Considering the current statuses of the names "Sea of Japan," "East Sea" and "East Sea of Korea," I propose to show :
Any objections? -- Nanshu 02:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Sewing 02:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why? -- Nanshu 02:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It isn't common. And we need not emphasize these names that, despite their aggressive campaigns, fail to became the international standard accepted by either the UNCSGN or the IHO. -- Nanshu 02:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They just "hear" what Korea says. They do NOT accept "East Sea" or something, or do NOT declare that they temporarily use both names until the resolution. Again, "Sea of Japan" is currently the only official name for the body of water. -- Nanshu 02:48, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So we need not emphasize "East Sea". -- Nanshu 03:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Sewing 03:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As I said above, nothing other than "Sea of Japan" becomes the standard. And again, there is no temporal decision to use both names. -- Nanshu 03:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What supports your claim? -- Nanshu 03:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think we should come up with a naming convention for the sea. This is in order to prevent further potential for edit wars and dissent. Also, a naming convention could help Wikipedia to look more professional, since it encourages consistent use of terms.
I suggest the following, but feel free to make other suggestions:
--
Kokiri 12:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how a [East Sea (Korea)] page is needed.
It should be:
-- Jia ng 10:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've already expressed my opinion above. -- Nanshu 03:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the naming suggestions so far. Can we move the discussion above into an archive and work towards a naming convention for this water? Kokiri
I think the relevant entry in the MoS is Use common names of persons and things. Kokiri 21:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I support this one, but suggest we add (Sea of Japan) after [[East Sea]]; also we might want to use [[East Sea of Korea]] for North Korean articles. Kokiri 21:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to restore NPOV. Kokiri 09:53, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
SEA OF JAPAN IN JAPANESE CONTEXT
EAST SEA OF KOREA IN KOREAN CONTEXT
EAST SEA/SEA OF JAPAN IN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
About Ribenhai. China does not border the Sea of Japan, but she is the country which calls the neighboring East China Sea "Donghai". So one would wonder what she called the Sea of Japan. -- Nanshu 01:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
With reference to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution I call for an edit stop.
I also call for the reinstating of this version as a base to work on. However, I will refrain from enforcing my will. I have removed quite some content because I don't consider this relevant to the article. The article is about the dispute and doesn't have to prove anything. I now realize that I might have removed too much.
IMHO the current version does not comply with NPOV guidelines. I think this article should describe the dispute. Any evidence in the article should be used with care. First of all, not everyone involved in the dispute uses the same arguments, so it might not be relevant. Also, do consider that a list of maps is necessarily a selection, most probably compiled with the aim of proving something. Thus, it is probably POV.
I do hope we can have a good, NPOV article on the dispute. -- Kokiri 12:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I wonder why instead of proposing a name that has no chance to be adopted (as international adoption of a new name requires agreement of all bordering countries) why isn't a more neutral name propose, one that could be accepted by both sides, like nippo-corean sea (日朝海)?
I have removed this whole section from the article. I do not think this is very encyclopaedic. I have attempted to summarize the main points. -- Kokiri 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The dispute elicits many diversified opinions reflecting different views. Be warned that some of them can be based on erroneous perception and difficult to sustain.
Some food for thought from Google:
News archive search results:
Note that I had to qualify the search for "East Sea" because of the lack of geographic specificity.
Given that this is an English-language encyclopedia, we should standardize on the most common form of the name but note its variants. In this case, that would require the name "Sea of Japan" to be used conventionally but note that it is called the "East Sea" when it's mentioned in Korea-related articles. The issue is fairly similar to European naming issues such as over the names of the Republic of Macedonia or Kosovo - in both cases, the most common usage is adopted with the variants noted where relevant. -- ChrisO 11:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move this article to Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan? Kokiri 11:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This might be a big news to us.
Needless to say, I don't mean to agree with this ruling or whatever at all. -- Taku 08:06, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
However, Japan also fails to look at its own geographic features: one of its regions, Chugoku, actually means China, which also causes confusion, and is therefore not a suitable name either. This contradicts with Japan's claim that the name East Sea can be confused with the name East china Sea.
This is the section I cut from the main page. It perhaps belongs in the article somewhere, but not in the summary of the dispute where it is irrelevant.
If there is a place where this can be usefully included, please move it there,
Zeimusu 03:27, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
The whole dispute was strange from the beginning. Suddenly, Korea began it's campaign to change the name from Sea of Japan to East Sea in the Early 90s. Why not before? Also, Their argument saying that East Sea refers to as "East of the Continent" does not make sense at all other than Korea. For China, there are numerous seas which is East of their Country. Another thing which is fishy is "Why aren't the Koreans demanding to change Yellow Sea to West Sea?
I do not know who wrote the message above; but it certainly is written by a person not well-read. The reason why Koreans want the "East Sea" over the "Sea of Japan" is that "East Sea" is a politically neutral name. Most maps before the 20th century have the name "Sea of Corea/Korea." It is the Koreans that are not with "hatred," rather, it is the Japanese stubbornness to keep its imperialistic past alive that is clouding this issue. The Koreans, in regards to naming this disputed sea's name, want to have a compromise with a politically neutral name.
As for the West Sea issue, most Koreans accept the name; even one of the Korean provinces is named the West Sea Province (Hwanghaedo)! You should be well-read, and not a ignorant niggard before attacking this issue.
This issue has came up only since the early 90s, because Korea has finally globalised. Bezant
Okay, so the bulk of contention between Nanshu and Sewing is the title of this article itself. Besides some bias I notice in the article itself, the article's title becomes problematic NPOV wise because what's being disputed is the name of the sea. By picking one particular name, the article is perceived as violating NPOV (for the affected parties, that is). I propose an NPOV title to the article by calling it "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas". -- Yonghokim 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have no problem with using "Sea of Japan" for the page title. The name "Sea of Japan" (or Japan Sea) isn't just what Japan wants to use but also an international standard whereas "East Sea" is nothing more than South Korean POV.
And "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" doesn't conform to our NPOV policy. Japan has the longest coastline along the Sea of Japan. It isn't South Korea or North Korea, or not even the Korean Peninsula, but Russia that follows Japan. So it sound like "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" refers to the Tsushima Strait, which is actually located between Japan and Korea -- Nanshu 14:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, some of us DO have a problem using the name "Sea of Japan" for the article title. Since the name is disputed (no matter how much Nanshu disparages the South Korean argument), including the name "Sea of Japan" does in fact violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not only that, both the Korean and Japanese arguments have large accumulations of historical evidence that should be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions. I say we change the name of this page to a neutral title, like the article "Liancourt Rocks". -- Leonhart
Ok Nanshu, you win. Please, take the Sea of Japan and the Liancourt Islands (sorry, forgot its japanese name) for yourself. -- Yonghokim 04:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Leonhart added Chosen hachid no zu 朝鮮八道之図 by Hayashi Shihei 林子平 with the following caption:
It may be "clear" to Leonhart's eyes, but actually, there is no such term as Tokai 東海 on that map. All we can see is the character "東" and the Hangul 동 with furigana "togu" トグ. It merely indicates direction. In fact, we can confirm other directional signs (north, south and west) on the map.
It is surprising to people unfamiliar with Korea that this silly report was made not by a elementary school student but by a professor named Kim Mun-gil, and that it got media coverage without the simple error corrected. But this always happens in Korea. -- Nanshu 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For your information, Nanshu, that map is not displayed in its entirety (duh). Since I was unable to find a complete photograph of that map (which was taken by Yonhap News), and you are unlikely to take me for my word, why don't you just run along and try finding a FULL picture of that map or read the Daum News article that came along with it? I'm sure you can find some answers there.
And by the way, I would appreciate if you just laid off Korea's case once in a while. Since day one on Wikipedia you've taken every oppurtunity to promote your smear coampaign of Korea and China, and I find no basis to your preposterous claims whatsoever. In fact, you've even created a site called "Korea, The Perposterous World." Your hatred of Korea has gone beyond the periphery of rationality and threatens the truth of what happened throughout history. Do you really think that by defacing neighboring countries you can cover up your country's own crimes? Why don't you take a closer look at the Nanjing Massacre, the torture and execution of POWs, and the infamous Unit 731, instead of just blatantly denying and belittling every single fact that tarnishes Japan's good-for-nothing reputation? Leonhart
Can you stick to the subject? Or do you think you can cover up your mistake with a parrot cry? If you insist that map clearly displays the body of water between Korea and Japan as the "East Sea", you have to bring evidence. Otherwise, withdraw it. Don't ask others to prove it. The burden of proof is on you!
But I had already checked Chosen hachid no zu by myself before making this section, and came to the above conclusion. -- Nanshu 14:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me get a few things straight: 1) According to my research, "Chosen hachid no zu" does indeed display the body of water between Korean and Japan as 東海, but if you insist, I shall remove it from this article and add another map in its place.
2) I'm SO SORRY (cough) for "covering up my mistake with a parrot cry". Of course, everything is MY (hem hem) fault, so I'll take All (ahem) the responsibility. Happy now?
3) I certainly did not go off point by indicating Japan's faults in history. In my personal opinion, I think you went off-topic in this discussion even more than me by making offending comments such as "this always happens in Korea". For the love of God, all of those familiar with your writing know by now that you have a personal vendetta against Koreans for no good reason. Not only that, I can infer from your antagonistic tone that you said "stick to the subject" not for the sake of clarity in dialogue, but because you don't want Japan's dirty work emphasized even more than it already is.
4) As I mentioned previously, I would appreciate if you not only stopped bashing Korea, but also stopped insulting me. I happen to be quite placid if nobody offends me in the first place, which is obviously not the case here. Therefore, my lack of respect towards you can also be considered part of your own respinsibility. To sum this up, contemplate the quote "Treat others as you want to be treated." -- Leonhart
I found the full size version of the map [2] [3]. The map displays "北(North)", "西(west)", "南(South)", and "東(East)". Why can you say the map clearly displaying "East sea" ?. It's just a direction, not a name of the water.-- Mochi 12:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I will descibe about my edit. Leonhart wrote that "prior to the latter half of the 19th century, "Sea of Japan" was barely used". However, this source shows a different fact: among the maps possessed by the British Library, "Sea of Japan" was used in 86% of maps from 1801 to 1860. "Sea of Japan" was nearly common already at the former half of the 19th century. It is not 100% so I weaken the expression. Of course, this source is biased (Japanese Foreign Ministry) and someone may have other sources. Concrete information is welcome. By the way, this source shows an interesting fact: 2 of 5 maps which uses "Sea of Korea" are Japanese ones. But for me it is quite natural because this sea is direction of Korea from us. -- Corruptresearcher 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it needs pointing out that most of the comments made on this page are illogical and therefore irrelevant, simply because they are evocative of the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitam made popular by Edmund Burke, an idea similar to the idea of hegemony, the idea that what has been done in the past, or what is old, is necessarily better than what is being done in the present, or what is new.
This is, of course, ridiculous.
The real core of this issue, unlike that of the Liancourt Rocks dispute, is not who owns this body of water, but instead, what name should be used. In fact, neither country is claiming the water to be something other than shared territory, the argument being therefore hinged upon not ownership, but instead the topic of nomenclature.
The issue need not rely on the past.
Indeed, relying on the past, at least in this case, is illogical and harmful. What has been done in the past, what names have been used, what names have not been used, and by whom, all of this is irrelevant. The past is not correct simply because it is in the past.
What is now at issue is simply this: any body of water shared by two or more countries must be denominated by a mutually acceptable name, or, barring that, a name deemed neutral by an objective arbiter. It would seem to me that Japan, in refusing to use a neutral name, is basing its argument upon the past. If East Sea is a name which seems non-neutral in the eyes of Japan, then Japan should suggest their own preferred neutral name. Thelivingend
End of story, really. Logically, if there is no Japan, then there is no sea. So, it must be the Sea of Japan.
Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.
I have removed a section added to the article by User:Kojangee. I thought it contradicted Wikipedia policy on original research, but further investigation shows it to be lifted from a Japanese government website. It is therefore presumably a copyvio, not to mention untrustworthy, although it would be nice to have a paragraph discussing the study. I have also reverted a series of subsequent edits by Kojangee which profoundly failed to reflect a neutral POV. -- Visviva 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are two pie charts on this site. the first one, the "97%" one, has a spelling mistake on it. It says 'neme' instead of 'name'. i would like to know where that chart came from. did someone just 'make up' that chart on the spot and add it? Unless we know that that pie chart is in fact accurate and unbiased, i think it should be removed. Unless the source of the chart is revealled, of course.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am strongly for the name 'Sea of Japan' and strongly against the 'East Sea', but I feel that all information presented here on wikipedia should be unbiased and fair. It is strange, though, I am in favour of the name 'Sea of Japan', but i live in South Korea and i NEVER call it Sea of Japan. I always call it East Sea. Why? because it is such a hot topic here in korea (a form of nationalistic pride exists here that i have never seen anywhere else and i have been to over 20 different countries and around the world) that if i even hint at calling it 'Sea of Japan', i get an ear full. It is safer to call it East Sea while in South Korea. Even the most mild mannered, soft spoken koreans get all up in arms about this topic. I have greater success discussing fan death with koreans than i do the sea of japan. Koreans won't even listen to anything logially presented to them. to them, it is "EAST SEA OR NOTHING!! now get out of my face!" This attitude alone makes me want to call it the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch
A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):
In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch
Comment, not a vote: This talk page is not an appropriate place to decide Wikipedia policy for "all bodies of water". I suspect that we have a policy on how to organise votes, and I strongly suspect that this proposed vote does not follow it. Mark 1 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something can be gleaned from Talk:Gdansk/Vote.-- Pharos 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Voting won't settle anything. We have to reason this out.
We must not try to settle this dispute for them but describe what they say, from a detached perspective. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it from a title which suggested that one alternative was correct, to a title which simply listed the chief alternatives in alphabetical order.
Note also that in the intro paragraph I mentioned the chief disputants in alphabetical order.
And I list the three most prominent alternative names in alphabetical order by country:
The only standard Wikipedia has, is what is the most commonly used name in English - tempered by the principle of least astonishment. Thus, when our readers look it up, how easy will it be for them to find it? And will they think Wikipedia is certifying info as correct, or will they realize there is a dispute and that Wikipedia is merely describing the major sides in the dispute? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Is this the general belief of Japanese people, or an official government pronouncement, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
This article is an a disgraceful state. First of all, can we have it back at Dispute of the name of the Sea of Japan? As indicated in the article, the international bodies regulating names (UN, IHO) still use Sea of Japan. This name is disputed by South Korea, but it has not (yet) been changed.
In the opening paragraph, it should be mentioned that the dispute is over the English name of the water.
North Korea appears a couple of times as supporting a name change, but the History section does not mention North Korea at all. Afaik, the north have never stated such a wish: they merely use East Sea of Korea in their English publications.
Throughout the article, a careful distinction need to be made between the various actors. Who are the Japanese? Who are the Koreans? This implies a homogenous opinion, as it does not exist. There are the governments, there are nationalists, there are netizen groups (e.g. VANK),….
In this sense, the opening paragraph should end after the three bullet points, or the two lines on Japan and Korea removed (argue that should be names for them). The paragraph on local names is good, but needs rewriting (probably can be shortened).
As for the dispute, I think I have summarized this well in the Sea of Japan Naming section (see also talk there). The local names (nihonkai etc.) are completely irrelevant here, because we're looking at the English name, not translations or transliterations. As mentioned above, afaik, North Korea should not be included here, since as a country they make no claims.
The history of the dispute, imho, should be the core of this article.The pie chart, however, is POV—it attempts to convey a normative message. The information can be added in the text. Also, if we want such exact numbers, then we need a reference, so we can check the methodology of how they derive at these numbers. Personally, I doubt that most countries of the world publish English maps of East Asia.
As for the Opinion sections, they are (a) too long, and (b) do not convey the point very effectively. I think there should be a shirt paragraph outlining the kind of "proof" the two sides are looking for, not forgetting the different actors (governments, nationalists). Basically, both sides selectively quote old maps and highlight different aspects of history. After such an introductory paragraph, a short paragraph on the Japanese and Korean views should really suffice. The fact that Japanese Opinion is so much larger at present is not really good, either: we need a good balance.
The section on Other opinions should be summarized. We do not need to reproduce all the findings, but summarize their key points. The historical map sections are mostly superflous, since we already mention that before the 19th century, all kinds of names coexisted.
Finally, the external links need to be sorted out: there are too many about the same thing. The argumentum ad numerum does not convince here either.
To sum it up, I think this article should describe the dispute—and thus focus on the history of how the dispute developed. The opinions are currently over-valued. It's not our job to solve normative issues on Wikipedia, we do not have to decide what is right or wrong, or prove which side of the argument is better: all we do is write about the dispute in a NPOV way. Kokiri 29 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which was the conventional title is changed into "Naming dispute over East Sea/Sea of Japan" without consent. Now, the Sea of Japan is written with 97% or more of map, and is the standard in the world. And the Japanese government is opposed to the Sea of Japan and East Sea being written together.
From the above-mentioned reason, when changing a title, I think that the consent in a note is required. It demands to return to "Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which is the conventional title. -- Maizuru 2 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Indeed, the article should be moved back. Any comments on the suggested new version? Kokiri 2 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
I agree it should be moved back; "Sea of Japan" is the 'standard' name on Wikipedia. I'm not saying anything about the content of the article, just that the title of the article should be in this form.-- Pharos 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
So do I. Moving an article without consensus of other editors and block it from further move using admin's privilege is a crafty deed and not acceptable. -- Ypacaraí July 3, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
[5] Kokiri 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
Kokiri, your post means little as you do not explain anything except for adding a link for us to..? Read? Ypacaraí was indeed correct. Crafty and cunning are two words which come to mind. By changing it, the editor shows clear bias. Maybe he'd like to use this opportunity to explain why the change was made? Kojangee July 5th 2005 8:13 (Beijing Time)
Just in case you favor bottom posting, here's a post duplicated above under Past Inconsequential Or some such title...
Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.
Considering the current statuses of the names "Sea of Japan," "East Sea" and "East Sea of Korea," I propose to show :
Any objections? -- Nanshu 02:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Sewing 02:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why? -- Nanshu 02:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It isn't common. And we need not emphasize these names that, despite their aggressive campaigns, fail to became the international standard accepted by either the UNCSGN or the IHO. -- Nanshu 02:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They just "hear" what Korea says. They do NOT accept "East Sea" or something, or do NOT declare that they temporarily use both names until the resolution. Again, "Sea of Japan" is currently the only official name for the body of water. -- Nanshu 02:48, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So we need not emphasize "East Sea". -- Nanshu 03:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-- Sewing 03:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As I said above, nothing other than "Sea of Japan" becomes the standard. And again, there is no temporal decision to use both names. -- Nanshu 03:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What supports your claim? -- Nanshu 03:54, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think we should come up with a naming convention for the sea. This is in order to prevent further potential for edit wars and dissent. Also, a naming convention could help Wikipedia to look more professional, since it encourages consistent use of terms.
I suggest the following, but feel free to make other suggestions:
--
Kokiri 12:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how a [East Sea (Korea)] page is needed.
It should be:
-- Jia ng 10:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've already expressed my opinion above. -- Nanshu 03:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the naming suggestions so far. Can we move the discussion above into an archive and work towards a naming convention for this water? Kokiri
I think the relevant entry in the MoS is Use common names of persons and things. Kokiri 21:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I support this one, but suggest we add (Sea of Japan) after [[East Sea]]; also we might want to use [[East Sea of Korea]] for North Korean articles. Kokiri 21:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to restore NPOV. Kokiri 09:53, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
SEA OF JAPAN IN JAPANESE CONTEXT
EAST SEA OF KOREA IN KOREAN CONTEXT
EAST SEA/SEA OF JAPAN IN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
About Ribenhai. China does not border the Sea of Japan, but she is the country which calls the neighboring East China Sea "Donghai". So one would wonder what she called the Sea of Japan. -- Nanshu 01:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
With reference to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution I call for an edit stop.
I also call for the reinstating of this version as a base to work on. However, I will refrain from enforcing my will. I have removed quite some content because I don't consider this relevant to the article. The article is about the dispute and doesn't have to prove anything. I now realize that I might have removed too much.
IMHO the current version does not comply with NPOV guidelines. I think this article should describe the dispute. Any evidence in the article should be used with care. First of all, not everyone involved in the dispute uses the same arguments, so it might not be relevant. Also, do consider that a list of maps is necessarily a selection, most probably compiled with the aim of proving something. Thus, it is probably POV.
I do hope we can have a good, NPOV article on the dispute. -- Kokiri 12:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I wonder why instead of proposing a name that has no chance to be adopted (as international adoption of a new name requires agreement of all bordering countries) why isn't a more neutral name propose, one that could be accepted by both sides, like nippo-corean sea (日朝海)?
I have removed this whole section from the article. I do not think this is very encyclopaedic. I have attempted to summarize the main points. -- Kokiri 20:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The dispute elicits many diversified opinions reflecting different views. Be warned that some of them can be based on erroneous perception and difficult to sustain.
Some food for thought from Google:
News archive search results:
Note that I had to qualify the search for "East Sea" because of the lack of geographic specificity.
Given that this is an English-language encyclopedia, we should standardize on the most common form of the name but note its variants. In this case, that would require the name "Sea of Japan" to be used conventionally but note that it is called the "East Sea" when it's mentioned in Korea-related articles. The issue is fairly similar to European naming issues such as over the names of the Republic of Macedonia or Kosovo - in both cases, the most common usage is adopted with the variants noted where relevant. -- ChrisO 11:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move this article to Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan? Kokiri 11:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This might be a big news to us.
Needless to say, I don't mean to agree with this ruling or whatever at all. -- Taku 08:06, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
However, Japan also fails to look at its own geographic features: one of its regions, Chugoku, actually means China, which also causes confusion, and is therefore not a suitable name either. This contradicts with Japan's claim that the name East Sea can be confused with the name East china Sea.
This is the section I cut from the main page. It perhaps belongs in the article somewhere, but not in the summary of the dispute where it is irrelevant.
If there is a place where this can be usefully included, please move it there,
Zeimusu 03:27, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
The whole dispute was strange from the beginning. Suddenly, Korea began it's campaign to change the name from Sea of Japan to East Sea in the Early 90s. Why not before? Also, Their argument saying that East Sea refers to as "East of the Continent" does not make sense at all other than Korea. For China, there are numerous seas which is East of their Country. Another thing which is fishy is "Why aren't the Koreans demanding to change Yellow Sea to West Sea?
I do not know who wrote the message above; but it certainly is written by a person not well-read. The reason why Koreans want the "East Sea" over the "Sea of Japan" is that "East Sea" is a politically neutral name. Most maps before the 20th century have the name "Sea of Corea/Korea." It is the Koreans that are not with "hatred," rather, it is the Japanese stubbornness to keep its imperialistic past alive that is clouding this issue. The Koreans, in regards to naming this disputed sea's name, want to have a compromise with a politically neutral name.
As for the West Sea issue, most Koreans accept the name; even one of the Korean provinces is named the West Sea Province (Hwanghaedo)! You should be well-read, and not a ignorant niggard before attacking this issue.
This issue has came up only since the early 90s, because Korea has finally globalised. Bezant
Okay, so the bulk of contention between Nanshu and Sewing is the title of this article itself. Besides some bias I notice in the article itself, the article's title becomes problematic NPOV wise because what's being disputed is the name of the sea. By picking one particular name, the article is perceived as violating NPOV (for the affected parties, that is). I propose an NPOV title to the article by calling it "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas". -- Yonghokim 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We have no problem with using "Sea of Japan" for the page title. The name "Sea of Japan" (or Japan Sea) isn't just what Japan wants to use but also an international standard whereas "East Sea" is nothing more than South Korean POV.
And "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" doesn't conform to our NPOV policy. Japan has the longest coastline along the Sea of Japan. It isn't South Korea or North Korea, or not even the Korean Peninsula, but Russia that follows Japan. So it sound like "the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" refers to the Tsushima Strait, which is actually located between Japan and Korea -- Nanshu 14:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, some of us DO have a problem using the name "Sea of Japan" for the article title. Since the name is disputed (no matter how much Nanshu disparages the South Korean argument), including the name "Sea of Japan" does in fact violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not only that, both the Korean and Japanese arguments have large accumulations of historical evidence that should be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions. I say we change the name of this page to a neutral title, like the article "Liancourt Rocks". -- Leonhart
Ok Nanshu, you win. Please, take the Sea of Japan and the Liancourt Islands (sorry, forgot its japanese name) for yourself. -- Yonghokim 04:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Leonhart added Chosen hachid no zu 朝鮮八道之図 by Hayashi Shihei 林子平 with the following caption:
It may be "clear" to Leonhart's eyes, but actually, there is no such term as Tokai 東海 on that map. All we can see is the character "東" and the Hangul 동 with furigana "togu" トグ. It merely indicates direction. In fact, we can confirm other directional signs (north, south and west) on the map.
It is surprising to people unfamiliar with Korea that this silly report was made not by a elementary school student but by a professor named Kim Mun-gil, and that it got media coverage without the simple error corrected. But this always happens in Korea. -- Nanshu 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For your information, Nanshu, that map is not displayed in its entirety (duh). Since I was unable to find a complete photograph of that map (which was taken by Yonhap News), and you are unlikely to take me for my word, why don't you just run along and try finding a FULL picture of that map or read the Daum News article that came along with it? I'm sure you can find some answers there.
And by the way, I would appreciate if you just laid off Korea's case once in a while. Since day one on Wikipedia you've taken every oppurtunity to promote your smear coampaign of Korea and China, and I find no basis to your preposterous claims whatsoever. In fact, you've even created a site called "Korea, The Perposterous World." Your hatred of Korea has gone beyond the periphery of rationality and threatens the truth of what happened throughout history. Do you really think that by defacing neighboring countries you can cover up your country's own crimes? Why don't you take a closer look at the Nanjing Massacre, the torture and execution of POWs, and the infamous Unit 731, instead of just blatantly denying and belittling every single fact that tarnishes Japan's good-for-nothing reputation? Leonhart
Can you stick to the subject? Or do you think you can cover up your mistake with a parrot cry? If you insist that map clearly displays the body of water between Korea and Japan as the "East Sea", you have to bring evidence. Otherwise, withdraw it. Don't ask others to prove it. The burden of proof is on you!
But I had already checked Chosen hachid no zu by myself before making this section, and came to the above conclusion. -- Nanshu 14:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me get a few things straight: 1) According to my research, "Chosen hachid no zu" does indeed display the body of water between Korean and Japan as 東海, but if you insist, I shall remove it from this article and add another map in its place.
2) I'm SO SORRY (cough) for "covering up my mistake with a parrot cry". Of course, everything is MY (hem hem) fault, so I'll take All (ahem) the responsibility. Happy now?
3) I certainly did not go off point by indicating Japan's faults in history. In my personal opinion, I think you went off-topic in this discussion even more than me by making offending comments such as "this always happens in Korea". For the love of God, all of those familiar with your writing know by now that you have a personal vendetta against Koreans for no good reason. Not only that, I can infer from your antagonistic tone that you said "stick to the subject" not for the sake of clarity in dialogue, but because you don't want Japan's dirty work emphasized even more than it already is.
4) As I mentioned previously, I would appreciate if you not only stopped bashing Korea, but also stopped insulting me. I happen to be quite placid if nobody offends me in the first place, which is obviously not the case here. Therefore, my lack of respect towards you can also be considered part of your own respinsibility. To sum this up, contemplate the quote "Treat others as you want to be treated." -- Leonhart
I found the full size version of the map [2] [3]. The map displays "北(North)", "西(west)", "南(South)", and "東(East)". Why can you say the map clearly displaying "East sea" ?. It's just a direction, not a name of the water.-- Mochi 12:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I will descibe about my edit. Leonhart wrote that "prior to the latter half of the 19th century, "Sea of Japan" was barely used". However, this source shows a different fact: among the maps possessed by the British Library, "Sea of Japan" was used in 86% of maps from 1801 to 1860. "Sea of Japan" was nearly common already at the former half of the 19th century. It is not 100% so I weaken the expression. Of course, this source is biased (Japanese Foreign Ministry) and someone may have other sources. Concrete information is welcome. By the way, this source shows an interesting fact: 2 of 5 maps which uses "Sea of Korea" are Japanese ones. But for me it is quite natural because this sea is direction of Korea from us. -- Corruptresearcher 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it needs pointing out that most of the comments made on this page are illogical and therefore irrelevant, simply because they are evocative of the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitam made popular by Edmund Burke, an idea similar to the idea of hegemony, the idea that what has been done in the past, or what is old, is necessarily better than what is being done in the present, or what is new.
This is, of course, ridiculous.
The real core of this issue, unlike that of the Liancourt Rocks dispute, is not who owns this body of water, but instead, what name should be used. In fact, neither country is claiming the water to be something other than shared territory, the argument being therefore hinged upon not ownership, but instead the topic of nomenclature.
The issue need not rely on the past.
Indeed, relying on the past, at least in this case, is illogical and harmful. What has been done in the past, what names have been used, what names have not been used, and by whom, all of this is irrelevant. The past is not correct simply because it is in the past.
What is now at issue is simply this: any body of water shared by two or more countries must be denominated by a mutually acceptable name, or, barring that, a name deemed neutral by an objective arbiter. It would seem to me that Japan, in refusing to use a neutral name, is basing its argument upon the past. If East Sea is a name which seems non-neutral in the eyes of Japan, then Japan should suggest their own preferred neutral name. Thelivingend
End of story, really. Logically, if there is no Japan, then there is no sea. So, it must be the Sea of Japan.
Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.
I have removed a section added to the article by User:Kojangee. I thought it contradicted Wikipedia policy on original research, but further investigation shows it to be lifted from a Japanese government website. It is therefore presumably a copyvio, not to mention untrustworthy, although it would be nice to have a paragraph discussing the study. I have also reverted a series of subsequent edits by Kojangee which profoundly failed to reflect a neutral POV. -- Visviva 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are two pie charts on this site. the first one, the "97%" one, has a spelling mistake on it. It says 'neme' instead of 'name'. i would like to know where that chart came from. did someone just 'make up' that chart on the spot and add it? Unless we know that that pie chart is in fact accurate and unbiased, i think it should be removed. Unless the source of the chart is revealled, of course.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am strongly for the name 'Sea of Japan' and strongly against the 'East Sea', but I feel that all information presented here on wikipedia should be unbiased and fair. It is strange, though, I am in favour of the name 'Sea of Japan', but i live in South Korea and i NEVER call it Sea of Japan. I always call it East Sea. Why? because it is such a hot topic here in korea (a form of nationalistic pride exists here that i have never seen anywhere else and i have been to over 20 different countries and around the world) that if i even hint at calling it 'Sea of Japan', i get an ear full. It is safer to call it East Sea while in South Korea. Even the most mild mannered, soft spoken koreans get all up in arms about this topic. I have greater success discussing fan death with koreans than i do the sea of japan. Koreans won't even listen to anything logially presented to them. to them, it is "EAST SEA OR NOTHING!! now get out of my face!" This attitude alone makes me want to call it the Sea of Japan. Masterhatch
A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):
In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch
Comment, not a vote: This talk page is not an appropriate place to decide Wikipedia policy for "all bodies of water". I suspect that we have a policy on how to organise votes, and I strongly suspect that this proposed vote does not follow it. Mark 1 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something can be gleaned from Talk:Gdansk/Vote.-- Pharos 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Voting won't settle anything. We have to reason this out.
We must not try to settle this dispute for them but describe what they say, from a detached perspective. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it from a title which suggested that one alternative was correct, to a title which simply listed the chief alternatives in alphabetical order.
Note also that in the intro paragraph I mentioned the chief disputants in alphabetical order.
And I list the three most prominent alternative names in alphabetical order by country:
The only standard Wikipedia has, is what is the most commonly used name in English - tempered by the principle of least astonishment. Thus, when our readers look it up, how easy will it be for them to find it? And will they think Wikipedia is certifying info as correct, or will they realize there is a dispute and that Wikipedia is merely describing the major sides in the dispute? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Is this the general belief of Japanese people, or an official government pronouncement, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
This article is an a disgraceful state. First of all, can we have it back at Dispute of the name of the Sea of Japan? As indicated in the article, the international bodies regulating names (UN, IHO) still use Sea of Japan. This name is disputed by South Korea, but it has not (yet) been changed.
In the opening paragraph, it should be mentioned that the dispute is over the English name of the water.
North Korea appears a couple of times as supporting a name change, but the History section does not mention North Korea at all. Afaik, the north have never stated such a wish: they merely use East Sea of Korea in their English publications.
Throughout the article, a careful distinction need to be made between the various actors. Who are the Japanese? Who are the Koreans? This implies a homogenous opinion, as it does not exist. There are the governments, there are nationalists, there are netizen groups (e.g. VANK),….
In this sense, the opening paragraph should end after the three bullet points, or the two lines on Japan and Korea removed (argue that should be names for them). The paragraph on local names is good, but needs rewriting (probably can be shortened).
As for the dispute, I think I have summarized this well in the Sea of Japan Naming section (see also talk there). The local names (nihonkai etc.) are completely irrelevant here, because we're looking at the English name, not translations or transliterations. As mentioned above, afaik, North Korea should not be included here, since as a country they make no claims.
The history of the dispute, imho, should be the core of this article.The pie chart, however, is POV—it attempts to convey a normative message. The information can be added in the text. Also, if we want such exact numbers, then we need a reference, so we can check the methodology of how they derive at these numbers. Personally, I doubt that most countries of the world publish English maps of East Asia.
As for the Opinion sections, they are (a) too long, and (b) do not convey the point very effectively. I think there should be a shirt paragraph outlining the kind of "proof" the two sides are looking for, not forgetting the different actors (governments, nationalists). Basically, both sides selectively quote old maps and highlight different aspects of history. After such an introductory paragraph, a short paragraph on the Japanese and Korean views should really suffice. The fact that Japanese Opinion is so much larger at present is not really good, either: we need a good balance.
The section on Other opinions should be summarized. We do not need to reproduce all the findings, but summarize their key points. The historical map sections are mostly superflous, since we already mention that before the 19th century, all kinds of names coexisted.
Finally, the external links need to be sorted out: there are too many about the same thing. The argumentum ad numerum does not convince here either.
To sum it up, I think this article should describe the dispute—and thus focus on the history of how the dispute developed. The opinions are currently over-valued. It's not our job to solve normative issues on Wikipedia, we do not have to decide what is right or wrong, or prove which side of the argument is better: all we do is write about the dispute in a NPOV way. Kokiri 29 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which was the conventional title is changed into "Naming dispute over East Sea/Sea of Japan" without consent. Now, the Sea of Japan is written with 97% or more of map, and is the standard in the world. And the Japanese government is opposed to the Sea of Japan and East Sea being written together.
From the above-mentioned reason, when changing a title, I think that the consent in a note is required. It demands to return to "Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" which is the conventional title. -- Maizuru 2 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
Indeed, the article should be moved back. Any comments on the suggested new version? Kokiri 2 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
I agree it should be moved back; "Sea of Japan" is the 'standard' name on Wikipedia. I'm not saying anything about the content of the article, just that the title of the article should be in this form.-- Pharos 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
So do I. Moving an article without consensus of other editors and block it from further move using admin's privilege is a crafty deed and not acceptable. -- Ypacaraí July 3, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
[5] Kokiri 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
Kokiri, your post means little as you do not explain anything except for adding a link for us to..? Read? Ypacaraí was indeed correct. Crafty and cunning are two words which come to mind. By changing it, the editor shows clear bias. Maybe he'd like to use this opportunity to explain why the change was made? Kojangee July 5th 2005 8:13 (Beijing Time)
Just in case you favor bottom posting, here's a post duplicated above under Past Inconsequential Or some such title...
Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.