Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 2

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 between 13 July 2005 and 17 September 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/Archive 3. Thank you. Masterhatch 03:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Removing the paragraph in the intro

This line ==>

South Koreans generally do not object to Japanese maps calling the sea 日本海 (which translates as Japan Sea) is not true. Korean's enmity towards the Japanese are tremendous when it comes down to disputed issues including history textbooks, sex-slaves during WWII, and the Sea of Japan issue (including the Dok-do - Takeshima issue). South Koreans furiously object to East Sea being called Sea of Japan, that's why I removed the paragraph.

See source => Look into this article or ask any Korean person (NOT Korean-American)

First of all, please bottom post with new posts. Second, I am in South Korea right now and I can tell you that it is only the English name that Koreans are pissy about. They don't care what the Japanese call it in their own language. It is the English language that the Koreans are trying to change. That paragraph reflects that and I feel it should be left in. Masterhatch 23 August 2005
You feel that way because you aren't Korean. You just are in South Korea and don't have emotion that Koreans generally have. Have yourself read the article that I gave you or look around in Yahoo! Korea news, Daum news, naver news, and empas news. (If you can read Korean that is.. =) ) South Koreans are infuriated whenever there is a news about Japan publishing a propaganda that includes Sea of Japan I like the way you said South Korean are 'pissy'. With such attitude can you truly understand a culture of ethnicity? I seriously doubt your "feelings".
I have been in South Korea for almost 4 years. I love it here and I love the people and the culture. I have many good friends here too. And i can tell you that it is only when that body of water is referred to in English and European languages that the Koreans become irrate (is that a better word for you?). In the Japanese language, not English, Koreans, level headed ones anyway (which is the majority), aren't trying to change it. Koreans are trying to change it in the English language and international community, not the Japanese language. That paragraph reflects that, so, I feel it should be left in. By the way, I can read Korean. And by the way, while I am in korea, I refer to that body of water as "East Sea", not "Sea of Japan." Masterhatch 23 August 2005
Okay it seems like I have misinterpreted the paragraph. I'll put it back on. Thanks Masterhatch.

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)

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

Would anyone object if I replaced the current version with the temp one, as a base for a better article? Kokiri 16:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced it now. Kokiri 22:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Kokiri, as I have said before, I really liked the way you cleaned up and reorganised "Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan". It reads much smoother now. There are three parts to the article that I feel need to be changed or reworded, though. I felt it better to discuss it with you before actually making the changes.
  1. "This sea is called by various names including Sea of Korea, Sea of Corea, Chinese Ocean, Bay of Korea, or Sea of Japan on maps earlier than the 19th century. After, Sea of Japan appears increasingly." While I agree that the name Sea of Japan does appear increasingly after the name was made official, I feel that the wording implies that it only appeared increasingly after the name was made official.
  2. "...leave the area blank until a consensus can be reached between Japan and Korea." Maybe I have not done enough research, but I have never seen (except for the map on this article) a map that shows the sea as left blank.
  3. The "Ownership" section only mentions the Korean thoughts. Would it be possible to add the Japanese thoughts that "name doesn’t imply ownership (for example, the English Channel doesn't belong to England and the Gulf of Mexico doesn't belong to Mexico)"?
These are just some thoughts of mine. What do you think? Masterhatch 23 July 2005

I'd say go ahead with 1 and 3. I've just changed 2 so it doesn't imply many publishers left the sea blank (the NYT did that, and I've seen about 2 or 3 books). Kokiri 12:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought about just being "bold" but you had that temp made up for quite some time and I said nothing. I guess i would have felt guilty if I made a change when I had so long to make a change and didn't. You put a lot of hard work and time into rewriting. Also, I wanted to give you a chance to review my thoughts before I actually did anything. Masterhatch 23 July 2005.

Wikimachine's Opinion

What I'm trying to point out in my version of the article is that it was originally called Sea of Korea and East Sea. Please, do not change the version, unless you have a good reason to do so.

By doing so, I am not vandalizing the article in anyway. I haven't changed any points in the article. I'm just adding more info onto it.

This is the English section of Wikipedia. The most common English name was (and is) Sea of Japan. The Koreans called it by various names including East Sea and East Sea of Korea and the Japanese have also called it by various names. The point is, since this is the English language section of Wikipedia, we are using English names. What was it called first in English? Well, that is difficult to say for sure as many of the oldest maps no longer exist. But we do know that it was called by many different names in English. It was called Oriental Sea, Japanese Sea, East Sea, East Sea of Korea, Sea of Japan, Japan Sea. The list goes on and on. But the most common name in English history (before the 20th century) was Sea of Japan and the like. Believe it or not, in the early days Oriental Sea was more common on English maps than East Sea. In my humble opinion, I would love for the international community to call it Oriental Sea. That would solve a lot of problems. Korea claims that Sea of Japan the wrong name and favours Japan too much. But of course, Korea isn't pushing for a neutral name, like Oriental Sea. they are pushing for their name not realising that East Sea is equally as POV as Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Ok, Masterhatch. You see, Koreans did not call the sea Sea of Korea. In Korean language, the sea is east of Korea, and, therefore, called the East Sea. It's the Europeans who called the sea, Sea of Korea. It was originally called Sea of Korea by the Europeans & Arabians. If you search all the old maps, before the 20th and the very late 19th centuries, there is no Sea of Japan nor Japan Sea. They are East Sea, Oriental Sea (because oriental actually means East--> same meaning as East Sea), and Sea of Korea.

So, let me get this straight: 1. It is called the East Sea/Oriental Sea because that is from Korean language. 2. It is called Sea of Korea, not because Koreans said it, but because the European and Arabian mapmakers presumed that it was its name.

So, is it wrong to say that the original name of the sea was NOT Sea of Japan, but any of the above mentioned? I don't think so.

Also, I don't understand about making a "clean" article. We need to be informative, you see. People have already seen present day maps that says Sea of Japan. Wouldn't it be interesting to put an old map that shows Sea of Korea as well?

Cite your sources if you insist that your claim is true. I provided an authoritative source in the History of the Dispuate section, which refutes Korean's claim. --Tkh 20:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Wikimachine, thank you for your interest in the subject. If you look at the much older article (about a month or so) you will see that it was an absolute mess. There were maps proving Sea of Japan and there were maps proving East Sea. Kokiri had a brilliant idea to just leave the one ? map and then have written text showing both sides of the argument. Since this is a very POV subject, he found a way of re-writing it so that it was NPOV. If you put up one map of East Sea, then other people will put up maps showing Sea of Japan. And then more maps showing East Sea. and then more maps showing Sea of Japan. That is pointless. As for older maps, Sea of Japan (and the like) out number East Sea (and the like) maps in English (which is what this is about). If you really want to use your maps and other maps, you can create an article here: Old maps of Korea and put as many old maps up as you want. Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Here's my cites.

"Historically, Korea has been used the term “East Sea” in writings since 59 B.C."

"A map of Korea which was officially created in the mid-18th century also used the name, “East Sea.” Hence, there is much evidence that “East Sea” has been used for centuries."

"Until 1870, even Japanese maps referred to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.” All of the following maps refer to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.”"

"There are many European maps which identified the East Sea as the “Sea of Korea.” These include a 1615 Portuguese map, a 1647 English map, a map published in the 1744 and 1752 editions of a world atlas and a 1750 French map. Furthermore, “Sea of Korea” appears in the first edition of the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica."

Okay now, Masterhatch. Let's see... East Sea & Sea of Korea has been used for around 1,500 years. Sea of Japan has been only used for 100 years.

Is it that bad to point out that the name was Sea of Korea/East Sea originally? How in the world is it a mess to put more info?

First off, I must ask what your objective is. Is your objective to have the name changed on Wikipedia from Sea of Japan to East Sea? If that is your objective, I wish you luck. OK, you said,
  • "Historically, Korea has been used the term "East Sea" in writings since 59 B.C." I don't doubt that. But that is moot point. Why? Because this is the English language section of Wikipedia and in English, it is called the Sea of Japan and in English, Sea of Japan was and is the most common. We are not talking about what the Koreans call it. It doesn't matter what they call it. They can call that body of water whatever they want. The point is, officially, internationally, it is called "Sea of Japan". Sea of Japan is not the Japanese name or the Korean name. It is the English name. The Japanese did not name the body of water "Sea of Japan". Europeans did. If the Japanese wanted to name that body of water for the internatinal community, i am sure that they would ahve chosen a different name, such as "Nippon Sea" or something like that. Anyways, my point is, it doesn't matter what Koreans called it 2000 years ago. I am sure there are Japanese maps that call it something other than East Sea 2000 years ago too. The point is, in English, the most common name was and is "Sea of Japan".
  • "A map of Korea which was officially created in the mid-18th century also used the name, “East Sea.” Hence, there is much evidence that “East Sea” has been used for centuries." For every map you show showing "East Sea", there are a greater number of maps showing "Sea of Japan". The fact still remains, "Sea of Japan" is the official English name.
  • "Until 1870, even Japanese maps referred to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.” All of the following maps refer to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.”" I don't care what the Japanese called it or even call it. The fact remains, "Sea of Japan" is the official name in English. Like I said before, it wasn't the Japanese who named it "Sea of Japan". It was the Europeans. Even by you saying Sea ofJoseon, that still doesn't translate to "East Sea". South Koreans don't call themselves joseon. The north Koreans do.
  • "There are many European maps which identified the East Sea as the “Sea of Korea.” These include a 1615 Portuguese map, a 1647 English map, a map published in the 1744 and 1752 editions of a world atlas and a 1750 French map. Furthermore, “Sea of Korea” appears in the first edition of the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica." As i said before, for every map showing "EAst Sea", there are more maps showing "Sea of Japan". Yes, Europeans called it by several names in the past. But! the most common was was "Sea of Japan" (and the like).
Koreans call Australia Hoju. Since this is the English language section of Wikipedia, we don't use the Korean name for that country. We use the English name. Koreans call the Sea of Japan Donghae. Does that mean that English Wikipedia must to? No, it doesn't. English Wikipedia uses English names, not local place names. We don't call South Korea Dae han min guk and that is reflected on Wikipedia.
That site that you made reference to is a VANK site. I have read many VANK sites and they are propaganda only showing one side of the coin and they disregard anything and everything that shows Sea of Japan.
If your goal is to have the world change the name to "East Sea", then you are taking your fight up on the wrong website. The fight needs to be taken up with the UN and IHO. They are the ones that set the name. Wikipedia just reflects the facts and is not a medium for change. That is what NPOV is all about. A few years ago, the Eskimo requested that they be called Inuit because they found Eskimo (eaters of raw flesh) offensive. It was agreed that Eskimo was offensive and now Inuit is being used instead. Korea has applied, and failed, to have the name changed. If they are successful in changing the name with the international community, they Wikipedia will reflect that. Until then, we will use the official, most common, and internationally recognised name of Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 16 August 2005.
Koreans call the sea Donghae, yes, but the old maps don't say it's Donghae. It says East Sea and Sea of Korea in English. And, my goal is not to make a change in the world. Hey, nobody in the UNESCO would listen to me. So, let me change the article.
Until the name is officially changed to something other than Sea of Japan, Wikipedia will use Sea of Japan. East Sea as a name is POV in favour if Korea. Sea of Japan, in English, is NPOV. Wikipedia strives to be NPOV and by putting East Sea over Sea of Japan, that violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Masterhatch 16 August 2005
I'm not trying to change the name into Sea of Japan. I'm trying to mention the fact that it was originally called Sea of Korea/East Sea. I repeat: it does not change the points in the article -just adding more info. So let me put that on the article, along with a picture of an ancient map supporting it. You see, a map with a ? doesn't give anybody info.
In English, it was called by a dozen original names. It is impossible to know which English name was used first and honestly, that is moot point here on Wikipedia as we aren't here to promote name changes. It is possible, though, to know which name was the most common. Sea of Japan (and the like) just happens to be the most common of all those original names. To keep this article NPOV, if you put one map up showing East Sea then all of the maps showing every which name will get put up (again). East Sea was, and is, the minority name of that body of water in English, so why should an East Sea map be put up without a Sea of Japan map? If you only put one map up disregarding the maps showing Sea of Japan, then you are making a POV edit (kind of like the propaganda spewed out by VANK). There is no need to put up a dozen maps (and pie charts) showing every name. The dispute is quite well laid out in text form in a NPOV way (thanks Kokiri! you did a great job!). yes, the ? doesn't show any name. Isn't that wonderfully NPOV? You can't get any more NPOV than that! There is enough info from both sides in text form. Currently, there is a good counter-balance between the two sides on this article, which is wonderful! Don't you think? If you really want to put your map up somewhere on wiki, a great place, as mentioned before, is Old maps of Korea and have a link to it on the Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan page. Masterhatch 17 August 2005
OK, Masterhatch. Let's clarify some stuffs here.
  • Here's a list of the original names: Sea of Korea and the East Sea (Mer de Coree & Mer de Oriental). Sea of Japan was used since the early 1900s. But before then, for more than 1,000 years, it was called by the two original names mentioned above (even the Japanese called it Sea of Choson, which means Sea of Korea). Therefore, Sea of Japan is not an original name of the body of the water. Yes, it's true that we don't know which one of them was used first. But, it does not prevent us from saying that it was originally called by these names (mentioned above).
  • Let's see which name has been more common -the two original names or Sea of Japan. Do you seriously think that the world has printed more Sea of Japan than the two original names (mentioned above) during its 100 years of reign? The two original names (mentioned above) had been in use for more than 1,000 years -definitely those two names had been used in more occasions.
  • East Sea is the minority name of the maps in the present time. But, along with Sea of Korea, it was the majority name of the maps before the 20th century.
  • This is an article on the dispute of the names for the sea. Sea of Japan is already being used in Sea of Japan article. And there's a map that shows Sea of Japan in that article; this article can have a map on Sea of Korea (without having Sea of Japan, and, plus, what's so wrong about having two maps?).
Your list of original names is incomplete. And history shows in English and other European languages that Sea of Japan (and the like) is more common than East Sea. East Sea is only more common in Korean contexts written by Koreans. Why do you keep bringing up "more than 1000 years"? English as we know it hasn't exsisted for a thousand years and a thousand years ago, the English didn't know about that body of water. This dispute is not about what Korea or Japan called it or calls it. We all know that Korea does not call it "Sea of Japan" and we all know that the Japanese didn't name it "Sea of Japan". Europeans did. So, you mentioned one map showing Sea of Choson made by the Japanese but disregard all other maps made by the Japanese. If that isn't POV, I dont' know what is. And let's clarify some stuff here. Sea of Japan has been in use by the English since well before the early 1900s. It has been the international de facto since the early 1800s and the most common name in Europeans languages since before the 1800s. The original name of that body of water is impossible to know, so how can you claim East Sea and Sea of Korea are the original ones? Maybe the Chinese named it first. Or some other Asian group of people. We don't know. It is impossible to know, so you can't claim to know the original name. Get your facts straight, please. And please remember that this is about the English name of that body of water, not the korean name or the Japanese name. In English, Sea of Japan has been the most common and is the most common since the Europeans first started mapping that region. Sea of Japan hasn't been the only name, just the most common.
You said, yes, we don't know the original name, but then you go onto say that the two original names are East Sea and Sea of Korea. And do i think that the world has printed more Sea of Japan maps over the other two names? Yes, I think that. But my thoughts are backed up by facts. Interesting, eh? What are your thoughts back up by?
The Sea of Japan article has a map of Sea of Japan because that is what it is called in English. This dispute article has a very NPOV one map showing a big ?. If you want to add an old map showing "East Sea", then to keep the article NPOV, add an old map showing "Sea of Japan". But they just cancel each other out and it becomes redundant. Having just a ? is perfectly NPOV, don't you think? If you put up one map, then someone else will put up a map showing Sea of Japan. Then another map showing East Sea will appear. Then another showing Sea of Japan. Before you know it, you have a million maps proving nothing. Instead of having a map war (which is pointless), let's keep things simple and just have a ? map. Masterhatch 23 August 2005
Then, could you send me a map that shows Sea of Japan before the early 1800s, please? My e-mail address is chunbumparkmba@yahoo.com. I've never seen a map from 700~1,700 AD that shows Sea of Japan.
Also, we don't need billions of maps. Let's just have one representative map for the other names of the sea, and another for Sea of Japan.
Somewhere above, I posted "Until 1870, even Japanese maps referred to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.” All of the following maps refer to the East Sea as the “Sea of Joseon.”" And you can't say that a site is for propaganda, just because it supports Koreans' claims.
I get it. You replied against my posts above, but I didn't see them. Okay. Let me clarify some stuffs here.
  • Before the Japanese colonial rule, Korea was called "Joseon".
  • Everybody knows that "Sea of Japan" is the official name in the present time. But, I'm trying to say that "Sea of Japan" was never used before 1870; names, such as "Sea of Korea", "Sea of Joseon" (Japanese maps showed that in Japanese language), "East Sea", etc., were used since 59B.C..
  • "For every map showing Sea of Korea/etc., there are more maps showing Sea of Japan"

You are quite right. But, Sea of Japan has been in existence since 1870, which means that technology allows for mass production of maps showing Sea of Japan. Also, many of the old maps did not survive. Therefore, "number of map showing Sea of Japan vs. Sea of etc." does not work; rather, "how long has the names been in existence" is more practical.-Wikimachine-

Older Maps showing Sea of Japan

You said you have never seen a map showing Sea of Japan before 1870. I went into the history of this dispute on this article and pulled up these maps, which no one claimed to be false:

Now you have seen maps older than 1870. You said that, and I agree, that many older maps have been destroyed. Then you go on to say that the oldest map wins. Well, if many maps are destroyed, how do we know which name is oldest? Masterhatch 24 August 2005

You're right that "Sea of Japan being around since 1870" is false. Very shocking it is. Where did you get the dates (I don't see the year when it was published on any of those maps)?

-Wikimachine

One map...please

A Wikipedian by the name of Kokiri cleaned up this article a while back. the old one was a mess. It had lots of maps showing both Sea of Japan and East Sea. Basically, the old article was a disaster. It was agreed that only one map should be on the page (the current one with the ?) as to avoid a huge mess. Kokiri (who is pro East Sea by the way) did a wonderful job at making this article NPOV. Let's keep it that way and keep only one map and keep this article clean and tidy. Currently, in this article, the facts are presented very well from both sides of the coin. Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Leonheart's edit

I reverted your edit because you failed to cite authoritative sources. If you want to refute the Japanese investigation, the report you mentioned must be as rigorous as the Japanese one: it must mention the total number of maps investigated (this must be exhaustive in a given period) and the number of maps which mention Sea of Japan and East Sea. --Tkh 08:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

the VANK site

this paragraph:

  • On August 17, 2005, Google Earth removed Sea of Japan and replaced the label with East Sea. In response, Japanese hackers attacked the volunteer Korean cyber-organization VANK website on August 18, 2005. For four consecutive days, Japanese hackers wrote large volume of messages including ‘East Sea is Sea of Japan‘, ‘Before annexation Korea was puppet of China; after annexation Korea was a slave of Japan‘ This attack resulted in VANK server down. This case was further investigated by the Korean police, cyber-terror division in collaboration with the Japanese police.

What does that have to do with the dispute? Nothing. Are we going to list all the web sites that use Sea of Japan? all the web sites that use East Sea? All the books that use East Sea? all the books that use Sea of Japan? Are we going to list every news article about minor happenings? I think not. That would be a total waste of time and would not contribute to this article what-so-ever. This article is about the official dispute and the history of the naming. Google Earth changing the name is not part of the history. Also, I did a google search and couldn't find any non-blog sources for that change (I didn't download Google Earth as I dont' want it on my computer) in English. I am removing that news related post as it has nothing to do with the historical naming of that body of water. It doesn't belong on this dispute article. There is already a VANK mentioning on this article and a link from there to to the VANK article is enough. The VANK article can mention (with English sources) what happened. If you notice, all the mentionings on the dispute article are from government type sources. I really don't think of VANK or Google Earth as a goverment type source. Masterhatch 23 August 2005

I do agree that VANK is not reflected in any of the government type source. But keep in mind that having Google recognize Sea of Japan/East Sea is very significant, noting that Google is one of the most popular search engine and thus very influential in informatics (Just like you used Google to search for VANK news). Also, how many times is a non-profit organization website attacked for politically disputed reasons? I believe listing this event is *not* such a waste of time like you mentioned, but it reflects issues at the individualistic level.
This => If you notice, all the mentionings on the dispute article are from government type sources.
History like you mentioned does not necessarily only include things that relates to governments or international organizations (or any of their perspectives). There are events that governments cannot simply comment on, but important enough to be covered in the media.(As you can see many of them in Current Events) This article is not a collection of government propaganda. If it only has government, we should include more of events that are more pertinent to today, which will be part of history in the future.
So, did Google remove "Sea of Japan" entirely? did it just remove it in Korean articles? Does google now use "East Sea" in Japanese contexts? your post doesn't clarify anything and you need sources so we can check. By the way, your VANK site is famous for attacking other sites, klogging their serves and trying to force sites to change the name using misinformation. VANK is a very political site that dabbles in political affairs. Masterhatch 23 August 2005

Wikimachine's Comments 2

Here are things in the article that I don't agree with. I ask for permission to alter the article.

  • This sea is mainly called Sea of Japan on most maps earlier than the 19th century, but some maps call it by various names including Bay of Korea, Chinese Ocean, Sea of Corea, or Sea of Korea.
I seriously think that this is false. Masterhatch did show me that there are some maps from the early 1800s that show Sea of Japan, but I have never seen maps before the eary 1800s that ever show Sea of Japan. Plus, I see maps from the early 1800s that show, not only Sea of Japan, but also other various names.
Suggestion: "This sea was called by various names including Bay of Korea, Chinese Ocean, Sea of Corea, Sea of Korea, or Sea of Joseon. But, since the 1800s, Sea of Japan began to appear more often in maps".

When Kokiri first moved the "temp" dipute article over to the main page on 22 July 2005, the sentence you are referring to read like this: "This sea is called by various names including Sea of Korea, Sea of Corea, Chinese Ocean, Bay of Korea, or Sea of Japan on maps earlier than the 19th century. After, Sea of Japan appears increasingly." That sentence was briefly discussed and then changed to the way it currently reads. It was changed because the wording made it sound like the other names were more common (which wasn't true). It was changed to be made more "accurate". Your wording (in my opinion) is better than (by just a little bit) the wording used on 22 July, but the meaning is the same. The way I understand it, Sea of Japan was always the most common (but it was fairly close in the old days if you count Sea of Japan compared to ALL the other names combined), but I don't have every map made of the Sea in my possession. I do agree, though, that since the early 1800s, Sea of Japan became more and more common and the other names became less and less common. If you added a slightly revised suggestion, I see no problem with the change. Here is my suggestion:

  • ""This sea was called by various names including Bay of Korea, Chinese Ocean, Sea of Corea, Sea of Korea, or Sea of Joseon. But, since the early 1800s, Sea of Japan began to appear more often in maps".

Worded like that, I would be in favour of the change. But I am not the only Wikipedian and I want to know what other Wikipedians think of this change. If no one objects, I say make the change. The version that we have now came together through compromises from both sides and many felt that the article was written very nicely in a NPOV way; that is one of the reasons i am so protective of the article keeping status quo. A second reason is that I respect Kokiri (an East Sea supporter) very much and he was the main author of the article we see before us. So, to sum up my long winded post, if no one objects within the next day or two, make the change. Masterhatch 26 August 2005

228 vs. 1435

Both Japan and Korea did a study regarding the maps found at the "United States Library of Congress". The Koreans studied 228 maps. The Japanese studied 1435. Of the maps studied by Korea, 103 showed "East Sea" (and the like) and "Oriental Sea". Why would they group East Sea and Oriental Sea (two very different names with very different meanings) together, but separate all the other names?

The Japanese study [5] mentions the Korean study, but the Korean study [6] does not mention the Japanese study. I guess my point is this: why would Korea only study 228 maps while Japan studied 1435 maps? Both Korea and Japan used the same source (United STates Library of Congress), but Japanese did a larger study encompasing more maps. Did the Korean study select maps that would favour them? The Japanese study appears to take a larger scope trying to show "all" the maps. I find the Korean study very odd and suspect. Masterhatch 31 August 2005

Apparently the Korean government arbitrarily picked up 228 maps at the LoC. As mentioned in the Japanese report, it is impossible to do random samples of maps available at the LoC because not all maps have been electronized. The only fair way would be to investigate all maps available at the LoC, which the Japanese government did. --Tkh 22:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous IP addresses

69.237.124.189 and Appleby (64.170.194.64)

You should cite sources on your claims because groundless claims mean nothing. --Tkh 00:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Finally you cited the Korean government's official investigation. The report claims to have investigated various maps including the ones in the US LoC, but why the total number investigated from differnt sources is substantially smaller than the Japanese investigation which investigated 1,435 maps only in the US LoC? Where is the list of maps the Korean government investigated? The Japanese report provides a full list of maps it investigated, and logically refutes the Korean investigation at the US LoC by stating that the Korean government only investigated about 51% of the maps archived at the US LoC in the period it claimed to have investigated. Read the Japanese report. The Korean government's investigation is arbitrary and highly doubtful. --Tkh 23:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"As of" dates can't enter the history of dispute section because it is not clear when the statements were made. The section must focus on the historical development of the dispute. Now it's clear that you can't even provide the year, so I'll remove the paragraph you added until you cite a real report with the year. Also read my above comment to another IP user and answer the questions as well. --Tkh 23:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

about japan's list - how many are copies or derivatives, what were sources, who used them, how widespread, how influential? no independent study -- 64.170.194.64, September 1, 2005

In terms of who used the maps, how widespred they were, and how influential they are, they are not verifiable, therefore your claim on these are meaningless. I highly doubt that you've read the list of maps. Most of maps on the list have either publisher, author, or both. Also, your agument on copies and derivatives doesn't make sense at all. How can you determine if a very old map is derivative of another one? Lastly, a source doesn't have to be an independent study, but it has to be verifiable. Please don't divert the discussion, and leave your comment on the talk page. --Tkh 02:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

you can't answer my questions either. who made you the judge of government reports? cite independent evaluation of reports, not your pov. until then, treat them as equally partisan. -- 64.170.194.64, September 1, 2005

Wikipedia does not require such a thing. In our case, it suffices to say that sources have to be verifiable. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I answered your question regardless of your disregard of answering my questions. Now it's your turn. Answer all of my questions above before you make edits. --Tkh 05:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

korea's position is also verifiable on its site. you can't judge the validity of the contents, each is an advocacy position -- 64.170.194.64, September 2, 2005

No. The Korean report you cited is an advocacy because it fails to show the list of maps, but the Japanese report is supported by the data which can be used to verify its correctness. That's why the Korean report is not verifiable. Don't arbitrarily change your arguments. --Tkh 06:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
If you claim that the Korean report is verifiable, show me the list of maps. That's the only way to be able to verify the correctness. --Tkh 07:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Response: the issue is the verifiability of the positions of each side, not an evaluation of methodology. my version states what each side reports to have found, linking to each govt site. as to the credibility of the claims themselves, which report is actually valid, you don't have the expertise, & cannot be a npov source, to render that judgment. having a list doesn't validate the conclusion, unless you have actually examined the maps yourself & have the expertise to evaluate them, & even then it's your personal conclusion, not a citable source. obviously rand mcnally, national geographic, google, & others did not think korea's claims are unsupported, nor has the un or iho, for that matter. we can only say what each side & citable authority have stated.

No. You failed to cite the list of maps for the undated report. That's unverifiable and therefore it should be deleted. The Korean report dated in 2002 shows the data, so it is verifiable, but the Japanese report refuted it. Therefore we should adopt the facts finding in the Japanese report until some authoritaitve source refutes it. --Tkh 23:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Response: once again, i'm saying this is x's POSITION, and linking to x's description of its position. i'm not drawing a conclusion about a list of maps, so i don't need to link to a list of maps, nor do i have to justify x or y's position. in an article about a dispute, i'm describing each side's position, whose POSITION can be verified by the links. if you want to write a conclusion about which side actually "shows" something, or what the "de facto" status was, cite an authority that determined x's position is more valid than y's position. you are merely citing x, and saying YOU think x's position is more valid than y's position. that belongs on your personal blog, not wikipedia.

To make the Korean report verifiable, it must show the list of maps. It must also provide the year (and possibly the month) the report was published. If both conditions were met, I'd have no problem including a mention to the Korean report. P.S. Can you get an account and put your user ID for each of your comments? --Tkh 09:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Response: once again, the article verifies that it is x's position. how x supports and documents its position is described in the article. whether x's position is supported by a report, a report with a list of maps, a report with a longer list of maps, a report with list of source institutions, a report with copies of actual maps attached, a report with maps identified by circulation, where do you draw the line, but more importantly, who draws the line? WHETHER x's position is valid is not for you or me to judge, even if you and i both thought one sounds more credible. the article states what standards bodies have done. the objective npov facts are: there is a dispute (the fact of the existence of the dispute is easy to verify at various authoritive sources). one side claims abc. the other side claims xyz. no citable authority has determined whether abc or xyz is more valid. my edits clearly show these facts without bias. i'm happy to include tkh's newly found study, because that's a fact, that's what one party claims. but don't tell me flatly stating one side's position as fact in the introduction is npov. Appleby 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable means that the presented facts can be checked. Since the undated Korean report uses the number of maps mentioning East Sea and its variants as a justification to call the disputed sea East sea, the list of maps must be presented to verify that the number is correct. Also the history of disupte section does not admit an undated text, otherwise it would not be a history. Why don't you find those instead of spinning your arguments here? I'd be happy to include the mention to the Korean report then. --Tkh 00:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

the fact to be checked is "a's position is x." you check that fact by clicking on the link to a, & see that it claims x. the article does not & should not state position x as true or false. or determine the validity of position x, because citable authority (un, iho) have declined to do so, even if you personally did. this is a fundamental logical distinction, i've run out of ways to explain this. please, i don't mean to be condescending, but take a course or read a book on logic. Appleby 03:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, your definition of the word verifiability is wrong in the first place. Since you use the word show in the mention to the undated Korean report, anyone who wants to check the facts must be able to use a list of maps to confirm that the report really shows the Korean arguments by going to the US LoC and check all the maps the Korean used one by one. I'm logically consistent, but you distorted the meaning of verifiability. --Tkh 07:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Your definition of a fact is wrong as well. Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions. Since the reports are secondary sources, they should include references to primary sources to be credible and verifiable. An undated report which has no reference to primary sources hardly qualifies for a credible source. Do your study. --Tkh 21:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

the reports are primary sources. x is the primary source of x's position. "tkh states x" how do we check that statement? by asking tkh. end of story. it doesn't matter how tkh supports position x, who or how tkh cites, or how he lists his sources, or that he lists any sources at all. all that matters is that tkh's position is in fact x. does it matter what tkh's position is? not to wikipedia, unless a recognized authority considers tkh's position significant. "korea claims x" how do we check that statement? by linking to korea's site. if korea's site claims x, end of story. how korea lists its sources for claim x, how credible x sounds to you, are not relevant to the verifiability of the statement "korea claims x." does it matter what korea claims? yes, there is a recognized dispute involving korea as a party. Appleby 22:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Read the link I provided. The reports are secondary sources because they gather and analize evidences, or primary sources, from the libraries. The primary sources are the maps archived in those libraries. If you just included "Korea claims x", that would be fine, but then why do you use the word show? The undated Korean report merely claims their positions, but the Japanese reports provide facts by showing primary sources and they are verifiable. In addition, those facts have not been refuted although the Korean reports are refuted in the Japanese reports. That's why the Japanese findings are used as facts. --Tkh 22:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Response: once again, the article verifies that it is x's position. how x supports and documents its position is described in the article. whether x's position is supported by a report, a report with a list of maps, a report with a longer list of maps, a report with list of source institutions, a report with copies of actual maps attached, a report with maps identified by circulation, where do you draw the line, but more importantly, who draws the line? WHETHER x's position is valid is not for you or me to judge, even if you and i both thought one sounds more credible. the article states what standards bodies have done. the objective npov facts are: there is a dispute (the fact of the existence of the dispute is easy to verify at various authoritive sources). one side claims abc. the other side claims xyz. no citable authority has determined whether abc or xyz is more valid. my edits clearly show these facts without bias. don't tell me flatly stating one side's position as fact in the introduction is npov. Appleby 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The three Japanese reports and the old Korean report show facts, while the undated Korean report failed to do so. If you think the Japanese reports don't present facts, check the maps at the libraries mentioned in each report. Also an undated entry must not be included in the history section. Don't you agree with this? --Tkh 03:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

once again, the article says says this is x's POSITION, and linking to x's description of its position. i'm not drawing a conclusion ab,out a list of maps, so don't have to justify x or y's position. in an article about a dispute, i'm describing each side's position, whose POSITION can be verified by the links. if you want to write a conclusion about which side actually shows facts, cite an authority that determined x's position is more valid than y's position. you are merely citing x, and saying YOU think x's position is more valid than y's position. until you publish your thesis in a citable publication, that belongs on your personal blog, not wikipedia. Appleby 03:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The old Korean report shows Korea's position. Why do we need an undated an unverifiable study to show Korea's position when Korea's position is already shown with a dated and verifiable study? Masterhatch 5 September 2005
Since you ditto your argument again and again, I ask you a very simple question. Don't you agree that an undated entry can't be included the history of dispute section? Don't try to include the entry until you cite a source with a year at least. --Tkh 07:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

no i don't agree, it is one side's position published on the internet as of today. Appleby 14:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense at all. Imagine when a majority of entries are filled with "as of" dates. It defeats the purpose of presenting the historical development of the dispute. You are getting increasingly nonsense. Do your homework. --Tkh 16:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Korean Goverment sources

Personally, I don't have a problem with using a Korean government source on this page, but the source you give doesn't have a date! also, it doesn't list the maps that it used and it only uses a select few maps to draw its conclusions. That korean site looks at 763 maps from from these sources:

  • 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.

Now, my biggest problem is, why did Korea only look at 763 maps? I am sure that there are a hell of a lot more than just that from those sources. In fact, I know that there are more than that. From just one of those sources, the Japanese found over 1400 maps. So, what did Korea do? Just choose maps that they liked and forgot about the rest? That, ladies and gentlemen, is why that source you keep throwing up is, as Tkh puts, unverifiable. You dont' need to be an expert on ancient maps or a math whiz to do the math on this one. That Korean study is extremely POV. Just take a calculator to the numbers.

In your last revert, you put up a comment that read like this: "i've responded in talk. let's keep it npov ... if it's as one-sided as you'd like to think, we wouldn't need this page at all)". I'm sorry, but that Korean study (with no date with only a small percentage of maps included in the study) is very POV. Have you heard of the word "propaganda"? Koreans are constantly bitching that the Japanese are trying to re-write history (which, I agree, Japan is trying and I totally disagree with what Japan is doing) to make themselves look better. Well, Korea is doing the same thing! Korea is trying to brainwash its people into believing that East Sea was more common than Sea of Japan. So, yes, it is as one-sided as we'd like to think. And I agree, we don't need this dispute page. Sea of Japan has been the most common name for... well, dunno... since Europeans started naming bodies of water in East Asia. The only reason that there is a dispute over the name is because of the Korean hatred towards Japan. You don't see the Koreans all up in arms about the Yellow Sea or the South China Sea. Why? Because China is korea's friend. This entire dispute is all about Korea vs. Japan, not what is historically "right" or "wrong". I live in Korea. I love it here. I have been here for almost 4 years and I will probably be here for a lot longer. As much as I love it here, I am not blind and i can see the shit through the shiola and I know that this dispute is not about history, that is only the mask, it is about "saving face" and "one-upping". While I am in Korea, I never get into discussions with Koreans about the name of that body of water as that is so pointless. I find that Koreans in general believe everything they are told by the media and government and don't actually stop to think for themselves (have a look at Fan death).

If you really want to add that link to that Korean site, then it must be footnoted stating that the study is not verifiable and that Korea only used a select few maps and didn't take a representation of the whole. Masterhatch 2 September 2005


response: it doesn't matter what you believe, see wikipedia:verifiability linked above. this is not about your independent research, your evaluation. we state the positions, link that verifies the positions. article already states how many maps were counted, what the dates are (or that it is undated). if you link to u.n. or other citable authority concluding that one side's report is propaganda, i have no problem, but inserting YOUR pov (instead of stating each subject side's pov) is unacceptable. do that on your own blog. that's not what wikipedia does.

You are right, this isn't by blog. But atleast I am keeping my opinions to the talk page. You are pushing your POV on the main article page. How on God's good green earth could the 700 or so maps that Korea looked at possibly take precedence over 1400 or so maps studied by the Japanese? Masterhatch 2 September 2005

response: unlike you, i'm not saying x takes precedence over another. i'm saying that's what x's position is (with link to that position) and this is what y's position is (with link to that position). if some citable authority besides your own opinion says x takes precedence over another, by all means, cite it & we'll discuss it then. we won't discuss your own independent evaluation on wikipedia. again, see wikipedia policy. if you want to change both paragraphs from "show" to "claim," now we're talking like reasonable people.

yes you are saying x takes precedence over another. You remove this: "At the time, the name had already been the de facto international standard. While less common names such as East Sea, or Oriental Sea existed" and replace it with this: "The report shows that "East Sea" or "Sea of Korea" had been de facto standard in the 19th century." Masterhatch 2 September 2005


response: in the first case, i removed one side's conclusion stated as undisputed fact. in the second case, [edit: in a different place in the article] i mirrored the wording for the opposing side [edit: leaving the same language for both sides].

So, you deliberately made a POV edit to...what? Make a point? Masterhatch 2 September 2005

response: if you think removing disputed conclusion stated as fact, and using the same paraphrasing language for both sides are POV edits .... well i think our discussion here is done

The Sea of Japan was the international de facto in the 1800s. You changed it to East Sea was the international de facto based on nothing but your own POV. You couldn't even point to a source for that edit. The "best" source (and that is a very questionalbe source) you have points to a total of just over 700 maps. That is only half of the maps from the "other" site that "shows/claims" Sea of Japan as being the de facto. You deliberatly made a POV edit and then offered a "compromise" that was in the middle: "if you want to change both paragraphs from "show" to "claim," now we're talking like reasonable people". Sorry, but making a POV edit and then trying to find a compromise in the middle isn't how wikipedia works. As for this discussion, you are right. There is no point in discussing it further. Have a nice day! Masterhatch 2 September 2005
The Japanese study is the most comprehensive one out there and it shows the greatest number of maps counted. Doesn't that make it a fairly strong and valid source? It encompases more than 1400 maps. The Korean study scatters sources all over the place "picking and chosing" the maps it wants.
As for me and my "blogs", didn't you know about Wiki's three revert rule? If you have a problem with an article, such as this, then you come to the talk page to avoid a war. Creating a war such as you have only stiffens the resolve. Also, we don't carry out conversations on the comment bar. That is what the talk page is for.
Also in regards to my "blogs", Wikipedia is not a medium for name change, so take up your fight to have the name changed elsewhere. Masterhatch

Proposed move

I propose moving this article to Sea of Japan naming dispute, for succintness. Is there any objection?--Pharos 00:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the name change. It is shorter and better. --Tkh 00:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this even being debated? We had a vote not long ago. The vote was to use Sea of Japan. Is the vote null and void? Kojangee September 1st, 2005 22:48 Beijing time
Kojangee, I think you misunderstood. The proposed name change is for the dispute article and nothing else. It actually makes sense to shorten it. I am in favour. Masterhatch 1 September 2005
OK, I moved it, as there didn't seem to be any real opposition (beside Kojangee's apparent misunderstanding).--Pharos 01:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Use Breaks to separate conversations

Somebody said something like, "Japan's trying to brainwash its people, but Koreans are trying as well, to make people think that East Sea was more common than Sea of Japan".

First of all, Sea of Japan began to be used in the early 1800s (I doubt that there's any maps that show Sea of Japan before 1800s, and I've never seen one -if there's one, show me the link). But, all the other names (East Sea, Oriental Sea, Sea of Korea, Sea of Choson, etc.) have been used before the 1800s -some 2000 years. And the main reason why the Japanese were able to alter the name was because it had major influence (Korea was not even on some of the maps in 1800s because it was a hermit kingdom, back then).

Somebody said something like, "East Sea and Oriental Sea mean the totally different things."

Well, that's not true. Oriental means East.

What are you talking about? Yes, Oriental means east, but saying "East Sea (Donghae)" and "Oriental Sea" mean the exact thing is well, ludicrous. Koreans specifically use "(East Sea (Donghae)" to refer to that body of water off their East coast. Oriental refers to the countries and peoples and things east of Europe. Let's not compare apples and oranges. Masterhatch 3 September 2005

Plus, we don't need to argue about the naming of Sea of Japan (no matter what our decisions are, the officials won't care). Let's just make some points clear (i.e. Sea of Japan began to be used since the early 1800s).

P.S. By the way, I was going to change a section to "This sea was called by various names including Bay of Korea, Chinese Ocean, Sea of Corea, Sea of Korea, or Sea of Joseon. But, since the early 1800s, Sea of Japan began to appear more often in maps", but somebody else changed it to a neutral statement. -Wikimachine

See the list of maps [7] the Japanese government investigated. --Tkh 08:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. If they were to name everything east of Europe with the word "East", then the Indian Ocean would be the "Half-way Between the East and the Europe Ocean". Actually, the Pacific Ocean would be the one that would be called the Eastern Ocean because it is east of Europe.

Firstly, I never said "everything" and secondly...well, just go here and draw your own conclusions [8]. that will save me time and typing. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

Wanna talk Wiki policies?

Well, there is a wiki "three revert" rule that you don't follow. Also, the study that shows 1400 maps actually shows 1400 maps. That korean study with 700 shows about a dozen with no confirmed date of when the study took place and that study uses a select maps from various sources. It is obviously an incomplete study. Before you cry wiki policy with me, follow wiki policy yourself and stick to the three revert rule. Edit wars are not how wikipedia works. Discussing disputes on the talk page without an edit war is how wikipedia works. Masterhatch 3 September 2005

I can make any claim I want and put it on the net on an official website. For example, I could make a claim that "I made a study and I found 3000 maps that show East Sea and 2 that showed Sea of Japan." I could type it up to make it look totally official, but unless I could back that up with a date of when I did the study and a list of maps that I checked, it is useless and unverifiable. Now, I am not saying that the Korean government didn't do that study in question, but unless we know more information about that study (for example when it was done and what maps they looked at), it can't be used as a source! Every other source cited on this dispute article meets that criteria. Why should we make an exception and allow an unverifiable source on this page? Masterhatch

the difference is that the article is about a recognized dispute, requiring an explanation of the position of the disputing parties. you & i are not a party to the recognized dispute between korea & japan. the fact of the dispute is recognized by various authoritative sources, hence the existence of the dispute article. if masterhatch or appleby wanted to rename california, you & i may consider it a dispute, but national geographic wouldn't, & there would be no article on wikipedia about it. since there is a recognized dispute about the sea of japan/east sea, there is a page discussing the dispute, by citing the relevant parties' positions, & what standards bodies have done. Appleby 15:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

to further clarify: if you & i had a dispute that was recognized (but not decided) by a recognized authority, there should be a wiki article about it, linking to your position, my position, & what standards bodies have done about it. your position would be stated (identified as a "claim" not fact) even if you had no sources & unverifiable methodology, because it wouldn't matter, the dispute itself was recognized, & your position is your position. Appleby 15:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there is a dispute. That is obvious and it is a fact that there is a dispute. This article is about the history of the dispute and the fact that there is a dispute is well known in the international community. There are already links from both the Korean and Japanese side stating the fact that there is a dispute. You are trying to put your link in the history section of the dispute, not the "proof of a dispute" section. There is no "proof of a dispute" section because don't need proof that there is one, it is common knowledge that there is one. The history section of this dispute is all about the history of said dispute, not the proof that there is a dispute. The other links all go to verifiable sites that do two things: show the verifiable studies and show that there is in fact a dispute. Why do we need an undated, unverifiable source to show that there is a dispute when the other links already do that (and the other links show both sides, not just one)? Masterhatch 4 September 2005

i think we're talking past each other somewhat, because the biggest problem i see is that you are deleting identification of one party's position as a disputed claim, leaving flat statements as facts, in the intro & paragraph about iho. this is so fundamental all else seemed peripheral to me. your top issue is the history section, which is more complicated. it seems to me, it should list actual historic developments, & is now overloaded with each side's repeating & one-upping, without any actual development. to me, national geographic & rand mcnally's changes of position are more significant historic developments than each side coming back with their own bigger reports. let's discuss one thing at a time. Appleby 16:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

But you still can't have an undated unverifiable source. Let's get that solved first.Masterhatch 4 September 2005

-sigh- it is verifiable (that's what the party claims, see link). we can discuss the placement in the chronology, but don't delete the summary & link to the position, unless you delete all summaries & links to party positions. see above, methodology & verifiability of disputing party's position is irrelevant, what needs to be verifiable is that it is in fact the party's position. all of this hardly matters if the introduction states one party's disputed claim as fact. i thought you were perhaps a reasonable person, possibly that you have overlooked the intro in the wholesale reverts, that this discussion may lead somewhere, but no such luck. Appleby 16:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a reasonable person. I have been involved in my share of edit wars and I can tell you that not one has been resolved while a revert war was happening. Every one was resolved after the article was left at status quo and the dispute talked about on the talk page. And I can tell you that this edit war will end the same way. So, until you adhere to Wikipolicy and agree to end the revert war, nothing will get resolved. So, to me, it seems like you are the unreasonable person. I have ideas how matters can be resolved, but until the revert war ends, nothing will get put forward by me. Revert wars are not the way to resolve the dispute. Masterhatch 4 September 2005

which is why i have explained my edits here Appleby 17:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

But until you end the edit war, no compromises can or will be reached! End the war and let's discuss this like reasonable people. I have ideas for a compromise, but as long as there is a revert war, nothing will change. I will repeat, every edit war I have been involved in has only been resolved after the revert war stops and the page is left at status quo. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

what do YOU hope to accomplish by a revert war? takes 2 to tango. i'm actually convinced you're smart & reasonable enough to know, something as fundamental as stating a legitimately disputed claim as fact is not something to be negotiated, if wikipedia is to have any credibility. Appleby 06:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well of course it takes two to tango, but I didn't start the war. I am trying to keep status quo with the article until an agreement can be reached on the talk page. THAT is what i am trying to accomplish. So, again, what are YOU trying to accomplish with this revert war? And don't answer that question with a question again. Now, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "de facto". I made things easy for you and went to dictionary.com and got this:

  • adv. In reality or fact; actually.
  • adj. Actual: de facto segregation. Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially established: a de facto government; a de facto nuclear storage facility.
  • ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
  • exercising power as if legally constituted or authorized <a de facto government> <a de facto judge>

Now, if you will notice, de facto does not mean "by the law" in the sense that a law was passed to create "de facto". De facto's meaning is more towards "the most common use" and because it was the most common in use, it becomes de facto. A goverment body does not need to pass a law to make something de facto. De facto just happens. Of course, a goverment can pass a law to create de facto, but that is not necessarily always the case. So, my point? My point is you have a problem with this sentence in the article: "At the time, the name had already been the de facto international standard." According the definition of "de facto", Sea of Japan was the de facto name. So, since that sentence is based on fact, it is NPOV. Now, stop this silly revert war and let's talk about this like reasonable human beings. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

who determined that it was the de facto name? did iho at that time determine it was the de facto name? if so, i didn't know, i won't object to that sentence once i see the citation to iho's determination. i thought iho accepted japan's submission in the absence of a different submission or objection from korea, which of course could not participate due to japanese colonial rule. but if i'm wrong, i;m wrong. provide cite to iho's determination. Appleby 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the meaning of de facto. I will quote again: "being such in effect though not formally recognized". Sea of Japan was the de facto because it was the most common name, not because a body called it the de facto. It was without a doubt the most common name before IHO standarised it. English is the de facto language of the US, but it is not the official language of the US. the US has no offical language. English is the de facto of the US because it is the most common language spoken. Sea of Japan was the de facto, not because the de facto was determined by a governing body, but because it was the most common name. That sentence you keep removing does not state it was the de facto name in the 1800s or the 1700s or the 1600s or any given time period EXCEPT to say that it was the de facto BEFORE the IHO standarised it. That is a fact jack. So, prior to 1919 (whether it was 2 years or 200 years prior), Sea of Japan was the de facto. That sentence states that in a NPOV way. The whole dispute is not whether it was the de facto before 1919. The Koreans are claiming that before the Japanese colonised Korea, East Sea was the de facto. The Koreans are not disputing that after the Japanese colonisation of Korea, Sea of Japan was the most common. Koreans will admit that after Japan took over Korea, Sea of Japan was the most common name for that body of water. I will repeat again: Koreans claim that East Sea was the de facto before the Japanese conquest. Do I have to repeat myself again? Because I really don't want to. But I will just one more time so that you truly understand: Prior to 1919 Sea of Japan was the de facto (see definition of de facto) name for that body of water. Koreans are not disputing that. I will repeat. Koreans are not disputing that. The Koreans are disputing the de facto name prior to the Japanese conquest. That is what this whole thing is about. That sentence simply states that when the IHO standardised the name "Sea of Japan", it was already the de facto name. What part of that don't you understand? Masterhatch 5 September 2005

the part where you cited sources Appleby 19:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

???The Koreans aren't disputing that Sea of Japan was the most common name after Korea was colonised! And by definition of de facto (again, see definition), Sea of Japan was the de facto name prior to 1919. No one body declared it de facto before 1919 as that is not necessary for something to become de facto. Simply by being the most common name (which the Koreans admit to), Sea of Japan was de facto (prior to 1919). The Koreans claim that it was before the rise of Japanese imperialism that East Sea was most common (aka de facto) and after the rise of Japanese imperialism Sea of Japan became the most common (aka de facto). In the opening paragraph of this dispute, it mentions why the Koreans are disputing. I will copy paste just incase you missed it: "The South Korean government challenge this name, contending it is a symbol of Japan's imperialistic past, and want the name East Sea to be used". So, after the start of Japanese imperialism (late 1800s), according to the Koreans, Sea of Japan became the most common. Why do you think the "dispute" is about maps prior to 1900? or prior to Japanese imperialism? or why do you think Koreans are looking for the oldest maps? Koreans know that maps from the late 1800s and onwards mostly show (see difinition of de facto) Sea of Japan. If East Sea was more common in the first 20 years of the 1900s, then Koreans would be looking at maps from the early 1900s, but they aren't! they are looking at maps before the 1900s. Koreans believe that maps earlier than the 1900s will prove their case, hence the hunt for older maps. If you can't understand that, then you have lost all reason. Calling Sea of Japan "De facto" does not mean it was the valid or right name or even the international chosen name. It simply means it was the most common name. And it was, prior to 1919, the most common name, therefore "de facto". The dispute is not about that! you should know that. The dispute is about when sea of japan became the de facto name. Koreans claim it was in the late 1800s when the rise of Japanese imperialism started and the Japanese claim it was always the de facto name. That is what the dispute is all about. If you can't comprehend the meaning of "de facto", then I will change this sentence: "the name had already been the de facto international standard" to "the name had already been the most common international standard." To me, it makes no difference as the meaning is the same. Oh, and just in case you missed it, the opening paragraph of the history of the dispute clearly states that it is a dispute about maps prior to the 19th century, not prior to 1919. Masterhatch 5 September 2005

"de facto" is not the same as "majority." & yes, please provide citation to who determined x was the de facto name. of course there is a distinction between determining what the name should be, & stating what the most commonly used name is. i understand that, for example, the u.n. has done the latter, not former. did a reputable publication, not necessarily a standards-setting body, find that "sea of japan" was the de facto name as of 1919? i missed the part where korea admitted "sea of japan" was the de facto name as of 1919, can you provide a cite? Appleby 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sea of Japan de facto before 1919

Firstly, I want to make sure you understand the meaning of de facto [9]. De facto does not have to be officially recognised by a governing body, although it can be (as it was in 1919 by the IHO). De facto, simplified, means used by the vast majority to the point were it appears, or even is, standard (even without official recognition). Not all parties involved have to recognise it as de facto, but when there are enough parties using it, it becomes de facto by default. De facto: used by the majority.

Secondly, these are the two wordings you have problems with:

  • Sea of Japan which has been the international de facto standard since the 19th century
  • At a 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine internationally acceptable names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name Sea of Japan as the official name of the sea. At the time, the name had already been the de facto international standard.

Now, I want to clarify a few things about the use of de facto in these sentences:

  1. De facto does not imply that it has always been Sea of Japan.
  2. De facto does not mean that Sea of Japan was the only name used.
  3. De facto does not imply that no other name was more common. It simply states that since the 19th century, Sea of Japan was the most common.
  4. De facto does not imply that Korea agreed to name the body of water Sea of Japan.
  5. De facto does mean that prior to 1919, Sea of Japan was the most commonly used name for that body of water (whether it be 3 years or 300 years before). Korea does not dispute that since the start of the Japanese imperialism, Sea of Japan became, by far, the most commonly used name. That is a fact and Korea knows it and isn’t disputing it.
  6. In the first sentence, it simply states that Sea of Japan has been the international de facto since the 19th century (coincidently, that is the same time as the rise of Japanese imperialism).

Now, as I have said, de facto doesn’t necessarily mean that an official government body determined de facto or not. It simply means that it was the most common name used by the majority. You wanted me to cite sources to show that Sea of Japan was the de facto (see definition) name before 1919. That was easy. I went to VANK’s [10] very own website and pulled these five quotes:

  1. However, already by the early 20th century, there were some textbooks which made reference to the "Sea of Japan." Every textbook published after 1910 refers to the East Sea as the "Sea of Japan."
  2. However, the Russia-Japan Treaty of 1905 was the first documented use of the term "Sea of Japan" at a government level.
  3. However, the Russians called the East Sea the "Sea of Korea" in their last officially published map of 1844. Thereafter, it appears that the Russian Navy and numerous maps followed the European style in making geographical references.
  4. From this, we can assume that changes were being made at about this time, because the term "East Sea" was not found in any of the Japanese maps published after 1871. Also, at about this time, references to the "Sea of Japan" began appearing in Chinese maps as well.
  5. However, since the East Sea was referred to as the "Sea of Japan" in La Perouse's map of 1797, maps produced thereafter in Europe began to use the term "Sea of Japan" with greater frequency. However, both "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan" co-existed until the first half of the 19th century. It is difficult to find out how "Sea of Japan" replaced "Sea of Korea" in the later half of the 19th century because a review of all existing ancient maps has not been completed. However, it is believed that such a replacement was a reflection of the easier availability of information about Japan than Korea as Japan's military power had expanded and the recognition of Japan had increased in the international community.

Now, I could spend all day and have a hay-day picking apart the propaganda, mis-information, contradictions found on the VANK site, but I went there because I felt that it was a good place to show you that Koreans, even the most stubborn East Sea supporters, know it is a fact that Sea of Japan was the most commonly used name for that body of water prior to 1919. So, looking at the five quotes, they tell the story:

  1. Every textbook published after 1910 uses Sea of Japan. That is nine years before 1919. Does that sound like de facto?
  2. 1905 the term Sea of Japan is being used at a government level. Does that sound like de facto?
  3. After 1844, the Russians followed the rest of Europe and started calling it Sea of Japan. So, if all of Europe is calling it Sea of Japan before 1844 and then Russia starts calling it Sea of japan in 1844, doesn’t that sound a lot like de facto?
  4. According to VANK, the Japanese and Chinese stopped using “East Sea” in 1871. Let me see, yup, that is before 1919.
  5. Point number 5 says it all. According to VANK, Europeans started using Sea of japan in 1797 in conjunction with Sea of Korea, but by the later half of the 1800s, Sea of Japan replaced Sea of Korea. Well, if that isn’t de facto, I don’t know what is.

I have proved my point that Sea of Japan was the de facto name before 1919 and I did it using Korea’s own biggest East Sea propaganda website. I didn’t even have to look at a Japanese site. But if you really want, I can do that too. But I don’t think that that is necessary. If you still don’t believe that Sea of Japan was the de facto name prior to 1919, then the onus is on you to find otherwise. I have done my homework. It is your turn now. masterhatch 6 September 2005

thanks for the cite. you know & i know we both know what "de facto" means, that's not at issue, i was asking whether south korea or a citable reference work had stated so. i think we both agree that vank is not credible source for historical facts, but since it supports korea's position, i won't quibble, i'm convinced sea of japan was widely used as of 1919. but i think "standard" is inappropriate, eg, there's html standards, & then there's ie's de facto domination--microsoft's implementation is not a "standard" in this sense. Appleby 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

the last page of the report seems to have been last updated march 2003. deal? Appleby 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that date isn't the date of the actual study. Also, there is still no verifiable map list. Now, if you will notice, there is a mailing address, phone number, and fax number at the bottom of the page. If you are so inclined, you can contact them and request that they add the information to their website. If they were to update their website in such a way, I wouldn't ahve a problem with including it. All the other map related sources include a map list and date. So, if you really want your source put in, contact the people who did the study. Masterhatch 02:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The results shows that the Korean study is totally inadequate

While I agree that this is a true statement, It is the only one of its kind in this article. The rest of the studies merely state information about the study and don't attempt to refute other studies. I would rather have this sentences removed and leave it up to the reader to make that conclusion. Masterhatch 02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What's with the POV editing?

Ok, I have said this time and time again. If you want to make major changes, discuss on the talk page first, especially when there is a lot of controversy over an article such as this. The most recent edits you have made don't fit with the rest of the article. This article is about the dispute, it is not about who is right or wrong. It simply states the facts from both sides in a NPOV way. But your most recent edits show a strong bias towards Korea by adding Korean supportive arguments without adding a counter argument for Japan. This article is not, and never will be an article that favours either East Sea or Sea of Japan. But your edits keep trying to make this article a pro East Sea article. Some examples of why I am reverting your most recent edits:

  • If you are going to include this: Similar nomenclature for a body of water can be found in the example of the North Sea, which derives its name from its location relative to the European continent. Then you must also include an example for the Japanese, otherwise it is POV. But this article isn't about who is right or wrong, it is an article simply about the facts, so we need neither.
  • If you are going to include Korean examples of maps (They regard the dominance of the name Sea of Japan a reflection of Japan's imperial past. Until 1870, even many Japanese maps referred to East Sea as the "Sea of Chosen," including Takahasi Kageyasu's 1810 Sinteibankoku zenzu, Abe Kinin's 1838 Bankoku zenzu, Sugita Gendan's 1850 Chigaku seisozu, Matsuda Rokuzan's 1855 Chikyubankoku zenzu, and the 1870 Meizi kaiteibankoku yochibunzu.) then you must also include a counter argument for the Japanese. But since this article isn't about who is right or wrong, then we don't need map lists (we have them already in the links). Also, in your wording, you use "many", well, it wasn't many, it was a minority. This article is not about "one-upping" each other to see who has the most maps under which name. Besides, you got that off of VANK and VANK is a very questionable site (at one point that article states that no Sea of Japan maps existed before 1870 and then later on in the article it contradicts itself and says that Sea of Japan was used by Europe from the beginning of the 19th century and even cites a map made by the chinse hundreds of years before).

One more thing, you still can't use a study that is undated and unverifiable. If you want to make major changes to an article, discuss it on the talk page first and get some sort of agreement. Masterhatch 15:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

i added korea's info to balance out the existing japan pov bias. the two points you mention are in the arguments section, presenting each side's arguments, & i got them from korea's momaf's site (vank may or may not have cut & paste on their own site, i didn't look). feel free to add arguments from japan's site in the arguments section. Appleby 15:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

i do have a full time job, i was just gonna fix the most egregious biased language, would've let stand a lot of content that i personally thought were a little slanted. but hey, you wanna be thorough, let's be thorough. don't tell me i can't add an example to korea's argument when two whole subsections are devoted only to japan's pov. we've been through "verifiability" before, it's the position that is verifiable, i actually agree that the parties positions don't need to be repeated in the history section, they aren't historic developments, so i moved the counting to arguments section which is what they are. Appleby 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of Appleby's POV edits:

  • The use of the word many in the sentence "Many international and media organizations use the names Sea of Japan and East Sea together." Many is a very POV word when not backed up by citation.
  • Using the word show in a Korean study, while using the word claim in a Japanse study.
  • Adding undated or unverifiable entries.
  • Mixing the history of dispute with a list of adoption of a specific name by some companies.

Compared to the above edits you made, the last version by Masterhatch is much closer to NPOV. --Tkh 00:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


  • "many international and media organizations": the times, financial times, encyclopedia britannica, rand mcnally, national geographic, columbia encyclopedia, etc were listed in previous version, until you deleted them.
  • "show"/"claim": changed both to claim
  • "undated/unverifiable entries": link to current primary source was in previous version, until you deleted it.
  • "mixing history with list": history section should include significant developments in the dispute. a change of naming by many reputable international reference publishers is certainly a significant development in the dispute over the name.

next time, explain reverts of other npov facts & grammatical fixes Appleby 00:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

i changed "many international and media organizations" back to "some," although, obviously, i don't think "many" is incorrect or misleading, considering the long list of famous, extremely credible publications, as well as less famous but independent publications i did not mention. any other suggestions? Appleby 00:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the dispute is really about the international name, not the English name. yes true, the Koreans are disputing the English name too, but it is the International name that they want changed (which happens to be the English one).
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with "...govermnent insist..." If you call changing it to "insists" fixing grammar, then maybe you shouldn't be fixing grammar.
thirdly, this (have so far accepted their claims, but left the issue open to discussion.) is shorter, cleaner, and more to the point. Your version brings the argumens into the introduction. That isn't necessary (basically you are repeating yourself later on and that is called redundancy and nonencyclopaedic)
Fourthy, switching the order around (Korea first Japan second)is a POV edit because it was orginially written alphabetically to keep NPOV.
Fifthly, there is nothing wrong with putting the period outside the quotation when the quotation isn't someone speaking. It is actually considered by many to be better to put the peroid outside the quote (as long as the quote isn't someone speaking). That is not a grammar issue. If you think that is a grammar issue, then you shouldn't be editing for grammar.
sixthly, the IHB adopted the name and used it.
seventhly, you cannot compare apples and oranges. The naming history of the North Sea is completely different that than of the East Sea/Sea of Japan. Besides, you can't add an example in Korea's favour withouth adding an example in Japan's favour. Also, you example has no relevance.
eighthly, how can you say that publishing companies adding East Sea after Sea of Japan is part of the history? If anything, studies of old maps is more relevant than modern map makers adding East Sea after Sea of Japan in a history section. It is only fair that if you want to take out the old maps, then the publishers come out too. Why? because using your logic to remove the maps in the first place, neither the maps nor the publishers have any bearing on the history. The history section is about just that, the history of the official developments of the naming process. The only thing that is still in the history section that should'nt be there is the VANK mentioning. I don't feel it belongs in the history section, but I don't see anywhere else for it to go.
ninthly, you STILL can't use an undated and unverified study!!! Honestly, what are you thinking? If you really want to use that study, contact the people who did the study and ask them to add the information to their site. Then we'd be happy to include that study on this article. Why? because then, and only then, it will be a dated and verified study.
tenthly, as more evidence of your POV slant, you removed "de fact", which it was already proven to you that it was de facto. You call it Japanese POV to use de facto, i call it fact (as proven in the previous discussion). Masterhatch 02:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

1. so we can agree on the more accurate "international"?

I don't know why you changed it away from international in the first place. Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i didn't, it was "english" when i got here. but the intro should reflect: in summarizing japan's pov, clarify that "de facto" is japan's position (i.e., not agreed to by korea or confirmed by reference publication). in summarizing korea's position, clarify that korea wants "east sea" not only because it was under japanese colonial rule when iho standardized, but as a separate but important point, it claims "east sea" & "sea of korea" were historically more prevalent Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
My bad. In all the reverting, I got mixed up and didn't realise it was English when it should have been international. Anyways, it is fixed now. Masterhatch 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

2. in american english, "government insists" is far more prevalent, & i dare say more standard, although i don't know about british or canadian usage. if it's ok with wiki policy, i'm ok with it, although it sounds odd, & it certainly isn't a pov edit.

Basically, Wikipedia has a policy about American and British grammar and spelling. To sum it up, use the original author's usage (in most cases).Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

3. your suggestion is shorter, mine is more complete, mine is not more pov than yours, but i can compromise on this one. "neither ... have accepted their claims" is technically correct but a bit misleading, can you think of a briefer way to convey that un & iho did not reject the claims on the merits either. below that, i don't see "political correctness" being relevant, unless a reference work has characterized the changes this way.Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

4. alphabetically may sound neutral if there are many parties, but when there are just 2, it means always putting japan first, which is not exactly npov. more fair would be alternating, or at least making sure it's evenly spread out.

I'd be willing to use an "alternating" method of some sort. Let's work on this together.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

5. in standard american english, the period & comma generally goes inside quotes, although that's not the case in british english. if wikipedia is using standard british usage, my bad.

See number 2Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

6. i can't find a non-party description, much less the primary source, of what exactly iho did. if you can, please let me know. it is undisputed that iho "used" the name, but "adoption" implies a deliberation on the merits, which apparently didn't happen. again, i think "use" is more neutral, but this is a relatively minor point i can compromise on.

After work tonight, I will look into this and see what I can dig up. Since original author used adopted (by the way, the original author was an East Sea supporter), let's keep status quo on this until more information is dug up. Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
i can live with registered/adopted. & once again, let's not use "de facto" as a flat statement, since there's no indication korea agrees. "widely used" is fine. (let's not get sidetracked by vank's sloppy, self-conflicting, poorly translated paste-up job, they neither represent the official korean position nor a citable authority)Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

7. it is korea's argument, from its momaf site, therefore appropriate in the arguments section. note that another section in the arguments section includes example's of japan's argument without counterexamples of korea's argument. i'll agree to include or delete both.

If this were reworded so that it was clear that it is the Korean's POV, then I am sure that this part could be worked into the article. As it is, it sounds like fact. The naming of North Sea and East Sea are completely different. For example, there is nothing notable north of the North Sea except ice. To the east of the East Sea is Japan and Japan's impact on world history is much greater than Koreas.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
go ahead & clarify it is korea's argument. i don't think it's "completely different," it is pretty much directly south of the scandinavian countries & smack east of the uk, but still called north sea. Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I did some thinking about this and this point has no relevant point in this article. If we mention the North Sea, why not mention all the geographical places named after a direction? Then, what is to stop someone from naming listing all the geographical places named after a country? (Such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Indian Ocean.) This line of argument is a POV line of argument and doesn't fit in an encyclopeadia. Besides, I think it is Korean nationals who are using this arguement and not the Korean government. I could be wrong though. Masterhatch 15:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

8. it is the history of the dispute, not the history of mapmaking. in the development of the dispute, if one party manages to change the position of reputable independent publishers, that's basically the point of the dispute, a material development in the character of the dispute itself. if you want a separate section listing all publishers who have changed policies in response to the dispute, i'll agree, but that doesn't change the fact that national geographic & rand mcnally's decisions were significant development in the course of the dispute.

yes, some major publishers have changed the way they name that body of water, but adding East Sea after Sea of Japan is minor compared to official rulings and changes by goverment parties (such as the UN and IHO). Also, these publishers are merely reflecting the fact that there is a dispute by adding East Sea after Sea of Japan. It might be a bit different if many publishers were putting East Sea before Sea of Japan. But they aren't. Having a separate section for what publishers are doing makes sense. by the way, I still don't know what to do with that VANK mentioning. It seems out of place where it is, but I feel that it does need to me mentioned somewhere in the article.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
how about moving vank to the arguments section? also, major publisher's RECOGNITION of the dispute as legitimate is itself the big news, since "sea of japan" as been de facto (at least) since 1919. i don't think korea would care what iho did if most private publishers actually used "east sea" on the maps people use, national geographic's change is not "minor." if map publishers used "east sea" first & "sea of japan" parenthetically, that would pretty much mean korea won & the dispute is over, & if no major publisher had even parenthetically used "east sea," there wouldn't be a recognized dispute. recognitions are historic developments of the dispute itself. i can agree to a separate section just listing the other major publications i named, but i at least national geographic & rand mcnally should be mentioned in the history of the dispute.Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I did some thinking on this one. If one looks at the history of the dispute on this article, one can't help but notice that the first six or seven references are pointing to Official goverments or official government bodies. then, the way yours reads, you hit private publications which is then followed by more government stuff. Private companies can use whatever name they want, but until the UN (and related bodies) make a ruling that is significant, the dispute won't be resolved. You said that if map publishers used East Sea first, then Korea pretty much won. No they haven't. The name will still officially be Sea of Japan. If Korea thinks because private companies use East Sea first is a victory, then that seems like a childish game of one-upping Japan. Anyways, my point is name changes in private publications are just that, name changes in private publications and they can change their mind in a whim with no reason or rhyme. yes, private publications have influence (art imitates life and life imitates art), but they are not the final word. There are, the way i see it, only two ways to solve this part of the dispute amongst wikipedians. One: put the maps and the publications back into the history like it was before. Two: keep them both out and in their own separate sections. I honestly think that this is the least POV and the way that makes the most sense.Masterhatch 15:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

9. it is verifiably the position of the korean government. i will not refer to it as a study or even a "publication" if you'd like. again, this article is not stating x of y maps are z, which is a statement that would need a credible independent source. instead, this article is about the dispute, in large part, of which name was historically prevalent, so that each side's claim of "x of y maps are z" needs to be presented as a part of describing the dispute in a npov manner.

all the other sources are dated and verifiable, except this one. There are already korean links pointing to Korea's postition. Your link does not fit where you keep putting it. You keep putting it in a list of verifiable, dated studies.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
well where do you suggest it fits? it is the (most) current count by one party, where the count is the major point of the dispute, so it's gotta be mentioned somewhere. Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Even if i wanted this study in the article, other wikipedians will keep removing it based on "no date" and "unverifiable". I can't speak for anyone except myself. I dont' represent the "sea of Japan" supporters and i don't represent the "East Sea" supporters.Masterhatch 15:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

10. your version stated "de facto" in intro & in iho paragraph. i asked for a cite to a reference work or korea's agreement. you pointed to vank, which we both agree is not a credible source. in the spirit of compromise, i agreed to accept this in light of what i thought were your acceptance of my position on the korean study. i reverted the compromise when i saw it was not a compromise.

I pointed to VANK not as a reputable source, but to show you that even the most hard nosed East Sea supporters agree that it was the most commonly used name prior to 1919.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
as mentioned above, neither korea nor a reference work uses "de facto," which is definitely different from majority, so "de facto" should only be used when clearly identified as japan's position.Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the rewording I did. Any better?Masterhatch 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

i truly don't think my edits are pov edits & i think there are some serious points that we may not easily agree on, but i do believe you (masterhatch) are acting, generally, in good faith, & we can work something out. i was reacting to what i thought was the end of the compromises (re 10 above) being reverted, & tkh & y's edits, but that may have just been a misunderstanding. Appleby 03:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, i would love to work things out. I am willing to work for compromise, but as I have told you, little to no compromise happens during a revert war. All compromise happens when the revert war stops and things are hammered out on the talk page.Masterhatch 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

additional information that seems to me objectively significant enough to include: in the history section, 1977 uncsgn resolution is at least as relevant as iho in the development of the dispute. in arguments|historical reasons, it should be mentioned, however briefly, that some of japan's own maps, up to 1870, used "sea of chosen." do you object to "under japanese colonial rule" instead of "part of japan"?

That 1977 resolution is now added. And yes, "under Japanese colonial rule" is better.Masterhatch 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure of the point of the reference to russo-japanese war (since the point of japanese imperialism has already been made), & that "east sea" is mere translation of local korean name. maybe clarify or delete.

the russo Japanese war mentioning is now gone.

reviewing the above, i dare say again, that my edits were no more pov than the existing version. to try to prevent tkh & yp's reverts, however, it would be best if you could implement what we do agree on so far. let's get the agreed parts over & done with. i won't edit yours until tomorrow, if you'll let my edit stay for a day & we take turns for 24 hrs each, while we discuss here. i reserve the right to reverse unexplained wholesale reverts of my edits by other people, however.Appleby 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Writing NPOV is very difficult especially when one has a stong natural bias towards a topic. It takes time and practice and acceptance of facts that at one point in time one was taught the opposite. Looking at a topic from the other side of the coin can be very difficult sometimes. Masterhatch 17:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

ok i think we did the easy stuff, i kept all of your changes that i had no problems with, the remainder we'll work out. many should be relatively easy, although one or two issues, i dunno how we'll come to a resolution. i assume that with each alternating edits, there will be fewer changes, especially with the cooling off period in between. i have refrained from editing for over 24 hrs, & am sure you'll extend me the same courtesy so we both have time to think things over. right now, there are too many differences to discuss in detail all at once, even though many of them are minor & resolvable. after your next edit, i'll have a better sense of which you feel strongly aboutAppleby 06:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

neither the un nor iho: ok, tried different wording to clarify that they did not deliberate on nor reject korea's position.Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

although korea suggests both: why delete? it's certainly true, & a necessary qualifier to the statement that neither is willing to compromise. if this qualifier is deleted, the statement itself needs to be changed or deleted, as it is false. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

usc maps: i don't think this belongs in the argument section, since it's the action of a university, not a party or advocacy group. but i can accept it being moved out of the history section. this is tied to the larger issue of logical organization of the article. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • april 23, 2004 un affirmed: i don't know why you consider this a pov edit, i thought i was making the sentence clearer. do you really think we need to use "the body of water encircled by Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and Russia" this far in the article, and below that, do you really think the phrase "take a different point of view" is serving some purpose in that sentence context, or are you just reverting for the sake of reverting? Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the sentences flow better and sound less choppy with those added in. No, those aren't POV edits or reverting for the sake of reverting. I just liked the way it sounded better. I liked the flow of it. Anyways, those parts don't really matter, I don't think anyway. Masterhatch 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • response by media & publishers: this section logically doesn't belong as a subsection under arguments. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right. It doesn't. Masterhatch 17:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • map reports wording:let's try to avoid unconditional conclusory language like "show" or "actually." these are studies conducted by the interested parties, not authoritative references or academic journals. Appleby 05:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
It's funny how you left "show" in for the Korean studies but changed it to "claim" for the Japanese ones.Masterhatch
sorry, forgot i did that during the revert war when someone insisted on "show" for the japanese reports. note i also had left "finds" & "states" & even plain statement of japan's conclusion as fact in the japanese report summaries. Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

issues remaining

at the time defacto/widely used

once again, no third party describes the situation as "de facto" nor does korea, so let's use a less conclusive word that still conveys japan's point.this paragraph is not about japan's pov. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

by definition of de facto, it was the de facto before 1919. I have looked and I was unable to find any maps that used East Sea from 1905 to 1919 (actually I couldn't find any for the 1900s). That is at least 14 years with no reputable publishers (that I have found) that use East Sea or any name other than Sea of Japan. That sure sounds like de facto before 1919. Anyways, as per the definition of de facto, a government or other official body doesn't have to state "de facto" in order for something to be de facto. The sheer lack of East Sea maps 20 years or so prior to 1919 make a convincing argument for de facto. One more thing, "widely used" is misleading becauase it was more than "just" widely used. It was almost exclusively used, which means de facto. Masterhatch 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
of course i'm not saying a gov't or official finding is required, i'm saying someone other than the arguing party should be citable for saying something as definitive as "de facto" (which, as you point out, is roughly synonymous with "actual"). while i personally agree that "sea of japan" must've been pretty dominant by 1919, you & i are not in a position to do independent research to conclude what was de facto at the time. obviously, korea did not focus on maps made closer to 1919, because at least a majority used "sea of japan" by that time. just from what we know, it is possible (though very unlikely) that something like 40% of the maps most widely used as of 1919 used east sea/south korea. it is a still somewhat unlikely, but plausible that it may be 30% or 25%. the point is, we don't know have the sources to conclude "de facto." again, i agree it's apparently a dominant majority, but "de facto" doesn't mean majority or even most, it means "actual"--too conclusory without a non-party citation. Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Changed. Masterhatch 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
i think we're close Appleby 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Please find me one use of East Sea on an international map between 1905 and 1919. I can't seem to find one. Maybe I am looking in all the wrong places. Masterhatch 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

have you looked at every 1905-1919 map at the british library, library of congress, moscow university, beijing university, & the city college of springfield? neither have i. as far as i can tell, none of the reports, not even japan's, studied maps published after 1900, much less studied the actual usage in 1919. the truly npov thing to do is to either identify it as japan's claim, or take the whole sentence out. i was trying to compromise & agree to a reasonable inference, but maybe we shouldn't. Appleby 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course I haven't looked in all those places. But let's leave something up to common sense, shall we? Honestly, from 1905 to 1919, who would have made an East Sea map? Well, not Japan as they made their last one in 1870. Dito For China. Russia also stopped making East Sea maps shortly before 1870. by the end of the 1800s, Europeans and Americans were also only using Sea of Japan. Since, at the time of the 1800s, the European community was the international community (they owned almost the entire planet), the international community wasn't using East Sea either. So, by the time 1905 rolled around, there weren't any notable countries or publishers still using East Sea. In fact, I don't know of any that were using East Sea, notable or not. As for Korea, since the Japanese took control of Korea in 1905, Korea wouldn't have been making any international maps either. Japan would have been making the maps for Korea. So, since no one was making East Sea maps during that time period, it pretty much became de facto (as per the definition of de fact). One can only surmise that the reason why all the old map studies are done prior to the rise of Japanese imperialism is because after the rise of Japanese imperialism, East Sea just doesn't exist. You talk about compromise, I felt it was a huge compromise to remove the word "de facto". I did it because I wanted to end this silly edit war, not because I thought it was a POV edit. It is a factual (based on the definition of de facto) statement, not a POV one.Masterhatch 17:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

i, too, want to end this silly edit war, as delightfully entertaining as our discourse has been. it seems like you're assuming and extrapolating, always in one direction, from a couple shaky sources, words that could also reasonably be summarized differently. but we're so close on this issue, let's move on. Appleby 23:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC) i moved this item back down to "issues remaining," because i changed the phrase after that to indicate the context, & wasn't sure if you'd consider that a pov edit. Appleby 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't move the discussions around. It makes it annoying trying to figure out what the changes are. I am too busy with other stuff to spend half an hour trying to figure out what is different. Since you and I are the only ones discussing this, we can leave the dicussions where they are. Very shortly (within the next day or two) I will archive this page and leave only the current issues (hopefully when I archive this page, there won't be any current issues as everything will have been solved) on the page. As for this issue, I think we can close the books on it.Masterhatch 16:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

rand mcnally & national geographic

again, these are historic developments that legitimized & changed the nature of the dispute, so they belong in the chronology. after all, if it weren't for these two developments, there probably wouldn't be a "recognized dispute" today, & no wikipedia page about the dispute. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to remove one sides arguement from the history and leave the other side's in.Masterhatch 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
it's not korea's argument, it's the action of independent reference publishers that affected the course of the dispute. it is no more korea's pov than the iho entries are japan's pov. & the ARTICLE needs to be npov; specific edits will obviously be pov to counter or remove existing pov. Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It is your opinion that a few private publishers adding east sea after sea of japan is a major historical event in the time line. My opinion says that a list of verified maps from before the rise of Japanese imperialism is more important. But I realise that it is only my opinion that thinks this (and yours that thinks yours), so, i feel the best way to solve this part in a NPOV way is to either lump them all back together or separate them all. Personally, I like separating them out better than lumping them all in.Masterhatch 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
occurring in the 90's, it's the actions of these two publishers that really gave the dispute legitimacy & continuing life, prompting some others to follow. it's historically significant, since without the first couple major publishers, this whole thing wouldn't even merit a mention in wikipedia, imho. the duelling reports didn't really change the course of the dispute, although a large independent study would. but, i'm willing to consider moving this out of of history if we can resolve everything else.Appleby 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The nationalistic pride is strong enough in Korea that they don't need a foreign publisher to add East Sea behind Sea of Japan to kick start Korea's desire for name change. If you hadn't noticed, five years prior to Rand Mc. making an adjustment on their maps, the Korean government removed Sea of Japan off of its nautical maps. so, in my humble opinion, it's not historically significant as Korea would probably be pushing for name change even if no publisher added "East Sea". In my opinion, Old maps confirming the validity of the name is more important in a history. But like I said, that is my opinion. You have your opinion, and I have my opinion. I am not going to try and convince you that your opinion is wrong and I am not going to try and convince you my opinion is right. I just want you to see that they are both opinions and the only way to keep NPOV is to either lump 'em together or separate 'em out. Besides, you are now splitting the private publishers in half. that is pointless (in my opinion). Also, I didn't know we were horse trading. It's either POV to leave one side in and the other out or it isn't. Masterhatch 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

i agree that it's awkward to split the publishers in half, i think actions by major independent parties belong in the history section (no matter what a party claims or does, it's not a recognized dispute until an independent party recognizes it), and duelling tallies by the disputing parties belong in the arguments section.

but i thought we are trying to find a middle ground, so that you may feel this word leans one way & i may feel that phrasing leans the other way, but neither of us feels the article as a whole is unacceptably biased. i'm willing to (& already have) let stand somethings that i feel are a little biased, if we can solve something that i feel is very biased. & i'm sure you're doing the same thing, otherwise this discussion is meaningless. Appleby 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, our opinions vary greatly. There are people who will agree with me and there are people who will agree with you. But I don't want this article to become a "who's right and who's wrong" article, so I will not denounce your opinion and I don't expect you to denounce my opinion. What I do expect, though, is that you realise it is POV to leave one side's argument in the history while taking the other side's out. The only way to get NPOV on this is to either separate them both out or lump them both in. Masterhatch 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
i absolutely agree it is pov to leave one side's argument while taking the other side's out. but what arguments are you talking about? are you calling actions of independent parties "one side's argument"? one side's own "study" supporting its position is an argument. an independent authority reacting to the dispute, sourced to that independent authority, is not an "argument" in any universe i'm familiar with. if an independent authority's actions are arguments, then iho's adoption of "sea of japan" is obviously an argument & has to be taken out of the "history" section. would that be your opinion? Appleby 20:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
My references were mainly directed towards when someone (who I don't remember) called the changing of the name by some reputable publishers as Korea's strongest argument. While, in my opinion, the historical maps are Japan's strongest argument. Anyways, that is moot point as I was trying to simplify things in my own head. Personally, while I don't consider the recent publishers adding East Sea to their maps on par with historical maps showing the dominance of one name over the other, i have decided that the only way around this issue (as our thoughts are totally opposite) is to lump 'em all together. You consider recent changes to publications to be historically more important than lists of old maps and I see just the opposite. Any East Sea supporter would feel the same way as you (obviously as map lists don't support Korea's claim), and Sea of Japan supporters would feel the same way as me (Old map lists show the historical significance of the name Sea of Japan). So, these points become POV to each side. Lumping them all together takes away that POV. Anyways, done. Lumped together and I hope that it is now three down one to go. Masterhatch 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
first, there's a difference between a party's argument that is disputed by the other party's argument, and an objective third-party development that strengthens a party's position. iho's standardization is an independent development that strengthen's japan's position, rm/ng's recognitions are developments that strengthen's korea's position, but neither are "arguments". both should be treated as historical developments because they are historical developments, not because they are one side's pov. if the iho development happened, but rm/ng didn't, that's too bad for korea, you wouldn't call the iho development japan's argument or japan pov, would you?
i think what you're trying to say is you just don't like the fact that an independent development that strengthens korea's position appears in the first part of the article, when japan's map argument that appears stronger than korea's map argument comes later in the article. that seems a little silly to me [to me, the biggest fact in japan's favor is that the iho actually standardized "sea of japan," already the first item in history at the top of the article, but i don't consider that japan's pov], but if you want, we can move the entire arguments section (with map tallies) to the top, & the timeline (with iho activities & independent publisher developments) after arguments. Appleby 15:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
You definately don't understand me. I am not a Sea of Japan supporter and I am not an East Sea supporter. My objective is to keep this article from sounding like a VANK site and to keep this article from being filled up with Korean (or even Japanese) propaganda. I don't care about the order in which things come as long as it is factual based and logical. I think right now the order of everything seems fairly logical. Call me a fence sitter, but I like to try my best to see things from both sides. From the fence that I sit on in this dispute, I have seen East Sea supporters try and push their beliefs on this page (and other Wiki pages) with the suborness of national pride behind their efforts. Honestly, I see more POV edits allround by Koreans than I do by Japanese (or any other group) and I think the problem boils down to the fact that Koreans don't like the idea that their arch-rival, the Japanese, have had the upper hand throughout most of history. Koreans are being mislead by their own media and government and when they encounter pages like wikipedia that don't agree with what they have been taught, they get into an uproar and can't believe that they have been fed misinformation by their own media and government. From the outside, it appears that I am a Sea of Japan supporter, but that is only because in most cases, Sea of Japan supporters are actually right. Masterhatch 17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

some of japan's own maps using sea of chosen up to 1870

it's certainly relevant, don't you think? not sure about placement of the sentence, & i'd agree to analogous counterexamples by japan, but i think it's a significant & relevant point. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You mention 3 maps made by the Japanese that use "Sea of Chosen" (notice that that is not East Sea). I am curious...Was that three maps out of 10 published? three out of 100? three out of 10,000? Your wording is ambiguous and leaves readers (like me) scratching their head. I don't expect an exact number (that would be impossible) but I am just curious as to roughly the number. It is probably a very small number and probably very insignificant.Masterhatch 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
this is a separate argument than historical prevalence in international maps argument. korea isn't pointing to these maps to show prevalence of "sea of korea" on international maps, but to show that even some japanese map used "sea of korea" as late as 1870. it's somewhat analogous to some korean-produced maps using "sea of japan" in english before 1995, a party using "sea of (other party)." that weakens korea's position, just like the 1870 map weakens japan's position. if you want a citation of this sentence & percentages, you should also demand a citation & percentage of pre-1995 korean-produced english maps that used "sea of japan." (what's the source for that, btw?) or take both out. Appleby 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me on this. I wasn't asking for sources. It was merely a curiousity thing and I wasn't asking you to prove that Japan used Sea of Korea maps. I was pointing out (I guess I should have been clearer) that the wording was ambiguous and left the reader wondering too much. Also, I was going to type this last night before I went to bed, but I was too tired. Since this article is about the history of the dispute of the international name (which happens to be the English name), what relevance does listing 3 or 4 Japanese maps that use Sea of Korea have? This entire article is about the development of the name in the international community, not a "who's right" or "who's wrong" article. Honestly, I don't care which name is "right" or "wrong" I just want to keep this article from being a pissing match. Masterhatch
i agree both items are sorta peripheral. korea's use of "sea of japan" sorta weakens its position cuz it sorta acknowledges that that's the international standard. it is true that it is the standard english name, so it's not contradictory to their position that the standard should be changed, & the issue is the international name, not what korea's maps call it. but it still vaguely strengthens the sense of "sea of japan" being standard. the 1870 map by japan works sorta similarly, in reverse. in fact, both are weak & tangential points. again, i'll accept both being included or both being taken out. if you to change the wording, we should clarify the language of both. that 1995 korea entry's wording also left me wondering (ALL korean govt's maps from 1919(?) to 1995, in every branch, at every level?) & i couldn't find anything like it from googling (except for wikipedia mirrors). Appleby 16:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC) also, it just occurred to me, if we leave both in, both should probably be in arguments. the japan map thing is from korea's site, so i'm good with it being in arguments. where is the korean map thing from? Appleby 16:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, If you look at the wording, it says that it was Korea's nautical charts that were changed. It says nothing about other maps in Korea (such as atlases and globes). Using common sense, I am willing to bet that from 1905 onward to atleast 1948, Sea of Japan was used on Korean documents in Korea. After that is iffy, but since it wasn't until 1995 that Korea changed it from Sea of Japan to East Sea, I am also willing to bet that on Korean maps from 1948 to 1995 all said Sea of Japan. Korea wouldn't have changed it from Sea of Japan to East Sea and then back to Sea of Japan again to finally changing it to East Sea in 1995. That seems silly. So, again, common sense prevailing, I am willing to bet that all (or at least most) nautical charts in Korea used Sea of Japan from 1905 (when the Japanese conquered Korea) to 1995 when Korea replaced Sea of Japan with East Sea. That's 90 years. Anyways, comparing the Japanese use of a handful of maps that said "Sea of Korea" to the Korean government using Sea of Japan on all (most?) nautical charts for 90(?) years is like comparing apples and oranges. It just doesn't compare. It makes no sense to compare them and honestly, I am surprised that you did. the sentence about Korea removing Sea of Japan form its nautical charts is probably one of the most important events in the dispute. It showed that Korea was stepping away from the international standard and entering into a league of its own. It is far more important than private publishers putting East Sea after Sea of Japan. You as an East Sea supporter should recognise the importance of this event. It was a major turing point in the dispute of the name. If Korea had continued to use Sea of Japan in its nautical charts, no one would have taken Korea's claim seriously, especially not private publishers. Masterhatch 17:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
your convictions as a sea of japan supporter are one thing, npov entry in wikipedia is another. apparently the only source for the 1995 entry is the japanese coast guard [11] (please correct me if you find an independent source, i've really tried). now that we know, it would be npov to move this to the arguments section, not history. but i'm willing to bet you don't agree.
i wouldn't bet that japan had all of korea's official maps & nautical charts redrawn the first year of colonization. i'd bet there are quite a few "nautical charts" in the korean bureaucracy, & not all of them were made consistent with official policy immediately. whether private publisher maps or gov't maps, using a certain name implies recognition that such a name is the standard, recognizable name. in korea's case, it happened to be true, korea acknowledges that "sea of japan" is the iho standard name, which is why it is trying to change the standard. some of its english maps may have use the actual standard english name instead of the proposed name, but so what? in japan's case, japan is claiming "sea of japan" was the de facto standard in the early 19th century, yet, some late 19th century japanese maps use "sea of korea." if the former is so important that it is mentioned as history, why are you opposed to the latter being even presented as korea's argument? Appleby 22:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me a little. I don't consider myself a Sea of Japan supporter or East Sea supporter. I do, though, consider myself a NPOV suppoter and I also consider myself very anti propaganda. Living in Korea, I see the propaganda (of all shapes and sizes) spewed out all the time and while that is fine for Korea and Koreans, I don't want to see their false propaganda spread outside of Korea. Wikipedia is outside of Korea (technically speaking anyway) and I guess I feel it is my "duty" to keep Wiki Korean propaganda free. I mean, for example, a poster by the name of Wikimachine was so wound up by the Korean propaganda that he actually believed that there we no maps that used "Sea of Japan" prior to 1870. I hear garbage like that every day here in Korea, from Korean TV and from my very own students. Of course, I don't talk politics with my students or Korean friends here as that would be rude and while I am in Korea, I respect their culture. I even call it "East Sea" when talking to friends of mine here. I honestly don't remember the last time i spoke the words "Sea of Japan" out loud. As for the Japanese maps that show "Sea of Korea", I still don't think that they have any relevance on this article. But also, it doesn't really do any harm. So, let's call this issue resolved. Two down, two to go. Masterhatch 17:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

latest tally of maps by korea

if we're going to include either party's tally of maps, there's no doubt in my mind one side's latest tally has to be included. i think this will be the toughest issue for you & i to agree on. Appleby 04:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we know it is the latest? There is no date or map list.Masterhatch 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
because it includes 2003 info. Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The website includes 2003 info, but that still doesn't tell us when the study took place. Masterhatch 16:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
it looks like the text was composed in 2003 or later, including a new table combining previous studies, since the libraries previously researched are included in the source list. i'm trying to be flexible with wording & placement, but the tally, as korea's official current pov, must be included to make the article balanced. Appleby 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
It probably is the latest map study done by Korea. Too bad they were either sloppy in documenting their research or publishing their research. They probably did a bang up good job in doing the research, but when it came time to publishing it, they forgot lots of things. Too many things for it to be a source, like the date (even the year would be nice!!!) and a verifiable map list. Who knows, maybe they did a piss-poor job at research and just based the new study off of mixing and matching of old studies. Honestly, we just don't know what they did and without a date and a verifiable map list, it just can't be used at as a source. As for balancing the article, it isn't my fault, nor the Japanese fault, nor your fault, nor anyone's fault except the Korean's for an improperly documented study. If they had properly documented that study, it would be on this article right now and this entire edit war probably wouldn't have taken place. Like I said before, at the bottom of the article, they have contact information. So, I am sure that if they were contacted, they would be happy to cooperate and add the requested information to the website. Masterhatch 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

let's say that i argue that the earth is flat & encyclopedia britannica recognized that the dispute is legitimate. on my website, i say i conducted a study finding that the earth is flat, & i include calculations & pictures in support. would the statement "the earth is flat" be verified? no, the only thing verified would be that "appleby claims the earth is flat." the wikipedia article about this recognized dispute would simply say "appleby claims the earth is flat" and link to my site. having a list of sources doesn't change the fact that you are only verifying the statement "appleby claims the earth is flat," you are NOT verifying that the earth is flat.

let's say my report is undated, & doesn't include the calculations and pictures. does that change the verifiability of the statement "appleby claims the earth is flat"? no, if it is a recognized legitimate dispute, & you're writing an article about it, you would still say "appleby claims the earth is flat" and cite my website.

the same is true of japan's statement "x of y are z" and korea's statement "a of b are c." the article should state that "japan claims x of y are z" and "korea claims a of b are c," regardless of whether the claim has a list of sources, because authoritative sources have deemed that korea & japan have a legitimate dispute. Appleby 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are trying to draw a comparison, but firstly, in order for any reputable encyclopaedia to recognise your statement that the earth is flat, they would require to see your studies and work and know the procedures (and dates) of your studies. If you said, "The Earth is flat! I took some pictures and did some calculations and I know the earth is flat!" and then said to E. Brit, I am disputing that the Earth is in fact not round, but it is actually flat. E. Brit would pass you off as a lunatic if you made a claim that you couldn't verify or even show the procedures involved in a study. E. Brit would ask, when did you do the study? If you answered, "Ummm, sometime after the last study, but not sure when." Brit then says, "ok, umm... do you have any of the pictures and calculations you used to make your conclusions?" You then respond, "Well, you see, I don't have those. But! i still dispute and i say the earth is round!" Brit then says, "Well, John Smith did some calculations and took pictures and he said that the Earth is round and he has all the pictures and dates and calculations for people to look over." E. Brit would not even take your case seriously if you went to them with that. Anyone can claim anything they want, but unless their claims are backed up with something other than "I said so", it isn't even worth a mention. On the other hand, let's say your friend (let's call him Joe Blogg) did a study just after you and he came to the conclusion that the earth was flat. But he was meticulous and he recorded everything and kept everything and presented it in a clear obvious fashion to E. Brit. E. Brit then glanced over Blogg's work and saw that he kept all the calculations and dates and pictures to prove his case. It doesn't matter if Blogg is right or wrong, it matters that he documented everything properly. So, E. Brit sees that Blogg did a good job at documenting his case and sees nothing wrong with his work and officially recognises it is a dispute and now everytime they mention the "Earth is round" in their books, they include "(flat)" so it looks like this: Earth is round (flat). Now, you, seeing your friend's work get accepted go back to Brit and say, hey, what about my study? Brit looks at your study and says, "where's all your documentation?" You respond, "Well, I don't have it. I...uhh...can't find it." Brit then would say, "Sorry, come back when you have the documentation." You protest, "But you accepted my friend Joe Blogg's work! Accept mine too! Mine agrees with Joe's that there is a dispute!" Brit calmly states, "sorry, anyone can make any claim they want, but unless they show their work, it won't be taken seriously." "But," you protest, "you have to accept my study becasue it confirms that there is a dispute!" E. Brit says, "We don't have to accept your study because it is unverifiable. Your friend did a good job and we can accept and use his source material for our book. Your study offers us nothing but a claim that could be made by anyone at any time. Thank you, have a good day and come back another time."
Sorry about a long winded reply, but to sum up, we don't need an unverifiable, undated study to verify a dispute that we already know exists, especially since there already is a verifiable dated study supporting your case.Masterhatch 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
there's a fundamental difference between wikipedia & the reference publishers (such as the times, eb, rand mcnally, encarta, financial times). the reference/media are in the business of fact-checking. wikipedia, however, is in the business of citing these reference works. eb, rm, & ft, citable reference & media publications, for whatever reason & following whatever fact-checking policy they follow that makes them citable reference works in the first place, have determined that the dispute is valid. wikipedia's role then is to state "a, b, & c publications have recognized the dispute between d & e. d's position is f (link to d's position). e's position is g (link to e's position g)." this is what wikipedia does. wikipedia does not evaluate the validity of f & g, or d's presentation of f on its website. the reference works have evaluated f & g, & determined the dispute is valid. wikipedia cites a, b, & c, and links to d's position f & e's position g.
please re-read my example above, there's a clear distinction between the role of a fact-checking publication (to establish that there is a legitimate dispute or decide one side is right) & the role of wikipedia (after a dispute is established, objectively describe the dispute and party's positions, without original research or original fact-checking).
once you realize this distinction, maybe you can understand also why eb & rand mcnally's recognition of the dispute is so important to the history of the dispute. reputable publications make or break the very existence of a dispute.
the following is lifted from wikipedia:verifiability. Appleby 19:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
"A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on physicist Stephen Hawking's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet Hawking, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he told you this in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?
"Suppose you were firmly convinced that this new information should be published in Wikipedia, and that to fail to do so would be intellectually dishonest. How would you go about getting it into Wikipedia? For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to contact a reputable news organization – The Times of London, for example – and explain to them what Hawking told you. You might have a tape recording of the conversation that you could let them hear; or perhaps they would interview you. Whatever they chose to do with the information, the story would go through a process similar to peer review before being published: it would be checked by a reporter, an editor, and perhaps by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. Hawking would have an opportunity to respond, as would his publisher, and other members of the academic community would be approached for comment. These checks and balances exist to ensure that only accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper. It is this process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the policy of no original research is an important one.
"If The Times published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry. However, if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Wikipedia even if you know it to be true."
There is also a fundamental difference between times, eb, rand mcnally, encarta, financial times and Korea's website. All of those publications are verifiable and won't put info into their publications unless it is verfiable, which makes them great sources for Wikipedia. The Korean website doesn't have the same checks and balances as those reputable publishers, which in a way makes that Korea site itself a non reputable site. You quoted wikiverifiability and I will use the same quote:
  • "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth"
Now, read it carefully. Notice it says "published by a reputable or credible publisher". Does a publisher who uses an undated and unverifiable study sound like a credible or reputable publisher? It doesn't to me. We don't know where that Korean study came from. did they mix and match other studies? did they actually do a study and "forget" to include the map lists and "forget" to mention when the study was done? Did they even do a study at all? We just don't know what they did. going back to that quote from Wikiverfiability, this: "threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" is mentioned. How loveley! Verifiablility, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. Well, that study isn't verifiable, so it doesn't meet the criteria to be included! I really hope that this is it and the edit war is over. I have to finish my NHL player lists before the new season starts and this has been taking too much time away from that. I really hope that this is four of four. Masterhatch 17:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
hope you're feeling well. i'm sure you'll feel even better once we move on from this quagmire, but i'm sorry to say, it'll have to be 3 for 4 today.
your response missed my point entirely, again, although i'm sure it's because you were ill and tired. you keep repeating the "report" is unverifiable, but i know you're smart enough to know the difference between the sentence "a of b are c" and the sentence "x claims a of b are c."
each of the following statements must be verifiable:
1. “there is a dispute between two parties” (verify, does a reputable publisher say this?)
2. “one party claims this position, because a of b are c” (verify, does the party claim such?)
3. “the other party claims that position, because x of y are z” (verify, does the party claim such?)
what is the subject that should be "published by a reputable or credible publisher"? that subject is statement 1, & that has been published by more than one reputable and credible publisher. so we're done with reputable and credible. it has been established that the dispute exists. we've met the threshold of verifiability for 1.
we are now talking about 2 & 3, which are verified with the primary source. neither is a reputable publisher, but both are verifiably the actual, primary sources of the positions comprising the dispute 1. we are including 2 & 3 to fully describe the dispute established by 1, not because 2 & 3 are reputable publishers themselves. the parties to a dispute don’t have to be reputable publishers themselves, that’s absurd. how many of the disputes discussed in wikipedia articles are disputes between reputable publishers as parties? we'd have world peace. obviously, if you take out 2 because it’s not a reputable publication, you must take out 3, but that would make a very short, uninformative article, consisting of only statement 1. if you wanna do that, let's do that, & leave only statement 1 in the article.
note again, NOWHERE in the article is the statement “a of b are c” stated as fact. IF it were, THEN you would need a reputable publisher to say “a of b are c.” it isn’t, so you don’t. repeat, you DON’T need the statement “a of b are c” to be verified by a reputable publisher, because the article doesn’t say “a of b are c.” the article says “one party claims a of b are c,” and this statement is verified by verifying that “one party claims a of b are c,” NOT by verifying that “a of b are c.”
even if one party (of a recognized dispute) had no citations, no maps, no date, & poor grammar, even if it simply said "a of b are c" & had nothing else on its website, as long as it is that party’s website, & as long as that website says “a of b are c,” the article would STILL say, verifiably, “one party claims a of b are c,” in order to describe the recognized dispute. the dispute has already passed the hard part, having been evaluated by the credibility/validity/fact-checking authorities, & they decided the dispute could not be resolved now but that there is a legitimate dispute, & we're now at the stage where we accurately describe what each party claims.
please, after a good night’s sleep, re-read my “flat earth” example carefully. please, unless you can point out a flaw in my reasoning, i simply cannot understand why you want to remove a verifiably accurate description of a disputing party's position in a recognized dispute, & we'll never get anywhere. Appleby 00:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Is a compromise finally on the way?

yes, I am feeling much better today. It felt great to jog again this morning. Anyways, re-reading the old discussion and looking at your most recent edits, I think a compromise is on its way.

But before I get to that, there are a few other things I need to mention. While, overall, your most recent clean-up of grammar and wording was good, there is something I am wondering about. You made changes to the USC report that I am wondering about. You changed "Eastern Sea" and "Oriental Sea" to "East Sea". What did you base that change on? Unlike what Korean propaganda claims, Oriental Sea and Eastern Sea do not mean East Sea (동해). So, I am just a little bit curious about that edit.

Also, there's a problem with the use of the word "neutral" in reference to East Sea. While we all know that Korea claims that East Sea (동해) is neutral (aka propaganda), anyone in their right mind knows otherwise. Oriental Sea is a neutral name; East Sea isn't. Anyways, my point here is, in the wording you used, it makes it sound as if East Sea is actually a neutral name when in reality, it is Korea (not fact) that calls East Sea "neutral". I am not going to change this part; I will leave that up to you to change in your next round of edits. Basically, make it clear that it is Korea who "thinks" East Sea is a neutral name.

Thirdly, I would hardly call "1870" late 19th century. You try so hard to write NPOV, but sentences like, "certain late 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 yochibunzu." Keep cropping up. 1855 and 1870 are definately not late 19th century. Honestly, your edits as a whole would be less scrutinised if those little POV shots were left out. I know you are an East Sea supporter and I can understand that (I live amongst 40 million of them), but please, try to leave your POV elsewhere when you come to Wikipedia. I get the strong impression that you keep trying to push the POV envelope to see how far you can go. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you do your best to make the first edit as NPOV as possible, then you will gain more respect and following edits will be less scrutinized.

Now that that is off my chest, we can move on to the final point: that damn Korean website. I think the intial (God, it's been so long I forget the initial problems) problem was that you kept putting it with the list of studies that were all verifiable. I see it is now out of that list of verifiable studies and since it is out of that list, I think we can move forward. Oh, by the way, your "flat Earth" model only works in this case if that Korean site is not in the same list as the verifiable studies. If that Korean site is mentioned off-hand, I think it can be worked into the article. Honestly, I wish Korea hadn't done such a piss poor job at publishing that study. Also, to get that study in it needs to be changed; as it sits now, it is still unacceptable. Since there is no verifiable map list to check, we can't list the sources it claims and make it sound official. That just doesn't make sense. We really don't know what Korea did with that study. Did they actually do an independant study or did they just take parts from other reports? We just don't know. So, until we know, that cite has to be downgraded somewhat on the article. I will actually leave the study in and won't edit it out (this time) to give you a chance to fix it so that it sounds less official. Masterhatch 17:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

i will reflect your latter 2 points, but i'm not sure i understand the relevant distinctions among "east" "eastern" & "oriental" [i know they are technically different, but distinct in a way that matters here] especially since many of these maps in various non-english european languages as used a century or centuries ago, & the tallying investigators may not have been very careful to distinguish, & then the tallying reports were probably first written in japanese/korean, then translated to english. i was just trying to simplify & be consistent throughout the article, let me know your thoughts. Appleby 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The the purpose of this article, I don't think it matters too much to destiguish between East, Eastern, Oriental, but we must keep in mind that they are not totally interchangable. I was just wondering the reason you changed it on that part of the article. I thought maybe you ran across new info or something.
As for that undated and unverfiable study, all it verifies is that Korea disputes the name.
no, if you click on the link, it verifies that "korea claims x of y maps are z," and the article says "korea claims x of y are z"Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you can click on it and it says Korea says this, but there's nothing to back up their claim about the maps. That site can't be used to verify a map list because the map list on that site is not verifiable (aka not there!!! as in doesn't exsist!!!). All that site can do is verify that Korea is disputing the name of that body of water. That's it.Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Without a map list or even a date of the study, that study can not be used to verify maps.
we are not verifying maps, because the article doesn't say maps are whatever. we're verifying that korea claims xyz, because that's what the article says. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right, we aren't vefifying maps. That is not our job. That is the job of publishers and every publisher except the Korean one mentioned in this article did that for us already. You keep presenting that map list as fact when in reality, it is just a claim that no other encyclopaedia would accept. Why wouldn't they accept those numbers? because, as you so kindly pointed out when quoting wikiverifiability, a source needs to be verifiable. That study isn't. All that can be verified is that Korea claims something, but we can't use Korea's numbers as fact because facts can be verified. If a change like "Korea's undated, unverifiable study says..." I am sure we could move forward, but you wouldn't be willing for that (I don't think anyway).Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
We don't know what Korea did to obtain that map list and a simple quick look at the map places Korea got the maps from (if they really did) tells you that they didn't do a very good job.
how does looking at a list of libraries show you they didn't do a very good job? it looks to me like the table is a compilation of several separate studies, about which neither you or i can say anything except that what's on korea's website is korea's position. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right and it does look like a compilation of several separate studies: aka not a new study. But that is just what it looks like. But we will never know exactly what it is because they "forgot" to include the date and map list. Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
how come Japan in an earlier (well, I assume early but there is no date on that korean study) found over 1400 maps in one location and Korea found less than that from several locations, with one of the locations korea mentions being the same place Japan found 1400 maps.
maybe because japan counted duplicates, reproductions, and derivative maps (if you've ever looked at a collection of old maps, very small percentage of maps are source maps, others are based on one or more other maps, others are identical copies with different claimed authors, etc.), or editions or print runs of the same maps, or separate pages in an atlas or book of maps, or looked at the asian collection while korea looked at the east asia collections & neither looked at all the world maps yet, or looked at different combination of reserve collections, stacks, circulating maps, who knows? do you know, or are you just personally biased? Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right, I don't know, but at least that Japanese study includes a map list and a date so that it can be checked. Too bad I can't say the same for that Korean one.Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
That alone tells the reader that something is wrong.
exactly, until there is a citable reference publication that determines what the count is, the reader can make up their own minds. that's not for you to do in writing this article. keep your personal editorial judgment out. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It isn't my personal editorial judgments. It is wikipolicy to use verifiable info. Besides, if you want the reader to make up their own mind, don't put bias into their head by claiming that study as verifiable (what I mean by this is make it look like that Korea study is equal to the other verifiable studies); put a discliamer or something noting that the study is not dated and not verifiable.Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyways, my point is, without a map list of sorts, it is impossible to know what Korea did and since the Japanese report easily refutes it, it makes that Korea report even more suspect.
again, it's not for you do judge which side refutes another, if we only have the two sides & no citable reference authority. why draw the line at a list of maps? why isn't a list identifying the collections at named universities enough? on the other hand, why didn't japan attach copies of the actual maps? i could make that the cut-off for inclusion & delete all studies without copies of maps attached available on the website. but we don't because the cut-off for inclusion isn't a certain level of attached documentation, but just the verifiable fact that the party is actually making the claim that x of y are z. if the party's own website states "x of y are z," we have verified a party's position in a dispute that has been recognized as legitimate, & our job ends. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Look, there is no verifiable map list and no date so you can't use the maps it mentions to support Korea's case in regards to the maps.
i'm not using it to support korea's case, i'm including korea's tallies because the article includes japan's tallies, & each of the tallies are verifiably accurate statements of each party's tallies. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
But you can use it to verify the fact that there is a dispute. But that seems redundant as other Korea references are used to verify that there is a dispute.
it's unnecessary to verify the fact that there is a dispute, because that's done with the link to national geographic. i'm using it to describe korea's positions on map counts, because japan's positions on map counts are also described. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I am really sorry that Korea did a very, and I mean very poor job in putting that study together.Masterhatch 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
yes, that's unfortunate, but it has no bearing on the writing of this wikipedia article. it may have a bearing for an independent reference publisher or a researcher writing an article for a reputable journal, but what makes them different is that they have the resources to actually go see the maps themselves, do the fact checking, consulting with experts, go through layers of professional editors, have the financial incentive to be credible, etc. neither the two parties, nor you, nor i, nor wikipedia (per stated wiki policy) are in that position. we just describes the positions accurately. Appleby 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Misc. Comments

please feel free to apply some formating to the above to make it easier on the eyes. Appleby 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC) if you don't mind, i'm moving parts to above the heading as they are resolved, for readability. Appleby 06:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

also, may i suggest that you clean up the paragraphs about japan's reports? i'm sure if i touched them, you'd consider it a pov edit, but they are wordy & cluttered. i'm sure you could get them more streamlined & readable without changing the content. imho, that'd improve the article, but if you don't want to, i won't either. Appleby 07:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is pushing 3am in Korea and my eyes are tired and I have to go jogging in the morning (I've been very sick lately so I have missed 6 straight days of jogging. I am finally feeling better and want to get back to jogging in the early morning). You are quite welcome to make any edits to those japanese reports. I trust you, so there is no worries there. I am not going to revert for the sake of reverting. I will only revert obvious POV edits. Anyways, good night. Masterhatch 17:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
again, i hope you're feeling better, & as exciting as this discussion is, some other things in life are more important, or just more fun. as of midnight in california, i'm just gonna go to bed, but i'm still not sure what to think of moving the duelling reports back in history. i think we agree it is not very elegant, & in a way, it's an effective move to separate the latest korean tally from the string of japan's tallies. as you know, i've explained why both side's tallies should be presented equally, because we are not in the business of judging the credibility of claims, once authorities recognized a valid dispute. however, since it is undated, i will not argue that korea's latest tally report belongs in history, but i also feel strongly all the tallies done by disputing parties are clearly arguments, not historical development.
& it's gonna take some time to clean up the wording of the report summaries, of both sides, to make sure 1) they are accurate summaries of the claims, & 2) each side's reports are summarized using equivalent language to the extent accurate, & 3) the wording is concise & readable. that's taking longer than i thought, so feel free to continue yourself, or give me more time.
so my edit tonight is not a final proposal. i won't edit again for 24 hrs, but i reserve the right to change these things i mentioned. g'nite Appleby 07:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is another day in the books. I didn't have time to finish my List of Detroit Red Wings players or finishing changing the tables on the Ottawa Senators or write up my new proposal for hockey page formats, but hey, I think we came half an inch closer to finishing this dispute. Make some of my suggested changes and I think within the next day or two, this will be all over. again, it is three in the morning. I am glad that i am feeling better, but I still have to get up early and jog in the morning. It is kinda funny, I spend more time talking to you than my own girlfriend. I almost feel we are becoming "friends" in an odd kind of way and I don't know anything about you. I can assume that you are Korean, but your English is native speaker quality so you probably grew up in the States or were maybe even born there. I would guess that since you mentioned that you live in California, you are probably from L.A. as there are thousands upon thousands of Koreans there. If you were to take a quick look at my contributions on Wiki, you would easily spot that I am from the west coast of Canada but am living in Korea. Anyways, it is well past my bed time. Masterhatch 18:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

we both would like to think of ourselves as being objective & npov. i accept that you're sincere & reasonable, which is why we're even discussing this. you keep pointing out that some of my edits are pro-x. well OF COURSE they are, because to be npov, i'm trying to counter or delete the existing pro-y language. i understand where you're coming from, amused & frustrated at all the unthinking propaganda you see around you, but you know that's true of any country. i guarantee i can double or triple your list of korean propaganda, nationalism, & sheer idiocy with my list of u.s. propaganda & nationalism & sheer idiocy. i'm sure we could do the same if we were in france or uganda. but let's just accept that that's just how people are, & that we each see more of whatever is closer to us, & try not to over-react to it in the other direction. yes, i, too, am guilty of over-reacting a bit to what i saw as clear pro-japan bias in the existing article, & the initial reverts by certain people. but i think we can both see, some changes did need to be made to the existing version to make it more npov, & i appreciate you accepting some of that, as well as pointing out some of my own over-reactions.
unfortunately, we still have some issues to resolve, because you haven't substantively responded to my last comments. until i understand what you think is wrong with my reasoning, the article still looks pro-japan pov to me. i haven't accepted the disputed arguments being moved into history, & i don't understand why you're trying to "verify" the "truth" of claims id'd only as claims in an established, legitimate dispute. please respond to my points above, & i do think we'll be close to a resolution. Appleby 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
If you want to counter what you think of as Japanese POV, then write in NPOV, not Korean POV as you keep doing. But what you keep calling Japanese POV is what normal people call fact. The thing is, though, you see the fact as being Japanese POV because it doesn't agree with what Korea says. yes, the propaganda is bad here in Korea (Did you know that they report the weather on the unpopulated dokdo on all weather networks but usually forget to mention the populated Ulleung-do? That is nuts.) but far worse in the States, I know. But we aren't talking about the states or any other country. We are talking about Korea and Japan. Japan has its own line of propaganda, but I don't see it creeping into this article (I do, though see it creeping into other articles non Korea related) as it does'nt need to. The historical facts alone support Japan's side. That's just too bad for Korea, isn't it? This article isn't a "feel good" article for Korea. Masterhatch 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
if the historical facts alone support japan's side, the media/reference publishers wouldn't have recognized this dispute as legitimate & you & i would be enjoying life right now. since they, not you, determined that the dispute is legitimate, please keep your own japanese pov out of the article. obviously, you made up your mind, & it's unfortunate that the national geographic disagrees with you, but that's just too bad for you, isn't it? the article isn't a "feel good" article for you. Appleby 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There are more historical facts that point to Japan's favour than Korea's and that is what I was referring to. And because of this overbalance of facts that work in Japan's favour, it appears to East Sea supporters that this article is Japan POV. Of course, not all facts are in favour of Japan, but more are and this article reflects that: facts such as the 1919 decision, the past and present UN decisions, the dominance on historical maps from the min-1800s onwards, the absence of "East Sea" maps in history (but the abundance of Sea of Korea and Oriental maps). Anyways, I was just trying to point out that the facts aren't equal in this dispute. This article does not state which name is right or wrong as I personally don't care which is right or wrong. I can't help it if there are more facts supporting Japan's case than Korea's. Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
the only way we can keep this from becoming a pissing match is to refrain from ad hominem attacks. i will accept that even though you have personal convictions, you are still trying to be reasonable & objective in writing the article, if you show me the same courtesy. Appleby 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about my wording that I used last night. I had too many "추석" drinks last night before typing.Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wanna Talk Balanced?

You keep talking about "balanced" but you can't see for looking. This article isn't about making sure each side has an equal weight. It is about being factual, fair, NPOV, and informative. Look, have you noticed that for the media responses, there is not Japanese counter argument? I could easily thow something like "while a select few publishers are adding East Sea after Sea of Japan, the vast majority of text books, publications, nautical maps, governments, educational institutes, and magazines still use only Sea of Japan." But that is not necessary as that is more information than the reader of this article really needs to know. Remember, it isn't a pissing match. You are so wrapped up in making this article NPOV in Korea's point of view that you forgot that sometimes the facts can't help but point one way. In this case, the facts strongly point in Japan's favour, not in Korea's. I mean, I could add a bunch of stuff like

  • "East Sea has no historical significance in the international community and is a relatively recent name. Names such as Sea of Japan and Sea of Korea and Oriental Sea far exceeded East Sea to the point that East Sea is almost non exsitant. Korea tries to combine all the names "other than" Sea of Japan and group them all as East Sea to try and verify that East Sea has a historicial significance. Korea tries to equate names such as Oriental and Eastern Sea as meaning East Sea, when in reality, these two names have nothing to do with East Sea in nomenclature. Korea tries to pass East Sea off as a neutral name, but of course, this name isn't neutral as it is Korea's name, named by Koreans, for that body of water. Sea of Japan is a more neutral name in the sense that it wasn't named that by the Japanese (as evidence of Japanese maps that use Sea of Josen), it was named by Westerners from Europe. If Korea was really pushing for a neutral name, it would opt one of the other names used in history that actually have historical precedence, such as Oriental Sea."

Of course that paragraph isn't in the article. With a little clean-up, it could be, though. It is all factual. But I have no intent on adding anything like that because that reads more like a pissing match than an outline of the dispute.

Notice in the opening paragraph of this dispute it mentions that Korean publications use East Sea exclusively. Well, you don't see it "balanced" with a comment like "Japan's media uses Sea of Japan..."

Also, take notice that the article mentions VANK, but no japanese equivellants.

please also notice it includes japanese coast guard's uncorroborated argument in the history section, that the list of reputable publishers that changed positions after evaluating the dispute is truncated (if you can find any publisher that rejected korea's claim upon evaluation, not just deferred to the iho or most widely used name or just didn't evaluate, please feel free to add), that japan is almost always mentioned first when japan & korea are mentioned together, that it says iho "adopted" even though they apparently "used" without deliberation, that the article doesn't mention the iho was a group of 18-21 countries when it "standardized" international names, that vank is mentioned to undermine the credibility of korea's side, that wikipedia in fact uses "sea of japan" alone even though there is a legitimate dispute about the name, that you're trying to put the disputed tallies, except korea's latest, into the objective history section, and that you're trying to take out from history actions of indepentent authorities that essentially established the existence of this dispute. i could also, of course, add a lot more "facts" that counter your "facts," that will really turn this into a pissing match. but no, i'm just trying to resolve two of these through discussions with you. Appleby 18:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep trying to add all of Korea's little petty arguments to try to justify and balance the article. But notice that no one is adding all of Japan's petty arguments? Remember, this isn't a pissing match, it is an article to report the dispute and the history behind it.

maybe because it's already been added? is it possible that one side objects more when the article is tilted to the other side? is it surprising that such existing bias brings out the worst in people?Appleby 18:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, both sides could add countless "petty" arguments that would turn this dispute article into a war article. I don't want that and I know you don't want that.Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you see my point? This article actually reads very Korean sided, but you see it as reading Japanese POV. I am sorry that the facts just seem to point in Japan's favour, but that is just how things are sometimes. So, please get off your "balanced horse" and realise that not everything goes in Korea's favour. You can't balance out facts with Korea's opinions. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry to burst your bubble.Masterhatch 16:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

i'll try to keep ad hominem accusations out of this if you will. i do think we can discuss the article reasonably.Appleby 18:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, again i apologise for my wording. 소주 has a strange affect on the mind. Anyways, I know drinking is not a defence, but had I been sober, it would have been worded differently (and my spelling would have been a little bit better too).Masterhatch 02:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This page needs to be archived

If no one objects, I will archive the older discussions on this page within the next day or two and only leave the issues currently at hand. Masterhatch 05:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I will be archiving this page shortly. This will be the first time for me archiving a page, so bear with me as I read "archiving for dummies" and do it step by step. Masterhatch 02:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)