Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/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.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates March 2005 to 13 July 2005

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive02. Thank you. Masterhatch 03:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Proposing "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" as an NPOV title

Okay, so the bulk of contention between Nanshu and Sewing is the title of this article itself. Besides some bias I notice in the article itself, the article's title becomes problematic NPOV wise because what's being disputed is the name of the sea. By picking one particular name, the article is perceived as violating NPOV (for the affected parties, that is). I propose an NPOV title to the article by calling it "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas". --Yonghokim 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have no problem with using "Sea of Japan" for the page title. The name "Sea of Japan" (or Japan Sea) isn't just what Japan wants to use but also an international standard whereas "East Sea" is nothing more than South Korean POV.

And "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" doesn't conform to our NPOV policy. Japan has the longest coastline along the Sea of Japan. It isn't South Korea or North Korea, or not even the Korean Peninsula, but Russia that follows Japan. So it sound like "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" refers to the Tsushima Strait, which is actually located between Japan and Korea --Nanshu 14:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please mind the plural 's' in Koreas, Nanshu. Tsushima strait has nothing to do with the 'other' Korea, North Korea. Also, Russia has no part in this conflict (does not want it called East Sea of Russia). Your argument with coast line length is also growing thin. Please concider that the Koreas' coast length along this water in question, is a conciderable quote of their total coast length. --himasaram

Actually, some of us DO have a problem using the name "Sea of Japan" for the article title. Since the name is disputed (no matter how much Nanshu disparages the South Korean argument), including the name "Sea of Japan" does in fact violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not only that, both the Korean and Japanese arguments have large accumulations of historical evidence that should be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions. I say we change the name of this page to a neutral title, like the article "Liancourt Rocks". --Leonhart

Ok Nanshu, you win. Please, take the Sea of Japan and the Liancourt Islands (sorry, forgot its japanese name) for yourself. --Yonghokim 04:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chosen hachido no zu

Leonhart added Chosen hachid no zu 朝鮮八道之図 by Hayashi Shihei 林子平 with the following caption:

A 220 year-old Japanese map clearly displaying the body of water between Korea and Japan as the "East Sea."

It may be "clear" to Leonhart's eyes, but actually, there is no such term as Tokai 東海 on that map. All we can see is the character "東" and the Hangul 동 with furigana "togu" トグ. It merely indicates direction. In fact, we can confirm other directional signs (north, south and west) on the map.

It is surprising to people unfamiliar with Korea that this silly report was made not by a elementary school student but by a professor named Kim Mun-gil, and that it got media coverage without the simple error corrected. But this always happens in Korea. --Nanshu 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


For your information, Nanshu, that map is not displayed in its entirety (duh). Since I was unable to find a complete photograph of that map (which was taken by Yonhap News), and you are unlikely to take me for my word, why don't you just run along and try finding a FULL picture of that map or read the Daum News article that came along with it? I'm sure you can find some answers there.

And by the way, I would appreciate if you just laid off Korea's case once in a while. Since day one on Wikipedia you've taken every oppurtunity to promote your smear coampaign of Korea and China, and I find no basis to your preposterous claims whatsoever. In fact, you've even created a site called "Korea, The Perposterous World." Your hatred of Korea has gone beyond the periphery of rationality and threatens the truth of what happened throughout history. Do you really think that by defacing neighboring countries you can cover up your country's own crimes? Why don't you take a closer look at the Nanjing Massacre, the torture and execution of POWs, and the infamous Unit 731, instead of just blatantly denying and belittling every single fact that tarnishes Japan's good-for-nothing reputation? Leonhart

Can you stick to the subject? Or do you think you can cover up your mistake with a parrot cry? If you insist that map clearly displays the body of water between Korea and Japan as the "East Sea", you have to bring evidence. Otherwise, withdraw it. Don't ask others to prove it. The burden of proof is on you!

But I had already checked Chosen hachid no zu by myself before making this section, and came to the above conclusion. --Nanshu 14:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me get a few things straight: 1) According to my research, "Chosen hachid no zu" does indeed display the body of water between Korean and Japan as 東海, but if you insist, I shall remove it from this article and add another map in its place.

2) I'm SO SORRY (cough) for "covering up my mistake with a parrot cry". Of course, everything is MY (hem hem) fault, so I'll take All (ahem) the responsibility. Happy now?

3) I certainly did not go off point by indicating Japan's faults in history. In my personal opinion, I think you went off-topic in this discussion even more than me by making offending comments such as "this always happens in Korea". For the love of God, all of those familiar with your writing know by now that you have a personal vendetta against Koreans for no good reason. Not only that, I can infer from your antagonistic tone that you said "stick to the subject" not for the sake of clarity in dialogue, but because you don't want Japan's dirty work emphasized even more than it already is.

4) As I mentioned previously, I would appreciate if you not only stopped bashing Korea, but also stopped insulting me. I happen to be quite placid if nobody offends me in the first place, which is obviously not the case here. Therefore, my lack of respect towards you can also be considered part of your own respinsibility. To sum this up, contemplate the quote "Treat others as you want to be treated." --Leonhart

I found the full size version of the map[1][2]. The map displays "北(North)", "西(west)", "南(South)", and "東(East)". Why can you say the map clearly displaying "East sea" ?. It's just a direction, not a name of the water.--Mochi 12:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

When did "Sea of Japan" get common?

I will descibe about my edit. Leonhart wrote that "prior to the latter half of the 19th century, "Sea of Japan" was barely used". However, this source shows a different fact: among the maps possessed by the British Library, "Sea of Japan" was used in 86% of maps from 1801 to 1860. "Sea of Japan" was nearly common already at the former half of the 19th century. It is not 100% so I weaken the expression. Of course, this source is biased (Japanese Foreign Ministry) and someone may have other sources. Concrete information is welcome. By the way, this source shows an interesting fact: 2 of 5 maps which uses "Sea of Korea" are Japanese ones. But for me it is quite natural because this sea is direction of Korea from us. --Corruptresearcher 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Past is Irrelevant

I think it needs pointing out that most of the comments made on this page are illogical and therefore irrelevant, simply because they are evocative of the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitam made popular by Edmund Burke, an idea similar to the idea of hegemony, the idea that what has been done in the past, or what is old, is necessarily better than what is being done in the present, or what is new.

This is, of course, ridiculous.

The real core of this issue, unlike that of the Liancourt Rocks dispute, is not who owns this body of water, but instead, what name should be used. In fact, neither country is claiming the water to be something other than shared territory, the argument being therefore hinged upon not ownership, but instead the topic of nomenclature.

The issue need not rely on the past.

Indeed, relying on the past, at least in this case, is illogical and harmful. What has been done in the past, what names have been used, what names have not been used, and by whom, all of this is irrelevant. The past is not correct simply because it is in the past.

What is now at issue is simply this: any body of water shared by two or more countries must be denominated by a mutually acceptable name, or, barring that, a name deemed neutral by an objective arbiter. It would seem to me that Japan, in refusing to use a neutral name, is basing its argument upon the past. If East Sea is a name which seems non-neutral in the eyes of Japan, then Japan should suggest their own preferred neutral name. Thelivingend

Most of Korean people do not like Japan.They want to erase the name "Sea of Japan" from the maps. So your "neutral suggestion" is not neutral, because it is the purpose for Korean people.--Mochi 13:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
This discussion page is not an opinion board. Please steer the discussion back to how the article should describe the dispute. TLE, can we incorporate your insight in the article? Mochi, does the article mention the facte that most Korean people do not like Japan?
Oh, I forgot. I should mention that I know a little about the 35-year colonial period, the Eul-Sa Treaty of Protection, etc. But I'm also very good at crafting neutral articles. Please work with me on this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Theoretically, one could argue that "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" are equally POV. Korea is pushing for a "neutral" name, but East Sea is NOT neutral. If Korea really wanted a neutral name for the body of water, they would actually choose a neutral name, such as "Oriental Sea". As Mochi pointed out, a lot of Koreans despise Japanese and if you actually talk to Koreans about this subject, it seems that it is their despise for the Japanese that drives this name change, not a push for neutrality. But alas, we here on Wikipedia aren’t out to come up with new names or better names. We are here simply to report the names and disputes. I guess you can say one of the biggest reasons I am apposed to the name EAst Sea is because of how and why it is being propagated. Exchaging one POV name for another makes no sense. I suppose if Korea was pushing for a neutral name, the UN might take them more seriously. Masterhatch July 5th, 2005

No Japan, No Sea

End of story, really. Logically, if there is no Japan, then there is no sea. So, it must be the Sea of Japan.

Well, if there was no Korea then the "Sea of Japan" would be the Yellow Sea, would it not? So perhaps "Sea of Korea" does make sense... But of course, that doesn't hold water. We don't call the Adriatic the "Sea of Italy," nor the Indian Ocean the "Ocean of Africa," as such logic would entail.
Your arguement holds little water. There is the English Channel, Gulf of Mexico, East China Sea, Indian Ocean, etc. So there is already great precidence world-wide to name bodies of water after countries. If the entire landmass of Korea had never existed, how can you say the body of water would be the Yellow Sea? The Sea of Japan is by far larger than the Yellow Sea. I'm pretty sure you don't have the power of seeing into alternate universes. For all we know, it could have been called The North China Sea, had Korea never existed. The fact is, and the bottom line is, if there was no Japan, there would be no sea. Case closed.
...actually, I think the whole dispute is rather silly. Ultimately both sides need to accept that their name is just as silly and irrational as the other. -- Visviva 08:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such Disputes Are Part of a Wider WAR

Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.

  • Moreover, There CLEARLY seems to be a concerted Nationalist rooted series of edit wars where it's Korea Vs Japan, with we who have English as our only language caught in the middle: See Tsushima Islands, Tsushima Strait, history pages as well as move and merge tags and talk pages for arguements, I've seen a few others with at least some of the same players. This is nasty ethnic stuff with strong grounds of cultural clash deep seated in historic events. And the reader is cautioned these same editors are appearing in these and other disputes.) These are not issues unique to the tensions of the Far East either, but span much of Africa and Asia, and as such need a systematic and widespread solution, not case by case treatment sans sufficient guidelines.
  • The first paragraph of all articles with alternate names should eventually contain equivilent 'terms in dispute' out of respect to the diverse cultures that may access Wikipedia since English is an internationally studied language, just as those same introductory sentences must contain older and historic names that once applied. In the later case, those historic handles once widely applied should be in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph, but working in a reference to explain a disputed name, would be complicated at best in grammer most of the time were both alternate types needfully be present, where the first sentence or two or three has the primary purpose of introducing the topic, not splitting fine hairs. A clever editor may be able to do so in the first sentence, especially if there is only one or two historical names (not even counting foreign names and their various alternatives in the locally relavant languages), but I would urge clarity and readability over 'cultural nods' for the sake of nicety.
  • Wiki MUST contain appropriate redirects to said articles from any and all such names embodied in Western literature (Which test references like East Sea may not pass at all.), regardless of any new fashion or term that has now become common or defacto international standard, or our search engine will miss the equivilence. Consider for example that the 'official place names' of Port Arthur and Dalian have each had four or five 'official' names adopted as the latest new 'fashion' during the past century. (or less changable Ceylon and Sri Lanka among hundreds of others now 'In Fashion'.). The enclycopedia links must allow someone to use the old fashioned name to get to the correct article. Using East Sea when it's not a common useage, is POV, not practical as the article name. Having it redirect so that a literal translation of the appropriate Korean phrase makes culturally sensitive sense, as changing the whole article name does not when there is a dispute. Same with assertions to merge the Korea Strait with Tsushima Strait, where the latter is a famous and much used reference, even if common practice of the UN or other 'official body' has allowed a 'Korea Strait' into the lexicon to satisfy some nationalistic pride. It may be equally likely that Korea Strait is the older term, but that publishing history has marginalized it in English text. It makes no matter, so long as Wikipedia gives fair coverage to both (provided both terms are in widespread non-local use). When the terms use is a wish of a single minority of the worlds population, one outnumbered by English native speakers, precedence must be given to the wider and more commonly used term. For example, some Western publications do not aknowledge 'Korea Strait' at all, whereas 'Tsushima Strait' is famous as the site of one of history's most important modern battles (Battle of Tsushima) and widely referenced as its widespread multi-decades-long impact is culturally important for both East and West as an indirect casus belli of WW-II. Similarly,that and the First Sino-Japanese War is still reverberating within Wikipedia, as these latest Korean attempts to rename a Western article attest. Other examples abound round the world in their own emotionally laden cotexts, and these need be recognized as more of the same cloth.
  • The Nationalistic or cultural POV in these matters AND 'the inevititable' cultural bias needs to remain Anglo-centric in an English reference work, and these cultural issues (Islam vs. Hindu, The Balkans, Greater Anatolia, issues to name a few others) must eventually be addressed by a policy yet to be written) that is fair to all national or cultural sensibilities as much as possible, (IMHO, that ideal is not at all possible literally— some of these cultures don't view freedoms at all like we do, so I don't want to be the one making a draft attempt! <G>). But in the main, the article itself should be named to what the English speaking world traditionally uses or used, as English is central to our culture, not an abstraction off to the side somewhere. In the case over whether Tsushima is an Island or Island's' (very silly, albeit both sides have thier points), the extant literature divides close enough to be called a tie. In such cases, the inhabitants prefered name should be used, even if we at Wiki then may break with say Brittanica or Columbia Encyclopedias— for there are others using the same tense, however we come down, and our discussions are on the record and open to theirs for consideration in their future editions.
  • OTOH, Seas do not have towns of inhabitants, so traditional English useage should apply. (At least until one learns to read and write Cetaceaish.)
  • If Korean groups want to alter English publishing practices, the historical references still outweigh any new name until a preponderence of publishers (X>90%) of Atlases, and nautical charts start using such a name (e.g. the noveau term BoHai Sea), at which time Wiki would be correct to follow suite, or even lead many in the changeover, but not before, and not because some other ethnic group opposes the alternative like Japanese nationalists; but solely because it's become or is becomming common useage in the English speaking nations.
  • In sum, we shouldn't culturally demand they change their own practices within their language, but they they are asking us to change ours, inappropriately, IMHO. The proper attitude is that the English name maps onto the object of the same name and must be figured to be an incorrect translation, not a cultural insult. We are sensative to and sympatheic with their viewpoint, but have our own culture as a guide, and that must be a bellweather in picking such names. Having them ask us to alter our cultural term to suite their bias is as nonsensical and selfish as it would be for us to ask them to change their term in their language to match ours. It's not their history, nor their language we are trying to change, which cannot be said for their efforts here in Wikipedia; they want to force us to use their prefered name, to score points in the long Japanese-Korea feud, and to toss aside hundreds of volumes of references to our long established cultural name in the same breath. When their Korean or Japanese becomes our language, then we can kowtow to such an unreasonably narrow viewpoint as well, but before that, our culture needs to be aknowledged as the one linked to English, not theirs— which translations usually heavily depend on whatever alliterative scheme the translator favors. (e.g. One Russian Admiral's name in the Battle of Tsushima can be translated correctly to six different and widely varying spellings in English; See that Talk for elaboration.) We can and should include their cultural bias when possible, for it costs little to be sensitive and courteous, but we must equally insist that they accept reasonable compromises in the same spirit of civility and cross-cultural compromise. These hardline wars with little significance directly in English culture are clearly harming Wiki just because they consume so many manhours when there is not any right answer universal to all cultures.
  • As an English language publication the key for us must be historical relevance assuming it (the name) still has current occurences and use in the practices of other reputable publishers (Not Web Pages) not based on one groups cultrual wishes otherwise (albeit with an understandable POV axe to grind); in the end, we are merely using one of several alternate handles, not one of which means much outside it's own cultural context. In sum, if and when common practice among english Publications is to conform to widespread practices like the change in my life to Beijing, not Bejing (or instead of Peping or Peking) or to use Busan instead of Fusan or Pusan, then and only then should our article alter have it's name changed to the new de facto standard. Our edge in such is that we can conform nearly instantly with such widespread and disconnective changes by writing a redirect and adding a note in the article itself that the new preferred name is _______. But moving the article to __________ should at least wait until permanently published references, periodicals and newspapers are showing the new term half the time or more.
    • Moreover, as an added caution, Wikipedia methods of dispute handling break down in these ethnico-nationalist-cultural clashes, because they assume that all parties are exercising mature judgement and 'good faith'; whereas in reality, these disputants are instead voicing intensely internalized POV, albeit well intended from within their own cultural outlook; but within ours are at best misapplications of our rules and guidelines to further the underlying and even unconscious cultural bias and resentments underneath. It must be kept in mind that this is an English Language and cultural oriented publication, no matter how nice it may be to give such non-inuse terms a nod, that they are not in use, should be the final word.
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Problematic contributions

I have removed a section added to the article by User:Kojangee. I thought it contradicted Wikipedia policy on original research, but further investigation shows it to be lifted from a Japanese government website. It is therefore presumably a copyvio, not to mention untrustworthy, although it would be nice to have a paragraph discussing the study. I have also reverted a series of subsequent edits by Kojangee which profoundly failed to reflect a neutral POV. -- Visviva 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I understand the importance of being neutral. What I don't understand however is why information from the Korean government is neutral while information from the Japanese government is biased. Whatever the case, I'll try to be more careful next time in my information-gathering. -- Kojangee 3:36, 16 Jun 2005 (Beijing time)
You're right, this article is full of problems. Since I was only patrolling the recent changes, I didn't notice that the Korean government study had also been cut-and-pasted. Apparently it was there for a while, too.. Sigh. I've removed it as well. Wikipedia is not a universal information repository. Both studies should be summarized and linked, no more. -- Visviva 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pie Charts...

There are two pie charts on this site. the first one, the "97%" one, has a spelling mistake on it. It says 'neme' instead of 'name'. i would like to know where that chart came from. did someone just 'make up' that chart on the spot and add it? Unless we know that that pie chart is in fact accurate and unbiased, i think it should be removed. Unless the source of the chart is revealled, of course.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am strongly for the name 'Sea of Japan' and strongly against the 'East Sea', but I feel that all information presented here on wikipedia should be unbiased and fair. It is strange, though, I am in favour of the name 'Sea of Japan', but i live in South Korea and i NEVER call it Sea of Japan. I always call it East Sea. Why? because it is such a hot topic here in korea (a form of nationalistic pride exists here that i have never seen anywhere else and i have been to over 20 different countries and around the world) that if i even hint at calling it 'Sea of Japan', i get an ear full. It is safer to call it East Sea while in South Korea. Even the most mild mannered, soft spoken koreans get all up in arms about this topic. I have greater success discussing fan death with koreans than i do the sea of japan. Koreans won't even listen to anything logially presented to them. to them, it is "EAST SEA OR NOTHING!! now get out of my face!" This attitude alone makes me want to call it the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch

Both were added by User:Maizuru, and they certainly look homemade. You can click on the image to view the image page. I believe all the numbers come from surveys done by the Japanese government. I'm not convinced that the charts add anything to the article, myself... No-one would dispute that the name "Sea of Japan" is in nearly universal usage today. The question is whether that should be the case. As for the issue itself... in the end, Wikipedia is just here to document it. -- Visviva 06:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS Masterhatch, please remember to sign future comments with four tildes: ~~~~. Thanks! -- Visviva 06:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am in favour of removing the pie charts. As for whether the name should be changed, I think changing it would set a precedent of name changing that we don't need. Are we going to rename the Gulf of Mexico? The English channel? I think not. Only two countries (north and south korea) want the named changed and neither country can come up with a convincing argument for the change. In every aspect, 'Sea of Japan' makes more sense than 'East Sea'. Masterhatch
Since I myself contributed the graph which poses a problem now, the reply to Mr. Masterhatch's question is shown. However, I of a regrettable thing am not good at English. Please understand that impolite expression may be carried out.
The graph which I contributed is based on the result investigated by the Japanese government in 2000. Please look at [3] for details. Moreover, Since the Japanese government claimed "The danger of causing international confusion is high if the name with which no less than 97% of map was using the Sea of Japan independently, and was already established is changed", the official announcement of graph considered it necessity and carried. --Maizuru 17:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't delete the pie charts because i wasn't disputing (or agreeing with) the accuracy of them. I was just commenting that they looked 'homemade' and i was wondering about the validity of them. If they are in fact accurate, i see no reason to take them out. The spelling mistake bothers me, though. Is there any to fix that? Masterhatch
Thank you for understanding my awkward text. I am opposed to deleting graph. However, I approve of correcting the mistake of spelling. If you present the spelling mistake on graph concretely, you will correct it immediately. In addition, I may not understand the meaning of your question. In that case, please protest again. --Maizuru 12:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maizuru, is there any way you can change 'neme' to 'name' on the pie chart? We don't need spelling mistakes on our pie charts. Thanks Masterhatch
I am thankful to you to indication. The mistake of graph was corrected. If I continue to have a mistake, please point out unreservedly. Thank you. --Maizuru 07:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The other chart Image:Old Sea of Japan.JPG still does not clearly label its source. Is it the same document as the other chart? I cannot find it there. Peregrine981 14:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It got to know that a label was not required for JPG for the first time. It will apologize, if it is my mistake. By the way, although it is a question, do I need to change the corresponding JPG image into PNG? --Maizuru 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time for a vote

A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):

  • Should all bodies of water on Wikipedia have the same name throughout all pages as to maintain a standard and avoid country specific POV?"

In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch

Comment, not a vote: This talk page is not an appropriate place to decide Wikipedia policy for "all bodies of water". I suspect that we have a policy on how to organise votes, and I strongly suspect that this proposed vote does not follow it. Mark1 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: a guideline rather than a policy- Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. Mark1 04:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be gleaned from Talk:Gdansk/Vote.--Pharos 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After reading the above posts (and other posts) I am withdrawing my request for a vote on the matter. But I must add that this matter needs to be resolved. Currently, the majority of countries call the body of water between Japan and Korea the 'Sea of Japan'. If one changes 'East Sea' to 'Sea of Japan' on a Korean article, it is changed right back to the Korean's POV 'East Sea'. The UN (and most of the countries in the world)'s POV is that the name is 'Sea of Japan'. Korea's POV is 'East Sea'. Let's come to a consensus as we have not yet come to one. I strongly suggest that all articles dealing with 'that body of water' have the same name. Masterhatch
Let's continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Disputed names. -- Visviva 13:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not time for a vote

Voting won't settle anything. We have to reason this out.

We must not try to settle this dispute for them but describe what they say, from a detached perspective. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Title of this article

I moved it from a title which suggested that one alternative was correct, to a title which simply listed the chief alternatives in alphabetical order.

  1. East Sea
  2. Sea of Japan

Note also that in the intro paragraph I mentioned the chief disputants in alphabetical order.

  1. Japan
  2. Korea

And I list the three most prominent alternative names in alphabetical order by country:

  1. Japan
  2. North Korea
  3. South Korea

The only standard Wikipedia has, is what is the most commonly used name in English - tempered by the principle of least astonishment. Thus, when our readers look it up, how easy will it be for them to find it? And will they think Wikipedia is certifying info as correct, or will they realize there is a dispute and that Wikipedia is merely describing the major sides in the dispute? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing what is an correct name for the body of water. But since we use a term Sea of Japan to refer to it in wikipedia like many other places, it makes much more sense to call this article Naming dispute over Sea of Japan. -- Taku 12:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion

Japan has a right to call the sea "West Sea" instead of "East Sea." East Sea is West Sea. Such a dispute induces meaningless confusions not only in Japan and South Korea, but also in the world.

Is this the general belief of Japanese people, or an official government pronouncement, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

No. The Japanese people believe that if there is no England, there is no English Channel. And they also believe that if there is no Japan, there is no Sea of Japan. Kojangee July 1st, 2005 20:43 Beijing Time

How to improve the article (my view)

This article is an a disgraceful state. First of all, can we have it back at Dispute of the name of the Sea of Japan? As indicated in the article, the international bodies regulating names (UN, IHO) still use Sea of Japan. This name is disputed by South Korea, but it has not (yet) been changed.

In the opening paragraph, it should be mentioned that the dispute is over the English name of the water.

North Korea appears a couple of times as supporting a name change, but the History section does not mention North Korea at all. Afaik, the north have never stated such a wish: they merely use East Sea of Korea in their English publications.

Throughout the article, a careful distinction need to be made between the various actors. Who are the Japanese? Who are the Koreans? This implies a homogenous opinion, as it does not exist. There are the governments, there are nationalists, there are netizen groups (e.g. VANK),….

In this sense, the opening paragraph should end after the three bullet points, or the two lines on Japan and Korea removed (argue that should be names for them). The paragraph on local names is good, but needs rewriting (probably can be shortened).

As for the dispute, I think I have summarized this well in the Sea of Japan Naming section (see also talk there). The local names (nihonkai etc.) are completely irrelevant here, because we're looking at the English name, not translations or transliterations. As mentioned above, afaik, North Korea should not be included here, since as a country they make no claims.

The history of the dispute, imho, should be the core of this article.The pie chart, however, is POV—it attempts to convey a normative message. The information can be added in the text. Also, if we want such exact numbers, then we need a reference, so we can check the methodology of how they derive at these numbers. Personally, I doubt that most countries of the world publish English maps of East Asia.

As for the Opinion sections, they are (a) too long, and (b) do not convey the point very effectively. I think there should be a shirt paragraph outlining the kind of "proof" the two sides are looking for, not forgetting the different actors (governments, nationalists). Basically, both sides selectively quote old maps and highlight different aspects of history. After such an introductory paragraph, a short paragraph on the Japanese and Korean views should really suffice. The fact that Japanese Opinion is so much larger at present is not really good, either: we need a good balance.

The section on Other opinions should be summarized. We do not need to reproduce all the findings, but summarize their key points. The historical map sections are mostly superflous, since we already mention that before the 19th century, all kinds of names coexisted.

Finally, the external links need to be sorted out: there are too many about the same thing. The argumentum ad numerum does not convince here either.

To sum it up, I think this article should describe the dispute—and thus focus on the history of how the dispute developed. The opinions are currently over-valued. It's not our job to solve normative issues on Wikipedia, we do not have to decide what is right or wrong, or prove which side of the argument is better: all we do is write about the dispute in a NPOV way. Kokiri 29 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Well said. Too many people in this dispute are writing and thinking POV instead of sticking to the facts at hand. Masterhatch JUne 29th, 2005

New Version

I have attempted to rewrite the whole article in an NPOV way. I have put it at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan/temp in order to prevent being reverted before we have discussed the changes. I have deliberately left out the old maps, and cut the external links to one for each side. I hope we can work based on this new version. Kokiri 1 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

Impressive work! Kudos. -- Visviva 1 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

The following comments were posted by User:Kojangee on Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan/temp. Kokiri 1 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

  • Ok, this is getting silly. Much of this article is slanted towards supporting the use of East Sea and is in no way NPOV which is really starting to make me wonder whether or not one of the Korean governments is paying you money to keep this illogical POV you keep using in the mask of NPOV.
  • First of all, your paragraph entitled Geographical reasons claims that Japan's main arguement is that the sea is a marginal sea. Well, having spoken to actual real live Japanese people on this issue, I can assure you that most people in Japan who care about this issue simply say that if there is no Japan, then there is no sea.
  • Secondly, this sentence "The dominance of the name Sea of Japan is regarded a reflection of Japan's imperial past." is an opinion thank-you very much. A better and less-POV would read "The dominance of the name Sea of Japan is regarded by the two Koreas as a reflection of Japan's imperial past."
  • Thirdly, there is no mention of the most common arguement as to why Japanese generally feel the sea should remain named as it is (see first rebuttal).

Thanks for commenting on the version I put up (albeit in an uncommon place). Thanks for spotting the possible ambiguity: I've fixed this now. Now, I don't think I really have to comment on your first point. The paragraph entitled geographical reasons does not say anything about any argument being a main argument. In my post a bit further up I stressed the need to differentiate between different actors. There is no single (homogenous) Japan or Korea. Different groups and individuals have different views, and thus trying not to take sides, it'd be silly of me to call any one argument a main argument. I've fixed the sentence about the imperial past. Since it was not directed at yourself, there's actually no need to thank. Finally, I canot see how Japanese groups argue that as a marginal sea of the Pacific Ocean, the sea should be named for Japan as an argument is different from if there is no Japan, then there is no sea.

I would be very grateful if pointed me towards the points where you think the article is slanted towards supporting the use of East Sea. Kokiri 1 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

New policy proposal on resolving naming disputes

I've written up a new policy proposal to provide a set of basic principles and rules for dealing with disputes such as this. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conflict and feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Change without the consent of a title

"Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which was the conventional title is changed into "Naming dispute over East Sea/Sea of Japan" without consent. Now, the Sea of Japan is written with 97% or more of map, and is the standard in the world. And the Japanese government is opposed to the Sea of Japan and East Sea being written together.

From the above-mentioned reason, when changing a title, I think that the consent in a note is required. It demands to return to "Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which is the conventional title. --Maizuru 2 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Indeed, the article should be moved back. Any comments on the suggested new version? Kokiri 2 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved back; "Sea of Japan" is the 'standard' name on Wikipedia. I'm not saying anything about the content of the article, just that the title of the article should be in this form.--Pharos 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Thank you for having you agree. Although I want to edit a title immediately now, "move" required for change is not displayed. How is what is necessary just to carry out? --Maizuru 3 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

So do I. Moving an article without consensus of other editors and block it from further move using admin's privilege is a crafty deed and not acceptable. --Ypacaraí July 3, 2005 05:35 (UTC)

[4] Kokiri 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Kokiri, your post means little as you do not explain anything except for adding a link for us to..? Read? Ypacaraí was indeed correct. Crafty and cunning are two words which come to mind. By changing it, the editor shows clear bias. Maybe he'd like to use this opportunity to explain why the change was made? Kojangee July 5th 2005 8:13 (Beijing Time)

I believe Kokiri is referring to the common phenomenon of a page being protected from editing while in an unacceptable state. This usually happens as a result of an ongoing edit war. However, I'm not sure that this was the case here. There is no indication of a "move war" in the edit histories, so the reason for protecting the page seems to have been something else. Strange stuff... -- Visviva 5 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
I believe Kokiri wanted to point out that protected pages always are at the wrong place. I put this in reponse to block it from further move using admin's privilege is a crafty deed and not acceptable. Even if these words come to mind, we don't have to write such words: they don't really further the discussion here. Hope you all have an agreeable day! Kokiri 5 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
I just noticed that every Tom Dick and Harry has made a comment about the name change, except the person who actually changed it. Is this because that person knows that he/she did a bad boo boo and has no defence for what he/she did? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Masterhatch 8 July 2005

Just in case you favor bottom posting, here's a post duplicated above under Past Inconsequential Or some such title...

Such Disputes Are Part of a Wider WAR

Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.

  • Moreover, There CLEARLY seems to be a concerted Nationalist rooted series of edit wars where it's Korea Vs Japan, with we who have English as our only language caught in the middle: See Tsushima Islands, Tsushima Strait, history pages as well as move and merge tags and talk pages for arguements, I've seen a few others with at least some of the same players. This is nasty ethnic stuff with strong grounds of cultural clash deep seated in historic events. And the reader is cautioned these same editors are appearing in these and other disputes.) These are not issues unique to the tensions of the Far East either, but span much of Africa and Asia, and as such need a systematic and widespread solution, not case by case treatment sans sufficient guidelines.
  • The first paragraph of all articles with alternate names should eventually contain equivilent 'terms in dispute' out of respect to the diverse cultures that may access Wikipedia since English is an internationally studied language, just as those same introductory sentences must contain older and historic names that once applied. In the later case, those historic handles once widely applied should be in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph, but working in a reference to explain a disputed name, would be complicated at best in grammer most of the time were both alternate types needfully be present, where the first sentence or two or three has the primary purpose of introducing the topic, not splitting fine hairs. A clever editor may be able to do so in the first sentence, especially if there is only one or two historical names (not even counting foreign names and their various alternatives in the locally relavant languages), but I would urge clarity and readability over 'cultural nods' for the sake of nicety.
  • Wiki MUST contain appropriate redirects to said articles from any and all such names embodied in Western literature (Which test references like East Sea may not pass at all.), regardless of any new fashion or term that has now become common or defacto international standard, or our search engine will miss the equivilence. Consider for example that the 'official place names' of Port Arthur and Dalian have each had four or five 'official' names adopted as the latest new 'fashion' during the past century. (or less changable Ceylon and Sri Lanka among hundreds of others now 'In Fashion'.). The enclycopedia links must allow someone to use the old fashioned name to get to the correct article. Using East Sea when it's not a common useage, is POV, not practical as the article name. Having it redirect so that a literal translation of the appropriate Korean phrase makes culturally sensitive sense, as changing the whole article name does not when there is a dispute. Same with assertions to merge the Korea Strait with Tsushima Strait, where the latter is a famous and much used reference, even if common practice of the UN or other 'official body' has allowed a 'Korea Strait' into the lexicon to satisfy some nationalistic pride. It may be equally likely that Korea Strait is the older term, but that publishing history has marginalized it in English text. It makes no matter, so long as Wikipedia gives fair coverage to both (provided both terms are in widespread non-local use). When the terms use is a wish of a single minority of the worlds population, one outnumbered by English native speakers, precedence must be given to the wider and more commonly used term. For example, some Western publications do not aknowledge 'Korea Strait' at all, whereas 'Tsushima Strait' is famous as the site of one of history's most important modern battles (Battle of Tsushima) and widely referenced as its widespread multi-decades-long impact is culturally important for both East and West as an indirect casus belli of WW-II. Similarly,that and the First Sino-Japanese War is still reverberating within Wikipedia, as these latest Korean attempts to rename a Western article attest. Other examples abound round the world in their own emotionally laden cotexts, and these need be recognized as more of the same cloth.
  • The Nationalistic or cultural POV in these matters AND 'the inevititable' cultural bias needs to remain Anglo-centric in an English reference work, and these cultural issues (Islam vs. Hindu, The Balkans, Greater Anatolia, issues to name a few others) must eventually be addressed by a policy yet to be written) that is fair to all national or cultural sensibilities as much as possible, (IMHO, that ideal is not at all possible literally— some of these cultures don't view freedoms at all like we do, so I don't want to be the one making a draft attempt! <G>). But in the main, the article itself should be named to what the English speaking world traditionally uses or used, as English is central to our culture, not an abstraction off to the side somewhere. In the case over whether Tsushima is an Island or Island's' (very silly, albeit both sides have thier points), the extant literature divides close enough to be called a tie. In such cases, the inhabitants prefered name should be used, even if we at Wiki then may break with say Brittanica or Columbia Encyclopedias— for there are others using the same tense, however we come down, and our discussions are on the record and open to theirs for consideration in their future editions.
  • OTOH, Seas do not have towns of inhabitants, so traditional English useage should apply. (At least until one learns to read and write Cetaceaish.)
  • If Korean groups want to alter English publishing practices, the historical references still outweigh any new name until a preponderence of publishers (X>90%) of Atlases, and nautical charts start using such a name (e.g. the noveau term BoHai Sea), at which time Wiki would be correct to follow suite, or even lead many in the changeover, but not before, and not because some other ethnic group opposes the alternative like Japanese nationalists; but solely because it's become or is becomming common useage in the English speaking nations.
  • In sum, we shouldn't culturally demand they change their own practices within their language, but they they are asking us to change ours, inappropriately, IMHO. The proper attitude is that the English name maps onto the object of the same name and must be figured to be an incorrect translation, not a cultural insult. We are sensative to and sympatheic with their viewpoint, but have our own culture as a guide, and that must be a bellweather in picking such names. Having them ask us to alter our cultural term to suite their bias is as nonsensical and selfish as it would be for us to ask them to change their term in their language to match ours. It's not their history, nor their language we are trying to change, which cannot be said for their efforts here in Wikipedia; they want to force us to use their prefered name, to score points in the long Japanese-Korea feud, and to toss aside hundreds of volumes of references to our long established cultural name in the same breath. When their Korean or Japanese becomes our language, then we can kowtow to such an unreasonably narrow viewpoint as well, but before that, our culture needs to be aknowledged as the one linked to English, not theirs— which translations usually heavily depend on whatever alliterative scheme the translator favors. (e.g. One Russian Admiral's name in the Battle of Tsushima can be translated correctly to six different and widely varying spellings in English; See that Talk for elaboration.) We can and should include their cultural bias when possible, for it costs little to be sensitive and courteous, but we must equally insist that they accept reasonable compromises in the same spirit of civility and cross-cultural compromise. These hardline wars with little significance directly in English culture are clearly harming Wiki just because they consume so many manhours when there is not any right answer universal to all cultures.
  • As an English language publication the key for us must be historical relevance assuming it (the name) still has current occurences and use in the practices of other reputable publishers (Not Web Pages) not based on one groups cultrual wishes otherwise (albeit with an understandable POV axe to grind); in the end, we are merely using one of several alternate handles, not one of which means much outside it's own cultural context. In sum, if and when common practice among english Publications is to conform to widespread practices like the change in my life to Beijing, not Bejing (or instead of Peping or Peking) or to use Busan instead of Fusan or Pusan, then and only then should our article alter have it's name changed to the new de facto standard. Our edge in such is that we can conform nearly instantly with such widespread and disconnective changes by writing a redirect and adding a note in the article itself that the new preferred name is _______. But moving the article to __________ should at least wait until permanently published references, periodicals and newspapers are showing the new term half the time or more.
    • Moreover, as an added caution, Wikipedia methods of dispute handling break down in these ethnico-nationalist-cultural clashes, because they assume that all parties are exercising mature judgement and 'good faith'; whereas in reality, these disputants are instead voicing intensely internalized POV, albeit well intended from within their own cultural outlook; but within ours are at best misapplications of our rules and guidelines to further the underlying and even unconscious cultural bias and resentments underneath. It must be kept in mind that this is an English Language and cultural oriented publication, no matter how nice it may be to give such non-inuse terms a nod, that they are not in use, should be the final word.
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
Dear ANOM: If you want my respect, don't be an ANOM. If you want to edit length, then tag this one, and trim the one above, as the one Wiki-weakness is the lack of good threading, and many expect bottom posts. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

New Version II

With regards to Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan/temp, I was wondering whether anyone (else) wanted to comment. The next step would be moving the contents to the article, and move on from there… Kokiri 7 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)

  • What's the traditional Chinese name for the sea? Then we can avoid a Korea vs Japan pissing contest. Or perhaps the Russian name. 67.68.67.71 8 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
I think you might have missed the point: (1) this is the English Wikipedia, (2) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, (3) the dispute is about the English name of the water, (4) it is not our task to resolve the dispute; it's our task to describe it in a neutral way. In case you need that information: it's actually in the Sea of Japan article; this article is supposed to be about the dispute over the name. Have a nice day! --Kokiri 8 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)
Currently, the Chinese call it (when translated) "Japanese Sea" and the Russians call it "Sea of Japan".
It has been brought to my attention that it is difficult to find where the naming dispute over the East Sea/Sea of Japan is actually being discussed. It is an ongoing dispute and it is being discussed here:
Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005
I have re-read the current version and re-read the new "temp" version. I agree that the current version needs a serious clean-up. I like the way the "temp" one is layed out, but it seems to be missing some key points from the current one. but of course when one edits and cleans up an article, many things are bound to be left out (usually, but not always, for the better). Masterhatch 8 July 2005