Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sea of Japan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:33, 18 December 2005 editAppleby (talk | contribs)7,234 edits →east sea disambiguation← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:45, 1 December 2024 edit undoQwert0617 (talk | contribs)62 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{korean}} {{Controversial}}
{{Notice|image=Laff_alert.svg|1=An entry from '''East Sea of Korea''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ].}}
----
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
I moved the name issue to ] --] 08:49 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
{{DYK talk|18 October|2010|entry=... that according to a legend, the ''']''' ''(pictured)'' represents the God of the ''']'''?}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Oceans|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=Top|skgeo=yes}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=mid}}
}}
{{high-traffic|date=14 February 2008|site=2channel|url=http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1201489641/|page=talk}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive index|mask=Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
----
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader = {{aan}}|maxarchivesize = 200K|counter = 4|minthreadsleft = 4|minthreadstoarchive = 1|algo = old(30d)|archive = Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive %(counter)d}}
==Notice==
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|age=30|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
The current naming of the body of water between ], ], and ] is an open issue, according to a 1998 decision of the 7th ] and a 1974 ] resolution regarding the naming of disputed bodies of water . According to UNCSGN and in accordance with the IHO resolution, the names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" are to be used simultaneously. ("East Sea" is preferred by ], while "East Sea of Korea" is preferred by ].) When the issue is resolved, this article will be edited appropriately. Until then, downgrading the Korean names for the body of water violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. For background on the dispute and a summary of the different points of view, see ] --] 18:24, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
__TOC__
<!-- Please type all comments and discussions below this line. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. -->


== A Closer Look at the East Sea Naming Controversy ==
:Any sort of naming and labeling can be POV and I concur that calling what Japanese call Sea of Japan Sea of Japan. And of course naming the article East Sea is also POV. The current name violates NPOV policy but I don't see a neutral name. If there is one, we should adopt that one even that is uncommon. NPOV has higher priority than common name convention. -- ]


The preference for the term "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan" is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and geopolitical considerations. The term, "East Sea," is advocated since it holds historical and cultural significance predating the colonial era, emphasizing a more inclusive regional perspective. Countries like South Korea view the use of "East Sea" as a means to assert their national identity and diminish the dominance of the "Sea of Japan" name, which is linked to a contentious colonial history. The parallel lies in the potential to evoke historical grievances and sensitivity; just as certain war criminal flags, such as Nazi flag and rising sun flag, may carry a contentious historical legacy, the naming of geographical features can be a source of geopolitical tension, reflecting deep-seated historical issues. Both situations highlights the need for nuanced discussions and diplomatic approaches to navigate complex historical narratives and foster understanding among nations. The choice of terminology is also seen as a way to navigate geopolitical sensitivities in the region, reducing potential tensions associated with historical disputes. Proponents suggest that adopting "East Sea" contributes to a more balanced and neutral international approach to the naming of this body of water, reflecting diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of historical narratives. In essence, the naming debate transcends mere semantics, becoming a symbolic representation of identity, diplomacy, and historical consciousness in East Asia. ] (]) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
::I don't mind that the article's title is ]. ] or ] would be awkward, and most people do refer to it as the Sea of Japan. I just think that within the body of the article, both names ("Sea of Japan" and "East Sea") should get equal mention, for the reasons I pointed out above. Actually, I wonder what the Russians think about this whole debate? After all, their country also borders on the sea! --] 23:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


:It is not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgment calls on historical and cultural consciousness and sensitivity. These choices are made by the reliable sources which Misplaced Pages relies on. Misplaced Pages's job is to reflect the most common usage among reliable sources. In essence, your argument is with those reliable sources, not with Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Calling the "East Sea/Sea of Japan" just "Sea of Japan" goes against Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy as Sewing has said because the the international body has ordered all to name the sea of water by both names. --] 21:11, 11 July 2005 (AEST)
::Yup. ] (]) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
::It's not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgement calls, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan. I mean, Misplaced Pages doesn't stand with the ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''(the Nazi Party), nor does it stand with terrorist groups like the Taliban. In fact, Misplaced Pages articles openly condemn them.
::When we talk about Imperial Japan, we talk about the sex slave issues, various massacres, human experiments, and other various atrocities that Japan has committed during World War ll. Yes, it's not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgement calls, but there's a certain line between keeping it politically neutral and upholding a symbol of violence, crime, and injustice. ] (]) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The English Misplaced Pages has its own guidelines (]) and it is very unlikely the name of this article will change unless the usage of "East Sea" exceeds that of "Sea of Japan" on reliable secondary sources outside of the enwiki. If you truly believe that the name "Sea of Japan" must be banned for its association with Japan's war crimes then arguing on a Misplaced Pages talk page is a waste of time. Try convincing the US department of state and Encyclopedia Britannica first. ] (]) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


== It’s wrong of name “Japan sea” ==
::::That is flat out wrong. The relevant policy here is our naming conventions, which clearly state that we need to use the most common form already used in English. --] 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


It shouldn’t Japan Sea.
----
Google will have to find th right name without being biased towards to any country. ] (]) 04:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have suggested a naming convention for this water here: ]. I hope we can turn something like that into a proper convention. Looking forward to your comments there. --] 00:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


:Sea of Japan is the common name in English, not Japan Sea. ] (]) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
== Current Map ==
::You do realize that that's not his/her point, right? ] (]) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The current map on the main article is an old map of the Korean peninsula and its surroundings. In this version of the map, the coast facing "East Sea" is labeled "Sea of Korea." BIG DEAL. There are old maps that say Sea of Korea, East Sea. Let's not play politics (play politics ] instead) and get a real map that shows the whole sea, not just the 1% shown in the current map. Then people can get a better idea of what is in the vicinity of the sea. --] 16:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024 ==
== Revert ==
I have reverted a highly POV edit. ] 07:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Good! ] 09:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Sea of Japan|answered=yes}}
== Dok-do(Takeshima) ==
The East Sea of Korea is a sea that includes Ulleungdo and of course, Dokdo. The real Sea of Japan is a little sea more east from the East Sea of Korea. The real Sea of Japan includes battleship Island and part of Gushu. ] (]) 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Main article requires small edit to show truth clearly. Liancourt Rocks are not mutually claimed by S. Korea and Japan. First, the term "Liancourt Rock" is intensionally spreaded over the world by Japanese government to dilute the focus of dispution surrounding Dok-do or Takeshima. The word "Liancourt Rocks" is not a neutral term. Second, Dok-do(Takeshima) is legally occupied by S. Korea and claimed by Japan. It is not a mutually claimed, which could give unfair impression to readers. Because the island is being occupied by S. Korea, I write Dok-do(Korean) first followed by Japanese name in parenthesis.
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 02:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


== About my writing ==
== Yet another push for a naming convention ==


The sea of Japan was widely used before Korea was colonized by japan is a Japan's claims.
If you're interested in debating how the Sea of Japan should be referred to in Korean contexts, please visit ]. Hopefully this discussion will eventually lead to a vote. At that time, notices will be posted here and on other related pages.
Why are you deleting it?


And i can't see any korea's claim that east sea was internationally used. ] (]) 09:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hope to see you there! -- ] 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The discussion has been moved to:
:*]
:Thank you. ] 8 July 2005


:The article is not based on conflicting claims, but on the sources currently used in the article. ] (]) 09:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
== Invasion of Takeshima ==
::I have no idea what you are saying You should talk about my first talk ] (]) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm done with this ] (]) 12:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


=== East sea ===
Invasion of Takeshima by Koreans is a big international problem.
I just want to make sure one thing. I don't know what the basis for using the East Sea internationally before the advent of the Sea of Japan. ] (]) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
It could be the first case of Japanese self defence of its territories.
:Apologies, but it is difficult for me to understand what point you are trying to make. Please consider refraining from editing the English Misplaced Pages given your level of English proficiency seems somewhat poor. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


I just want to make sure one thing. Artical says that East Sea internationally used before the Sea of Japan widely use. I can find that east sea used in korea 2000years ago but i cant fine that east sea used internationally do you have any research of it? ] (]) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
==Cut from intro==
:now? ] (]) 12:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Don't edit your comments after others have already replied, either. I've fixed this for you, though. To answer your question: that's not what the article says. The article says that Japan claims both names were in use before the occupation of Korea. It does not state whether the names were actually used during that time, only that Japan says they were. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you have any link? Because i can't found it any were. They says that it was only used in korea
:::And also sorry because im not used to wiki site i dont now the rule accurately ] (]) 12:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There are sources in the article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I cant find it ] (]) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry to hear that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Stop insisting for writting down evidence-free writings. If there is the only one simple thing you just have to do is just copy and paste it at the talk why cant you do that may i understand that you have no research to prove it? ] (]) 13:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It's in the article. If you actually cared about whether a source exists, you would've located it immediately. Since you're doing this instead, and given you're almost certainly also {{IP|117.110.115.27}}, that makes it abundantly clear you don't care about what was or was not the case historically, or what sources there are or are not—you just want to argue and create more headaches for others. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No its not.
:::::::::I think you are the one who create more headaches for others.
:::::::::Just give me the link. What you are saying ] (]) 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::look at the link below and press the pdf at 3rd page 1st sentence it says <Western maps used a variety of names for the sea through the 18th century, including "Sea of Korea," "Oriental Sea" and "Sea of China" in addi-tion Sea of Japan"> there isnt east sea.https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/index.html


::: https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/page1we_000113.html this one also this is a Japan's research of data on which names are used in what proportionsand and Esat sea is 0%.] (]) 07:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:or '''Japan Sea''' in most countries and the United Nations and in academic fields, known as the ''East Sea'' in ], the ''East Sea of Korea'' in ], and the ''Japan Sea'' in ], is a ] of the western ]

The above smacks of attempt to settle the controversy by having Misplaced Pages endorse a particular ] (q.v.) rather than describing the dispute.

== Tsushima Strait ==

I have fixed the information on the Tsushima Strait in the text, but cannot fix the map easily. The map implies what was actually written in the text before; but which is actually not the case. The ] can be split into two channels: the eastern and western channel. The eastern channel is often referred to as the Tsushima Strait, but the Tsushima Strait is really one part of the Korea Strait. The map currently implies these are two different Straits. Reference: Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9046066 makes it very clear; also http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/k/k0103200.html or http://www.internalwaveatlas.com/Atlas2_PDF/IWAtlas2_Pg345_SeaofJapan.pdf . ] 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)

== My Edit (Naming) ==

I have changed a few things in the naming section, hopefully to make it more balanced. A few changes: I removed the brackets because afaik the dispute ''only'' involves Korea and Japan. I have changed ''Japanese Occupation'' into a time reference. I have removed the claim that the South Korean government wants ''Sea of Korea'' or ''Sea of Corea'', since afaik this is not true. Their publications all use ''East Sea''. I have also removed POV articles as references. Removed the information that four countries border the sea, since this is irrelevant to the naming. Otoh, I have added a few sentence on the fact that the name wasn't standardized for a long time, including the 1919 date. These added paragraphs are copied and ''modified'' from the ''dispute'' article (which is a disgrace). ] 29 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)
:You did a good job Kokiri. I like the way it reads now. ]

== appears increasingly ==

Kokiri, I had originally changed that wording because the wording you used makes it ''sound like'' Sea of Japan was not the most common name before 1919. The wording sounded POV. Yes, Sea of Japan did appear increasingly, but it was always the most common name in English. That is an important point to avoid confusion. ] 14 July 2005

I just changed it so that it is now only facts with no POV. ] 14 July 2005

:Cheers, I didn't mean to imply that ''Sea of Japan'' wasn't common before; it only got even more common. I'm happy the way you solved it. ] 17:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

== Naming section ==
I propose the whole sentences in the section be deleted and point the reader to ] because whole sentences are merely a duplicate of that article. What do you think? --] 17:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:This section could be shortened and then point the reader to the dispute page. But i feel that the dispute does need to be summarised on this page. Yes, the summary is a little long as it does duplicate information. ] 7 August 2005

If no one objects, within the next few days, I will shorten the "Naming" section as it is just a duplicate of much of the info found on the ] page. ] 14 August 2005

== The Decision by the National Geographic ==

In December 2004, the National Geographic agreed with South Korea on the official name of the water, '''East Sea'''. The Japanese government is protesting against the decision. It is the duty of Misplaced Pages to serve its purpose of providing the correct information; therefore, the name of the article, Sea of Japan, should now be changed to '''East Sea'''.

:Give us link to the source here. --] 00:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

: Even if the claim was true at that time, it is outdated and proved that Korean claim is false and groundless. Look at and . --] 04:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

:Wasn't aware this was nationalgeographicpedia.org. --] 04:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

== the "Sea of Japan" article is NOT the dispute article ==

I reverted it back to a counterbalance. I didn't just delete one side.

The introduction mentions the dispute:
*''There is a long-running controversy between Korea and Japan over what this sea should be called in English.''

It is followed by the Japanese claim:
*''Japan insists that it is called Sea of Japan, which has been the international de facto standard since the 19th century.''

That is followed up the Korean claim ''and'' the '''reason''' why they are disputing the name:
*''However, the governments of North and South Korea challenge this name, contending it is a symbol of Japan's imperialistic past. The South Korean government wants the name East Sea to be used, while the North Korean government prefers East Sea of Korea. ''

That is then followed by the Japanese counter to the Korean claim that the name was a result of Japan's imperialistic past:
*''In July 2005, the Japanese government published a report on its investigation that shows the name "Sea of Japan" is unrelated to imperialism and had been most widely used by the beginning of the 19th century.''

Then we have the ''other'' names and the standardisation:
*''Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various different names including Sea of Korea, Sea of Corea, Japanese Sea, Oriental Sea, East Sea, Sea of Japan, and East Sea of Korea. The name Sea of Japan was standardized in 1919 by the International Hydrographic Bureau.''

Finally we have a mentioning of the Korean efforts to have the name changed:
*''The South Korean government and media use East Sea consistently in their publications. Since the 1990s, South Korea has increased their campaign efforts to change the sea's official international name. Neither the UN (UNCSGN) nor the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) have accepted their claims.''

The way i see it, it is currently counter balanced. We have the Korean's claim that it was a result of Japanese imperialistic past and we have the counter argument. Plain and simle. Everything else can be left for the dispute page. How did my edit make it POV? My edit put it back to NPOV. Your edit puts it POV for Korea. This page isn't meant for proving one side or the other. Your edit tells how the Koreans claim it is a result of the imperialisitic past, the japanese counter agrument, and then another Korean counter argument. Those '''counter''' arguments are ''not'' meant for this page. That is why we have the dispute page.

In my opinion, I would like to see the naming section shortened to the point that it only mentions the fact that there is a dispute (no arguments or counter arguments), a list of the ''other'' names, and finally the offical standarisation. What else is needed for this page that isn't already said on the main dispute page? ] 1 September 2005

:I just saw the edit that removed all the arguments and left only the fact that there is a dispute and the list of names. I really like it. The only thing missing is the official naming by the IHB in 1919. ] 1 September 2005

== chinese name in infobox ==

just wondering, why is the chinese name in the infobox? china doesn't border the sea. ] 08:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

: I strongly object to Appleby deleting the Chinese name for 3 reasons:
: 1) While China is not bordering the Sea of Japan (East Sea), it is a major country in the vicinity. China shows up prominently in the map of the sea, above the infobox.
: 2) Part of the name dispute involves the use of Korean ] and Japanese ]. Since we know that all ] are derived from the Chinese ], I believe it is imperative to display the Chinese name in Chinese ].
: 3) Appleby has not established a concensus to delete this material.
:--] 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

i appreciate your response, but i think you may have misunderstood the edit
:1. major countries in the vicinity do not get their local language names in the infobox of geographic features. see ] ] etc etc. that's not why we have the infobox. in fact, after seeing other wikipedia articles, it's clear we don't even need the russian name, or even japanese or korean local names. even the infobox itself is not necessary or standard, the only reason it is there is to present the disputed '''international''' names in a neater format, i guess. ] 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)] we only need a brief reference to the parties disputing the international name.
:2.a. this is not the dispute page. this is the page about the geographic feature.
:b. china's name for the sea is not the same as japanese hanzi or korean hanja, which are already in the infobox.
:c. in the dispute, chinese characters are a very minor part, if any. actually, in the entire dispute article, there is no mention of china's name for it, in english or chinese characters.
:3. i did ask for opinions, & although i could have waited longer, we know this is a closely watched page with quick responses for anything controversial. given that nearby countries don't get their local names in infoboxes, & that the chinese name is not a part of the dispute, i don't see how this could be controversial, but of course it'd be better to have more input. maybe i missed something? ] 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

::I see no reason for the Chinese name being there. ]

:::In that case, you have to delete the entire infobox, except for the English name. Korean ], Japanese ], and Chinese ] are all important aspects of the name dispute and must either be displayed together or omitted altogether.--] 17:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

like i said, i don't have a problem with deleting the entire infobox. but to clarify, chinese hanzi are not involved in the dispute at all & are not mentioned in the entire dispute article. i didn't delete korean or japanese hanzi, so i don't understand why you got so excited. ] 18:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

:Please see below.--] 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

== Infobox moved to the Dispute Page ==
Infobox with the various country names was moved to the . Please continue discussion .--] 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

=== Infobox moved back here from the ] ===
I believe Kusunose, Masterhatch, and myself (Endroit) have clarified the intent of the Infobox here. See discussion in the ] page .

There are 3 changes from before: 1. The Chinese name was omitted (while the Russian name was included). 2. "Hanguk-hae" (한국해 / 韓國海) portion was deleted from the South Korean name. 3. Link to "]" was corrected.--] 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

==map==
while people are paying attention, i have couple questions about the map. korea strait is the name of the entire strait between korea & japan, not just one of the channels (see ] & encyclopedia britannica). & also, tsushima basin seems to be more commonly referred to as ulleung basin. as well as by google search. anyone wanna update the map? ] 19:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:When i created the map, I used ''Sea of Japan (East Sea)'' as the name of the sea. Another user changed the name on the image on the commons. I just rolled it back, so the image should be fine now. When i created the image, the basin was listed in the article as tsushima basin, hence i used this name. Now only ulleung is listed in the article. I think both names should be in the article, as the english language google count is only 669:402 for ulleung. I can update the map - as soon as I get to my computer again, probably next weekend. Finally, the straits: This was my mistake, I should update this, too. Not sure how exactly to do the layout so that it is both clear and also readable -- ] &#91;&#91;User talk:Chris 73&#124;Talk]] 23:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
::It seems Kokiri had talked about "Korea Strait" in the map, back in June. If you can, I think "Korea Strait" should be in larger text (and a little lower if possible). And "Tsushima Strait" should be left as is.
::About the other features in the map, I'm all for having multiple names in the map, to clarify things. Ideally, any secondary name should be in parenthesis (and in smaller text if possible). Thanks for your great work!
::Please note: At around August, there was some voting administered by Kokiri, Masterhatch, etc. regarding such guidelines. Please ask for their opinions also, when making the changes. I'm not sure if this voting applies to maps or not, but for the article, the secondary name must appear in parenthesis exactly once, upon first mention in the article. Assuming that "Ulleung Basin" is more popular, I believe the article should be changed to "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" for the first occurence only. --] 02:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Appleby has deleted the map altogether, without reaching concensus! Chris 73's map does NOT deserve to be deleted (although it needs to be changed). Please revert to Chris 73's most recent version. --] 17:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:I have included a temporary map while Chris 73 works on his final version.--] 07:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
::I changed the image. It now says ''Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)'', and in smaller letters ''Tsushima Strait'' and ''Western Channel'', with ''Korea Strait'' more in the center. The image is on the article now, hope everybody is happy with it. Let me know if i should delete ]. Also, i uploaded the OpenOffice.Org Source file ] if you want to edit it. -- ] | ] 15:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73, I don't think we need "Western Channel" on the map. Please see discussion below.

Please wait for concensus to be built. If "Western Channel" should be removed from the map, please make "Korea Strait" bigger, and return "Tsushima Strait" to its original size. Sorry for the trouble.

Or... if you tell me which tools (editors, etc.) to use, I can modify the file Sea_of_Japan_Map.sxd for you. Thanks. --] 16:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::I used ]. It's free (open source) and about as powerful as Microsoft Office. And, best of all, it has a very good vector graphics editing program "Draw" which i used to create the image. After editing, I just copied the contents to a picture program (], also free) and saved as a PNG. Let me know if you need my help. Please feel free to overwrite my images, we do not need a copy of the map for every naming version. About the channel names: I am not terribly familiar with the area, and merely used the ''western channel'' because it was mentioned in the text of the article as being on the other side of Tsushima -- ] | ] 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Wow!, sounds like fun. I'll install those 2 programs in a few days. I'll let you know if I need your help. Thanks Chris 73!--] 09:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

== The western channel of Korea Strait ==

The western channel of Korea Strait has no name in English. We cannot call it "the Western Channel", although we can call it "the western channel of Korea Strait" (with small letters). In English, only "Korea Strait" and "Tsushima Strait" have names. Please see articles (& discussions) on ] and ] also.

It may be OK to have "Western Channel" on a "Korea Strait" map because the context would be clear; but not on any "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" map. "Western Channel" is NOT the official name and so would be an ambiguous name on this map. Besides, how many other maps can you find that specifically mention "Western Channel" like this?

Please build concensus here. If there is no discussion, "Western Channel" shall be deleted from the map. --] 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

as seen in , in english, korea strait is the name of the entire strait, & tsushima strait & western channel are subdivisions of korea strait. logically, either both subdivisions should be omitted for scale & layout reasons, or both should be included. i would opt for the former personally, but it doesn't make any sense to include one but not the other label of the same detail level. ] 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:] is very well documented, and even has a Misplaced Pages article of its own. Also, the Misplaced Pages article for ] has substantially more material than the article for ]! "The western channel of Korea Strait" does NOT have any significant references in English literary material, even in Britannica. The inbalance is supported by most English publications. Misplaced Pages has no reason to be different. We will be merely following the norm when showing Tsushima Strait as part of Korea Strait, while omitting the western channel altogether.--] 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:Britannica seems to have an entry for Tsushima Strait as the following link shows a clickable text for Tsushima Strait: . You just have to pay money to Britannica to view it. "The western channel of Korea Strait" does NOT have a separate entry in the Britannica.--] 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:Appleby... In 2 of the other links you've submitted before , Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait are ALWAYS mentioned together as "Korea/Tsushima Strait" or "Tsushima/Korea Strait". Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait are given EQUAL mention while the western channel (of Korea Strait) is totally omitted. In general, this seems to be the overwhelming trend in English publications. You have, in fact, submitted material that prove the significance of the Tsushima Strait. But you have not yet submitted material which prove the significance of the western channel (beyond any basic mention in the article that it is the western channel of the Korea Strait).--] 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i linked to those three because they were pretty much the only scholarly references to the southwest basin of the sea, & thus are not the best examples for other purposes. do you think they did that because in those cases, they were actually referring to the tsushima strait part of the korea strait, the latter being the more recognized name of the area? did you notice the links also say east sea(sea of japan) or japan sea/east sea, not japan sea (east sea)? will you change the east sea label, too?

i believe the map should be consistent in the level of detail it shows. please do not delete "western channel" unless you also delete "tsushima strait." thanks. ] 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

:Appleby, as a Wikipedian, you should know that once you submit material, you cannot take it back... It will remain there forever, even after we all die! Anyways the material you submitted contradicts yourself, so you should be more careful when you submit material in the future.
:Also, I will not change my position regarding the deletion of "western channel", even if it means I also delete "Tsushima Strait" as well to reach concensus. (It will depend on what other people say here also.) The "western channel" is irrelevant in the article about Sea of Japan (East Sea) and shouldn't be mentioned, even in the article.--] 17:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

== Deletion of Tsushima Strait from this article ==

"Tsushima Strait" WILL BE DELETED from this article, as well as from the main map.

Relating to the above discussion "The western channel of Korea Strait", Appleby suggests that we also delete "Tsushima Strait" from the main map, when we delete "western channel." The premise for this action is the official position of the English Misplaced Pages so far, which is that "Tsushima Strait" is merely the eastern channel of "Korea Strait".

If, however, "Tsushima Strait" can be established as an alternate name for the entire "Korea Strait", we may not have to delete it. But you have to show the official position of the Japanese government regarding the English name for "Korea Strait," with proper citations. Then you must reach concensus here. (Also, please provide comment in the above discussion regarding "western channel", in tandem.)

If there is no further discussion here, "Tsushima Strait" shall be deleted from the map, as well as from the article.--] 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
:I strongly object the deletion of ''Tsushima Strait'' from the article. This is a valid piece of information, and we even have a separate article for the strait. I would also prefer to keep the "western channel", as it is clear from the context and only a minor mentioning in the text itself. On the map, western channel can be removed, but I would also keep ''Tsushima Strait'' on the map -- ] | ] 19:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

keep tsushima strait and western channel on the map & article, i don't understand the fuss endroit is making over this issue. western channel is the name of the other side at the same level of detail, according to encyclopedia britanna, so why not keep both? if you delete one, you should delete both, for consistency, but why delete either? things are fine as chris left them. ] 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:I think we already have concensus that "Tsushima Strait" and "western channel" have to be considered separately.... still waiting for others to respond. Appleby, I suggest you go back to the above discussion in showing the significance of the "western strait" so that it won't be deleted from the map.--] 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't think we have consensus, you have ONE person who prefers to keep "western channel" although it can be removed from the map. it doesn't make sense to delete one of two names of the same detail level, when chris has already fit the names onto the map. what is the point you're trying to make???

for western channel, i gave you encyclopedia britannica, also see cia world facbook , & ] 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with Appleby on this. Leave both names in. It doesn't hurt anything to have the extra info as it is definately not ''wrong'' per se. ] 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
::I also don't see anything wrong with ''Western Channel''. By itself, it is not clear, but in the context of the article it is pretty clear which ''Western channel'' is referred to. For another example, see ] -- ] | ] 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

==east sea disambiguation==
i just noticed that "east sea" goes to a disambiguation, even though the english "east sea" refers to the sea of japan. encarta , britannica , american heritage . unless anyone can find better authoritative sources for the english "east sea" referring to any sea other than this one, i don't understand why someone typing "east sea" in english in the english wikipedia would be referring to german language or chinese language placenames.

:In the Bible, the ] is sometimes referred as the East Sea　. To Christians this is very much authorative I think ;) --] 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't think we need a disambiguation page at all, since there is no ambiguity in english, & we don't normally disambiguate across non-english languages. & i'm not sure some of the content is accurate. but for now, i linked to the disambiguation page from this article. ] 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think the disambiguation page is informative. As to content's accuracy, each of ], ], ], ] mention East Sea (or Sea East). ] does't; however as a native speaker of Japanese, I can assure you that literal translation of Tōkai is 'east sea'. As to the link to the disambiguation page, it is better to use <nowiki>{{redirect|East Sea}}</nowiki>, which expands to {{redirect|East Sea}}

::We definitely need to revamp the '''East Sea''' disambiguation page. Please consider including ''ADDITIONAL'' material from ] (another disambiguation page), ], and ]. Another possibility would be to merge '''East Sea''' disambiguation page with ]. Please consult ] if we run into problems.--] 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

endroit, you're an equal member of wikipedia, you don't need to always give directions to others or defer every move to full debate. if you have the sources, everyone is encouraged to be bold here :-). discussion is necessary when there actually is a dispute, when there are no convincing citations or wikipedia policies that answers a question, but please feel free to make the changes yourself if you find other reputable publications or analogous wikipedia pages disambiguating. if you're actually proposing a merger, it would be helpful if research other equivalent wikipedia disambiguation situations first. north/northern, south/southern, west/western seas are all streated separately, so why would east/eastern be treated together? ] 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:45, 1 December 2024

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
An entry from East Sea of Korea appeared on Misplaced Pages's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q: Why does this article use the name the "Sea of Japan" instead of the "East Sea"?
A: In English usage, "Sea of Japan" has been more common since the 19th century than the nomenclature of "East Sea". "Sea of Japan" is the wording used by many large intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, and is supported by the majority of reliable sources. More information can be found at Sea of Japan naming dispute and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Controversial place names.
질문: 왜 이 문서에서는 East Sea가 아니라 Sea of Japan을 사용하고 있나요?
답변: 19세기 이래로 영어 화자들 사이에서는 Sea of Japan이 East Sea보다 널리 쓰이는 표현입니다. 유엔(UN)을 비롯한 대규모 국제기구 역시 Sea of Japan이라는 명칭을 사용하고 있으며, 신뢰할 수 있는 영문 출처의 대다수도 이를 뒷받침하고 있습니다. Sea of Japan naming dispute 문서와 Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Controversial place names도 참고하세요.
A fact from Sea of Japan appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/October.
Misplaced Pages
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconOceans High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Oceans To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
WikiProject iconKorea Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.
WikiProject iconGeography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
High traffic

On 14 February 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.



Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A Closer Look at the East Sea Naming Controversy

The preference for the term "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan" is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and geopolitical considerations. The term, "East Sea," is advocated since it holds historical and cultural significance predating the colonial era, emphasizing a more inclusive regional perspective. Countries like South Korea view the use of "East Sea" as a means to assert their national identity and diminish the dominance of the "Sea of Japan" name, which is linked to a contentious colonial history. The parallel lies in the potential to evoke historical grievances and sensitivity; just as certain war criminal flags, such as Nazi flag and rising sun flag, may carry a contentious historical legacy, the naming of geographical features can be a source of geopolitical tension, reflecting deep-seated historical issues. Both situations highlights the need for nuanced discussions and diplomatic approaches to navigate complex historical narratives and foster understanding among nations. The choice of terminology is also seen as a way to navigate geopolitical sensitivities in the region, reducing potential tensions associated with historical disputes. Proponents suggest that adopting "East Sea" contributes to a more balanced and neutral international approach to the naming of this body of water, reflecting diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of historical narratives. In essence, the naming debate transcends mere semantics, becoming a symbolic representation of identity, diplomacy, and historical consciousness in East Asia. 73.132.144.47 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgment calls on historical and cultural consciousness and sensitivity. These choices are made by the reliable sources which Misplaced Pages relies on. Misplaced Pages's job is to reflect the most common usage among reliable sources. In essence, your argument is with those reliable sources, not with Misplaced Pages. Westwind273 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yup. Masterhatch (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgement calls, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan. I mean, Misplaced Pages doesn't stand with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(the Nazi Party), nor does it stand with terrorist groups like the Taliban. In fact, Misplaced Pages articles openly condemn them.
When we talk about Imperial Japan, we talk about the sex slave issues, various massacres, human experiments, and other various atrocities that Japan has committed during World War ll. Yes, it's not the job of Misplaced Pages to make judgement calls, but there's a certain line between keeping it politically neutral and upholding a symbol of violence, crime, and injustice. 112.165.73.185 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The English Misplaced Pages has its own guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME) and it is very unlikely the name of this article will change unless the usage of "East Sea" exceeds that of "Sea of Japan" on reliable secondary sources outside of the enwiki. If you truly believe that the name "Sea of Japan" must be banned for its association with Japan's war crimes then arguing on a Misplaced Pages talk page is a waste of time. Try convincing the US department of state and Encyclopedia Britannica first. 00101984hjw (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s wrong of name “Japan sea”

It shouldn’t Japan Sea. Google will have to find th right name without being biased towards to any country. 2001:8003:421D:701:BD86:7CF6:531C:B06B (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sea of Japan is the common name in English, not Japan Sea. Masterhatch (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You do realize that that's not his/her point, right? 112.165.73.185 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The East Sea of Korea is a sea that includes Ulleungdo and of course, Dokdo. The real Sea of Japan is a little sea more east from the East Sea of Korea. The real Sea of Japan includes battleship Island and part of Gushu. 117.110.115.27 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. McYeee (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

About my writing

The sea of Japan was widely used before Korea was colonized by japan is a Japan's claims. Why are you deleting it? PU3lnm8JtfU

And i can't see any korea's claim that east sea was internationally used. Qwert0617 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is not based on conflicting claims, but on the sources currently used in the article. CMD (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are saying You should talk about my first talk Qwert0617 (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm done with this Qwert0617 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

East sea

I just want to make sure one thing. I don't know what the basis for using the East Sea internationally before the advent of the Sea of Japan. Qwert0617 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but it is difficult for me to understand what point you are trying to make. Please consider refraining from editing the English Misplaced Pages given your level of English proficiency seems somewhat poor. Remsense ‥ 论 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make sure one thing. Artical says that East Sea internationally used before the Sea of Japan widely use. I can find that east sea used in korea 2000years ago but i cant fine that east sea used internationally do you have any research of it? Qwert0617 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

now? Qwert0617 (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Don't edit your comments after others have already replied, either. I've fixed this for you, though. To answer your question: that's not what the article says. The article says that Japan claims both names were in use before the occupation of Korea. It does not state whether the names were actually used during that time, only that Japan says they were. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any link? Because i can't found it any were. They says that it was only used in korea
And also sorry because im not used to wiki site i dont now the rule accurately 211.213.219.100 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
There are sources in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 13:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I cant find it 211.213.219.100 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Stop insisting for writting down evidence-free writings. If there is the only one simple thing you just have to do is just copy and paste it at the talk why cant you do that may i understand that you have no research to prove it? 211.213.219.100 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
It's in the article. If you actually cared about whether a source exists, you would've located it immediately. Since you're doing this instead, and given you're almost certainly also 117.110.115.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that makes it abundantly clear you don't care about what was or was not the case historically, or what sources there are or are not—you just want to argue and create more headaches for others. Remsense ‥ 论 13:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
No its not.
I think you are the one who create more headaches for others.
Just give me the link. What you are saying Qwert0617 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
look at the link below and press the pdf at 3rd page 1st sentence it says <Western maps used a variety of names for the sea through the 18th century, including "Sea of Korea," "Oriental Sea" and "Sea of China" in addi-tion Sea of Japan"> there isnt east sea.https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/index.html
https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/page1we_000113.html this one also this is a Japan's research of data on which names are used in what proportionsand and Esat sea is 0%.Qwert0617 (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: