Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 4

message: I've been asked to take a look at this article, with regard to the recent edit war.  I'm afraid that, having read the article, and the recent dispute, I can't really see the objection to Appleby's latest insertion.  The dispute has two sides, each of which presents evidence and argument.  We should refer to the evidence and arguments on both sides as clearly and as neutrally as possible, and leave the reader to decide which (if either) has the greater weight.  Appleby's addition of the Korean evidence seems to me to have helped to do just that.  Does this in fact count as a compromise, and is everyone happy with it?  If not, what (in brief, and schematically) what are the main objections and defences?
Not that the article doesn't need work, however.  There's a some repetition, partly because the structure of the article is a little unclear. (I've changed the non-standard use of italics to the standard inverted commas to mark the mention of names.)
I'm surprised, incidentally, that most of the suggested names, including the two main modern suggestions, are ungrammatical; just as it's the Irish Sea, not the Ireland Sea, the English Channel, not the England Channel, the Persian Gulf, not the Persia Gulf, surely it should be either the "Japanese" or the "Korean Sea" (I suppose "East Sea" is OK, though "Eastern Sea" is more euphonious). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view 

message: Ok. The dispute is too long & lengthy. Here are my comebacks, since the last time I've argued.
1) I remember somebody mentioning the Korean government & Japanese government doing research. Japanese government searched something like 1400 maps; Korean government searched something like 700 maps. And this guy sent me the document that the Japanese government research team filed.
You see, half of the maps searched are not related to Sea of Japan/Sea of Korea/East Sea. Therefore, you cannot call the research done by the Korean government as POV.
2) I'm counting the maps right now. I'm 1/8 done. From what I am seeing, most of the "Sea of Japan" come from the 1700s and later. Before then, few "Sea of Japan" stick here and there. Even then, I see more "Sea of Korea" and "East Sea" (counted separately) than "Sea of Japan". 
This is because Korea was an influential trading partner with the Arabians, especially known for its porcelains, until the 1400s. Then, in 1600, Korea became a hermit kingdom. From then on, Japan took off.
(Wikimachine 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I have a compromise: putting one representative map for the Japanese government's claim, and another representative map for the Korean government's claim. (69.180.195.61 17:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Question mark" map is perfect because it is as NPOV as one can get. If we use one map from each side, then we will argue about who's map goes first and then there will be arguements about which map each side uses. Using just the question mark map shows perfectly that there is a dispute about the name. It says, "What do we call this body of water?" A question mark map shows that neither side is right nor wrong.Masterhatch 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikmachine's Comment 3 

message: Ahhhh!!! Great job! I hated it how the "compromise" from back in May 2005 showed the japanese argument in one sentence followed by the korean sentence, and so forth in pargraphs and headlines, to the pointed that it gave everyone the impression of two battling writers struggling to get more paper space over the article. Eww. Now it's so concise! And the map that highlights that it is a "dispute"! --Yonghokim 06:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos to everyone! 

message: Thank you Masterhatch.  "Logical Fallacy" it is.  Can I list my original suggestion into the "Argument" section, with the title change now?  Or should I add a one-sentence Korean rebuttal as Appleby suggests?  I truly fail to understand the Korean perspective, and can only come up with the following sentence at the very end.... "The Koreans, however, don't find any fallacy in the way they draw their own conclusions."  With all the revisions included here is "candidate 2"....
Logical Fallacy
"In the last 4 years, Korea has been using some flawed logic in claiming that "East Sea" is a better name than "Sea of Japan."  In particular, they have been relying on some data which conclude that:  "The number of old maps using 'Sea of Japan' is less in numbers than those using 'Sea of Korea, East Sea & variants'" .
However upon close examination of these Korean data , one finds instead that the number of maps using "East Sea" is equal to or less than the number of maps using "Sea of Japan."  (The number for "East Sea" would be less, if you count "Oriental Sea" separately.)  The Koreans, however, don't find any fallacy in the way they draw their own conclusions.--Endroit 11:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: endroit, you haven't actually responded to any of my points. you've raised a separate issue, answered above, but you're simply ignoring my responses to your previous flawed reasoning. i don't have a good feeling about where this is going if you're not going to respond to my points in discussion.  most importantly, you haven't answered the threshhold question (where's your citation? your opinion or "critique" belongs in the discussion page, or your own blog, but doesn't go in the wikipedia article, whether you're an american, japanese, or korean. the content you want to add has to be attributable to a recognized authoritative publication, or, since this article is about a properly recognized dispute, the disputing parties' own positions) Appleby 14:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: endroit, wikipedia is not the place for your personal thesis, critique, or analysis. please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research. Please do ask for mediation, as I do reject the inclusion without appropriate citations, or at least your response to my 4 numbered points above. i don't really have new questions for you, but i think i explained why your assumptions are incorrect, which would make the conclusion invalid. Appleby 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i appreciate your taking the time, & i too will take the time to respond to you here. while a discussion can continue on this discussion page as long as you like for our own edification, please do not forget that anything you want to add to the article needs to be properly sourced per wikipedia policy. please read the policies linked above; basically, you need a citation to a reputable publication (not yourself) that says what you want to add (or, if it's japan's argument, it has to be identified as such).  your own original research, critique, or analysis does not go in the article. thanks. Appleby 21:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate 2

message: 1) "In reality, Japanese militant expansionism in the 19th century began with the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895. And the imperial Japanese government responsible for this expansionism came to power only in 1868, after a civil war, in what is called the Meiji Restoration."
Not true, buddy. Japan was planning long before to take over Korea and war with Russia. Even then, Korea was a hermit kingdom, and, therefore, its voice could not be heard in the international community --> Sea of Japan became the "standard" (who says?). 
: Wikimachine, please do me a favor.  Go look up your history book and tell me exactly WHAT YEAR they (Japan) were planning "to take over Korea and war with Russia."--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimachine, yours may sound like a convincing argument for "Sea of Korea," but NOT for "East Sea."  Please explain how the name "East Sea" was derived, historically.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As Appleby said, that's IF you cite your source.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's what I've been trying to say....  The arguments for "Sea of Korea" are much, much stronger than the arguments for "East Sea."  And trying to use the arguments for "Sea of Korea" instead, to support "East Sea," results in Logical Fallacy.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if one is to go to my contributions one will notice that I havne't been contributing much lately to any article. I am getting ready to leave korea soon and have been busy doing other things more productive than play on wikipedia. Yes, my user page says that, but that is in reference to Korea pushing non-standard names on Wikipedia. As for your comment about Korea being a weak and small country: that's not my problem. And as for your comment about Korea not having a voice in the community: Wikipeida isn't here to promote Korea or any other country or idea. It is an encyclopaedia here to state the facts in a NPOV way. Putting East Sea in front of Japan is extremely POV. Sea of Japan is currently the standard international name and therefore for Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, we must use the standard international name (which also happens to be the most common name). I don't hate Korea. In fact, I love it here. but when i come here to wikipedia, i remove my personal feelings and aim to use what is correct. To be honest, when speaking to koreans or foreigners here in korea about that body of water, i always use EAst Sea and not Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: PS. Don't use capital letters for headers. It is considered shouting. Masterhatch 19:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What was the point of repeating yourself? I read it the first time. Masterhatch 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimachine's Comments

message: I've read the website, and there was a decsription that 'The Sea of Korea Maps Digital Archive consists of 172 original old maps (1606-1895) which include the "Sea of Korea". 'and 'The Sea of Korea Maps Digital Archive consists of 172 original old maps, dating from 1606 to 1895, in English, French, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Latin, German and Russian. It was formed by digitizing the combination of two private collections. The David Lee Collection (of 132 maps) was assembled for the purpose of documenting the application of the term "Sea of Korea" (or similar terms) to identify the body of water between Japan and Korea'. As a result, most of the collection must include the phrase 'Sea of Korea'. So I can't understand why this collection is used to compare the number of maps which uses the word "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan". I think, this part should be deleted. Poo-T 03:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Masterhatch 04:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: can't argue with that. how about moving it to external links? Appleby 05:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now is the time to delete it, to clean up the whole Article.  If you keep it, it will eventually bolster my "Logical Fallacy" argument (above).--Endroit 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical maps and studies,(SK) In 2002, the University of Southern California  

message: This link  shows a page in Hangul, displaying "Error# 404 - Page not found."
Please correct the link or delete it altogether.--Endroit 07:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical maps and studies,(SK) South Korea's Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries website 

message: The Infobox with the various names of Sea of Japan was moved here from the main Sea of Japan page.--Endroit 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, i step away for a few days from wikipedia and things go nuts. The info box belongs on the Sea of Japan page, not this one to be consistant with the rest of the bodies of water on Wikipedia. I see no real logical reason that the Chinese name should be included, but we definately need the russian name as Russia is a bordering country. Masterhatch 19:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Masterhatch, I'm sorry for moving the Infobox.  I have no preference either way or the other where the Infobox appears.  However, when people started to dispute material contained in the Infobox, I thought it must belong in the Dispute page.  Appleby, I found one example page using such an Infobox: East China Sea.  (However, it's a rare example).  Please build a concensus here, whether the Infobox should be moved back to the Sea of Japan page or not..--Endroit 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HOnestly I don't care too much either way where the info box was, but to me it seems "logical" to have it on the main article, not the dispute article. But like i said, it doesn't make too much difference to me.Masterhatch 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too think putting the infobox on the main article is "logical".  The infobox lists "local names used in surrounding countries", not "suggested international standard" which this article addresses.  --Kusunose 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes i agree with you about the Russian name there. Masterhatch 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Sea of Korea (韓國海) is, as you say, an "acceptable alternative" to the East Sea as the intenational name for the sea.  It has historical precedence (see Sea of Japan naming dispute#Historical maps and studies) which East Sea does not have.  If the infobox is kept here, it can be kept as an alternative.  If the infobox is put in the main article, it should be removed as it's not a local name.  Of course, if someone confirms that using the term within Korea is common, put it in the infobox. --Kusunose 03:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox moved here from the main [[Sea of Japan]] page 

message: Regarding the listing of the Russian name in the Infobox, please refer to the Dispute Article, under the section title "Historical developments of the dispute".  Please read the paragraph starting with "In 1977"....
"In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled 'Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty'. The resolution recommended: 'when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice.'"
This means that whether or not Russia is party to the dispute, the Russian name could be considered by the United Nations, because they share the "given geographical feature"... which is Sea of Japan.  That's why it is important to list the Russian name in the Infobox.  After all, the dispute involves not just Japan and Korea, but the United Nations as well.  I believe Masterhatch agrees with me on this point.--Endroit 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i agree with you about the Russian name there. Masterhatch 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian name in the Infobox

message: Why is "Hanguk-hae" in the Infobox, as a South Korean name?  (That's 한국해 in Hangul, 韓國海 in Hanja).  It seems YAZASHI added it on April 23.  Is "Hanguk-hae" some kind of a recent naming trend in South Korea? .... does not have much historical precedence nor is it very well documented.  It seems to be used only as an "acceptable alternative" to "Donghae" (동해 / 東海).  If the name is rarely used, it shouldn't belong in the Infobox.  Please build concensus here.--Endroit 17:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sea of Korea (韓國海) is, as you say, an "acceptable alternative" to the East Sea as the intenational name for the sea.  It has historical precedence (see Sea of Japan naming dispute#Historical maps and studies) which East Sea does not have.  If the infobox is kept here, it can be kept as an alternative.  If the infobox is put in the main article, it should be removed as it's not a local name.  Of course, if someone confirms that using the term within Korea is common, put it in the infobox. --Kusunose 03:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hanguk-hae" (한국해) in the Infobox

message: By definition, Hanzi means "Chinese characters", and because Japan and Korea are both Hanzi-using nations, the Chinese name should be of interest to some Wikipedia audiences.
In general, the Chinese usually reciprocate the use of local Hanzi used by the Koreans or the Japanese.  Although there is heavy tendency to ignore Hanzi in favor of Hangul (Korean) or Kana (Japanese); when translating into Chinese, Hanzi is always required.
For example please look at this Chinese Map of South Korea (from the Chinese Wikipedia).
As you can see in the above map, the Hanzi for Seoul (서울) is 首尔 , which is the simplified form of 首爾 .  China has basically accepted the South Korean request to use this Hanzi of their choice, for Seoul.  See the article about this here:  .
It is a big deal if China does NOT reciprocate the local Hanzi.  Specifically, East Sea (동해) shows up on this same Chinese Map of South Korea as 日本海 (meaning Sea of Japan).
As we know, there is a discrepancy in the use of Hanzi between the Korean (Hanja) and Japanese (Kanji) names for the Sea of Japan (East Sea), as shown in the Infobox.  And for some people, the Chinese are the authority in the use of Hanzi throughout the world.  Since Korea and Japan are Hanzi-using nations, the fact that China did not reciprocate the use of East Sea (东海 / 東海) is a very critical piece of information.
Furthermore, there is added historical significance to the use of Chinese names in the region.  In Chinese Hanzi, East Sea (东海 / 東海) refers to East China Sea instead.  Please look at this Chinese Map of Japan (from the Chinese Wikipedia).  This use of Chinese names is very deeply rooted, and could have affected the naming of all the seas by the European explorers in the early 19th Century.  Specifically, the Europeans may have resolved the name-conflict between the Chinese and the Koreans by standardizing the name "Sea of Japan".
Why should such important information be omitted by Wikipedia?
It suffices to merely put the Chinese name for the Sea of Japan, into the Infobox.  Please build concensus here.  If there is no further discussion, the Chinese name will NOT go into the Infobox.--Endroit 20:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese [[Hanzi]] in the Infobox

message: I'm not involved in this but I really think you guys need to look at dispute resolution because there seems to be a big gap here. Just a friendly suggestion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are fine for the moment. Right now, everybody is having a civilized exchange of opinions on the talk page, and that's what the talk page is for. -- Mkill 14:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Perhaps that will be where we eventually have to go Cleric71 07:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I already did, which is why my original indefinite ban of him got shortened to a day and then less than half a day. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Woohookitty, I honestly cannot believe that you even considered banning me. I quite clearly had no malicious intent. As I told you before, I took care to abide by the Three Edit Rule as I understood it. My "redirects" were a consequence of the fact that I tried to "rename" the page, which as far as I was concerned was an "edit" (everyone will know that in Wikipedia, you cannot rename a page without redirecting it). Don't you think that a more appropriate thing to do in such a situation is to give me a message? You will recall that when you gave me a message about my redirects (in the true sense of the word), I ceased doing them. The fact is that I took "redirects" and "renaming" to be separate things.Cleric71 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * Also consider the fact that I have made numerous edits to other articles, and that I have never even been close to being banned.Cleric71 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not buying that. You would've been blocked for a short time anyway. I'm not explaining this again. We don't have pardons here. I stand by my decision. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I stand by what I said, and maintain that I should not have been banned. It is disappointing that a Wikipedia administrator took such an extreme action on someone who acted responsibly. I guess we will just have to reluctantly agree to disagree here.Cleric71 08:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * I fail to see the point of finding another article title with two disputed names. You and others pushing this line of thought are saying that we need some precedent. Why is precedent so important? Do we always need to play "follow the leader". Are we scared of being the leader ourselves? Why can't we be bold and actually set precedent? I recall that as Wikipedians we are asked to be bold. Cleric71 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Appleby that the intoductory sentence could use some work and does need changing. Masterhatch 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Cleric71's revision for the first sentence of the "dispute article" wasn't bad at all, except he forgot to mention Russia.  But then, if we include Russia in the first sentence, we would have to rephrase the second sentence also....--Endroit 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Honestly

message: I know I said that I wouldn't post anything else, but I'm just going to post one last comment. I think that my comments and arguments were quite logical and persuasive. I also think that I did a pretty good job at refuting the arguments made by the others on the board, and in presenting some fresh perspectives that were "screaming out to be told". I still firmly believe that logically, my arguments hold stronger than the others on the board.
Alas, appeal to logic, and to good strong argument, is not what matters on this board. What matters is getting agreement from others on the board. As the others on this board were mostly favouring the other argument, I am resigned to the fact that no matter how convincing my argument was, it simply did not matter. 
You won't be seeing me on this board anymore. I've got to get on with my thesis and job.
Farewell
Cleric71 10:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Funny thing is, we were both typing at the same time and you saved first, so i got the edit conflict. Anyways, you said it better than i was going to. I simply wrote a short paragraph about how Wikipdia isn't a medium for change referring to the "no original research" policy. Masterhatch 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final remark