![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made the following amendment to this article:
User:Fabartus ||
Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
To see what this is all about and should have taken place herein, see quick links: (
My Talk) (Article 11) and (
His Talk) (Article 85). See Also:
RFC w/r/t Mr. Tan
I am going to reduce the map size to 200+px, for a very large map on an article isn't very nice to me. I hope Mr Bartus wouldn't object to this change. Mr Tan 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, I hope that Mr Bartus wouldn't object to removing the Iki map (I will not do so myself), for this article is specifically saying about the Tsushima Strait, not the island. Mr Tan 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your intention is to make another map that makes mention of Iki, the strait and Tsushima Islands? I encourage that we would have one, but I hope it will not trouble Jon or you too much then. Mr Tan 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know of Invasions by Japan into Korea, but I do not know of any invasions by Korea of Tsushima or other parts of Japan. Can somebody please verify the resultant paragraph:
In particular, this sentence:
Thanx User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 02:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Japanese invaded Korea many times in the past. Check
History of Korea for more.
Kokiri 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
į==Nomination to Merge==
I Made a Note in talk:Korea Strait to comment and vote here. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2008) |
*Agree — Made proposal; see above comments.
Disagree Strongly — see muliple points in next section below. (I refactored/tidied this some)
Agree to merge for reasons stated below in "'Tsushima Strait' does not exist."-- Sir Edgar 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
These were FrankB comments to Kokiri composed on User Talk:Kokiri, But TOO long for his talk so moved here as they invove this article, This first group is about the above Nomination to Merge. The second group applys to #The New Map and other article business.
Here, the reasoning is even more clear cut for us, to misquote a favorite American colloquialism: 'It ain't broke, so there ain't no need to fix it!'.
I'd be happy if you'd refrain from editing my posts and signing in my name. It's interesting to read what you supposedly wrote on my talk page—it seems to have evaporated from the history—, and what I allegedly claimed.
I merely observed that we have two articles about what I thought was essentially the same water. I checked in Britannica before suggesting the merger. Good day! Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
Post Duplicated from Kokiri's Talk regarding the above comments.
I have added information from this article to Korea Strait. The result still has gaps, but is much better than a stub. If we're not going to have a merger, then we should remove text only about the Korea Strait from here, and vice versa). Any thoughts? Kokiri 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I gotta go. Fra nkB 14:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
In the course of trying to clean up some grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, I had to deal with the incredibly redundant and sprawling first two paragraphs. I tried to simplify somewhat, but I think the real problem is that they are not about the Tsushima Strait itself, but a mix of Korea Strait, Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Strait. I realize this article has been the object of some contention, but as an complete outsider I think it would benefit from some stepping back and refocusing. I'll try to post a revision of that intro section, based on the idea that it doesn't need much detail on the Korea Strait, the Tsushima Islands, or Honshu or Kyushu, which are covered well elsewhere. See what you think, but remember that if the readers need more on those subjects, the hyperlinks are there. — rodii 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all, is it the Southeast Asian people who traveled across to Honshu around the 10th century BCE? Wasn't it the northern asian people? It is more precise to retain the previous edition, because which variation of Mongoloid contributed most to the first Mesolithic migrations ( Jomon) is not clear, but at least it is not Southeast Asian people who migrated via Tsushima Strait. To my poor knowledge, Jomon is believed to be consisted of many origins including northern asian, south asian austronesian (so not Mongoloid) and variety of Han Chinese. Secondly, I didn't know that Mongoloid is offensive term. I learned that Mongoloid is the equivalent term of Caucasoid. Is it usual to avoid the term Mongoloid in Wikipedia? At least I don't care. I reverted the page. Please discuss your points here. Isorhiza 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Tsushima Strait" and "Korea Strait" are two competing terms for the body of water that makes the narrow pass between Japan and Korea. Because "Korea Strait" is more widely accepted, "Tsushima Strait" has often been used in reference to the Eastern Channel. It has also been used, on occasion, instead of the term "Korea Strait", especially after Japan made a canal dividing Tsushima Island into two.
In reality, the term used should be "Korea Strait" with a Western Channel and Eastern Channel. The insistence of the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" is a Japanese POV that has been adopted to a large degree in the West. However, it is not only confusing, but inaccurate. Simply put, you cannot have two straits in one body of water like that.
Thus, the article should either be entitled "Tsushima Strait" or "Korea Strait". Because "Korea Strait" is more widely used, the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" must be mentioned in the main "Korea Strait" article and not have a separate article. There should also be a statement that "Tsushima Strait" is a misnomer as it is a replacement term for the Eastern Channel of the Korea Strait.
Of course, "Tsushima Strait" is more widely used than "Eastern Channel" and, as a result, deserves significant mention in the article. It should also state that the Western Channel is sometimes inaccurately referred to as the "Korea Strait" and the Eastern Channel as the "Tsushima Strait". There needs to be clarification in a single article.-- Sir Edgar 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Go do some studying. Also, please take a course in logic. You are using "No, you are!" tactics. I won't engage. Sorry.-- Sir Edgar 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: [1]. What do you mean, "obscure"? East Sea is the Chinese name for the East China Sea, while East Sea is the South Korean name for the Sea of Japan. These facts are hardly in dispute. In other words, there are more people calling the East China Sea the East Sea than there are people who call the Sea of Japan the East Sea. We do not introduce any confusion by mentioning both, since the primary names of both seas are kept as the article names. In fact, we serve to reduce the potential for confusion. -- GunnarRene 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) And before somebody says that the Chinese name is irrelevant, let me point out that Chinese vessels navigate these waters too. We only report the confusion that allready exists. -- GunnarRene 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
From Sea of Japan talk page:
No reference to "East China Sea" in any encyclopedia or dictionary under "East Sea", only Sea of Japan. No usage of "East China Sea (East Sea)", only "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".
The paragraph beginning
But the reason the strait is famous is that one of the most decisive naval battles of modern times,
seems to give way too much detail on strategy for a geography article; it seems to me a single sentence here would suffice. Coughinink 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In the section about the famous naval battle, there is a reference to missing second map.
... took place there due east of the north part of Tsushima and due north of Iki Island (shown in red on the second map)
Can someone provide this map, or do we need to edit out the reference?
Carl Gusler ( talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Tsushima strait is an another name in Korea strait. It's not a easten channel of the Korea strait.
Arstriker (
talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I corrected wrong description and eliminated a wrong figure.
Arstriker (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have made the following amendment to this article:
User:Fabartus ||
Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
To see what this is all about and should have taken place herein, see quick links: (
My Talk) (Article 11) and (
His Talk) (Article 85). See Also:
RFC w/r/t Mr. Tan
I am going to reduce the map size to 200+px, for a very large map on an article isn't very nice to me. I hope Mr Bartus wouldn't object to this change. Mr Tan 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, I hope that Mr Bartus wouldn't object to removing the Iki map (I will not do so myself), for this article is specifically saying about the Tsushima Strait, not the island. Mr Tan 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your intention is to make another map that makes mention of Iki, the strait and Tsushima Islands? I encourage that we would have one, but I hope it will not trouble Jon or you too much then. Mr Tan 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know of Invasions by Japan into Korea, but I do not know of any invasions by Korea of Tsushima or other parts of Japan. Can somebody please verify the resultant paragraph:
In particular, this sentence:
Thanx User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 02:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Japanese invaded Korea many times in the past. Check
History of Korea for more.
Kokiri 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
į==Nomination to Merge==
I Made a Note in talk:Korea Strait to comment and vote here. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (March 2008) |
*Agree — Made proposal; see above comments.
Disagree Strongly — see muliple points in next section below. (I refactored/tidied this some)
Agree to merge for reasons stated below in "'Tsushima Strait' does not exist."-- Sir Edgar 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
These were FrankB comments to Kokiri composed on User Talk:Kokiri, But TOO long for his talk so moved here as they invove this article, This first group is about the above Nomination to Merge. The second group applys to #The New Map and other article business.
Here, the reasoning is even more clear cut for us, to misquote a favorite American colloquialism: 'It ain't broke, so there ain't no need to fix it!'.
I'd be happy if you'd refrain from editing my posts and signing in my name. It's interesting to read what you supposedly wrote on my talk page—it seems to have evaporated from the history—, and what I allegedly claimed.
I merely observed that we have two articles about what I thought was essentially the same water. I checked in Britannica before suggesting the merger. Good day! Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)
Post Duplicated from Kokiri's Talk regarding the above comments.
I have added information from this article to Korea Strait. The result still has gaps, but is much better than a stub. If we're not going to have a merger, then we should remove text only about the Korea Strait from here, and vice versa). Any thoughts? Kokiri 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I gotta go. Fra nkB 14:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
In the course of trying to clean up some grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, I had to deal with the incredibly redundant and sprawling first two paragraphs. I tried to simplify somewhat, but I think the real problem is that they are not about the Tsushima Strait itself, but a mix of Korea Strait, Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Strait. I realize this article has been the object of some contention, but as an complete outsider I think it would benefit from some stepping back and refocusing. I'll try to post a revision of that intro section, based on the idea that it doesn't need much detail on the Korea Strait, the Tsushima Islands, or Honshu or Kyushu, which are covered well elsewhere. See what you think, but remember that if the readers need more on those subjects, the hyperlinks are there. — rodii 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all, is it the Southeast Asian people who traveled across to Honshu around the 10th century BCE? Wasn't it the northern asian people? It is more precise to retain the previous edition, because which variation of Mongoloid contributed most to the first Mesolithic migrations ( Jomon) is not clear, but at least it is not Southeast Asian people who migrated via Tsushima Strait. To my poor knowledge, Jomon is believed to be consisted of many origins including northern asian, south asian austronesian (so not Mongoloid) and variety of Han Chinese. Secondly, I didn't know that Mongoloid is offensive term. I learned that Mongoloid is the equivalent term of Caucasoid. Is it usual to avoid the term Mongoloid in Wikipedia? At least I don't care. I reverted the page. Please discuss your points here. Isorhiza 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Tsushima Strait" and "Korea Strait" are two competing terms for the body of water that makes the narrow pass between Japan and Korea. Because "Korea Strait" is more widely accepted, "Tsushima Strait" has often been used in reference to the Eastern Channel. It has also been used, on occasion, instead of the term "Korea Strait", especially after Japan made a canal dividing Tsushima Island into two.
In reality, the term used should be "Korea Strait" with a Western Channel and Eastern Channel. The insistence of the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" is a Japanese POV that has been adopted to a large degree in the West. However, it is not only confusing, but inaccurate. Simply put, you cannot have two straits in one body of water like that.
Thus, the article should either be entitled "Tsushima Strait" or "Korea Strait". Because "Korea Strait" is more widely used, the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" must be mentioned in the main "Korea Strait" article and not have a separate article. There should also be a statement that "Tsushima Strait" is a misnomer as it is a replacement term for the Eastern Channel of the Korea Strait.
Of course, "Tsushima Strait" is more widely used than "Eastern Channel" and, as a result, deserves significant mention in the article. It should also state that the Western Channel is sometimes inaccurately referred to as the "Korea Strait" and the Eastern Channel as the "Tsushima Strait". There needs to be clarification in a single article.-- Sir Edgar 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Go do some studying. Also, please take a course in logic. You are using "No, you are!" tactics. I won't engage. Sorry.-- Sir Edgar 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: [1]. What do you mean, "obscure"? East Sea is the Chinese name for the East China Sea, while East Sea is the South Korean name for the Sea of Japan. These facts are hardly in dispute. In other words, there are more people calling the East China Sea the East Sea than there are people who call the Sea of Japan the East Sea. We do not introduce any confusion by mentioning both, since the primary names of both seas are kept as the article names. In fact, we serve to reduce the potential for confusion. -- GunnarRene 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) And before somebody says that the Chinese name is irrelevant, let me point out that Chinese vessels navigate these waters too. We only report the confusion that allready exists. -- GunnarRene 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
From Sea of Japan talk page:
No reference to "East China Sea" in any encyclopedia or dictionary under "East Sea", only Sea of Japan. No usage of "East China Sea (East Sea)", only "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".
The paragraph beginning
But the reason the strait is famous is that one of the most decisive naval battles of modern times,
seems to give way too much detail on strategy for a geography article; it seems to me a single sentence here would suffice. Coughinink 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In the section about the famous naval battle, there is a reference to missing second map.
... took place there due east of the north part of Tsushima and due north of Iki Island (shown in red on the second map)
Can someone provide this map, or do we need to edit out the reference?
Carl Gusler ( talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Tsushima strait is an another name in Korea strait. It's not a easten channel of the Korea strait.
Arstriker (
talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I corrected wrong description and eliminated a wrong figure.
Arstriker (
talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)