (which is a direct translation of the Korean name). If the Koreans really want a neutral name, then they should look at a name that does not come from their own language. Masterhatch 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
1) Your way of reasoning Masterhatch is to dig into a literary meaning of the name and claim that it is not correct (because it's not the most eastern sea from asia). If one follows this logic then she should really check if the Black Sea is really Black and White Sea is White. 2) The fact that 'East Sea' also happened to be one of the original names of the sea is not relevant, since it's a local issue. From a global prospective, the name 'East Sea' is more neutral. In the same way as Eastern Cuisine is more neutral than a Japanese cuisine. Would anyone claim that Chinese cuisine is actually Western Cuisine, just because it's West of Japan? In Japan maybe, but not in the rest of the world, so it's a local issue. We are not trying to discover hidden meanings, but trying to understand the neutrality of the name. --Optimus2005 09:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point that the Korean arugment for using "East Sea" is a weak one at best. Neither "East Sea" nor "Sea of Japan" are "neutral" names so to speak, but history shows us that "Sea of Japan" is by far the more common name in historical western maps. I just don't get the logic that the koreans are saying by using their local name and saying it is more neutral than the current one. It is not neutral if it is based from their language. Masterhatch 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

sea of japan also is japan's japanese name, so that point is moot. east sea is indisputably one of the western names on historical european maps, and korea's position is that it is more neutral than the other european names, sea of korea or sea of japan. this has been repeated ad nauseum, & you can see those european maps at the links in the article. Appleby 01:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If East Sea is not neutral name because of all those reasons.... we ought to neutralize the Carribean, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, Red Sea....

No. Neutrality is not based of geographic location or some other factors that you have suggested.

Neutrality is based on history. If it was named that way long time ago & somebody else changed it later... we need to change it back. (Wikimachine 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Okay, may we begin a dispute to call the penninsula where Korea locates as "East Penninsula" because it is truely eastern end of the Continent? Isorhiza 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

North Korea correctly recognize what the name East Sea means. They call the area East Sea of Korea, not East Sea of Asia. --Isorhiza 08:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimachine's Final Clean Up

Here are the various arguments that I can remember & I would like to make a summary of the topics on which we can focus.

Also, there are some points that I have pinpointed with my previous evidences.

  • Historical reasons: It's definite that South Korea has the advantage in this, especially when East Sea has been used for 2,000 years while Sea of Japan has been used for only 200 years.
  • Frequency of the maps: Apparently, the surveys by Korea and Japan differ in their results. But one must note that Japan is known for having white-washed their history, and people should wonder why there are protests going on right now in China.
  • NPOV: This article presents the two POV sides of the dispute. It cannot be NPOV. I also mentioned that the article tends to be siding with Japan.
  • Neutrality: (repeat) People are constantly bringing up these NPOV names such as the Central Sea or whatnot, but that's not what this is about. We are not trying to create a new name for the sea. We are bringing back the historical evidences to change it as it was before Korea lost voice in the international community and Japan did everything as they wanted to. East Sea, Sea of Korea, and Sea of Japan are the top three choices. There are other variations according to different languages (i.e. Choson Sea, Mare de Coree, etc.), but among these three most frequent and oldest names, we need to choose one.
  • Why not Sea of Korea: (repeat) I think I already posted in a previous thread that the reason why Korea is promoting East Sea is because promoting Sea of Korea would be way too offensive to Japanese & too much of a dramatic change. That's why, although Sea of Korea was used more often, East Sea is a neutral name in today's political environment. So... if last thing the Koreans want is Sea of Japan, then of course they would go for East Sea, which is more likely to be enforced than the other.
  • Favoritism: People are arguing that changing the name to something other than Sea of Japan favors South Korea or whatnot. Notice that the current name favors Japan anyways.
  • Current standard: People are saying that Sea of Japan should be used because it is the most dominant name right now. Ok... That's not what we are doing right now. We are presenting the dispute as it is, not trying to change the name. No matter who wins in this little discussion page, the world won't budge a bit. But I'll say this. Sea of Japan became widespread as Korea became a hermit kingdom and lost its influences while Japan opened its trades, industrialized, and grew.

(Wikimachine 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] POV fork

Just an FYI, but Janviermichelle (talk • contribs) just created a cut-and-paste copy of this page at East Sea (Sea of Japan) naming dispute, as well as a cut-and-paste copy of Sea of Japan at East Sea (Sea of Japan). I changed them to redirects, but someone more knowledgable about POV forking and proper naming of redirects may want to look into it. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They must stay as Sea of Japan naming dispute. (Wikimachine 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC))


[edit] when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule.

The last sentense of the article Sea of Japan is a propaganda and should not be there. All the dispute should be moved to this article and only NPOV should be left there.


"The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule."


The sentense is there in order to mislead readers to relate the name Sea of Japan with Japanese colonial rule on Korea. IHB just standardized the name. But before that there was already consensus among the western countries. Japan (same as Korea) did nothing with the consensus among western countries. Only Korean POV insist on the sentense to stay there. Isorhiza 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the removal of that sentence. It is missleading the reader to equate japanese colonial rule with the international naming of the sea. That sentence belongs on the dispute page, not the Sea of Japan page. Masterhatch 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

it's a an accurate summary of the dispute, encompassing both japan's main point that sea of japan is the international standard & korea's main point why that standardization was unfair. you can reword it, but there should be a brief, accurate summary of the reason for the dispute in the subsection. Appleby 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted as I mentioned above. But the whole section is written from POV of Korea, because Korea POV is trying to make this "controversy" between Korea plus North Korea and Japan. However, from another POV, only Korea is actively trying to change the name. Therefore, the whole section is under dispute. I would not like to describe our POV there (eg. Korea is actively pushing their position that the name of the sea should not be Sea of Japan, because they don't like the name. North Korea supports the view. A few chart/map publishers accepted Korea's view and changed the name on the map, but most chart/map is still unchanged because the name Sea of Japan is already widely accepted and settled name. See the battle between Korean activist and others in Sea of Japan naming dispute.) It will initiate another flame. So what is neutral solution is that leaving pointer to the dispute page and very short neutral description there. I would like some neutral person who doesn't involve in either part will edit the section. I personally understand why and how Koreans doen't like the name and maybe both nations can seek for solution, but that is another story. Neutral description only should be accepted in Wikipedia even if it is lacking detail. Isorhiza 06:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Isorhiza. You say Sea of Japan is a widely accepted and settled name, and I happen to agree with you, but before that, East Sea, the ORIGINAL and HISTORICALLY CORRECT name, was an accepted and settled name. Only after Japan distiguished themselves internationally in the auto and electronics industry, other nations began to accept that since Japan was the strongest nation in Eastern Asia, that they had a right to change the name of East Sea, into Sea of Japan. Nearly always, if you look around the map, powerful and reknown countries name bodies of water after themselves (i.e. English Channel). If a puny weak country tried to stop the English channel from being named that, who would listen? Even if the name of the body of water would be histroically incorrect, nobody would listen...

Oyo321 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently learned, thanks to kind suggestion by Appleby, that in Wikipedia original or histrically correct is not important. You should also ask Appleby for which section to be read to understand what is wikipedia and what is not. I would like to add that before discussing about Japan, you must learn hitory of Japan first. Industry in Japan was not so highly developed as you see today when Japan united Korea in 1910. There was no auto and electronics industry. Instead, japan had silk, copper, silver and iron. During the first International Hydrographic Conference in London in 1919, Delegates of Japan had very few opportunity to express comment. That shows how small was the power of Japan internationally. I could find only a few comments from Delegates of Japan through 77.5 hours of meeting, and those were not about the naming of the Sea of Japan. (ref. International Hydrographic Conference London 1919, Report of Proceedings) --Isorhiza 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
To all- I would also like to say that even I, an active Korean, have not even heard of the name "Korea Sea." Koreans wish for the name "East Sea," like I've said before, is histroically the most accurate name." In Korea, the name "Korea Sea" is very rare.

Oyo321 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In Korea, the name "Korea Sea" is very rare. So you mean, in English Wikipedia editors should use "East Sea" because it is the most common name in Korea, irrespective of what is common in English speaking community. Thank you, that is the point that we are repeatingly arguing, and you proved it kindly. --Isorhiza 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical developments of the dispute: International Hydrographic Conference London 1919

I'm curious about how the name was standardized at the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB). Is there anyody who have read the proceedings of this meeting? Detail of the discussion may be impossible, but at least proceeding is available in university's libraries. Reading history of International Hydrographic Organization, it seems that International Hydrographic Conference was not fully political, but rather scientific meeting. So I guess Korea could participate in the meeting even if they were under colonial rule of Japan. needs more investigation. I also found that IHB was formed after the 1919 meeting of International Hydrographic Conference, so the description here needs minor revision. The information source is page 2 of United Nations' General Assembly. Isorhiza 04:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no record in the Proceedings of International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919 that Japanese Delegates has submitted the name of Sea of Japan. The truth was that the foundation of International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) was agreed by delegates of countries at the meeting. Therefore, the sentence: 'At the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine international names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name "Sea of Japan"' is not verifiable. We must seek for verifiable source for the development of the dispute. --Isorhiza 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checklist of maps mentioning this sea, excluding those published in Korea or Japan

Name Map Link Status
MAR CORIA 아시아 지도 Manuel Godinho, 1615
MAR DI CORAI 동아시아 지도 Sir Robert Dudley, 1647
Ocean Oriental Philippe Briet가 제작한 지도, 1650
MAR DE CORÉE Jean Baptiste Traemier가 제작한 일본의 섬들 지도, 1679년
MER ORIENTALE OU MER DE CORÉE 프랑스의 지리학자 Guillaum de L'isle가 제작한 인도차이나 지도, 1705년
Sea of Corea 동아시아 지도 John Green, 1747년
MER DE CORÉE 프랑스에서 출간된 중국의 지도, 1748년
M. DE CORÉE 프랑스에서 출간된 아시사 차트, 1761년
MAR DI COREA Prof. Antonio Chata의 새로운 방법으로 만를었고, 베네치아의 의회에 의해 지지받는, 아시아 나라의 지도, 1777년, 이탈리아
SEA OF COREA 브리태니커 백과사전의 중국 항목, 1778년
Sea of Corea 러시아 지도, Bowen in 1780
MER DE CORÉE 지역과 나라를 다룬 아시아 지도, 마드리드 소재 스페인 국립 박물관, 1785년
COREAN SEA 아시아의 섬과 지역, 영국 런던, 1794년
GULF OF COREA Samuel Dhun이 런던에서 만들고 Laurie and Whittle이 출간한 지도, 1794년
MER DE CORÉE 아시아 전도, 프랑스 지리학자 Dezauche, 1800년
MER DE CORÉE OU DU JAPON, (한국의 바다(Sea of Korea) 라는 글자가 크게 인쇄되어 있음), 아시아 전도, Dezauche, 1805년
COREAN SEA 쿡의 항해기 런던에서 발간한 쿡 선장의 항해를 기록, 1808년
GULF OF COREA Lizars의 아시아 차트, 런던 발간, 1833년, 1840년 재판
SEA OF COREA 종합 세계 지도, 영국인 Wyld 발간 , 1845년
SEA OF JAPAN T. Tallis의 일러스트된 전도, 영국 출간, 1851년

Please add more. Link: External (or internal) link to the image of the map, Status: Confirmed or blank. Isorhiza 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which one cites East Sea? Jjok

[edit] 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 eligible to vote. Appleby 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the poll is still open for more input, until june 19. thanks. Appleby 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meizi kaiteibankoku yochibunzu: Meiji or Meizi?

It is 明治改訂の万國輿地分図 and I think early translater misspelled. it is the time to correct form Meizi to Meiji for 明治. Jlok

All Wikipedia articles use the Meiji spelling. "Meizi" is clearly the wrong spelling.--Endroit 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Oriental Sea comment removed from main page

And Japan asserts it is irrational about the South Korean opinion that "Oriental Sea" is the variants of "East Sea".

If someone wants this added back in, please come up with a less POV way of stating it. As it is, it is only a POV statement. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I myself didn't put it there, but you should modify it to a less POV or NPOV statement, not delete it. (Wikimachine 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Aggressive?

Is that the right word to use here? It just smacks of a point of view. Also, it seems to imply a negative connotation, like the fact that VANK had the temerity to act was bad. Did VANK vandalize those sites they "targeted" or can someone tell me how they were aggressive? I don't see what's wrong with "extensive" or even "zealous" but "aggressive" suggests that what VANK did was improper and that isn't a neutral way of putting it. Just my two cents. Tortfeasor 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably true that VANK was aggressive in sending out e-mails and letters. This seems to be collaborated by webmasters.
I have a citation for the use of the word "aggressive": http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/eastsea.htm
Do you have citations which prove otherwise?--Endroit 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite Endroit but perhaps how World Atlas characterizes it and how Wikipedia characterizes should be different or if "aggressive" is needed in the article perhaps it should be a direct quote attributed to World Atlas. I don't really care that much about this issue so I won't waste anymore of anyones time. I was mainly curious about other peoples' opinions. But my primary concern/point stands, (1) what made VANK aggressive and (2) is that really a neutral way of phrasing the sentence? And by no means am I suggesting that we should white-wash or sugar-coat anything, simply that we should be neutral. (An analgous situation might be inserting in the Dokdo article that the Japanese government's intended surveillance into the waters around Dokdo was "aggressive.") I hope you can at least see where I am coming from. Thanks. Tortfeasor 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Aggressive" means sending out hundreds of thousands of e-mails to webmasters, to make a point. I guess what I'm asking you is if you have any webmasters who wouldn't characterize such action as "aggressive" or perhaps "intrusive" (in the words of a webmaster)? If so what words would they use? This is not a NPOV thing. It is a webmaster-POV thing, and many webmasters feel that way.--Endroit 20:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i think tortfeasor's point, & my point in the editing, was that "aggressive" "targeting" does have negative connotations. some recipients of the emails may feel that way, but what non-party source describes vank's actions that way? is vank's "email campaign" qualitatively different from, say, aids activists sending information to health workers with prevention information or floridians petitioning city officials for hurricane assistance, etc. though not all recipients are happy about it, letter-writing campaigns are common and not inherently negative. why imply such for vank? maybe there is a good reason, any independent sources? Appleby 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Chosun Ilbo describes VANK "operates aggressively" in relation to their protest against National Geographic [4] but I'm not sure its use is positive or negative. --Kusunose 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Both "aggressive" and "targeting" do not give any negative impression (actually, aggressive looks relatively positive). If you feel they are nevative, it means that the way VANK doing is actually giving you negative impression. jjok

[edit] parties to the dispute

jjok, this has been discussed before, either in this or related talk archives. korea & japan are the parties to the dispute. afaik, russia & china are just reflecting the status quo, no different than tanzania or tanzania or the u.s., but if they actively support either position, i'd be interested in a citation. Appleby 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Both PRC and Russia are members of IHO.[5] Obviously, 20% of population do not support corean position. If you have disputed before, please give us link to that. It will help everybody and I appreciate your help.

Tanzania, israel, and us do not share annexation history. You can not compare appleby and orangeby.jjok

The IHO is not a party to the dispute. Read the article, it does not oppose Korea's position, it asked the two parties to resolve the dispute bilaterally. It is the forum where Japan and Korea have the dispute, a forum where Japan opposes even holding a vote on the matter. Dollarfifty 09:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

russia and china silently support "Sea of Japan". If they recognize "East Sea" as a valid name, they will use it instead. That is the socialism. --Isorhiza 17:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] korean expansionism

The following paragraph was disputed and moved from the article to this talk page.

Korean expansionism

Some argue that a series of naming dispute (e.g. Sea of Japan, Dokto, Tsushima Basin) by Korea is the rise of expansionism and nationalism in Korea based on confidence from recent success in economical development. Such an assertion doesn't stop at naming but often progress to the claim for sovereignty (see Tsushima Island and Dokto).


--Isorhiza 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad grammer does not consist good reason for removal of a paragraph. Please help improving rather than remove. The subject itself is well related with the topic. Naming issue related to Korea and Japan is not only Sea of Japan, but also Dokto, Tsushima Basin and Tsushima Island. Some of which links with further claim for sovereignty. Korea has namning issue not only with Japan, but also with China (see Bohai). Korea has sovereignty issues with China and Russia especially in the area along the coast of the Sea of Japan (north of the North Korea). These facts clearly shows recent arise of expansionism in Korea. --Isorhiza 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is complete bias. Where did anybody get this? (Wikimachine 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I can find many examples in Japanese blogs. [6] [7] [8] [9] At least one russian farmer expressed anxious for Korean expansionism in a diffrent context in an article. [10] It is truth that there is such an opinion. I don't know if it is a business of Wikipedia to determine what is biased or not. Anyway, rise of expansionism is quite natural for growing successful young country. Korea should be proud of it. --Isorhiza 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

korea probably would be, if it weren't for, um, a certain unfortunate experience involving a certain expansionist neighbor. please see WP:V for proper references you need before further editing the article. thanks. Appleby 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, japan was a nation of imperiarism and expansionism in the past. But that is the past. No expansionism after Sanfrancisco Treaty. As of WP:V, thanks for your input. --Isorhiza 09:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also question the relevance of the paragraph above. Some people think that Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist, but those beliefs don't really merit mention on the article page for him. If this belongs anywhere, I would think it would belong on the Korean-Japanese disputes page, since it seems to be more about the disputes themselves rather than Dokdo. --Zonath 15:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw the paragraph. I believe that Korean movement to change names and claim to Tsushima Island is a kind of expansionism or at least irredentism from several point of view, but cannot find good reference. Sorry for disturbance. --Isorhiza 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Unable to find good reference proves that your statement is bias.

-kwankim6292

[edit] Request for banning Dollarfifty from edition

Those who revert a page without discussion should be banned out from the editing of the page (not from other pages). This should be included in the rule of Wikipedia. --Isorhiza 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Cite your sources#Text that is.2C or is likely to be.2C disputed. I would personally consider adding the idea that 'some people' link these naming disputes raised by Korea to an upswing in Korean expansionism to be somewhat controversial. In these cases, the above policy seems to allow 'revert first, then discuss' rather than the opposite (which seems to be what you're espousing.) --Zonath 05:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise. --Isorhiza 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

His type is called "reverter" in Engrish. --Jjok

[edit] Neutrality of Response by media and publishers section

12:25, 18 June 2006 Jjok m (→Response by media and publishers)
15:01, 18 June 2006 Appleby (see talk archives again. we don't need to list all pubs & gov'ts. RM & NG's change of position were significant developments in history of dispute.)
14:42, 20 June 2006 Appleby (this is not a list. we don't want a full list in the article. perhaps add to external links?)
15:01, 20 June 2006 Jjok (→Response by media and publishers - thus, i reduced one. this is not only a corean pov list. list both types of responses to allow comparison for others.)
15:49, 20 June 2006 Appleby (PLEASE PLEASE read the talk & archives. the CHANGES of position were significant historical developments. this is not a list of various publications.)

"i absolutely agree it is pov to leave one side's argument while taking the other side's out." Appleby 20:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As he agrees, this is a corean pov section. What is his point not to cite dispute from both sides even though he did not reach to an agreement even with masterhatch who call himself as a pro corean?

It is like forcing the opposite team to play soccer with 9 players while playing with 12 players by themselves, or playing with 2 and shooting goal without opposite team. Obviously, opposite team has a choice to play with 9 players though you can not force them to play with 9. It is simply unfair and it is fair to allow 11 players for opposite team regardless how the players can play well. If he want play with 2 player, at least 2 players should be allowed to play on the opposite side. This only keeps the section and the entire article of a dispute as npov.--Jjok

the section currently says "most publishers and media outlets still use 'Sea of Japan' alone." if you take out that wording, you can add 2 examples on each side. Appleby 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the creator of the section was not expecting that there would be pro Sea of Japan responses against corean holy battle against japanese imperialism or someone distorted the meaning of "Response by media and publishers" must be pro corean. Thanks anyway. Jjok

Masterhatch, if you think it is better to (re)move them, then (re)move all otherwise leave the section as npov. It should not be 9 vs. 12, Mr. Moreno. Even though they look playing horribly for you, they are playing in fairness. Please do not just boo at them.

Masterhatch: Futatsu de jubun desu yo.
Deckard: No. Four. Two, two, four.

Actually, it is a nice idea to have external sites summarize those responses as you and Appleby said and I think VANK will work the best for corean to organize the list. For japanese side, I think Futatsu de jubun desu yo, though it is interesting to add Google map's unique way.

The graph summarizes both SK's 2003 and J's 2005 research that the Sea of Korea was the most popular name prior to 1800 and it is not a result of colonialism of Japan, respectively. It greatly helps understanding historical transition of the body of water and completely fit the Historical maps and studies section. I have no idea what kind of tit for tat should be expected and why you need to be annoy, though it is welcomed to add 1 or 2 stuffs with well back-upped research to strengthen corean position. One map and two graphs are nice, aren't they?

Anyway, the research of J's 2005 shows that the Sea of China is the historically correct name for the body of water. Jjok

I don't care about the numbers game. I never have. So what if Japan has 20 points and korea has 2 or vise versa. That doesn't matter because in real life, there aren't an equal number of points to dole out. What i care about is quality references and points that aren't meant to belittle either side. The points must be valid and well referenced to be in the body of the article (me and appleby had quite a row over that one a long time ago). The lesser quality references should be in the internal links section. But again, we don't need nine hundred and fifty two different links that all say the same thing and are mostly blogs and we don't need to reference to french wikipedia in the main article either! Also, the reason i removed that graph was because oh, so long ago, there were dozens of maps and graphs and tables and they were all conflicting each other all the time and it made a terrible mess. Notice there is only one map with a ?. that is so we don't have a map battle again. See, i don't have a problem with one graph to illustrate a point, but in this case, neither side can agree on the numbers that get plugged into the graph which makes the graph useless. There is enough information in the body of the article from both sides that a graph war isn't necessary. Masterhatch 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, npov obviously has higher priority than your pov (how you qualify each of the publishers' responses, "I hate clutter") and leaving one side's argument while taking the other side's out is obviously pov here. To keep the section tidy with npov, we agreed with 2 vs. 2 rule or equal opportunity rule as you can see above, and I do not have any worry it will get worse. It is a reasonable agreement for both sides, so please stop "So what if" stuff. It won't be or you are not alone to clean it up. If you have good idea to keep it npov, please suggest and discuss it first. It is nice to have a link to the list to show how publishers care their costomers, though I think removing this section will invoke severe reaction of coreans. Currently, you look giving a pardon to the reverts war of appleby and the puppet clan to pov version, that even appleby agreed with. Please talk to them to quit it, or at least, stop giving them a pardon by your reverts of the section.
Secondly, qualification. The World Factbook issued by CIA is one of premiere sources in wikipedia. French Navy is a very influential hydrograph publisher for all French officials. Why do you think they are lesser quality references and not suitable for citing in the section? Because it does not support corean position? About french wiki link, it helps the evaluation of the qualification fo the publisher. Is that your concern that the link should be here? Anyway, I already removed it since I could not be convinced that SHOM was the actual publisher by the japanese official sources.
If you concern the quality of the references, I think we can agree that the research results conducted by SK governments should be take out first, that are obviously trying to mislead the argument or failing to qualify the claim that SOJ became standard because of the japanese imperialism. Why are we leaving them? For me, because it is npov for disputed sections and articles here in wikipedia.
I think it is commonly accepted that the description in this article should be based on the popular opinions presented by each of the government. For japan, the most important argument is it is wrong and false charge that SOJ became a standard because of the japanese imperialism since it became most popular during the Sakoku period and before annexation of corea (not which name gained the popularity at each of the time). This argument is always removed from the summary of the article for some reasons (they call it pov). I think Historical maps and studies section can be simplified using the chart like this:
Historical maps and studies
  • (SK) In July 2001, Korea produced a report on the names used on maps published in Europe, mostly in the 18th century, possessed by the British Library, claiming that of 90 maps which name the sea, 62 refer to it as "Sea of Korea", 8 as "East Sea", 2 as both "Sea of Korea" and "East Sea", and 10 use "Sea of Japan".[11] (Focus of Research: 18th century)
  • (SK) In December 2002, South Korea produced a report on the names used on 228 maps published prior to 1800 that are held by the U.S. Library of Congress, claiming that two-thirds of the maps naming the sea used "East Sea", "Sea of Korea", or variants. Of the 103 maps that named the sea, the report claims 66 percent named it "Sea of Korea" and/or "East Sea" or variants. [12] (Focus of Research: 18th century)
Transition of Sea of China, Japan, Korea, and Oriental Sea (MOFA of Japan 2005)
Transition of Sea of China, Japan, Korea, and Oriental Sea (MOFA of Japan 2005)
  • (J) In September 2003,[13] March 2004,[14], and July 2005,[15] the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan published reports on the names used on 200 maps published in Europe between 1801 and 1861 possessed by the British Library and the University of Cambridge, 1,495 maps published between the 16th and 19th century possessed by the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and 1,435 maps published between 1300 and 1900 that are held by the U.S. Library of Congress. All the investigations showed the Sea of Japan became the most popular name by the end of the Sakoku period and way before the annexation of Korea, therefore, it is a groundless assertions that the name Sea of Japan became dominant as a result of Japan's imperialism and colonialism.
  • (SK) South Korea's Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries website states that by its count, of 763 historic maps in various government and university libraries worldwide, 440 maps use "Sea of Korea", "East Sea", or variants, and 123 use "Sea of Japan" or variants. [16] (retrieved October 2005). This report includes a reference to the 2002 University of Southern California's "Sea of Korea maps digital archive".(Focus of Research: All of Cartographic History)
The argument of this article is entirely about the name and fame, and the latter is more important for Japan. I personally prefer East Sea of Korea that well-represents the location, to Sea of Korea that I think more suitable for Bohai or Yellow Sea (though it was common name in japan up to the edo period and one of japanocentric names such as Korea Strait so Sea of Korea is basically ok for japanese, Wikimachine, if the argument would be well-grounded). As a more neutral name based on Oriental Sea, it will be Northeast Asian Sea, though do you want? (East Sea? no way.) Jjok


Response by media and publishers Some publishers and media outlets have responded to the dispute by either adopting both names on maps, or—in very rare cases—leaving the area blank, until a consensus can be reached between Japan and Korea. Though some have adopted the usage of both names or just "East Sea", most publishers and media outlets still use "Sea of Japan" alone. [citation needed]

  • In 1997, Rand McNally, one of the largest mapmakers in the United States, adopted a policy of concurrent use of both names, "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". The Times (of London), Financial Times, Microsoft Encarta 97 World Atlas, Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Expedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, About.com, and others have responded similarly, usually including "East Sea" as the secondary label.
  • In 1999, the National Geographic Society recognized that the name was legitimately disputed by South Korea. Under its policy (if a geographical feature is shared by more than one nation, and its name is disputed, use the most commonly recognized form of the name first and label the disputed name in parentheses), "Sea of Japan" appears as the primary label and "East Sea" appears below in parentheses. [17]
More information is available here[] <-----does anyone know nice links to put here? VANK site?
  • In 2003, the French Defense Ministry issued nautical maps included both terms "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea". [18][19]
More information is available here[] <-----If VANK has a list covering both kinds of reaction, that's pretty nice to have it at the bottom. Jjok

[edit] a real problem

Am I the only one with a real problem with this sentence "However, Korea's argument for "East Sea" stems from the term's use in European maps, not as a translation of the local name." found in the article? That last part "...not as a translation of the local name." is the part that gets me. It is a translation of their local name. It is found so rarely on old European maps. Old maps use "Oriental Sea" and "Eastern Sea" far more often than "East Sea". And as we all know, Oriental means east of europe [20], not east of Korea. I don't know what to do about that sentence. It is a logical fallacy, but it is korea's stance. it actually makes the koreans look rather foolish when they state that. Who are they trying to fool? We can't remove it, but something has to be done about that. Masterhatch 02:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't know that they are serious?(^_^;)
Executive Summary
Two-thirds of the maps naming the sea between Korea and Japan used terms favorable to Korea's position that the sea has traditionally been called the Sea of Korea or East Sea, assuming Oriental Sea and East Sea are essentially synonymous.[21]
O·ri·ent: the countries of eastern Asia, especially China, Japan, and their neighbors. (Encarta) (I think VANK should do aggressive campaign to Encarta for the better recognition of corea...)
In this case, "Oriental" means east asia in narrow sense, and Oriental Sea is nearly equal to Sea of China, that were the most popular name until 17th century (see above chart). I think europeans did not know about east asia well except china until they start colonizing south and south east asia including taiwan. After the improvement of their recognition of the east asia, they gradually switched to Oriental Sea and Sea of Korea or start separating the area from Sea of China (current East China Sea). (I also assume that europeans obtained japanese maps written that Chosen-Kai. Are there any antique maps published in China that describe the sea as Sea of Korea? I do not think coreans had called there as Sea of Korea by themselves.) However, during the isolationism of corea, I think the presence of her start fading from europeans. On the other hand, japan continued trade with dutch east india during sakoku period and they started better recognition that the sea is separated by japanese islands from the Pacific Ocean. As a result, I think the Sea of Japan gained the popularity throughout 19th century.
Anyway, I think the Oriental Sea is already history since china lost Primorsky Krai and Orient without china is not very suitable anymore (though I think china still has very narrow coast line on the SOJ). Jjok

Oriental means east, but it has come to characterize East Asia. Oriental Sea was just another variation of the East Sea. I don't see any logical fallacy in it. (Wikimachine 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

If we take Oriental Sea, East Asia Sea may be better sollution than East Sea (of Korea), because the sea is surrounded by (not merely east of) 5 countries (if we count PR China). Of course, Oriental Sea seems to be okay, if we really need to change the name. --Isorhiza 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Basic Position

jjok, would you mind moving the wordy explanation & citations to the body? otherwise, wordy explanation & citations for the other side will follow to the intro, & that'd just be a mess. feel free to reword the japanese position, but it should remain a short summary. thanks. (i deleted "forcibly" occupied, & now added "before japanese expansionism." please read before blindly reverting). Appleby 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

description with verifiable citations is highly recommended (WP:V). About the "forcibly", I was actually expecting the citation describing such a claim. If 20th century is still explanative, it can be removed though the rest of the part is the essential part of the counter-dispute of japan as you can find in the reference [3]. It is more important that how it became internationally popular name than the name itself. Jjok

there's plenty of neutral & reputable citations for "forcible" and "brutal" occupation, but i'm trying to keept the introduction short and simple, & the whole article on point.

i have no problem with the information & citation. but they belong in the arguments section, not the intro. otherwise, other arguments of korea & citations will have to be moved up to the introduction from the arguments section, too. you're prodding a cycle of one-upmanship that will only make a mess of the article. Appleby 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Japanese position

  • the claim by South Korea stating that the name "Japan Sea" is a "remnant of colonialism" is completely groundless
  • It is not acceptable to change the name by such a claim based on incorrect recognition

Korean position

  • the name was unfairly standardized during the Japanese rule when Korea had no diplomatic representation on the global stage.
  • concurrent names should be used according to the UN policies

Is there any other very important view points on the issue? Jjok


I am feeling that it is better to add "historically correct name" stuff to above corean position.

Two of main insistence of japan are described within two sentences. Is 19th century really need to be removed? I feel it is very picky, looks like japanese.

The Japanese government insists that the name "Sea of Japan" had internationally established itself as a single name by the early 19th century during Japan was under the isolation policy (Sakoku),[22][23] thus no influence to the international community. Therefore, the claim by the Koreas that the name is a "remnant of colonialism" in the early 20th century is completely groundless and changing it based on incorrect recognition cannot be accepted.[24]

"historically correct name" stuff looks like important for corean and thus may be added like

South Korea insists on the name "East Sea" as a historically correct name, claiming that the sea was known as "Sea of Korea/Corea/Joseon" or "East/Oriental Sea" until Japan's militant expansionism.

above sentence also covers

South Korea proposes "East Sea" because it is one of the various English names found in historical European maps. Korea's position is that while "Sea of Korea" is actually the most common historical European name, "East Sea," in reference to the Asian continent rather than a specific country

The following part is covered by the first corean insistence

Korea argues that during the critical period for asserting the name East Sea in the international arena, Korea was deprived of its sovereignty, and had no diplomatic representation on the global stage. [25]

Termination of compulsive Hangul education and Law of creation of family name was 1938 and 1940, respectively, thus they are nothing to do with standardization of the name of the sea. Around 1920's, japan was still working hard to issue Hangul text books.[26]

Koreans were even denied the use of their native language, and forced to adopt Japanese names, while time-honored Korean geographical names including the East Sea were changed to Japanese ones. [27]

By the way, here is an example how japan strictly enforced creation of family name.[28] "Don't miss this chance!"

"Some corean" and detailed argument can go to argument sections.

Some Koreans have argued against the "Sea of Japan" name since the early 1970's [29], and South Korea officially raised the issue at the United Nations immediately upon joining in 1991. Since the 1990s, South Korea has increased efforts to change the official international name. The North Korean government supports South Korea's position, but uses "East Sea of Korea" in its English publications.

The following arguments

The United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) have so far neither accepted nor denied Korea's claims, but left the issue open to discussion while continuing to use "Sea of Japan". The United Nations confirmed its adoption of "Sea of Japan" in its official documents in March 2004. [30], but also stated that "The practice of the UN Secretariat is to use, in the absence of an internationally agreed standard, the most widespread and generally recognized denomination. This practice is without any prejudice to the position of any Member State of the United Nations on a particular appellation and does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The use of an appellation by the Secretariat based on the practice is without prejudice to any negotiations or agreements between the interested parties and should not be interpreted as advocating or endorsing any party’s position, and can in no way be invoked by any party in support of a particular position in the matter." [31]
IHO and UNSCGN resolutions endorse the principle of the simultaneous use of different names when countries sharing a geographical feature do not agree on a common name. [32]

are summarized by

North Korea and South Korea propose the "East Sea of Korea" and the "East Sea",[33] respectively, as concurrent names with the "Sea of Japan" to the United Nations (UN) and International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) based on the Resolution III-20 of the UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) and the Technical Resolution A4.2.6 of IHO that recommend concurrent use of each name for disputed geographical features.

If you want to revive following sentence, please bring some references.

At the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine international names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name "Sea of Japan" [citation needed].

This official pdf[34] covers more comprehensive publishers. I was surprised that VANK does not have updated comprehensive list.

Many other publishers have responded similarly, such as The Times (of London), Financial Times, Encyclopedia Britannica,[35] Microsoft Encarta,[36] Encarta Dictionary,[37] Columbia Encyclopedia,[38] World Book Encyclopedia [39] American Heritage Dictionary,[40] World Atlas,[41] and About.com, usually including "East Sea" as the secondary label. Jjok

You just keep deleting everything about Korea's view only. If you continue, the article will only have Japanese arguments and links, with one link to Korea's position saying "Examples of Korean arguments can be seen here:" I hope you're joking Dollarfifty 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Hydrographic Organization

  • At the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine international names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name "Sea of Japan" [citation needed]. At the time, Korea could not participate because it was under Japanese occupation. The "Sea of Japan" had been used almost exclusively on international maps, although the parties disagree on when and which name was previously prevalent.

I moved this paragraph to discussion, because such a fact cannot be verified.

  • International Hydrographic Bureau began its activity in 1921 according to IHO's webpage.
  • There is no record that "Japanese delegates submitted the name Sea of Japan" during the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919 according to the Report of Proceedings of the conference [42].

Note that during the conference, it was decided to form International Hydrographic Bureau as a permanent organization. - Isorhiza 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. So, Masterhatch's arguments are now baseless. (Wikimachine 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Inconsistency of "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan"

This is a technical and practical dispute for mariners claimed by japanese government and a nationalistic dispute for Koreans which recently brought up.[43] I do not know how coreans will address this issue but Yahoo uniquely circumvented it by using South Sea as a second name of Korea Strait [44] (and the peninsula looks pretty happy surrounded by coreacentric names) Jjok

[edit] Incorrect Statement

"Korea's position is that while "Sea of Korea" is actually the most common historical European name, "East Sea," in reference to the Asian continent rather than a specific country, is more neutral and analogous to the North Sea."

I took it out of the article.

There's many things wrong with this. This is what Masterhatch has been advocating, but I've never heard of this before.

First of all, "East Sea" refers to the term Dong-hae, which means "east sea" in Korean language. Since this body of water has been called "Dong-hae" by the Koreans, the Arabian mappers named the sea "East Sea".

Ok? It does not refer to "Sea east of the Asian continent" or whatnot.

Second of all, S Korea advocates this name not because of the idiocracy mentioned above but because it wouldn't offend the Japanese as much. Imagine how Japanese would react if the body of water suddenly became "Sea of Korea". That would not be neutral anyways, which S Korea is advocating for. (Wikimachine 18:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) By the way, the reference is http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.prkorea.com/thehistory1.htm.

Sorry. I was wrong. According to Appleby, the statement above is true. Sorry for making a ruckus. (Wikimachine 05:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 1 funny thing to point out

"Japan argues that this kind of inconsistency can also be a problem to navigational safety."

Isn't this so funny? Japan gets away with everything -even with the cheesiest excuses. No wonder. They got away with JSDF too. Their "defensive" force is better than Korea's military by tenfolds. They already have an Aegis battle ship. Just to mention this. (Wikimachine 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Inconsistency of Korea Strait (South Sea)[45] is more funny for me, though I also think that the claim by Japan Coast Guard is picky. However, they may really have practical reasons since a lot of corean ships make accidents in Korea/Tsushima Strait. (A patrol ship of Japan Fishery Agency was actually "attacked" to sink by a corean ship while they were on rescue work.[46])
By the way, japan does not have an Aegis cruiser, but four, though they are not enough against chinese silent service because of the long coast line. Jjok

[edit] Explanation as requested by Dollarfifty

Introduction should "introduce" the article. It seems that in this case it points out every detail of the case.

I did not delete. I moved much of the introduction to the "historical reasons" section as I found them repetitive.

Remember what your English professor told you. Do not write repetitive statements.

So that's what I did. (Wikimachine 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Korean Name

Is it actually believed that before Japanese expansion Korea referred to the 'East Sea' as 'East Sea' in English? What was the local Korean name at the time?Bridesmill 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

here is having more and more corean friends due to this article[47] Jjok
Not sure if I understand that answer - I don't speak Korean Bridesmill 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted Donghae in the location where the article mentions the old Korean geo name, which I am 100% certain it was not 'East Sea' (sic), and I think it is important to establish not only the claim that this was a name westerners gave it , but that it is a name rooted in history. (I think thorough review would indicate that English language usage of East Sea is also based on original Korean name - why would the west slap 'East Sea' onto that particular body of water when it really is East only in relation to Korea, which - no offense intended - was not by any stretch the number one oriental destination of the English speaking world of the time; the Bay of Bengal would have been more likely the recipient of that moniker if the name had originated in English minds. (but that would be OR unless cites could be dug up ))Bridesmill 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial?

The information about the studies is important and adds to the article. User:4.23.83.100 apparently felt it was an editorial. Is there any reason not to include this? See:[[48]] For some studies, it's unavailable, but for where it's verifiable information I think it should be included (I'm not talking as much about the first thing reverted out of the three, though it was taken from the reference as well, and is more correct than what is there now). LactoseTI 09:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If that user keeps removing the information, it seems like page blanking. There is nothing wrong with those additions per se. Komdori 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comparisons

What about the Gulf of Mexico? People in the United States don't complain about the name of the large body of water. The name makes sense because Mexico (I think) has the longest coastline on said body of water. Japan shares the longest border with the sea in dispute, hence, maybe Sea of Japan is not a bad name. 202.215.17.129 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No disputes here

We all should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a tool to discuss which name is proper with. We should write what is widely accepted to be true, and always cite sources.

I personally think that it is desirable that the cited sources are in English so they can be easily confirmed by English speakers. Please give me a response.--Akira 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Support --Isorhiza 10:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps with East Sea

http://www.eastsea.org/ have gathered 26 maps including East Sea (or Eastern Sea, Oriental Sea, Sea of Korea, etc). The year ranges from 1440 to 1845. So someone please refer this website in the article.

In addition, I could find only one (old) map saying Sea of Japan, which is from 1815. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Corea_and_Japan_Map_in_1815.jpg) If someone has more resources on maps with Sea of Japan, please post them. 129.97.245.62 03:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP

Notice that not one of those maps you pointed to actually uses "East Sea"? Oriental and Eastern Sea have a different nomenclature than East Sea and can't be used to mean the same thing. East Sea dirives from Dong hae (meaning east of korea as can be compared to Nam hae (south sea) and Seo Hae (West Sea)) and Oriental/Eastern dirives from being East of Europe. East Sea has no precedence in European naming and only has been used in English in the past 10 to 15 years (as a result of koreans forcing the name on everyone). Masterhatch 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as i know, Korean uses Yellow Sea for Seo Hae. Seo Hae is just a conventional way of saying Yellow Sea. Also, Seo Hae implies only a small portion of Yellow. Even historial documentations call it Yellow Sea. Unlike Seo Hae, Dong Hae has been documented and called "Dong Hae". I'm assuming East Sea, Eastern Sea, and Oriental Sea mean basically the same thing. 129.97.245.62 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP
We are discussing about English name. --Isorhiza 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
One more input. According to the article Orient. "The term "Oriental" is derived from the Latin word oriens, which is the present participle of "orior": to rise. The implication is that it refers to the rising sun, hence the use of Orient to describe the "land of the rising sun", i.e. the Far East, and is exactly analogous with the Chinese term for Japan." Therefore, "Oriental Sea" is analogous with "Sea of Japan". --Isorhiza 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You can assume all you want, but East Sea is not the same as Eastern Sea and oriental Sea. Masterhatch 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me add that in the 1600's, "East Sea" meant "Baltic Sea" in English. See this map. So it is a big lie that "East Sea" meant "Sea of Japan" in English back then.--Endroit 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It is very dangerous to make a hasty generalization. 129.97.245.62 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP
It is even more bogus to count "Sea of Korea" as being the same as "East Sea". That is outright deception. These guys are liars.--Endroit 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Maps of "East Sea Forum"

  • Fig1 :1748: Eastern Sea: Difficult to read, but it can be read Eastern Sea. Sure.
  • Fig2 :1440: MARE OCCEANUM ORIENTALE : The map does not describe Korea and Japan correctly. I cannot determine which part this name is pointing.
  • Fig3 :1528: MARE ORIENTALE : This map doesn't distinguish East China Sea, South China Sea, and Sea of Japan. The name "Mare Orientale" seems to point the East China Sea.
  • Fig4 :1613: East Sea (in chinese letter. 東海) : In this map, the name "East Sea" is placed in front of the Yangtze River. Obviously, this is the East Sea of China.
  • Fig5 :1615: MAR CORIA : I agree with no doubt.
  • Fig6 :1650: OCEAN ORIENTAL : Very good figure. No doubt.
  • Fig7 :1694: ORIENTAL SEA : good.
  • Fig8 :1700: Mar Orientale? : Very difficult to see, but can be read as Mar Orientale?
  • Fig9 :c.1700: MARE ORIENTALE : Something is written at the place, but I cannot figure out from the map.
  • Fig10 :c. 1700: MARE ORIENTALE : Difficult to see, but can be read as MER ORIENTALE.
  • Fig11 :1720: SEA OF COREA : Very clear. No doubt.
  • Fig12 :1744: MER ORIENTALE OU MER DE COREE : No doubt.
  • Fig13 :1746: MARE ORIENTALE : ok
  • Fig14 :1746: MARE ORIENTALE : This is the same with Fig13 by the same author and published in the same year. Double count.
  • Fig15 :1748: EASTERN SEA : no doubt.
  • Fig16 :1748: MARE ORIENTALE : Hard to read. but ok. I can see another word Minvs? de Corea. What is this?
  • Fig17 :1748: SEA OF COREA : Very good description!.
  • Fig18 :1748: MER DE COREE : Good. MER DE CORÉE
  • Fig19 :1761: M. DE COREE : ok. very bad description of japan.
  • Fig20 :1767: OCEAN ORIENTAL : Is this map of Asia? in 18th century? Quality is before 17th century. Is this Taiwan and Yangtze River? I cannot count this map in. This is not the sea between Korea and Japan.
  • Fig21 :1790: SEA OF COREA : Seems good.
  • Fig22 :1796: SEA OF COREA : Bad focus. It is very hard to read. Maybe ok.
  • Fig23 :1800: G. DE COREE : ok.
  • Fig24 :1833: GULF OF COREA : maybe ok.
  • Fig25 :1834: MAR DE COREE : I cannot read "MAR DE" part. "COREE" or "COREA" is readable. maybe ok.
  • Fig26 :1845: SEA OF COREA : Modern and correct description. I cannot read "SEA OF" part, but "COREA" is readable.

Good or ok

  • Eastern Sea: 2
  • Ocean Oriental/Oriental Sea/Mare Orientale: 9
  • Mar Coria/Sea of Corea/Mer De Coree/Gulf of Corea/etc: 12

Not good

  • Double Count: 1
  • Bad figre: 3


Total:27 (Fig12 is counted twice)

In conclusion, there is no record for "East Sea", a few records for "Eastern Sea". Older maps prefer "Oriental Sea", but more recently "Sea of Korea" was prefered from mid-18th century to mid-19th century. This tendency is in accordance with the above "Image:Transition of Sea of Japan.png", other than we cannot find "Sea of Japan" in this collection. So, the sea between Japan and Korea can be called rather Sea of Korea, than East Sea, if we can change the history back to mid-19th century. --Isorhiza 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We are forgetting something important here: this website is nothing but proganda and like all proganda, it only tells one side of the story. This website does not list a single map using "Sea of Japan" not because none exist, but because it would be damaging to the korean cause. and of course, as proven by their very own propanda, East Sea as an English or European name does not exist. East Sea is a direct translation of the korean name for that body of water, not an English name. Masterhatch 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't you catch my meaning, or maybe my English is bad? I must have clarified that there is no base for "East Sea". I know why there is no "Sea of Japan" here, but that was beyond the scope of my discussion. --Isorhiza 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, i understood your meaning. i was just adding to it. Masterhatch 01:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this some conspiracy for straw man arguments? Some anonymous user brings up a link to a site that shows maps of East Sea, and then you guys start chatting about how there's not many East Sea, but mostly Oriental... If you want to change the article, or add something concerning this matter, bring it out straight. Plus, you can't base conclusions from a website that shows random maps of the sea w/ East Sea variations. Oriental Sea is perfectly East Sea. So is Eastern Sea. (Wikimachine 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC))

No, this isn't a straw man argument. We are discussing this because this anonymous user seemed to believe hightly in this propaganda site and this anonymous user seemed to equate East Sea to mean the same as Oriental Sea or Eastern Sea. He started a discussion and i was rebutting his claims (and the claims of the site he mentioned). Masterhatch 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


My point is that there is no base for "East Sea".
    • There is no record of "East Sea". If there is any, please show it. Anyway it must be minority.
    • "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" are obsolete terms.
    • "Sea of Korea" is more logical, modern, correct term.
I suppose that claims of "East Sea Forum" summarizes argument of East Sea claimars. If it is not, please point out clearly. There are several difficulties in this claim of "East Sea Forum".
    • This collection ignores maps with "Sea of Japan".
There has been only one map found through out the research saying "Sea of Japan"
    • Their claim synonimizes "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" with "East Sea".
    • They ignore chronology.
There are other mistakes, but I will ignore them.
First point is okay. We can go without that.
Second point is same as the statement of Wikimachine, and this is the most important lie. Eastern, Oriental and East have obviously different meaning. Firstly, Oriental implies much more than "Eastern" and "East". Secondly, Oriental and Eastern are vaguely eastern direction from the viewpoint of Europa. However, "East" means east to something. East Sea claimars must have mentioned that the sea is East to the Continent or something like that. Further, East Sea is the English translation of "Donghae" which points the sea in Korean language. The former two are "Europa-central", and the latter is "Korea-central" or at least "East-end-of-the-Continent-central". "East-end-of-the-Continent" may include this week's hero North Korea, South Korea, eastern-north China and Russia. No vagueness. The difference is obvious.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary consider "Oriental" as a synonym of "Eastern." In addition, "East" with E capitalized, means eastern by definition. You can probably look up other dictionaries as well. And please do not try to tranlsate hanja "Donghae(東海)." Dong(東) means EAST, EASTERN, and ORIENTAL in China, Korea, and Japan.129.97.245.62 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP
I don't have that dictionary, so your citation is not good. You should use online dictionary or online encyclopedia instead. I cited Wikipedia Orient and Oriental and other words are at least not synonym. If your dictionary simply say "Oriental" and "Eastern" is synonym and did not show their other meaning, then your should throw away it, not worth buying. You can search Webster Online for free and the results were:
  • Orienatl: [49]
  • Eastern: [50]
  • East: [51]
  • synonym: [52] "1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses".
As you see, Oriental, Eastern, and East have different meaning, but may be synonym in the sense that words are same in some senses. I'm an expert of biology, so I used the term synonym in the sense that two or more words points same thing. I should have write that:
    • They claim "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" are same with "East Sea".
And again, their claim is lie, as I have shown above.
"Please do not try to translate hanja "Donghae(東海).", you request that because it is the weak point of "East Sea" claim. You mentioned "Dong(東) means EAST, EASTERN, and ORIENTAL in China, Korea, and Japan". Then, "East, Eastern, Oriental" Sea are all expressed by one word "Donghae(東海)" in Korean language. "East Sea" claimers all have the word "Donghae(東海)" in their head, so they claim "East", "Eastern", and "Oriental" are same. So you are wrong. In English, "East", "Eastern", and "Oriental" are different word. Remember that we are editing encyclopedia for english speakers, not for Koreans. --Isorhiza 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to say do NOT TRANLSATE Donghae in English. You were using the translation of Donghae as a your support. If this is for English speaker, why would you bother? Anyways, I'm pinpointing that your translation was wrong. 129.97.245.62 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oriental
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionaryoriental - 2. of the orient or east; eastern.
  • American Heritage® Dictionary - 1. ... eastern.; The usual objection to Orientalmeaning “eastern”is ...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/east
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary - "The Orient = The East"; eastern.
  • American Heritage® Dictionary - 3. a. The eastern part of the earth, especially eastern Asia.
  • WordNet ® 2.0 - 2: the countries of Asia [syn: East, Orient]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eastern
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary 6. Oriental.
In English, "East" "Eastern" and "Oriental" are synonym. In addition, the roots of a word does not effect its synonymity to other words. Also, it is nonsense mentioning you're a biologist, so that you define the term synonym differently. 129.97.245.62 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP
Okay, okay, it was my mistake to use the word "synonym" in my previous comments. Synonym means two or more words point the same thing, in this case, the Sea of Japan. In that sense, all of the Oriental Sea, Eastern Sea, East Sea sensu Korean, Sea of Korea are junior synonym of the Sea of Japan in the current nomenclature of geography. I have already corrected my mistake above that "They claim "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" are same with "East Sea"".
It is not me, but you and East Sea claimers who are using the East Sea in the exact sense of english translation of "Donghae". You say Oriental, Eastern and East are synonym. It is okay in the sense that the three words have partially common meaning as you have seen in the dictionary. But you must have seen that they are not "perfectly same" at the same time. However, they are one and the same "Dong" in Korean language. We can understand that it is logical way of thinking in the context of Korean language to treat the three words as same. But if you insist that the three are same in English, you cannot think logically or you are liar. In addition, roots of words are very important in discussion of synonymity and nomenclature. --Isorhiza 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oriental, Eastern, and East are not SAME, however they are same in terms of cultural, coventional, perceptional, and contextual way in ENGLISH. In this sense, Oriental Sea, Eastern Sea, and East Sea are the same. In addition, roots is definitely one of may factors of synomymity, but it is not the only factor. There are many words from the same root can have totally different meaning. There are many words with the same meaning, but derived from different roots. (By the way, the root of orient and east are pretty much same. "The etymology of "east" is from an old Proto-Indo-European language word for dawn... [53]" Both Orient and East came from the direction of the Sun rises. And last but not least, you are saying my points as well as many others are "logically wrong" and called us a "liar." Logically, I am not lying, because I presented my points with logically developed supports in a logical way. Logical Logical Logical 129.97.245.62 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)THXJP


Okay, we can agree at the point that "Oriental, Eastern, and East are not SAME". But you need proof for the part: "however they are same in terms of cultural, coventional, perceptional, and contextual way in ENGLISH." We must have already seen in dictionary that they have partially same meaning, but diffrent in many (cultural, coventional, perceptional, and contextual) ways. Of course, Eastern derived from East, and Orient and East must have similar origin. The sun goes up from the same direction, and even the chinese character for "Dong" must have similar origin. About your impressive phrase, "There are many words from the same root can have totally different meaning. There are many words with the same meaning, but derived from different roots." I agree with you completely. They derived from same meaning, but different in some ways at present. If you think that Oriental (Eastern) and East is same, why you don't claim "Oriental (Eastern) Sea" instead? --Isorhiza 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Third lie is important to support the second lie. If we see the maps chronologically, we can easily recognize that "Oriental Sea" and "Eastern Sea" are obsolete and "Sea of Korea" is modern and correct term. "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" only vaguely point this area including East China Sea, South China Sea, coastal Pacific, etc. before mid-18th when European had little knowledge about the area. These words were not used frequently after Europeans had enough knowledge of geography of this area. They had correct knowledge of China, Korea and Japan after mid-18th, so the collection clearly showed the tendency that most maps used more correct "Sea of Korea" or "Gulf of Korea". Conclusions: "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" are old and obsolete terms. In contrast, recent appeared "East Sea" must have different origin and meaning. They cannot be mixed with each other.
Wikimachine should prove logically why "Oriental Sea is perfectly East Sea. So is Eastern Sea." and "(Oriental Sea and Eastern Sea are) East Sea variations". --Isorhiza 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No. You should prove logically why "Oriental Sea is NOT perfectly East Sea". I'm not. Why? Because I'm not advocating anything, and I'm not an expert at this field. If Masterhatch and Isohiza want to prove that Eastern Sea & Oriental Sea are not same as East Sea, then substantiate with evidence. Plus, I've heard from Masterhatch this "east to the continent is incorrect" argument so many times during my previous debate on this article. Can he actually cite his claim that East Sea means sea east of the continent? (Wikimachine 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
P.S. When I mean with evidence, actually from historians and articles, not you experts. (Wikimachine 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
I have proved that. It is your turn. I'm advocating nothing. I just hate liars and editors who don't have ability to think logically. They should rather go to highschool and gain enough education to enter university and finish some degree, before editing encyclopedia. --Isorhiza 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You should at least read Orient before you write something here. --Isorhiza 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to support a bogus citation from Eastsea.org with any bogus explanation, Wikimachine. There is no proof that "East Sea" was ever used for the "Sea of Japan" before the Koreans started to advocate it in the late 20th century. "East Sea" was NOT one of the forms used for the "Sea of Japan" in the first place. You could, however, mention that many Koreans equate "Eastern Sea", "Oriental Sea", and "Sea of Korea" with "East Sea", and count them together, using this citation. However, a disclaimer would be required saying that "East Sea" in English was not actually used.--Endroit 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the "oriental" article. It doesn't say anything about being East to the Asian continent, as Masterhatch has been repeatedly claiming. I have hard time finding the links that you provide to prove your assertions. Could you list them below here? And if you haven't found any, find an article that specifically says that there have been no "East Sea" (word by word) found in any maps before the 20th century, and that Eastern & Oriental =/= East. (Wikimachine 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

What are you talking about? It is me who wrote that oriental implies much more than east. Masterhatch did not write anything during above several comments. If you have some comments to his/her comments, write it at appropriate place. What do you mean by "It doesn't say anything about being East to the Asian continent"? I just mentioned that Oriental is different from East and East as adjective usually means just east to something.
And why must I "find an article that specifically says that there have been no "East Sea" (word by word) found in any maps before the 20th century" to prove something? I merely mentioned that no "East Sea" was found in the maps which "East Sea Forum" showed, and the reference is proposed by another editor to be included here. It is you who need to show any reference which proves the presence of map record which refers to "East Sea" in the Korean sense (not in the Chinese sense), I wonder there is any. I could not find any proof for "East Sea" from the two External Links. East Sea Map Study by the Korean Overseas Information Service merely assume but not declare with proof that Oriental Sea and East Sea is synonymous. And the both links simply count together Oriental/Eastern Sea and Sea of Korea and does not prove the presence of East Sea. They are at least honest than you who declare "Oriental Sea" is synonymous with "East Sea". They merely assume. Reading shown reference carefully and confirm its reliability from its content is not original research at all, but it is a necessary process of editing.
Your logic is that after writing some lie without reference and request reference which specifically says that the article is lie. Writing bogus comments doesn't help editors in your side. (is there any?) --Isorhiza 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Off of #1, I was referencing to Masterhatch's comments 1 year ago when we were debating about the Sea of Japan naming dispute.
  • Off of #2, your strategy is to say that Oriental is different from East, and therefore Oriental Sea should not be counted as East Sea--> there has never been an East Sea. But your dictionary definitions are out of context because if you know history, East Sea was taken from Chinese translation to Italian language when introduced into Europe. And you know what, as a Latin III Honors student, I know perfectly that oriental, orientalis, means East in plain term "east" in English. Because you are the one bringing up the assertion that Oriental is different from East (I didn't bring any assertion up to begin with), YOU have to substantiate your claim.
Ah, so, you mean that Eastern Sea is originally chinese Eastern Sea (Donghai) and Korean Eastern Sea (Donghae) was exactly same meaning as it? And the Latin translation was Mare Orientale? That can be, but did you find any reliable source? And the problem is that there is already East China Sea nearby.
Online dictionaries say: English east is Italian "est". Italian "orientale" is english "eastern" [1]. Latin "orientalis" means "of or belonging to the East, Eastern" [2]. So orientale and orientalis are eastern and not east, as your knowledge as a Latin III Honors student says. However, I'm not native speaker, so I wait for more input from other editors.
Are you serious? Wow. "Est" is "s/he is" in English. Sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt. You [3] shows "search argument not specified"[54]. And "orientalis, is, e" (sorry, not Oriental, orientalis) means "east", not Eastern nor East Asia, etc. pg. 515 LATIN Dictionary SECOND EDITION. John C. Traupman, PH.D. St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia. (C) 1994, 1966 by Bantam Books. An Amsco Publication. Here's a real source instead of your crappy on.
Anyway, there were two names historically Eastern/Oriental Sea (not East Sea) and Sea of Korea, other than Sea of Japan, and "Korea's position is that" ""Sea of Korea" is actually the more common historical European name". I cannot understand why you so strongly insist that "East" is identical with "Eastern/Oriental" and Eastern/Oriental Sea and Sea of Korea must be counted together to support "East Sea". --Isorhiza 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. Korea never advocated "Sea of Korea" more than "East Sea". Clarify your "historical European name". And you know perfectly why I insist that East is identical with Eastern. (Wikimachine 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Off of #3, your assumption's great, but nobody cares. Why? Because you are not a qualified historian. We Wikipedians want information from actual references. Great job on the analysis of all the maps you could find on the internet. You still haven't looked at all the map. On the other hand, a hydrographic scholar/professor could write an article stating that there was really no East Sea. Find this. Why? Nobody was saying that there was no actual East Sea in the exact same words in English. You brought it up. YOU prove yourself. I'm not going to. It's not my business. Why should a system be where you bring up the arguments and I have to clean up for you? (Wikimachine 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
Oh, you must have done much greater work on maps on the Internet last year. Did you find any East Sea? I only examined if the "East Sea Forum" website is reliable or not from its content. I merely say that I could not find any East Sea in their examples. I could not find a part where they explain why they use "East Sea" instead of original "Eastern/Oriental Sea". Still, they argue that "East Sea" is used in history. --Isorhiza 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what are you exactly advocating? Just because you didn't find "East Sea" doesn't mean anything. (Wikimachine 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Wait, your 4th point:
Your logic is that after writing some lie without reference and request reference which specifically says that the article is lie. Writing bogus comments doesn't help editors in your side. (is there any?)
Are you saying that I had brought these arguments up long before & you are only trying to correct them? That doesn't apply because many of these arguments, I didn't write, and always there's going to be some preceding edits that somebody perceives as having been brought up without evidence & therefore must be removed without the necessity of referencing.

(Wikimachine 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

It is "East Sea" claimers who repeatedly mention that "East Sea" is historical name, without showing any "East Sea" example. Is there any reliable source which prove that "Eastern/Oriental Sea" may be treated identical with "East Sea"? I merely pointed out that it is not proved. --Isorhiza 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Reliable documents talk about "East Sea". There's no reason to expect us Wikipedians to actually do original research on our own. But I'm in process of finding one. (Wikimachine 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] There was no IHB in 1919

See International Hydrographic Organization. The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) is an intergovernmental international organization established in 1921. and The IHO is composed of its member states (represented by their respective hydrographic offices) with administration through the International Hydrographic Bureau with headquarters in Monaco. In fact, it was proposed to form IHO during the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919, and later the organization was formed and the Bureau administered the organization.


There was no record which prove that international names of bodies of water, the "Sea of Japan" was submitted in the following reference. Actually, the conference was quite technical. The main object was to agree with common terms, signs, to publish charts which can be used universally.

  • Report of proceedings : international hydrographic conference London, 1919. London : H.M.S.O., 1920, 240 p. ; 33 cm

--Isorhiza 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So somebody's lying here. About a year ago when I debated Sea of Japan vs East Sea, this user was constantly referring to the 1919 IHB. (Wikimachine 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

You cannot find any counter-proof, so you can do nothing but calling me lying. Please write something constructive than simply accusing me with no proof. --Isorhiza 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"After its victory in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, Japan forcefully annexed the Korean Peninsula. In 1919, when Korea was still occupied by the Japanese, delegates of 18 maritime powers including the United States, Britain, France, and Japan gathered in London for the International Hydrographic Conference and discussed how to unify the names of oceans. In the Limits of Oceans and Seas published by the IHO in 1929, after discussions among the members, the sea between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago was identified as the "Sea of Japan." Since then the name "East Sea" has gradually disappeared from maps around the world."[http://www.korea.net/kois/pds/html/eastsea.html

"The International Hydrographic Organization technical intergovernmental organization established Monaco on 3 May 1967. Pursuant to Article 102 of Nations, the Convention was registered with the United September 1970. IHO has 69 member States from every over the national hydrographic offices of the Governments Convention. Following the conferences held in St. Petersburg met in London in 1919 for a hydrographic conference that a permanent body should be established. At the invitation Monaco, a noted marine scientist, the International provided with premises, and it began work in 1921 navigation easier and safer throughout the world by documents."[55]

Actually, IHO members met informally before the organization was formally established in 1921. (Wikimachine 01:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC))
I completely agree with your last sentence. I merely wrote that there was no IHO and IHB formed in 1919. So, I've modified the part accordingly. You must be happy to agree with the modification. I don't have time to discuss the former part of your comment now, especially the reliability of the eastsea.html. but I can say that eastsea.html does not refer any actual reference as of IHO part. They just supposed, or assumed the part, and they wrongly summerized the comment of historian refered there. The comment refered does not mention 1919, but 1929. In addition, I have refered the official report of the 1919 conference, which you can get anytime at least from British Library or from library of IHO, so this is not original research but just refered a reference anybody can access. And there was no discussion about the name of the sea. I think that it is better to describe, as comment of some korean professor refered in eastsea.html, that the issue begun in 1929 by the IHO publication. It is more faithful and it doesn't hurt East Sea side's arguement in any way. --Isorhiza 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If the formal nomenclature of IHO is the Sea of Japan, this sea is Sea of Japan.　Do you also disregard IHO as Kim Jong Il disregarded KEDO?　 :-) --218.218.130.158 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I mean. I simply mention that history (and everything) must be described correctly in the sense of WP:V. International Hydrographic Bureau was formed later than 1920, so it is impossible that delegates of Japan submitted something to IHB in 1919. As far as I know, such a submission was made by delegates of Japan officially, is not verifiable. So "official" naming by IHO to this part of sea must be dated from 1926, when the first edition of Limits of Ocean and Seas was published. --Isorhiza 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

The debate used to be in dokdo museum.KoJa though I could not find the current site. (dokdo museum seems moved somewhere in www.dokdo.go.kr) Other examples are KoJa and reference 8 also mentions about the ownership.Ko This cite looks nice as a citation though I hope someone can find more reasonable site for the citation.[56]--Jjok 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was confused about the ownership of the rocks.--Jjok 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I deleted the following paragraph, because Ministry of Foreign Affair of either Korea or Japan does not mention this. MOFA of Korea states only about "Limits of Oceans and Seas" published in 1928 [57] (they say 1929, but actually it is 1928 according to database of the library of the Harvard University.). I challenged the fact a week ago, but nobody could provide source. So I understand that it is ok to delete now. I agree that it will be added again anytime, if there is verifiable source. I paid attention not to delete Korea's point that at that time Korea was under Japanese occupation. It is beyond my scope. --Isorhiza 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


At the 1919 International Hydrographic Conference in London[4] to officially determine international names of bodies of water, the "Sea of Japan" was submitted.[citation needed]

[edit] Overuse of "citation needed"

The number of {{fact}} and {{who}} tags is not helpful and frankly annoying. Can't you use something like {{not verified}} -- just once -- instead? 128.135.96.110 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

absolutely, could you help? --Isorhiza 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to add Category

I move that the this talk page should be added to the category Comedy. I found myself laughing so hard at some of the arguments on this page that it surely must rate as one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia.

Bathrobe 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

which arguments, do you mean? --Isorhiza 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mostly the Korean arguments, because the Koreans who post here are so passionate and utterly devoted to their cause that they seem to lose sight of reality. But some of the replies by partisans of Japan aren't much better because they get drawn into the same ridiculous arguments. It is hilarious to watch people arguing as if the issue will be settled on this talk page. In pushing their case so ardently, they forget one thing: this entry is meant to elucidate the dispute, not to prove who is right or wrong!

Bathrobe 08:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. this article has become somewhat of a joke. It used to be fairly well written, but it now reads more like two children fighting over who is right and who is wrong. I have given up trying to keep out all the BS and POV. People are too concerned with having an "equal" number of arguments on both sides that stupid shit gets put in to try and create "balance". This is an encyclopaedia, not an essay about which name is correct. This article is being used as a battleground and that is totally sad. Masterhatch 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

Holy cow! How does anyone add or correct information when anonymous Tokyo IP addresses undo everything here? Can someone read the links and correct the introduction? North Korea uses "East Sea of Korea" itself but joins the South Korean position for simultaneous use of SOJ and ES, even according to the Japanese site! The second Korean site doesn't argue that "Sea of Korea" should be the international name, it says "if" ... "then" the proper name would be "East Sea" or "Sea of Korea." There is no doubt that the official South Korean position is for the use of "East Sea," and North Korea supports it, so what's with the intentionally confusing introduction?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanKim (talk • contribs) .

Actually, according to the article of Chosun Ilbo, NK supports the concurrent use with SOJ though it does not say what the concurrent name should be. By the way, would you help find the corresponding article in Korean? I failed to find it.
MOMAF of SK site says "In fact, if we strictly follow the general practice in designating geographical names, a sea area lying to the east of the Eurasian continent and the Korean peninsula should be named either the East Sea or the Sea of Korea." I also do not understand what kind of rule they are strictly following. The easternmost sea of the Eurasian continent is Sea of Okhotsk. If they follow the rule that the East Sea there is internationally called as the Baltic Sea and the East Sea in China is the East China Sea, thus the Sea of Japan or the East Sea of Korea are more suitable rather than the SK centric East Sea and SK should support NK position.[58]--Jjok 03:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into the details of the argument itself, but direct quotes from the official government websites (even quoting the Japanese government's statement of Korea's position!) should be good enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanKim (talk • contribs) .

I could see that NK supported the SK's proposal of the concurrent use, though I failed to find the description that NK supported "the East Sea" instead of "the East Sea of Korea" either in SK or JP official documents. Thus, "South Korea and North Korea requested that names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" should be simultaneously used as an interim measure (North Korea also proposed the name "East Sea of Korea" to be used)" looks illogical. You also seem not to want to describe the NK's proposal in an equal manner with the SK's. What is the reason?--Jjok 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The words are directly out of the cited sources. The sources are better statements of the parties' position than your analysis. North Korea is not the main party to the dispute, the movement is led by South Korea, and North just supports them in some forums. North Korea just doesn't have the influence or resources or the credibility. Just read any news article, it will mainly state South Korea's and Japan's position. Korealist 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppetry

DanKim and Korealist above are confirmed to be sock puppets of each other. This article has a history of sock puppetry. For full details on related sock puppetry, see:

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Room218
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NekoNekoTeacher
  4. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby
  5. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke

--Endroit 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Talk%7ESea_of_Japan_naming_dispute_96a6.html"