Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute

message: As usual, on a controversial page like this locking the page favors the status quo. Is that what we want? Are we saying no progress can be made from here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.172 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlock

message: In a both Wikipage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute
In November 2020, the IHO rejected South Korea’s demand and continued the use of the Sea of Japan name alone in official nautical charts.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan#Naming_dispute
"In November 2020, the IHO approved a proposal that supports the use of Sea of Japan name alone in official nautical charts."
This paragraph is misleading the IHO decision.
First, IHO doesn't approved a proposal that support the use of Sea of Japan name alone in official nautical chart.
The Third Edition S-23 made in 1953 is just kept publicly available as part of the existing IHO publications to demonstrate the evolutionary process from the analogue to the digital provision of limits of oceans and seas.
IHO approved a proposal that support the use of "no name" between Korea and japanese  Sea as new offical nautical chart. The 4th Edition of new Official nautical chart (S-130 based on S-100).
S-23 is the 3rd edtiton which was made in 1953 that is used as the offical nautiacl chart for decades but In 3th edition S-23 is no longer be the offical nautical chart after the the IHO decision in 2020.
the Japanese Agenda that exclusive naming "Sea of Japan" was already refused in 2012.
I transalted the Article below.
Article Title: Japan, Sea of Japan Exclusive mark agenda, failure of the issue agenda by the member states.
Date: 2012 Apirl 26
on 25, Japan try to mark ‘The Sea of Japan’ alone in fourth edition, as to put the agenda on the table of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). However, it failed due to opposition from member states.  "Let's discuss ways to make partial revisions based on the third edition of 1953," Japan said at the IHO General Assembly in Monaco. And put this to a vote.  However, only Japan voted in favor of the vote, while the remaining 77 member states opposed or abstained. In the end, Japan's agenda was scrapped without even being introduced on the proposal table.  on 26 in the morning local time IHO decided to resume discussions on the naming of Sea between Korea and Japan(East Sea).
Here is the original article source in korean with more various different news source cover it.
 Source donga ilbo :https://www.donga.com/news/Politics/article/all/20120426/45799668/1 
 Source YTN in Kor : https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20120425134300085
 Source YTN in French : https://fr.yna.co.kr/view/AFR20120426000700884
 Source YTN in arabic: https://ar.yna.co.kr/view/AAR20120426001400885?site=lang_ar
 Source KBS in Kor: http://mn.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=2468240
as the various reliable news source say, Japanese Government want to make the 4th Edition as same as 3th Edition which was made in 1953 and written the sea between South korean and Japan as " Sea of Japan". So we know that the  Naming Sea dispute between Korea and Japan is about the Revision of Old 3rd Edtion and making 4th Edtion, for making an New Official Nautical Chart. 
Second
the Ministry of Foregin Affair of Korea and Seoul News(Seoul Shinmun), Korean Press(The Hankook Ilbo) and other journals point it out that the Old Third Edition is no longer the offical nautical chart. So In the 4th Edition of Offical nautical chart, there will be no name such as "Sea of Japan", "South China Sea" and the Japanese Government and Press is misleading the fact. And the S-23 is existing as IHO publications to demonstrate the evolutionary process from analogue to the digital.
 the Ministry of Foregin Affair of Korea : http://www.mofa.go.kr/www/brd/m_4080/view.do?seq=370721
 Seoul News(Seoul Shinmun): https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20201117500129
 Korean Press(The Hankook Ilbo): https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2020092116420001010
IHO and the members of IHO have discussed about the revision of S-23(3rd Edition) to make a new offical  nautical chart the 4th Edition. the Korean Gov. want to name The East sea along with The Sea of Japan. Japanese Gov. want to name it The Sea of Japan exclusively.
The IHO decision of Making a new  official nautical charts (4rd Edition) in 2020 is actually from the proposal of Korea in 2017 Apirl Monaco.  the Proposal of korea is accepted in 2017 . "It makes no sense that there has been no revision of the IHO publication since 1953," South Korea's claim was accepted, and the decision was adopted at the 2017 General Assembly. to form an informal consultative body among related countries. The consultation results will be reported to the General Assembly in three years. 
In 2019  Japan's passive attitude has slowed down discussions on revising the IHO's international standard publication. the Yomiuri Shimbo cover the news that IHO pressured Japan to actively discuss the name of the sea between Korea and Japan on the informal consultative body.  So they can just pass the Proposal in 2020 after the Three years.
 Source JoongAng Ilbo : https://news.joins.com/article/23302734
Finally Every country  agreed to the proposal Including Korea,Japan,US,UK,France except China so that there will be new offical Nautical chart and there will be no name on it but just numerical identifier on the map.
Korea and Japan the members of IHO agreed with this new proposal and This IHO decidie to make a fair and nutraul map.
So IHO leaving S-23 the 1953 version The 3rd Edition is existing as IHO publications to demonstrate the evolutionary process. The Official new official nautical charts will be S-130.
So "The Sea of Japan" is not an offical name between the Sea Korea and Japan. In the Meeting they don't even mention one single word "Sea of Japan". they rather call "The naming of the sea area between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago" in a very Neutral way.  
In closing of the Agenda item addressing Proposal 1.9, the Assembly Chair made the following statement: “This proposal aims to make S-23 limits of ocean and sea areas fit for purpose based on modern digital technology. While developing a dataset to designate geographic sea areas by a system of unique numerical identifiers only, S-23 is kept publicly available as it is, as part of existing IHO publications to demonstrate the evolutionary process from analogue to the digital provision of limits of oceans and seas. The IHO is a technical and consultative organization. I therefore inform you that the final approval of this Proposal as a whole, which deals with limits of sea areas only, will bring a positive closure to the debate on naming issues that has persisted for far too long within the IHO.”
As you would notice the "Talk" in "South China Sea" document in Wikipedia. 
There are naming dispute between South East asian countries and China.
And the China disagree with this Agenda that make the new Edition S-130 as offical nautical chart. obviously China want to leave the name of the sea. East China Sea and South East China Sea and there are actual political dispute.
CHINA: Stated that the nature of IHO is consultative and technical and shall not include the activity to solve the names and limits of the Oceans and Seas which is highly politically sensitive. China did not recommend the revision of S-23 or the development of a specific dataset called S-130.The fact that a lot of resources have been spent but fruitless told that S-23 is highly political. The continuation of this discussion or further attempts to revise S-23 are not recommended. Together with the other members, China has always been committed to support IHO deal with hydrographic technology, protect IHO’s technicality and specialization not be violated by political issues.
 Please Check the Original Source Both "Volume 1, 2" 
 Source IHO : https://iho.int/uploads/user/pubs/periodical/P6A2_2020_Vol1_ENG.pdf
 Source IHO : https://iho.int/en/periodic-publications
 Source Yonhap News Agency  : https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20201117003700325
it is weird to see Japanese Government and Japanese press cover the article wrong way and i mislead information and interpret the decision of IHO. Japanese government was rejected the exclusive naming proposal for new version of 3rd Edtition S-23 in 2012. Now IHO have been discussed about the New version of Nautical chart(S-130) based on S-100 standard without any name. In the General Assembly , Assembly Chair Marc Van der Donck mention that numerical identifier without name  will bring a positive closure to the debate on naming issues that has persisted for far too long within the IHO since 1997. And China disagree with this because they know South China Sea having country name on it. Anyway it is finally solved through consensus. It's so obvious. Then Japanese Press and Government claim IHO approves use of 'Sea of Japan' as sole designation and it is exclusive name of that Sea. without any explanation of background. If they claim that just because Previous Version of nautical chart made in 1953 is still written as "Sea of japan" and S-23 will be made public as an IHO publication to demonstrate the evolutionary process from the analogue to the digital era. It's so wrong. they interpret that the whole discussion from 2017 to 2020 and final assembly meeting  in 2020 through cherry picking few word without any background. "IHO approve the proposal that "the name Sea of Japan" will be excluded in the New Offcial Nautical Chart." is more accurate than the previous one. 
And the new Official Nautical chart will be marked with numerical identifier without name. because it is the final conclusion and solution to bring the neutral way to end the the long naming issues.
If you write just the fact "IHO avaiable to use S-23 is still written as "Sea of japan " then this is the most wrong way to give you the information without any proper background explanation. "
As the above decision was made by the member of IHO and the Chairman of the IHO's remarks, this issue was well resolved neutrally.
The conclusion is that it finally eliminates the name of the official map and adopts the method of writing neutrally through numbers.
Many IHO members, including Japan,South Korea,United States,UK have already negotiated for years to reach this final conclusion. The some international community claims sovereignty or exclusive economic zones on the names of these particular named sea Like Recent South China Sea dispute as you can see China disagree to this new consensus. The Reason why this kind of case is important is that this misleading conclusion could goes more wrong. There are so many Similar case can be found such as Wikipedia's South China Sea Talk.
After reading whole this talk i think we should edit the heavily misleading Final Conclusion.
 "In November 2020, the IHO rejected South Korea’s demand and continued the use of the Sea of Japan name alone in official nautical charts.[37]"
 "In November 2020, the IHO approved a proposal that supports the use of Sea of Japan name alone in official nautical charts."
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute
If we keep letting this misleading conclusion then in a same way. Another wrong conclusion can be reached.
 "In November 2020, the IHO continued the use of the South China Sea name alone in official nautical charts."
 "In November 2020, the IHO approved a proposal that supports the use of South China Sea name alone in official nautical charts."
 Even if the Chinese panel oppose  this proposal. The way of Japanese press and the source doesn't even say the word Official nautical but very cleverly delivers information to mislead the conclusion of IHO. 
 In conclusion, the third edition of the 1953 edition, which was used as an official map, exists as a publication that shows the process of changes in the map, not as an official one.IHO member states, including both countries, agreed to use a number-neutral official map instead of a "name" for the new official map. This map will be the fourth revision and will be an official one after production.
Let me know if anyone have a more helpful source as the original IHO minutes, Chairman's remarks after IHO's decision, the remark of the IHO.
Imperfect IMTFE (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavily Misleading Conclusion of IHO about Naming Dispute