Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Maveric149 keeps removing links and said "It dont exsist" Dont you stop that? --Anon

Kept? I did that once and at the time the article did not exist. Put your comments on the bottom of the page in the future. --mav

I recovered this interesting link.

The despute is clearly relate to the article.

I smell fishy ....

It is uncertain when the Koreans first perceived donghae as the equivalent of Sea of Japan. At the end of the 20th century they translated Donghae into English and began to use "East Sea"."

I removed this sentence 1) It is certain that the name Donghae was used in pre-19th-century maps and 2) it's irrelevant, since then we would have to say when did Japan first started to perceive their East Sea as the Japanese East Sea? User:Jeejee

Donghae was not the Sea of Japan. Donghae was merely the sea located to the east of those who lived in the Korean Peninsula. Can you find any Korean map that shows the whole sea and "Donghae" on it?
Japanese Tokai is similar to Korean Donghae. It was the sea located to the east of Japan. It is not the whole Pacific Ocean. "Pacific Ocean" cannot be replaced by Tokai.Nanshu 15:24 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
Yes I have a Korean map, which says Dong Hae. Jeejee
Which? Nanshu 16:11 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Removed "However the fact is that there is no map that designate the sea exactly as "East Sea". Instead some 19th-cetunry maps show "Eastern Sea" on the East China Sea."

This has been proved by the Koreans on their governemnt web site, and there is a list of maps. Please stop removing the links to the Korean governemnt, when I myself added BOTH the Japanese and Korean government links. Your refusal to present both internet web sites clearly establishes your bias. User:Jeejee

You can examine cheap tricks Korea played by yourself. Here is a list by South Korea. How many maps adopt "East Sea"? Nothing! Korea could found only two maps, that show "The EASTERN or COREA SEA", both of which were made by John Senex.
I just replaced it with the root page. You can reach the site by 2 clicks.
Why did you remove "Eastern Sea"? Yes. It is your unfavorable fact.Nanshu 15:15 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
No that's your assumption that I removed an unfavorable fact. I was merely negligent and didn't see the "ern" of "Eastern." However, as you mentioned there are two maps, and so it's not a FACT like that you claimed. My concern with this sentence was that "however the fact is..." Jeejee
Here is an exapmle of Eastern Sea on the East Chin Sea. I found about 20 such maps. Nanshu 16:11 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
I fear you misunderstood me. I wrote, "Instead some 19th-cetunry maps show "Eastern Sea" on the East China Sea."
That's fine. Just don't use statements like "it's a fact..." when these facts are being disputed. I will contact some Korean scholars on this matter and ask them to contribute, my knowledge only comes from my own research, but I'm not an expert.

I've removed this bit as not relevant to the article. If someone wants to put it elsewhere, I'd suggest rephrasing it first. Matthew Woodcraft

==Anti-Japanism==
South Koreans also ridiculously claim that Japanese intentionally promoted Korea instead of Corea during colonial era, reason being that K comes after J.
The fact is Korea is English, Corea is Latin. In the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, Korean name was written as Corea.
The series of ridiculous Korean claiming against Japan are based on Korea's Anti-Japanism.

I further reverted the addition of a link labelled "I see Koreans are on top of the world", and all other changes done at the same time. Cyp 12:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

- VANK, a volunteer Korean cyber-organization, began an e-mail flooding campaign to raise international awareness of the dispute. + VANK, a volunteer Korean cyber-organization, began an e-mail campaign to raise international awareness of the dispute.
- VANK + Others
+ * Koreas unite against Japan BBC News, August 16, 2002
+ * A sea by any other name Guardian, August 23, 2002
* VANK * VANK
- * Koreans internet censorship campaign VANK finding target of mail flooding. + * Backgrounder on the name dispute
- * I see Koreans are on top of the world VANK hangul +
- +
- Other +
- * Anti-Japanese sentiments is Korean's base of energy +

The following text are removed from the article as it seems to be not relevant as a part of an encylopedia article.

The North Koreans demand "East Sea of Korea". What will happen if Madagascar renames the Indian Ocean to "East Ocean" , Australia proposes "West Ocean" and Pakistan asks for "Pakistani Ocean"? Should the international ogranizations approve them and rename it to "East/Indian/Pakistani/West Ocean"?

--Lorenzarius 15:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

216.148.221.156 has re-added the above passage without giving a reason. But I think the text is not NPOV enough, and that's why I removed it. It may be better if it is rephrased. --Lorenzarius 05:55 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Does the really need to be a separate article? Why can't it be incorporated into the Sea of Japan article? -- Zoe

I'd like to let geography free from politics. -- Nanshu
If that were at all possible then we wouldn't have nearly as many wars. --mav
So what? --Nanshu
Meaning that is not possible to separate geography, especially political geography, from politics. With that said, the summary at Sea of Japan is probably enough (although it could use a bit more). --mav
Currently the article Sea of Japan is geographic except the last paragraph. This works well as an "isolation" article. -- Nanshu 11:45 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Removed last paragraph under Japan: It should be noted that Korea did not raise the issue until 1992, although South Korea joined the IHO (IHB) in 1957. Moreover it has described only "Japan Sea" on its own official nautical charts until 1993. In 1993 it first included both "Japan Sea" and "Tong Hae" (Tong Hae is an old romanization of Donghae). It is in 1995 that Korea first adopted "East Sea" on their charts.

Someone can rephrase this paragraph, but Korea started to raise the issue in the mid 1960s, (someone also deleted that) and made a formal request in 1992, so first sentence is incorrect. I'm not sure where you get the rest of the information, but I would like from now on, bibliographical information on all these "facts." Jeejee


Urg...what does the last link to Korean Anti-Japan article do with this article??? Japan is also very Anti-Korean and I'm sure I can find Korean articles that say the same thing about Japan. This can go on ad infinitum so please stop adding in information which only increases bigotry and misunderstanding. Anti-Korean or Anti-Japan sentiments are mutual on both sides. In any case, according to the official Japanese government position, the Rape of Nanking never even happened!! How can you claim the Japanese to be objective in anything?? Jeejee

Hey 212.198.0.93 aka Jeejee, I didn't delete that list. Check Revision history. -- Nanshu 11:45 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Nanshu, I hadn't checked that. I apologize. Jeejee

Ed Poor,

  • I let you know a somewhat dirty Japanese saying: miso kuso (not knowing Miso from shit). That's what you did. "althout generally accepted" is NPOV because 97% of maps in the world use "Sea of Japan".
  • Nobody can "restore" what has never existed. So South Korea cannot "restore" the name "East Sea".

--Nanshu 01:53, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are a lot more than 2 maps on the link http://www.korea.net/issue/eastsea/map_app1.asp that use a variation of either "East Sea" or "Sea of Korea." "Eastern" is a variation of "East," as is "Oriental," which comes from the Latin word for "East." And if the map is in French and the sea is called "Mer de Coree" ( http://www.korea.net/issue/eastsea/images/13.pdf ), don't tell me that doesn't count! I have added explanatory text to the article and a supporting link (to the British Library collection), plus mentioned the 1919 IHU meeting that settled on the name "Sea of Japan." Also: if you want justify the Japanese arguments with facts, fine. But do not shout down the Korean arguments. Both sides have valid points to make, and no one person can judge the correct answer to this problem: least of all any Wikipedian. --Sewing 20:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would like to propose a name change for the "Sea of Korea" / "Sea of Japan". Why not call it the "Sea of Korea, China, and Japan"? Rickyrab 20:38, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The current naming of the body of water is, in terms of international law, an open issue. I have added the appropriate references in the introductory paragraph. If the IHO and UNCSGN ever resolve that the "Sea of Japan" is the only official name, then I will reword this article accordingly. Until then, downgrading the Korean names for the body of water goes against the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Sewing 16:31, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have removed 2 non-governmental POV links: one Korean, one Japanese:

The VANK's page has some information that is also provided on the Korean government pages. The Japanese page is part of a highly POV Web site. The article itself makes some useful points but trivializes others. --Sewing 21:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article did not say that the UN or IHO have adopted the name "East Sea." It said that those bodies have recommended using both names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" until the dispute can be resolved. I have restored the first paragraph. --Sewing 14:16, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sewing. Are you certain that UN and/or IHO actually "recommends" using of both names for this case? (Not so seems to me.) By the way, this issue is almost forgotten (or not known from outset) by Japanese masses, but Takeshima is getting some hot. Takanoha 15:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) Takanoha
I could not find any evidence that the 7th UNCSGN recommends use of both names. Something said in the middle of the discussion should not be confused as a final decision, as well as something asserted by prominent peoples should not be confused as an organizational dicision. Takanoha 11:48, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some argument took place in the 7th UNCSGN, but no conclusion was made. See item 11 of [1] (PDF). The resolution A.4.2.6 serves solely for IHO. The "Limits of Oceans and Seas" published by IHO is not revised yet. Takanoha 14:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following was moved from Talk:South Gyeongsang.

copied material: begin

Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't met any Koreans calling it the Sea of Japan. IMHO this stretch of water simply has two names. I'd call it Sea of Japan when referring to Japanese matters, but as for Korean ones, I actually think it's not the most appropriate form. I thought East Sea (Sea of Japan) was catering for my point, but then I can sea that East Sea only leads to a disambiguation page... diwiki 21:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The statuses of the two names are different. Sea of Japan is the internationally accepted geographic name for the body of water while East Sea is a local name in South Korea. --Nanshu 01:40, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's right. I thought it wasn't culturally sensitive... but I'll stick with the Sea of Japan then.... and will add East Sea in brackets, as you corrected it. diwiki 11:34, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Nanshu is wrong. See Notice below.

Notice

The current naming of the body of water immediately east of South Korea is an open issue, according to a 1998 decision of the 7th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names and a 1974 International Hydrographic Organization resolution regarding the naming of disputed bodies of water [2]. According to UNCSGN and in accordance with the IHO resolution, the names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" are to be used simultaneously. When the issue is resolved, this article will be edited appropriately. Until then, downgrading the Korean name for the body of water violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For background on the dispute and a summary of the different points of view, see Dispute over the name Sea of Japan --Sewing 17:20, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

copied material: end


Hey, Sewing, do you know what are "a 1998 decision of the 7th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names" and "a 1974 International Hydrographic Organization resolution"? They are general rules that "recommends" that disputed names are shown until the agreement. Neither the UNCSGN nor the IHO claim that the name "Sea of Japan" is disputed so that they apply Resolution III/20 or Technical Resolution A4.2.6. Therefore neither the UNCSGN nor the IHO accepted the name "East Sea" as an international geographic name. So using "Sea of Japan" alone is not imcompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It may be helpful to show the local name "East Sea" other than the international geographic name at Korea-related articles, but it is needless for the rest.

Maybe Sewing did not see the nature of Resolution III/20 or Technical Resolution A4.2.6. because the information provided by KOIS is very misleading. .I cannot find academic conscience at KOIS's page. I feel pity for him. --Nanshu 01:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the list of maps taken from http://www.kois.go.kr/issue/EastSea/map_c2.asp violates copyright laws. At least it violates the Japanese Copyright Law. --Nanshu 01:31, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have better things to do than waste my time and energy arguing with a Japanese nationalist. I have added a link at the top of the article to Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. Perhaps one day this will truly be a neutral article, but not as long as you are editing it. --Sewing 21:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Opinions and views" is ridiculous. Is there any objection to splitting this into the two sections: Japan's opinion and Korea's opinion. --Nanshu 02:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)