Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Appleby (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 18 December 2005 (→east sea disambiguation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Korean requires |hangul= parameter.

I moved the name issue to Dispute over the name Sea of Japan --Nanshu 08:49 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Notice

The current naming of the body of water between Japan, Korea, and Russia is an open issue, according to a 1998 decision of the 7th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names and a 1974 International Hydrographic Organization 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 South Korea, while "East Sea of Korea" is preferred by North Korea.) 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 Dispute over the name Sea of Japan --Sewing 18:24, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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. -- Taku

I don't mind that the article's title is Sea of Japan. Sea of Japan/East Sea or East Sea/Sea of Japan 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! --Sewing 23:56, 24 Oct 2003 (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. --daniel 21:11, 11 July 2005 (AEST)

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. --mav 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have suggested a naming convention for this water here: Talk:Dispute_over_the_name_Sea_of_Japan#Naming_Convention. I hope we can turn something like that into a proper convention. Looking forward to your comments there. --Kokiri 00:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current Map

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 here 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. --69.212.98.139 16:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted a highly POV edit. Kokiri 07:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good! silsor 09:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dok-do(Takeshima)

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.

Yet another push for a naming convention

If you're interested in debating how the Sea of Japan should be referred to in Korean contexts, please visit Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Disputed names. Hopefully this discussion will eventually lead to a vote. At that time, notices will be posted here and on other related pages.

Hope to see you there! -- Visviva 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005

Invasion of Takeshima

Invasion of Takeshima by Koreans is a big international problem. It could be the first case of Japanese self defence of its territories.

Cut from intro

or Japan Sea in most countries and the United Nations and in academic fields, known as the East Sea in South Korea, the East Sea of Korea in North Korea, and the Japan Sea in China, is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean

The above smacks of attempt to settle the controversy by having Misplaced Pages endorse a particular POV (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 Korea Strait 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 . Kokiri 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). Kokiri 29 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)

You did a good job Kokiri. I like the way it reads now. Masterhatch

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. Masterhatch 14 July 2005

I just changed it so that it is now only facts with no POV. Masterhatch 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. Kokiri 17:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming section

I propose the whole sentences in the section be deleted and point the reader to Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan because whole sentences are merely a duplicate of that article. What do you think? --Tkh 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. Masterhatch 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 Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan page. Masterhatch 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. --Ypacaraí 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 . --Tkh 04:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't aware this was nationalgeographicpedia.org. --Golbez 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? Masterhatch 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. Masterhatch 1 September 2005

chinese name in infobox

just wondering, why is the chinese name in the infobox? china doesn't border the sea. Appleby 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 Hanzi and Japanese Hanzi. Since we know that all Hanzi are derived from the Chinese Hanzi, I believe it is imperative to display the Chinese name in Chinese Hanzi.

3) Appleby has not established a concensus to delete this material.

--Endroit 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 North Sea Arctic Ocean 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. 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? Appleby 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason for the Chinese name being there. Mark

In that case, you have to delete the entire infobox, except for the English name. Korean Hanzi, Japanese Hanzi, and Chinese Hanzi are all important aspects of the name dispute and must either be displayed together or omitted altogether.--Endroit 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. Appleby 18:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Infobox moved to the Dispute Page

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

Infobox moved back here from the Dispute Page

I believe Kusunose, Masterhatch, and myself (Endroit) have clarified the intent of the Infobox here. See discussion in the Sea of Japan naming dispute page there.

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 "Hepburn romanization" was corrected.--Endroit 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 Korea Strait & 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? Appleby 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 -- Chris 73 ] 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. --Endroit 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. --Endroit 17:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have included a temporary map while Chris 73 works on his final version.--Endroit 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 Image:Temp Sea of Japan.jpg. Also, i uploaded the OpenOffice.Org Source file Image:Sea of Japan Map.sxd if you want to edit it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 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. --Endroit 16:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I used OpenOffice.Org. 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 (IrfanView, 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 -- Chris 73 | Talk 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!--Endroit 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 Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait 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. --Endroit 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. Appleby 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Strait is very well documented, and even has a Misplaced Pages article of its own. Also, the Misplaced Pages article for Tsushima Strait has substantially more material than the article for Korea Strait! "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.--Endroit 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.--Endroit 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).--Endroit 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. Appleby 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.--Endroit 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.--Endroit 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 -- Chris 73 | Talk 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. Appleby 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.--Endroit 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 , & Appleby 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. Masterhatch 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 Great Lakes (disambiguation) -- Chris 73 | Talk 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 Dead Sea is sometimes referred as the East Sea　. To Christians this is very much authorative I think ;) --Kusunose 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. Appleby 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page is informative. As to content's accuracy, each of Sea of Japan, Baltic Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea mention East Sea (or Sea East). Tokai region 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 {{redirect|East Sea}}, which expands to "East Sea" redirects here. For other uses, see East Sea (disambiguation).

We definitely need to revamp the East Sea disambiguation page. Please consider including ADDITIONAL material from Eastern Sea (another disambiguation page), Dead Sea, and Mare Orientale. Another possibility would be to merge East Sea disambiguation page with Eastern Sea. Please consult Misplaced Pages:Requested moves if we run into problems.--Endroit 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? Appleby 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)