Talk:Sea of Japan

Korean: [start] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help); Hanja: [medium] Error: {{Lang}}: Latn text/non-Latn script subtag mismatch (help)

Archives
February 2003 - March 2006 April - December 2006

Liancour Rocks(Dokuto/Takeshima)

Liancour Rocks is a neutral name. Please explain the reason why this name is not adopted. --Sir Joestar 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Sea of Japan, not Dokdo. Please see the discussions on Talk:Dokdo. --Reuben 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why neutrality concerns? What's clear and apparent fact can't be argued. Dokdo belongs to Korea. So the very official name of it must be what Koreans call it. --Jinroin 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's Dokdo not Dokuto --Jinroin 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral names should be used regardless of the type of articles. --[[User::l46kok|l46kok]]

WP:LAME

An entry from Sea of Japan appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.

Wikipedia

need for SProtect?

Due to the recent frequent vandalism by anons, I am considering to SProtect this page to prevent anon edits. Any thoughts or comments? -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone direct me to the explanations for the recent revert by the IP address? From what I see, in every other Wikipedia article, the alternate name is bolded. This article is not locked from editing, I don't understand reverting just for the sake of preventing changes. OpieNn 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main reason: East Sea is not "the alternate name". Note that the Koreas push for different names. And East Sea is a different article. Previous discussion that you may wish to take part in:

• #Possible solution
• #New proposal, new vote
• #Should East Sea be bolded?
• #Should "East Sea" be mentioned at all in the lead section?

--129.241.126.121 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to make little sense to link East Sea to a disambiguation page. Surely there's no doubt about which East Sea is meant in this context. I could see linking to the Sea of Japan naming dispute page, though. --Reuben 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be, it seems to me this list from above pretty much settles the discussion, about East Sea being bolded as a widely recognized alternate name. I also don't see why East Sea is a disambiguation page, since it's not ambiguous at any other encyclopedia.

• American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) [1]; East Sea: See Sea of Japan [2]
• National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [3]
• Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
• World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [4]
• Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [5]
• Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, [6]; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [7]
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea [8]; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of [9] OpieNn 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These citations were already provided by User:Quizimodo as seen in the above discussions (and by User:Appleby before him). In the English language, "East Sea" is ALWAYS used in conjunction with "Sea of Japan", but never "East Sea" alone. These links prove it.--Endroit 08:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

203.63.59.37's comment

this is taken from naming dispute section of the article. --Kusunose 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In dispute to the above stated view point;

Firstly, I should point out that the name “East Sea” or “The East Sea” has actually received formal international recognition. Both the National Geographic Society (1999), and multiple other cartographic organisations have formally recognised the name “East Sea” and will be including this on all future maps produced (Reference: Sea of Japan vs. East Sea , by Matt Rosenberg, February 24, 2002, http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa022402a.htm). This is not to say that they are removing the old name “Sea of Japan” as this is very commonly known, and so it is likely to cause confusion, in unaware peoples, if this name is suddenly replaced.

The Issues Regarding the Name Dispute:

"The Gulf of Corea" was the original English name for this section of sea (Reference: "Asia" from The General Gazetteer; or Compendious Geographical Dictionary by R. Brookes. Eighth Edition. Dublin, 1808.)

The naming of "The Sea of Japan" only came into effect after the (alleged, yet largely accepted) murder of the Korean Queen Min in the early 20th Century (I believe the Romanised spelling of her name is correct), and the subsequent forcible annexation of Korea by the Japanese (who had been, in the years previous, supplied with military equipment and training by Western nations). At this point, and only because Japan now forcibly controlled both sides of this section of sea, was the name changed to "The Sea of Japan".

In all reasonableness, after the surrender of Japan in 1945, and Korea becoming (somewhat) independent again, the name should have been re-adjusted. Note: The Northern half of Korea was administered by the Soviet Empire and the Southern half was administered by the U.S.A – as per the terms of reconstruction for the peninsula. It was as a reaction to the American antagonism of the Soviets in this area that the Korean War resulted; splitting the country in two.

The Americans, and the Western countries allied with them (largely encompassing most of the prominent English speaking countries [and note: we are discussing the dispute over the English name for this section of sea – not the name in any other language]).... these countries were somewhat unwilling to re-adjust the naming of the section of sea. Most likely because of Americans extremely strong influence over Japan at the time, and still existing. Note: Japan is a vassal state to the U.S.A. (if any Japanese wish to dispute this – please study your constitution and you will see the truth of it).

Japan no longer controls both sides of this section of sea. There do exist disputed islands approximately at the centre of this region, however that is a different matter, and for the countries themselves to resolve.

At this point in history it would be unreasonable to name the section of sea after either one country, especially as they have both had the section of sea previously named after them. It is more than reasonable, and should be perfectly acceptable to the governments and citizens of both countries, that the section of sea be named as “The East Sea”. As Japan itself has always (historically) considered itself, and the region of sea immediately around it, to be 'East' (Asia was always histroically referenced around what is now the PRC (China), and in reference to China, Japan is in the East, and so it always considered itself to be East). The section of sea, coincidentally, is also to the East of Korea. And on a global scale the whole region is in “The Far East”.

In summary: At present the official name of this section of sea is BOTH “The Sea of Japan” AND “The East Sea”.

It is more than likely that as time passes the naming “East Sea” will slowly become more prominent, especially as the world population (who grew up with and have always associated) the name “Sea of Japan” slow pass away... the younger generations of world population will likely be more “travelled”, and so be more aware of the differences in the world as a whole.

Note: In this article I mean no offence to any Japanese person with the things that I have mentioned about Japan. It is only mentioned as history has played out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.63.59.37 (talk • contribs).

Sea of Japan

It is loacted a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Korea, Japan and Russia. we think the Sea of Japan is right comment but it is not. Not Sea of Japan but East Sea and also it's not a sea of Japan it's Sea of Korea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.46.181.41 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Your argument is irrelevant. The Sea of Japan is the standard name to speakers of English. Macgruder 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sea of Japan is known better than the East Sea, but the 'fame' does not ensure the 'right thing.' -a networker

Can somebody explain why the title doesn't have the name of East Sea in Parenthesis but the actual article does?

East Sea

I believe the mention of "East Sea" (unbolded, in the intro) was removed in favor of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (bolded) in the "dispute" section (at the bottom), in accordance with a previous discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2#Should East Sea be bolded?. Since there was no significant discussion to change that consensus, I will revert the last addition of "East Sea" into the intro.--Endroit 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was no consensus and the intro continued to be written as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" after the discussion. That was changed on 3 May to the version suggested by jnestorius in the previous discussion, which has both "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".[10] And then, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" part was moved to the dispute section[11] thus "East Sea" disappeared from the intro. I prefer jnestorius' version. As the lead section is the summary of the article, we should talk about the dispute there. And it would be better to introduce "East Sea" in conjunction with the dispute, because for those who do not know the dispute, why "East Sea" is in the parenthesis is not obvious. --Kusunose 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should be a summary of the article. The article contains significant information about the dispute, because the naming dispute is very relevant and interesting information, probably for a majority of people who are reading this topic. The naming issue should be very briefly explained in the first or second sentence. Highlimit 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Kusunose and Highlimit, both names should be in the introduction.

Compromise

I was called by an editor here through e-mail (since I have e-mail on my user page) to handle maybe a new dispute here? I think it should be Sea of Japan (East Sea) for the title of the article & also the header for the box. What do you guys think? If there was no consensus before, there may be now. National Geographic I hear does the same thing. See "Sea of Japan -"East Sea", "East Sea" -"Sea of Japan", and "Sea of Japan" "East Sea". I don't think East Sea lags behind that much to be excluded, and plus we must be neutral. (Wikimachine 16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

This isn't a good idea; if any change at all is required, it is much better to use the idea that Kusunose suggested. See my comment below for response to the material Wikimachine added in the above comment after I left this one —LactoseTI^T 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Same thing with Dokdo right? We should move Liancourt Rocks to the dispute section.... no. I hereby test neutrality of the same editors who participated in Dokdo poll & here too. I'll request a new RM. (Wikimachine 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Such a parenthetical can lead to confusion, as Kusunose mentions--the approach we somewhat endorse will explain without undo weight. Before you start diving into your old friend Google, see the archives on the the compromise--one name is clearly in much wider usage. —LactoseTI^T 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, you do know that no one was disputing the title, right? Evidently the e-mail you got canvasing you over here was not specific enough. Right now there is just some minor discussion going on about the intro. --Cheers, Komdori 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I still think it's a good idea to move the article to Sea of Japan (East Sea). I hear that many articles (mostly disputed ones) use parenthesis to present 2 names. (Wikimachine 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia deprecates using two names in article titles. If other articles are doing so, please consider renaming them rather than renaming this. --Kusunose 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Click click. I quite don't remember who advocated using two names for Liancourt Rocks... were they Macgruder & Komdori? Nah... They're just too honest. Kusunose, what if "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" itself is a title? See this new search. Remember that Wikipedia procedures are not absolute. We must try to seek a solution that fits best with all of the rules. Sea of Japan is definitely not NPOV. P.S. Wikipedia does recommend, but it does not prevent titles containing 2 or more names. (Wikimachine 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is not a solution that fits best with all of the rules. The deprecation of using two names in a title is part of WP:NPOV policy. It also does not meet any of Wikipedia naming conventions as far as I know. P.S. We should distinguish what is technically possible with the MediaWiki software and what is possible within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --Kusunose 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that part of NPOV states that Wikipedia should not hold two different titles with two separate articles. Why didn't you bring this up in Liancourt Rocks dispute, Kusunose? Your expert help would have prevented another poll. (Wikimachine 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

What you are saying is about WP:NPOV#POV forks but I'm referring to WP:NPOV#Article naming. As to Liancourt Rocks, the last RM was the first time double names were brought up as candidates and they gained not much support so I doubt bringing this up there made much difference. --Kusunose 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Japanese-Korean_disputes#Geographic_disputes. Doesn't something click? Liancourt Rocks, Tsushima, and East Sea. Huh. I'm sensible enough to accept Tsushima (actually I don't care about Tsushima, KPOV is wrong) and maybe Sea of Japan too (like Indian Ocean, etc.) but overall you can clearly see an internal systemic bias due to admin lobbying and more. (Wikimachine 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I can support all names based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCON etc. so I don't think it's due to systemic bias. Some people disputes their names based on their perceived neutrality but it is not how article naming work in Wikipedia. --Kusunose 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can give me all the rules and procedures that I already know of and which I included in my handy dandy guide to explain why the Liancourt Rocks should have remained at Dokdo, but when we get to a dispute again you, Kusunose, yourself doesn't stick with them all that much either. For example, there was no consensus in anything, and the only risk in that was sock puppeting, and we had already gotten sock puppeting cleared of, but the admin decided to go on with sock puppeting and yes consensus. Stuffs like this bother me. (Wikimachine 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

I won't make a new RM, but in process I proved that Komdori and Macgruder were not neutral in the Liancourt Rocks dispute. (Wikimachine 13:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Chinese name

I removed Chinese name, because Sea of Japan don't have relation with Chinese. --Masoris 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

seems that someone put it back... Odst 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I found that there is a redirect for the Japanese word "Nihonkai". I'm removing that and creating a disambiguation page for that word since there exists a named passenger train with the name of Nihonkai and that article can be found at Nihonkai (Train). If there are any problems, let me know. Thanks. Hosikawafuzi 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IHO did Not decide to only sea of japan use

the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". <<?

actually, iho chief said,

"I encourage the three countries concerned to find a solution acceptable to all of them, taking into account any relevant solutions, or else to agree to differ and to report the outcome of these discussions to the next conference."

iho did not decide to only 'sea of japan' naming use.Panelequal3 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHO declined to change the name to "East Sea," leaving it as Sea of Japan and then made the statement that you quote above. By declining to change the name, they left the name as it stands currently- Sea of Japan, and suggested that if it is going to be changed, that the involved parties work out a compromise. Cla68 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHO declined the name use both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". They did not decide to only sea of japan name use.

1. IHO cheif said, "these discussions to the next conference."

2. Previous IHO's map delete that only "sea of japan" name use.

3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.[12]

4. so, IHO did not decide to exclusively "sea of japan" name use. Panelequal3 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [13] [14]

so, exclusively 'sea of japan name use' did not permited. "Sea of japan/ East sea"(twin use) is right.Panelequal3 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) =

Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). According to Wikipedia naming convention,

Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:

1. For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
2. For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
3. For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
4. For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
5. For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
6. For all North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.

so, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is right.Panelequal3 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless Japan, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea have blockaded the entire sea to eliminate the international waters, this is an international article, as it describes the body of water not owned by any of the four countries. Even it were to be a "Japan/Korea and South Korea" article, the (East Sea) parenthetic should only be added once; not throughout the article. Neier 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This sea is not only for japan but also, north and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and south korea and north korea. Panelequal3 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wrong. The sea is not Japan's; it is not South Korea's; it is not Russia's. It is an international body of water. So, the Korean MoS should follow the international article standard. Neier 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

also, like already metioned, Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". this article cleary is NOT true.Panelequal3 08:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions disagree with sources all the time. This article is no different, and, should be kept according to the conventions we've established, and not necessarily default to a single source. Neier 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why do you can't answer this discussion? don't out of topic.

1. Like already metioned, According to IHO's technical resolution, internationally, "Sea of Japan/East Sea" (same use) is right.[15] [16]

2. the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". << this former article is not true. so, i correct this article. IHO did not decided to 'only' sea of japan name use. i already metioned it.

3. check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). This sea is not only for japan but also, north and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and south korea and north korea. use as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right. This was convetioned in wikipedia. why do you change without convetion? Panelequal3 09:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The naming dispute is between the three countries. The body of water is an international geographical feature. The Korean naming convention says that for international articles, which this is one, use Sea of Japan only. Neier 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Like already metioned, This Sea is not only for japan but also north korea and south korea. international? i did not edit other page's sea of japan name. but this page 'sea of japan/East Sea' article is for both north and south korea's. also, cleary The name of the water is disputed. so, only 'sea of japan' name use is JPOV edit. like alreay metioned this Sea is not only for japan but also both korea's. and you think russia permit only use "sea of japan" name? check the russian school text book. russia use east sea name, too.Panelequal3 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

deindent - The history of the naming debate of this article is in the archives, and it is fairly presumptious to try and change the current consensus with just one source. And, your newspaper article that you linked above says that the head of IHO has suggested the map be updated without a name, until a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. It also says that no change can happen without assent by the entire body (not just the head), which is in 2009. The body's current status is "Sea of Japan". If your issue is with the IHO calling it "Sea of Japan" against some other rule that the IHO has, then, you should not bother Wikipedia with that. As for the Korean naming conventions, are you telling me that Sea of Japan is not an international article, and relates only to the two Koreas, Japan, and Russia? That is wrong. It is an international article, and the Korean naming conventions list the international article first as how to deal with the naming issue: Sea of Japan. If your issue is with the Korean naming convention, then this article is the wrong place to be discussing it. And, I don't know or care what Russia calls it, because as I said, the article is about the body of water which no country owns. Current policy is to call the water [[Sea of Japan]. That would be true if Russia called it Sea of Russia, or whatever. Neier 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. you said, The history of the naming debate of this article is in the archives, and it is fairly presumptious to try and change the current consensus with just one source. <<<< Actually, i can not edit fair POV edit. bcz, if i insert history of east sea in these page[17], many japanese revert this and attack me, and report to me as 3rr violation. so, i can not edit Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute. so, these article did NOT contain Neutral POV article.

Your edits are more about the content of the naming dispute article, but, if you had inserted them without removing the other point of view, and without renaming every instance of Sea of Japan in the article, you may not have been reverted so quickly. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. you said, IHO calling it "Sea of Japan" <<<< Actually, IHO did not decide to only sea of japan name use. Japnese Kyodo Newspaper and Korean Newspaper contents different. Cleary, IHO chief did not decide to only Sea of Japan name use. also, like already metioned, According to IHO's technical resolution, Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. so, Kyodo Newspaper contents is NOT true. must correct this mistake.

The Kyodo source is about the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names; not the IHO. There was not IHO meeting in August 2007, because as the Korean paper wrote in May, there won't be a meeting until 2009. You cannot choose just one person's point of view and overrule the current practice of the IHO, and the latest results of the United Nations group. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3. you said, It is an international article. What is the international mean? your international mean is diffrent from other. this East Sea not only for japan but also north and south korea's. and article contain disputed sea name. so, for More Neutral POV edit, Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. this aricle is for korea's too. also, russia school text book recoreded as this sea as Sea of Japan/East Sea. Panelequal3 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

International means that it is in a context other than a certain country, or group. The naming dispute is confined to three or four countries; but, this article is not about the naming dispute. It is about the ocean, which is a global/international geographic feature. The Korean naming convention says to use just Sea of Japan in international articles; meaning, any article about a topic that is not confined to Korea, Japan, or Russia. This is such an article. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Many japanese personal harrasment and continually disturbance to edit. this is true. if you check my edit, i did not delete JPOV edit. i just insert KPOV edit.(remain JPOV, but you japanese continually delete any edit) 2. What are you talking about? NO. IHO did not decide to se of japan name use. like already metioned, check the IHO's technial resolution. Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. why do you can not answer this? and continually out of topic? 3. According to you logic, Sea of Japan/East Sea(same use) is right. According to IHO's notaion, "Sea of Japan/East Sea" is right. and russia school text book use "Sea of Japan/East Sea". 1/4 of world map recorded as East Sea. so, East Sea is right. but, according to NPOV edit, Sea of Japan/East Sea is more NPOV. Panelequal3 10:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)