Talk:Sea of Japan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:16, 31 July 2006 editAppleby (talk \| contribs)7,234 edits →Comments ← 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 ], ].}}
	{{WikiProject Japan\|class=Start}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{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}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config\|archiveheader = {{aan}}\|maxarchivesize = 200K\|counter = 4\|minthreadsleft = 4\|minthreadstoarchive = 1\|algo = old(30d)\|archive = Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive %(counter)d}}
			{{Archive box\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|age=30\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
			__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 ==
	{\| class="infobox" width="270px"
	\|-
	!align="center"\|]<br/>]
	----
	\|-
	\|
	# ]
	# <!--]-->
	#
	#
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

			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)

			: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)
	== Northeast Asia Sea ==
			::Yup. ] (]) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	Since this sea is shared by several countries, its English name should be neurtal that can be accepted by everyone. Maybe "Northeast Asia Sea" is a better choice.
			::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” ==

			It shouldn’t Japan Sea.
	== Media & Dokdo ==
			Google will have to find th right name without being biased towards to any country. ] (]) 04:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

			:Sea of Japan is the common name in English, not Japan Sea. ] (]) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
	Well, the International Herald Tribune uses it.
			::You do realize that that's not his/her point, right? ] (]) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024 ==
	In the articles concerned with the N.Korea missile test, most maps have 'Sea of Japan' only becuase NHK (Japanese broadcasting system) was the first one to tell the world about the missile test.

			{{edit semi-protected\|Sea of Japan\|answered=yes}}
	Well, geographically, Dokdo (Takeshima) is more closer to Korea, and if dokdo is korean territory, we should use the East Sea of Korea.
			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)
			:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 02:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

			== About my writing ==
	However, because Dokdo is still a disputed area, I think it will be good to use the Sea between Korea and Japan before Dokdo's dispute ends. However, in my personal opinion, dokdo is korean territory because the koreans owned it since written history exists except for the colonnial time.

			The sea of Japan was widely used before Korea was colonized by japan is a Japan's claims.
	::Huh? I suppose if ownership of Dokdo would actually place the Sea of Japan within the territory of Korea (just to be generous, I'll go ahead and count NK's and SK's shares together), that would make sense. But as it is, Korea's 'share' of the sea is more or less dwarfed by Russia and Japan's shares, the ownership of a jumble of rocks in the middle of the sea notwithstanding. --] 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	:We should think from NPOV and should not think from POV. It doesn't have a meaning to talk about a supposition. In addition, It isn't appropriate to talk about the issue of possession of Liancourt Rocks here. I cannot agree to the way of thinking to connect a name of the sea with possession of Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is unrelated. ] 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

			:The article is not based on conflicting claims, but on the sources currently used in the article. ] (]) 09:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	:The thing is, no one ''owns'' (or even ''pretends'' to own) the Sea of Japan, which is quite clearly international waters. Ownership of the Liancourt Rocks does not imply ownership over the Sea of Japan whatsoever (the Indian Ocean, after all, is not jointly controlled by India, the UK, the Maldives, Madagascar, the Comoros, Indonesia, and the other nations that have Indian Ocean territory, but rather is by and large comprised of international waters), and neither does the word "Japan" in the name (India does not own the Indian Ocean, and NATO does not own the northern part of the Atlantic, after all. And then who would own the Sea of Galilee?).--] 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
			::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)

	== ~~Japan???~~ ==		=== 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. ] (]) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	There are 3 reasons why this sea shouldn't be named after Japan. First, most of the seas on earth are named after either the peninsula (e.g. The Gulf of Mexico) or the mainland ( e.g. East China Sea). Japan is just an island in the Pacific. If this sea is name after a country, it should be Korea or Russia. Second, among the surrounding countries, Korea has the longest civilization history. If this sea is named after a country, it should be Korea. Third, due to history reasons, Japan is just unpopular. Everyone in the world dislikes Japan, especially in Asia. There shouldn't be any geographic item named after Japan, except the country of Japan itself.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC).</small>
			: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"> ‥ </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)
	:First of all, Mexico isn't a peninsula. It's more or less mainland, or an isthmus (if you stretch the definition). If the Gulf of Mexico was named after a peninsula, it would be either the Gulf of Florida or the Gulf of Yucatan. You might be better of going with the Gulf of California instead. In addition, plenty of seas are named after islands, including the: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Even if the second assertion could be proven, it doesn't really reflect how seas are named. And your third assertion is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be on this page. The naming of bodies of water is not a popularity contest amongst countries. --] 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
			: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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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)
	== about Naming (The opinion of Korea about the map of Europe.)==
	However, both "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan" co-existed until the first half of the 19th century.

	Korea is asserted in this way but it is not said that "East Sea" was used in Europe. In fact, there was no map written "East Sea" at Europe. This is in agreement with the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This fact should be written.] 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Objectman, can you add this material to the ] article instead? This section should be a summary only. Can you please fix it? Thanks.--] 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::If they say that that description is unnecessary because of a summary, it also deletes this description. '''"when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule."''' It is the opinion of South Korea what relate this problem to the history of colonial rule. It is not fair to write only the opinion of S.Korea.] 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::I believe that part was added by Appleby. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) And I think that part is unnecessary. In addition, I think the following is unnecessary: "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919."--] 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::OK, thanks.] 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Archives==
	Since the last post here was in February, all previous discussions are in the archives. --] 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

	==Japan insists that it be called Sea of Japan==
	Is not true. Only S and N Koreans insist on using other names on the sea. Should be modified appropriately from NPOV. It is Europeans who came to consensus on the use of the name in 19th century. Before that, there were many names applied, I agree. Japan established imperial government only in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, Japan doesn't have any power on the propagation of the name of the sea. The last sentense "The name ''Sea of Japan'' was standardized by the ] in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted because this is the worst propaganda. The words is here just in order to mislead readers to the POV that the name Sea of Japan have relationship with Japanese colonial rule. If you think about this by neutral and healthy mind, it is obvious that such a POV have no ground. Say, if it was Korea who have colonial rule on Japan in early 20th century, still this sea must have been "Sea of Japan" from the view of the rest of the world, because Japan archipelago (under the colonial rule of Korea) differentiate this sea from the Pacific. In that case, Koreans must have insisted Japan should be officially named East Islands. :-)

	] 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	all of these points are addressed in the dispute article & its talk pages, again & again & again. ] 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	so your revision was not necessary. should that go to dispute article. ] 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	I delete the name listing and just leave pointer to the dispute article. ] 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	um, no, the arguments you made above are rebutted in the dispute article & the talk pages. the summary sentence in this article summarizes the dispute. ] 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:summary should be short and comprehensive. ] 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:and summary should not include false. I'm making arguments about the sentense, but not to the naming dispute itself. It is only you who want to include this sentense here. ] 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:It is not fair to leave in this article your POV. Please describe your POV fully in the article of dispute. It is vandalism if you continue to paste your POV. ] 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

	:The reason that I deleted the paragraph is just same as your view: it is discussed in the dispute article & the talk pages. I say that the NPOV of the summary is suspicious. ] 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	Again, I deleted the phrase, because that phrase contains obvious purpose to let readers to relate the name Sea of Japan and and Japan's colonial rule on Korea. The relationship between the naming and Japan's colonial rule is under intense discussion and dispute. It is not settled at present. It is not neutral to try to add such an unsettled description in the article. The description that I deleted should be fully described in ]. Those who revert this edition without waiting settlement of the discussion should be banned from editing this article. I, personally like Korea and know more than a handful of Korean people and even respect them. But I hate propaganda and lie. ] 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	==Section merge request: Naming and Naming dispute==
	The section Naming and Naming dispute should be merged.] 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	==International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919 is questionable==
	The International Hydrographic Bureau was formed after the discussion in the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919. The description widely used in en.wikipedia needs further investigation. ] 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Naming dispute subsection ==

	What's wrong with creating Naming dispute subsection? Not everything about naming is disputed. Who's arguing there has been only one name for the sea? Who's arguing the name of the sea has never been standardized? --] 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	:You introduced the subcategory "Naming dispute" for the first time in . First, I don't like the look of your edition with subcategory from the view point of esthetics. There is no other subcategory in this article. The category "Naming" and subcategory "Naming dispute" is very closely resembling and either of which does not have long description which needs subdivision. Secondly, I guess that you tried to distinguish "consensus" and "dispute". But my point is that almost nothing is settled as consensus. You placed the sentense outside of Naming dispute: "Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. The name ''Sea of Japan'' was standardized by the ] in 1919." Readers may have impression that there were many names equally used before 1919, when the Bureau standardized the name. Here Korea POV can let readers think that Korea could not participate in the decision because of Japan's colonial rule, therefore the decision's effect is doubtful. However, from POV of Japan, the naming was almost settled before the Bureau standardized the name. Japan had no influence on the decision because European people decided to use the name "Sea of Japan" in 19th century. Therefore, the sentense you left there is still not neutral. My point is to leave pointer to ] and very brief and neutral (as far as possible) description here. Please read Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for further discussion. ] 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Liancourt rocks / Dokdo ==

	Ive unblocked Applebys 3RR ban, accepting his argument that since ] redirects to ] this article should use ] in the intro, and switching to a redirect is effectively vandalism ] 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Ulleung Basin==
	just did a google for:
	*"ulleung basin" -wikipedia: 9720
	*"tsushima basin" -wikipedia:353
	in google scholar, it's 185 vs. 55
	] 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	Actually, I get....
	: 982
	: 357
	: uses "Tsushima Basin"
	:Did I miss something?--] 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	hmm, odd. i click on your link but get my numbers .... but i'm convinced by britannica cite, i agree it's a valid alternate name, even if far less common. ] 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	this is kinda bugging me, i wonder why we get diff't numbers. i ran the searches again but in english language only, & i get vs. . endroit, do you have any ideas why? can others check & respond here please? ] 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How did you search? Was it hit only many Korean website? The number of hits does not become neutral basis.] 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	Tsushima Basin is an official name by IHO since 1978.
	For 28 years, its been intimated with every people on earth. Koreans created the name "ulleung basin" only for distorted anti-Japan hallucination. English wikipedia must use the official name. -- ] 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	We cannot trust a search result. Many Misplaced Pages articles of English edition is rewritten by South Koreans' organization ]. I think Appleby is a member of VANK.] 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	: "TSUSHIMA BASIN" is '''NOT''' a standardized name. It is a registered name, not a standardized name. ] 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	::"Ulleung Basin" is neither a standardized name nor a registered name.--] 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	it is the most common name, which is what wikipedia uses, per ]. ] 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I checked the google results above. There seem to be so many articles written by Korean people and Japanese people, that are not neutral. If one would like to couclude which is more common English name from the google results, he/she should filter out nonneutral ones.--] 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	::Google is ''NOT'' an effective way to determine the most common name in English from reputable sources. You have to look at A. what is the most common name in reputable, ''English'' based (as in not from korea or japan) publications and B. the official name. ] 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	:] supercedes ]. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by ]. Google results is verifiable, but contains many unreliable sources. Thank you for your input. --] 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

	do you have a source for tsushima being the more common in english? it's not surprising that the korean romanization is so common, as it is a basin off the korean coast, naturally used and studied more often by koreans, just as features off the canadian coast is probably more often named & studied by canadians, rather than australians. see above for google, google in english, & google scholar, evidence that's been good enough for you in most cases. why is it completely discounted in just this case? it's not like the entire sea of japan is japan's territory. what's with the consistent anti-korean bias? ] 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:I could ask you the same "what is with all the pro korean bias?" anyways, i don't care what the basin is called as by the sounds of it, there is no "official" name for it. But what i do care about is that the current article is called "Tushima Basin" and so the links going there should be called that too. Also, as far as i know, there is no official dispute, so there is no reason to mention both names in ''an'' article, only on ''the'' article. If the main article name is changed to "Ulleung Basin", then the link from this page should be "Ulleung Basin". That is pretty simple, eh? (not to mention NPOV).

	::you gotta be kidding. "tushima basin"? that's your logic? ] 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::My logic is that if the link going to the article is differnt than the article's name and the only reason is that Korea doesn't like the current name, then that is POV. ] 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::::the only reason that it's spelled "tushima" is because someone is trying to apply "official" name instead of common english name. unless we're going to change wikipedia naming policy, the correct name to be used in '''this''' article is the common english name, whatever errors there are in other articles. you know this policy as well as i do, in fact, you're the one who pointed this out to me, if you remember, when i asked why "south korea" wasn't named "republic of korea." as long as "tushima" is used in '''this''' article, it's not only a silly typo, but also inconsistent with wikipedia policy. it just unexpected, knowing how careful you are about applying the common name policy. ] 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I think you misunderstood me. Comparing ''South korea'' vs. ''Republic of korea'' and ''tushima basin'' vs. ''Ulleung Basin'' is like comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, i really don't care what the article is called but it makes no sense to call the article ''tushima basin'' and the link to it called ''Ulleung Basin''. That's my point. If you want the article called by the korean name (which hasn't even been registered with the IHO yet), then lobby for it. If you are successful, then the links should be changed to match it. ] 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::::if you don't care what that article is called, why don't you care about the typo and violation of wikipedia policy in '''this''' article? that article has its problems, but why duplicate the problem here? just a curious turn of events. ] 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I don't know enough about this subject to get involved in an edit war of any sort. the most common English name is not always the title as there are exceptions to every rule (one exception is ]). Also, since i have done no research on this subject, i don't know ''why'' the IHO has never made the name official and I don't know ''where'' the korean name is more common than the Japanese name, and frankly, I really don't care. Has the name never been made official because the IHO never considered it significant enough to worry about? Is the Korean name only more common in English because of korean publications in English, or is it English speaking countries who are using the korean name more? What ever the reasons are, for right now, Misplaced Pages is using the Japanese name for the article, and the link going to the article should be the same (or similar). If you want to have the article renamed, then i suggest you go for it on that talk page. ] 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:::you care enough about it to revert to the misspelled less-common name, despite the google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea. just making an observation. ] 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::So, are you calling "tsushima basin" misspelt or wrong? There is a world of difference between misspelling a name and using the wrong name. And for the record, my own personal POV puts offical and/or English names ahead non-official and/or non-English names in most cases even if other names are more common. That is one reason I am not a fan of google searches. Examples, i think it should be '']'' and '']''. Also, I am wondering, what do you mean by, "google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea." I rarely use google as "evidence" and I think google results are seriously flawed and are easy to manipulate. ] 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Appleby, i see the spelling mistake you are referring to. I guess my eyes just glanced over the missing "s". ] 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Well there IS a naming dispute. Just a couple month ago, there was a standoff between South Korea and Japan. See and . This standoff involved the Tsushima Basin/Ulleung Basin naming dispute.
	::I don't care what it's called either, but don't you think the alternate name should be in the parenthesis upon first mention? I do.--] 01:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::I will quote from those two sorces: "South Korea delay efforts to register Korean names for underwater features in the area" and "Korea is considering proposing its own name, Ulleung Basin". Funny thing is, the way i read that, there is no dispute (yet). Unlike the East Sea, no official dispute has been made. Korea hasn't even registered their name with the IHO yet. It just sounds like the same old pissing match between Korea and Japan. Korea is trying to remove all japanese names from everything in asia and Japan is trying to preserve status quo. ] 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	The name of ''Tsushima Basin'' is the official name. But we are kind enough to write ''Ulleung Basin'' together. Korean wikipedians, if you still trying to erase the name of ''Tsushima Basin'', the name ''East Sea'' would be also removed from the article of ''Sea of Japan''. Because ''East Sea'' is not the official name. We can't bear any more. -- ] 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No need to threaten anyone with anything, now is there? Misplaced Pages is not about tit for tat. ] 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	::himawarichan, Japan was the one to "erase" East Sea from maps. East Sea is the official name, and I believe it is a very neutral name. Although I am against "neutral names" in the Dokdo article, the East Sea is a different matter. East Sea was not named by neither Korea or Japan. Because there is no evidence of Korea or japan naming it, I cannot support "Ulleung Basin." In fact, I don't '''want''' and don't '''care''' about "Ulleung Basin." It is an uncommon name. Everything must be kept historically true-East Sea and Dokdo. ] 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::''"East Sea is the official name"''??? It is only the official name in Korea. It's a local name.If you refuse it, you must show the evidence. Your remark is foolish. ] 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Ocean currents==
	I wrote about two oceanic currents yesterday, but Appleby deleted. Why? Stop vandalism.--] 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Appleby always delete topics which is disadvantage to Korea without specific reason. This user is not neutral, not suitable for English wikipedia. -- ] 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Friends, do not accuse him of vandalizing. We are no better off with our sock-puppet and Ni-channeru. ] 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Usage of a neutral picture ==

	I strongly recommend that this article do not use a map of the sea with the tag "Sea of Japan". Instead, I put a picture where there is no tag.
	:Sea of Japan is the english name, regardless if Koreans like it or not. Nevertheless, the previous map also listed alternative names where applicable, and by that is much more useful than your map. Also, watch the ]!-- ] \| ] 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I like the previous map too, because it's always useful to have detailed information in an Encyclopedia. It's more "encyclopedic" that way. Please change it back to the previous map.--] 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Umm... i already reverted it. Try reload. -- ] \| ] 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Confirmed, thanks!--] 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Can someone edit the map to change from "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" to "Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin)" per result of the vote? --] 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Updated image -- ] \| ] 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Thank you! --] 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:actually, because the recent poll was inconclusive, i think the map should remain as is, while the issue remains open. ] 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::For reference, the poll was 57.9% for Tsushima basin, which was also the name when i first came across it on ], which was also the name i first use to create the map. In lack of a better option, please leave it at "Tsushima (Ulleung)" -- ] \| ] 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	i believe you labeled the map "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" yourself in november 2005, after discussion with me & endroit, & this article & map has kept that label until the current dispute that led to the consensus-less vote. ] 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Ulleung Basin vs. Tsushima Basin ==

	The article ] is being requested to be moved to '''Tsushima Basin''' or '''Ulleung Basin'''.
	<BR>
	Please vote for or against '''Tsushima Basin''' at ].
	<BR>
	Please vote for or against '''Ulleung Basin''' at ].
	<BR>--] 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	== notice of poll ==

	there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features of this sea, currently underway at ]. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be able to vote. ] 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	==Page protected==
	Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

	* I don't want to be offensive here, or anything, but I can't say that I approve of having page protection applied by ]. Look, I actually think the position of the Koreas on this issue is patently absurd, but it can only inflame things to have an obvious Nippophile making the decision to page protect. Someone else should have done it. ] 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

	**Just because I have an interest in Japan doesn't mean I can't be fair. Feel free to take a look at my edit histroy (be warned: it's '''very''' long) and you'll see that I've done my best to be fair, especially after being made an administrator. I don't take these additional responsibilities lightly. I also recommend that you ]] rather than hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Your opinions will carry heavier weight if you take the time to create an account to which they can be permanently associated. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	*** I don't hide behind an anon IP; I had simply failed to remember to sign in—a great rarity for me. And what I don't understand is, that after I made my comments, and noticed that the IP was showing, rather than my username, I went back, signed in, deleted the IP, and put in my four tildes. I don't understand why it didn't change.

	::Anyway, of ''course'' you can be fair despite your Nippophilia. '''''I''''' know that. I think that ''I'm'' very even-handed despite my various leanings. I just know that this is an emotional issue for some (''I'm a Seoul Man!'') and I was merely indicating that someone else might have been less likely to rile up those already inclined towards passionate displays. No biggie. Have you also visited the page on the dispute over the name? They get it on over there, big time. I bowed out of that one months ago. ] 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


	===an edit needs to be made===
	While i strongly disagree that ] should be the title of the article, it is. I think it should be liancourt, but that is a different story for a different time. but since the article is currently named Dokdo, this part of the article "Takeshima (Dokdo)" needs to be switched back to Dokdo (Takeshima)" I have been accused in the past of being a pro japanese editor (mostly by korean POVers), but i am neither pro korean nor pro Japanese here on wikipedia. If anything, I am pro English POV, which in most cases goes against Korea and for Japan. ] is deliberately reverting to japanese pov by putting the japanese name for those islands ahead of the agreed upon name here on wikipedia (which happens to be the korean name). In my opinion, that is blatantly a POV edit and you page protected it so it can't be fixed. As for the other part, "There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community" vs. "There is a controversy between Korea and Japan" it should also be reverted back to my last edit. Why? because the international community has already decided on a name (sea of japan) and the IHO told korea and japan to work it out for themselves ei between korea and japan. Therefore, the dispute is ''not'' between korea and the rest of the world, but korea and japan. The rest of the world uses Sea of Japan, not east sea. Mythologia has been vandalising this page to add japanese pov and you edit protected it with the blatant pov still in the article. I strongly urge you to revert it back to my last edit, which is the closest edit to before the "revert war" started (which is what you should have done in the first place). ] 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I agree with the first part of ]'s comments, about the islands, but I think he is wrong about the second, and more important issue, regarding the parties to the dispute. The conflict '''''is''''' between Korea and the rest of the world. Japan has no motivation to discuss the issue, and the only reason that it has been a big issue over the past 10-15 years has been the efforts of Korea to persuade the ''world community'' to listen to them on this. Another way of putting this: The dispute is between Korea and the ''status quo'' (an undeniable characterization, that I hope even ] would agree with), which simply makes it ''their'' issue, not the Japanese. I think that ] is fooling himself by trying to make this into a Japanese-Korean conflict. ] 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	::While i agree that korea is trying to make it a worldly issue, it must be noted that most of the world just doesn't care. Japan cares, that is why they are ignoring it (hoping it goes away syndrome). It is between japan and korea. Since japan is refusing to deal with it, korea is ''trying'' to bring the rest of the world into it. The IHO and all other official governments just don't give a darn and are not interested in changing. It is up to korea and japan to resolve this. Status quo will remain until they do. If they never do, then status quo will exist indefinately. See, korea has no historical backing for "east sea" over "sea of japan" and the only reason korea wants the name to change is because of their dislike for japan. You don't see koreans trying to change "East China Sea" to "south sea" or the "yellow sea" to "West Sea". It is simply because of the word "Japan" that the koreans want that body of water's name changed. This is nothing more than a long series of disputes between korea and japan. Over history, korea got the short end of the stick too many times and are just trying to one up japan every way they can. I lived in korea for 4 years and i know this is how the people there feel. There is a strong "dislike" for the japanese and any way the koreans can get ahead of them, they will try. So, again, this dispute is between japan and korea, or shall i say between korea and japan. The international community made up its mind at the the last IHO meeting and has withdrawn from talks and told korea and japan to solve it amongst themselves. I will repeat, the IHO removed the international community from the dispute at the last meeting and left it up to korea and japan. Oh, by the way, i am not fooling myself into thinking that this is only between korea and japan, because it ''is'' only between them (thanks to the last IHO meeting). ] 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	::: (Sigh.) Well, I am glad at least to see your on-point analysis of the Korean motivations for this—I agree, their antipathy, not history, drives this campaign. I realize now that our disagreement on the parties to the issue is largely one of semantics (which, unfortunately, does not exactly solve the edit issue). You are, very understandably, citing the "letter of the law", so to speak, by giving us the IHO ruling. And of course, in that sense, you are correct. I have regarded it as a more informal debate within the court of public opinion, which is where Korea is attempting to engage the world community. Would you agree to that characterization? It doesn't tell us how the page should read, but am I correct in thinking that we are more in agreement on this issue that not? ] 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::I agree totaly that korea is trying to make it an informal debate within the court of public opinion. But the key word is ''trying''. But that isn't where the conflict or controversy is. There isn't enough people who care or even know about it outside the circles of korea and japan for it to be a controversy between korea and the rest of the international community. The part of the international community that actually might care (the IHO) made up its mind, ending any international controversy. The controversy is almost entirely among the circles of the koreans and japanese. But i think we can end this silly debate by using the sentence "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." as suggested by Zonath. ] 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	If either of you could point to sources for your assertions you might gain some supporters for your positions. ] 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	:If anything "much of the international community" is too vague to really be verifiable. What parties comprise 'much of the international community' in this case? I know that certain parties (such as map publishers and news media outlets, for example) have been dragged into the controversy, largely at the behest of Korean Internet users, but beyond those parties, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of controversy. Personally, I would leave off naming specific parties, and just say that "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." After all, the sentences immediately following this one identify the positions of Korea (South and North) as well as the common modern usage. --] 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
	::I would be very happy with "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." Come to think of it, wasn't that what it originally said? ] 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	:why don't we state the three facts briefly; sea of japan is the most common name; korea proposes east sea; japan opposes korea's proposal. unless anyone can cite any other country or internat'l org actually opposing korea's proposal. ] 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	:: I gotta tell you, ], I think ]'s suggestion is on-point. It's uncontestably true. I ''would'' be willing to add that the Koreas favor changing the name, but I oppose listing Japan as "the" opposing side, because, even if it's only the result of inertia, most of the world opposes the change, too. So I suggest Zonath's language as a compromise. ] 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	but japan ''is'' uncontestably the opposing side, no? & soj ''is'' the most common name. i guess we disagree on the meaning of "opposition", but sometimes less is more :-).

	if we go with zonath's minimalism for the first sentence, for the same reason as unschool, but in the opposite direction, i don't want it implied that most of the countries are the "opposing side" either. further in that spirit, do we really need north korea's position in this brief pointer to the main dispute article? how about this version:

	There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea. ] 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	: I'm cool with that, ]. What say you, ]? ] 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Me too. ] 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Decision==
	Please post below a concise description of exactly what decision all of you have reached, and then indicate your support (or not) of this decision. If a consensus has been reached, then I will unprotect this page. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	===Description of decision reached===
	There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.

	====Consensus poll====
	Please indicate below your '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' opinion of the decision described above.
	* '''Support'''. ] 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Support''' Looks ok to me i guess. ] 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) </s> user john smith's said it all "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." I give all support to that. It is fair and accurate. ] 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' --] 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' ] 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - ''Sea of Japan is the most common name currently'' sounds very weak, since pretty much everybody except Korea uses Sea of Japan. Also, where in the text should this statement go? Is in in the intro, or later in the description of the naming conflict? -- ] \| ] 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - As Chris said, the statement about "Sea of Japan" is far too weak. The fact is that Korea has little or no backing, so it shouldn't be given as much weighting. It's also highly vague as to the history. It would need to talk about what the most commonly used term was in the past. I do not see what is wrong with the current statement on the article. ] 16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Please read this history. This poll was changed its content by User Unschool. This is first version by 日本譲.　I think this poll is invalid.] 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' -per Chris, John Smith's and Mythologia. --] 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' -per Chris, Mythologia　--] 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' -per Chris, John Smith, Mythologia, Questionfromjapan and Jingxin. In addition, who can understand the meaning of the "East Sea"? Allmost of the people on this earth have never live in Korea. Even Koreans haven't lived only in Korea throughout their lives. What ridiculous name the "East Sea" is! On the other hand the name "Sea of Japan" is easiest to associate the sea between ] and the ]. That is, ] is the best title of the articles about the sea between ] and the ]. Why admins need consensus poll? Admins of english version also wanna call ] Koreans' attack by ] like japanese version by ] Korean admins? I think it is clear that this problem is caused only by too self-satisfied ] Koreans. --] 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' <span style="font-family:palatino,times;">Hermeneus (]/])</span> 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' --] 09:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' -per　Mythologia--] 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::*Unless anyone has any specific objections, let's scrap this poll and move on to the next one, since it's patently obvious that the consensus opposes this change. --] 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::Sounds like a good idea. Why not put my suggestion up with a second poll? ] 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	polls are just not going to work until things calm down. what we need is a rational discussion of evidence and wikipedia policy, not a tally of how many uninformed votes each side can marshall. the protection will remain until some admin takes some bold actions, after taking the time to understand what's going on here. ] 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I disagree. I think my proposal is far more neutral. I think we should put it to the vote. ] 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Let's give it one more try, since it seems that discussion on this topic has more or less dried up, and nobody has yet to put forward a more reasonable alternative. Perhaps John Smith's suggestion will be able to generate more consensus than the previous one. If not, we'll most likely just have to be content with leaving this page in a protected state for at least the foreseeable future, as I don't really believe that this dispute is going to just go away. Heck, maybe it's in the best interests of the article for it to remain protected -- after all, this is pretty much the longest stretch in at least a year that the article hasn't been vandalized. --] 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	Was the poll announced on the proper pages? (e.g. Japan/Korea portal, etc)-- ] \| ] 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Not that I know of. So long as everyone remembers that ], everything will be fine. :) ] 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	What are you talking about? I didn't change anything! I wasn't the one who even came up with this wording. I just happened to be the first one to indicate approval of the wording that someone else picked. ] 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	:>Unschool. You overwrote the text mentioned below and changed content of poll.
	:"Dcription of decision reached
	:Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.
	:Consensus poll
	:Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above."
	:This conduct is a vandalism. Don't overwrite others' text in discussion page.] 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	:: Oh my God, you have ''got'' to be kidding me. You have ''got'' to be joking. Look at these words:
	:::'''Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.'''
	:: ] was ''asking'' one of us to replace the text—that very line—''with'' the text that we were agreeing to. He saw that we had appeared to reach consensus, but to make sure that we were all on board, he placed that line in there, '''requesting that one of us replace it ''with'' our consensus decision''', and ''then'' leave that consensus text there to be posted, and to be voted on. If you don't think that's what was supposed to happen, then what do you think the purpose of the post was? Please have the passage read to you by someone whose primary language is English, and maybe they can make it clear to you. A request to replace a piece of text '''''requires''''' that the original text be removed and another piece of text put in its place. Jeesh. ] 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::: I want to apologize to everyone for my outburst there a few moments ago. I just looked at ]'s user page and realize now that, in his short time on Misplaced Pages, he has already demonstrated, not only poor English skills, but also has a good deal of difficulty in getting along with others. I should have reviewed his page before I wasted my time on such an outburst. Anyway, the poll is not invalid, the poll was ''not'' vandalized, and ] is not worth arguing with yet (though I hold out hope; many newbies do come along and eventually learn the ways of Misplaced Pages. I made a few misteps in my first week or two.) ] 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::I just made '''two warnings''' for you about '''Civility''' on this talk and '''Personal-Attack''' on user:Mythologia. Please be civil and please read ]. Thank you.--] 23:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::Do you read the writing which 日本譲 wrote? > Unschool. He wrote that writing to make consensus of unblocking this article. Not about the renameing this page. You changed his aim. This poll is limited it's effect by 日本譲's definition. You changed the contents of poll. So your vote is invalid. ] 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::: Where do you get the idea that this was ever about renaming this page? As best as I can tell, that has never been an issue here. There is already an ''entire article'' about the dispute of the name of the sea, and that was not what the discussion was about. We were only discussing the actual wording of the '''''final paragraph''''' of this article. That paragraph currently reads:
	:::::* '''There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community over what the name for this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Most countries use the name Sea of Japan, but South Korea insists on East Sea. North Korea supports South Korea's position but uses East Sea of Korea.'''
	:::::and ], ], and ] and I were discussing wording of that final paragraph that would be more acceptable. I believe it was ] who suggested this wording:
	:::::* '''There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.'''
	:::::There was '''''no''''' discussion about renaming the article, just over what would be a reasonable, non-POV wording of the brief mention about the dispute of the name. Because this article is about the Sea in general, and not just over the dispute, the mention of the dispute needed (we all thought) to be short. And this version seemed to be accurate and non-POV. Look, I really must respect you, ], for having as good a command of English as you do—goodness knows that I speak no foreign languages as well as you speak English. Nonetheless, it clearly is making it hard to discuss matters with you, because you are consistently misunderstanding the fundamentals of what is being discussed. I would recommend for you the same advice as I need to take myself—be patient before making accusations; ask questions before making assumptions.

	::::: Anyway, the reason the page was being blocked was because of problems with this last paragraph, n'est-ce pas? ] 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::::: I don't think so. The beginning of blockings has cause in a raid of changing of ]to Dokto. So I might be too nervous about naming dispute, but I cannot help feeling your aim of this points. And if people in Japan didn't read the articles about Japan, those articles will be rubbish with one-sided way of looking those things like you know as ].] 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: Well, I just finished reading over the entire discussion page (which I should have done earlier). And, ], I must say, though there are a couple of comments about these tiny rocks, it seems that you have again missed the point. The point here, the issue upon which we were voting, was simply about the name of the sea, and the issue of the rocks needed to have nothing to do with it.
	::::::: Beyond that, to those of you anti-Koreans who are voting against this because you think that this was pro-Korean language, you need to reconsider. Although it is subtle, I indicated that I favor Zonath's language not because it mentions the Korean name East Sea, but because it more importantly establishes that Sea of Japan is the status quo, and that only Korea wishes to change things. Personally, I think that Sea of Japan should remain the name, and I think that that VANK is on a Nippophobic witch hunt with this change. But so many of you—on both sides of this issue—are so full of vitriol that you can't recognize a fair compromise when you see it. ] 06:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::You know VANK? So you are sure to know the real state of affairs. What I want to do is only to make wikipedeians known another viewpoint of things that isn't brought by VANK. In far east Asia, particularly North Korea, South Korea and Japan are in social unrest situation which are brought from lack of information in North Korea, South Korea and Japan. If we are well-informed, this situation will be changed to better one. So I struggle as far as I can.:-).] 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

	Ok, guys, let's take time-out here. To be honest I think it's obvious the edit that was proposed is not as good as everyone originally thought. I doubt a consensus will be reached with the current suggestion, so let's open it up and discuss a better one. ] 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	: Was it a ''great'' edit? No way. But with a subject as volitile as this one (I assume you've spent some time looking over the archives of the discussions at ]) sometimes vanilla is as good as you're going to get. Frankly, given the history of the debate, I think both sides would be giving a lot of ground to accept such laconic phrasing. I would really like to put Zonath's wording in the final paragraph and get the page unblocked. ] 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, but another edit war will start if anyone tries to change it, won't it? Seriously I can think of something better. Let me try.
	::''"Although '''Sea of Japan''' is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the '''East Sea'''; North Korea, the '''East Sea of Korea'''. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."''
	::How's that? It gives proper reference to how the current term is accepted, without trying to say Korea is "causing trouble", etc. ] 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
	::: ''Fine''. I really don't see this as a huge deal, and I can't believe that I've allowed myself to expend so much energy on it. This dispute is going to go on for years, will not be settled here, and probably is best left to the hypersensatives who a) won't let it go, and b) really are in no position to do anything (vis a vis the real world) about it. To top it off, I've just had somebody on my user page accusing me of instigating an edit war! My god, I've literally made one edit on this article in the last 9 months, and some hypersensitive accuses me of "instigating an edit war"? How does one instigate an edit war without editing an article? Some of you people must walk at an angle from weight of the huge chip you're carrying on your shoulders. Yes, my tone is non-civil right now, but I tend to get a bit annoyed with people who fabricate statements and try to pass them off as facts. Good night! ] 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::I think a lot of nerves are getting frayed regarding this as well as other protected pages relating to Japanese/Korean disputes. It's obvious that the current suggestion isn't generating the sort of consensus that would be necessary to get this page unprotected, so I would personally like to invite those that have opposed the current suggestion to step up and suggest something that ''would'' be acceptible to them. Simply jumping into the discussion once a poll has started (more than a week after the last comment was made to this page) in order to indicate opposition without suggesting a reasonable compromise is unhelpful in the extreme. As for John Smith's suggestion, while I can see where some might object to it, I would be perfectly willing to live with it. --] 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

	i don't really see a solution to this until some neutral admins just invest some time to read through what's been going on here. nationalist mob rule will prevent any rational discussion of evidence and policy. time and again, i've been fooled into negotiations and concessions only to have all the work crapped on by last-minute barrage of bs. i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesn't see any "discussion" to participate in on these poisoned talk pages. ] 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:I think it's worthwhile putting my suggestion up for a vote. It is undeniably more neutral, while still showing Japan's term is the more widely used one. ] 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Possible solution==
	===Description of possible solution===
	Replace the opening paragraph:
	::''The '''Sea of Japan''' ('''East Sea''') is a ] of the western ]. Like the ] it has almost no ]s owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific.''
	with the following:
	::''"'''Sea of Japan''' is the ] term for a marginal sea of the western ]. While ''Sea of Japan'' is more commonly used in international ] publications, South Korea has ] that it should be called the '''East Sea''' and North Korea has argued for the '''East Sea of Korea.''' It is surrounded by ] on the south, Japan and the island of ] on the east, ] and ] on the west, and ] on the north. The sea is accessible by the ] on the southwest, the ] and the ] on the east, and the ] on the north. Like the ], it has almost no ]s owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific."''

	This would replace both the first paragraph and the last section (Naming), and do it in a way that still preserves neutrality and fairness.

	===Thoughts on the above proposal===
	After poring over the discussions above, I have come up with what I believe is a very fair, accurate, and neutral opening paragraph for this article. I think it fairly addresses all of the concerns expressed here, while still adhering to the neutrality that Misplaced Pages requires. It also follows common descriptive opening guidelines for geographic locations.

	Please post your thoughts on the above proposal here. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I'm slightly confused here. I thought the problem was the last section. Is there also a problem over the introduction as well? Is this proposal to replace the current introduction and the last section as it stands now?
	:Can someone just clarify - I've withdrawn the new poll until now. ] 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I've clarified that. I forgot to include the bit about the last paragraph. Thanks! ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:As to the above proposal, I think it should read "While ''Sea of Japan'' is the most common name used in international ] publications", given that it is the most common name used. ] 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Using "more" is more correct, and still accomplishes the same thing. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	::I was also under the impression that much of the original dispute was over the wording of the 'naming' section of the article, rather than that of the first paragraph. I suppose we could always just return the mention of the dispute to the top of the paragraph, delete the 'naming' section, and put the 'dispute over the naming of the sea of japan' article in the 'see also' section, but that pretty much enc
	ompasses more radical changes than we've been discussing, and might be a lot less likely to achieve a consensus as a result. --] 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::Joe, I think your proposal might be too bold. Can we put that on the back-burner and try mine out instead, first? ] 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::I think with the change I'm suggesting it will address all of those concerns. I do agree with including a link to ] in the "See also" section. I think it is good to make sure people know about it. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::::in general, I think this is a good suggestion. I guess the question would be which of the current proposals we should vote on first, whether there should be a concurrent poll, or what. I'd like to see some more suggestions from other quarters, but it seems like there's a lot of people waiting in the wings to oppose whatever suggestion is made, rather than discussing anything. --] 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	:Isn't this kind of silly? People coming here want an article on a body of water, not a naming dispute. If they wanted a detailed explanation of the naming dispute they would go to the article created on that subject. Common sense would say that the intro should be about the Sea of Japan, not the use of the term "Sea of Japan" worldwide. ] 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Agree with Fagstein. To many Korean Misplaced Pages users, the naming dispute is certainly the most important aspect of the Japanese Sea, but to people in general who want to read about the Japanese sea, it is rather unhelpful. ] 11:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Definitely. The naming dispute should not be at the top. ] 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::Well then, should we go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion, then? --] 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Sounds like a good idea, his suggestion is the best by far.] 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

	::The reason I included it at the top is because ] indicates that all of the common names for something should be mentioned right at the beginning of the article. Mentioning them in the way I did presents the alternate names in a neutral manner, and provides a link to the naming dispute should people be interested in reading about that. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

	:::It seems to me that Sea of Japan (East Sea) accomplishes the goal of mentioning all the common names of this body of water rather elegantly. I think a lot of people on the Sea of Japan side seem to oppose mentioning the dispute in the first paragraph, since that could give undue credence to what is, essentially, a minority view. Modifying the first paragraph so drastically might end up causing more problems than it proposes to solve. While your suggestion is a good one, and worth considering, I think we should go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion for the time being, seeing as how discussion has (once again) more or less dried up here. If nothing else, maybe we can get a little more insight into the positions of the relative parties. --] 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::Yeah, come on. Just put my suggestion to the vote and get it over with. :) ] 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

	::::: John Smith's--forgive me for being a bit dense; which is yours? It's a little confusing--is yours the "above proposal"? ] 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	Mine is "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." ] 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	: How about we move it to the "West Sea" (of Japan) (This is a joke! :D) John, it seems like a decent proposal; I assume this is intended for not the opening so much as the farther down part? I'll watch for if someone sets up a vote. ] 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	::Yes, it's supposed to go lower down. And I'll do it myself. ] 12:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	==New proposal, new vote==

	Ok, guys, let's try this again, as it's clear the first proposal isn't going anywhere. I have changed the proposed edit to what I think is fairer. If it's still not going to get a consensus, then fair enough - but I want to try. ] 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	===Description of decision reached (mark 2)===
	Although ''Sea of Japan'' is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the ''East Sea''; North Korea, the ''East Sea of Korea''. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition.

	(This will replace the "Naming" secion)<br>
	(The poll will run for 2 weeks from 31.7.06 or until 1 week has elapsed since the last vote - whichever comes first)<br>
	(For a "consensus" to be reached, there will need to be a 60-40 majority)

	===Consensus poll===
	Please indicate below your opinion of the decision described above, by writing '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' with the reason why you wish to vote that way.
	* '''Support''', for reasons outlined above. ] 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''', per above. ] 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. seems about as Japan-POV as possible. Korea "pushes" instead of "proposes", factually incorrect about "international recognition" as most major internationally respected encyclopedias, dictionaries, and mapmakers have adopted east sea as an alternate name, creates impression "internal community" is against korea, when in fact japan is the only actual opponent of korea's proposal, and no international body has rejected korea's proposal. seems carefully worded to be pro-japan in every way] 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''', not perfect, but acceptable -- ] \| ] 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''', as per Chris 73. The proposed wording is more accurate than the current text in the article.--] 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Support''', let's get this over with. (per above)　] 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	*'''No vote yet'''. "pushes" and "argues" etc. are odd words and need proper references. ] 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	::I prefer "advocates" and "insists" respectively, myself. But the current wording is OK also.--] 18:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Can I suggest we make small changes like that after the page is unlocked. Otherwise I'll have to shut down the poll and start it again. ] 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	Hold your guns: The vote needs a clear ending date (e.g. 2 weeks), how to count the vote (e.g. 50% support or more is needed), and voting criteris (e.g. 1 month activity and 100 edits before start of vote), and the vote should be announced on the respective portals, projects, and poll pages. -- ] \| ] 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	: Not if it was a straw poll... I think that's what this is. ] 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Still, I would suggest to do it properly, otherwise the ''loosing'' side does not feel to be bound by the vote (based on my previous experience) -- ] \| ] 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've re-edited it. 2 weeks or 1 week from last vote; 60-40 majority. But this is an informal poll to get the page unlocked - please don't over complicate it. Besides, if people REALLY want to cause trouble, they'll never accept the decision. If they are reasonable, they'll use common-sense to see whether there's a consensus or not. ] 13:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	I have a feeling that Appleby is someone that will never be happy. ] 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	Fagstein, we're trying to get the page '''unlocked'''. If we can do that references and small changes can be made. But I'm not stopping a poll if people want to pick at words. Otherwise the page will stay locked like this forever. ] 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

	:i think the urgency is getting a properly grounded consensus, not in getting the page unlocked in a hurry. probably best to get more input on the wording, and have the 2-week period start after the poll has been posted at relevant japan/korea discussion pages, as a lot of editors have tuned out the endless diatriabes on this specific page.. ] 18:16, 31 July 2006 (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:

Did you know... that according to a legend, the Heishi rock (pictured) represents the God of the East Sea of Korea?

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.

Oceans High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Oceans To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles
Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea
Photo : find images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the oceans
Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus)
Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep
Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia

East Asia (defunct)

This 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

Korea Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Geography Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

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: