Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 5

message: This section should be deleted. There are no references and sounds like someone just thought this up in their head. More importantly Korea's "South Sea" is a colloquial term that's not being advocated for international change. That means it doesn't present any inconsistency for the purposes of this naming dispute. The section also doesn't make sense from the previous section which already stated the Korean position that "east sea" argument is not based on translation of Korean name but from alleged historical usage which is of course is the heart of this dispute. This article is really crappy. Melonbarmonster 02:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency Section

message: There is so many questions and discussions below that are not answered. The article needs full rewriting. Japan's opinion and Korea's opinion should be separately written in separate section, and should not be touched each other as long as it has good verifiable reference. Links to unverifiable source (blogs) should be cleaned up if it is still there. --Isorhiza 02:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is no longer neutral 

message: Wikimachine's Comment 4
Dear Wikipedians:
WOW, THIS IS SO FUNNY.
OBVIOUSLY, SEA OF JAPAN IS NOT SEA OF JAPAN.
IT IS SEA OF KOREA.
KOREA EXSISTED FAR MORE LONGER THAN JAPAN, AND EVERYONE
KNOWS THAT RIGHT? HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS DO,
BECAUSE WHEN KOREA WAS SPLITTED INTO BAKJAE,SILLA,GOGULEUH,
JAPAN WAS FOUND AND KOREANS HELPED + TAUGHT JAPANESE SO THEY CAN
GROW INTO A BIGGER, STRONGER CIVILIZATION.
EVEN NOW, THERE ARE STATUES OF KOREAN TEACHERS IN JAPAN.
WELL, IRONICALLY, THE JAPAN CIVILIZATION GREW STRONGER
THAN KOREANS THOUGHT THEY WOULD AND JAPAN RULED OVER KOREA
FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, TORTURING THEM.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHEN JAPANESE STOLE KOREA'S SEA AND CHANGED THE
NAME TO "SEA OF JAPAN" SO IT CAN LOOK LIKE IT'S A SEA OWNED BY JAPAN.
WELL, IT IS NOT.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS EAST SEA OF KOREA AND A KOREAN PROPERTY BECAUSE
OFCOURSE, THEY HAVE EXSITED AND WAS FOUND FAR BEFORE JAPAN.
THEY NAMED, FISHED, FOUND AND AGAIN NAMED IT EAST SEA OF KOREA.
DEAR ALL JAPANESE AND KOREANS IN THE WORLD:
HELLO.
FIRST OF ALL, I HOPE JAPANESE AND THE JAPANESE GOVERMENT ARE SATISFIED ENOUGH
THAT THEY NAMED WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS "EAST SEA OF KOREA", TO "SEA OF JAPAN"
SO NOW, PLEASE DON'T TRY TO TAKE KOREA'S ISLAND DOKDO (LIANCOURT ROCKS)
IT IS OBVIOUS, SO OBVIOUS THAT DOKDO WAS A PART OF KOREA.
THEY HAVE EVIDENCE, AND HISTORY OF THAT ISLAND.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT JAPANESE CAN TAKE AWAY MORE FROM KOREANS NOW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.103.127 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a dispute only between Korea and Japan, Korea doesn't need to request medias and publishers all over the world to change the name. Korea should request only Japanese publishers to change the name. But the fact is that Korea is trying to change the international consensus. What is official name? In IHO, countries standardize name, but it is for nautical charts and for the sake of maritime related matters. --02:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion about Wikimachine's comment

message: 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. Objectman 03:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The opinion of Korea about the map of Europe.

message: *Japan asserts it is irrational about the South Korean opinion that "Oriental Sea" is the variants of "East Sea". 
*As few as 2 maps use "Eastern Sea." 
These are asserted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Although it is exact information, why does it delete? Is it because it is inconvenient to South Korea? We have not deleted inconvenient information to Japan. Please bring forth a counterargument, if this description is wrong.Objectman 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding a part of facts is not neutrally. 

message: Appleby added
:Koreans argued for a change to the international name since the early 1970's.
but according to the source, it says
:"In documents written since the early 1970s, many citizens and scholars have pointed out the unreasonableness of naming the East Sea the "Sea of Japan."".
It is hard to interpret "Koreans argued for a change to the international name" from the source. We should write "Some Korean people complained the international name of the sea in 1970s.", shouldn't we? The Appleby's edition seems that the changing-the-name-campaign started in 1970s, but the source does not say so. --Mochi 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s

message: Appleby deleted this. Why? I'm sure
*The treatment of "Orient sea" is important, because Korean government considers it as an equivalent name of East Sea, and Japanese government does not.
*It is not fair to igonore the fact that Japanese called the Pacific Ocean "日本海"(Japan sea) and Sea of Japan "朝鮮海"(Chosen sea).
--Mochi 17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not limit the significance of the fact that Japan respected the sea as being under Korea's authority. I think that the general consensus is that Japan urged for Sea of Japan to be used as the international de facto in one of the IHO meetings. (Wikimachine 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why deleted ?

message: Some people pointed out that East Sea is West to Japan, South to Russia and North to China and therefore not neutral. Since we are talking about the international dispute here I think we should look from a more global prospective. From this point of view the 'East Sea' is neutral. --Optimus2005 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't because it is not the most eastern sea from asia and the origins of the name are from Dong hae, which is the korean name for the body of water, not a neutral name. Neutral names would be Oriental Sea, Friendship Sea, or Beautiful Sea. I just came up with those last two off the top of my head, but it serves the point that those are far more neutral than East Sea (which is a direct translation of the Korean name). If the Koreans really want a neutral name, then they should look at a name that does not come from their own language. Masterhatch 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Your way of reasoning Masterhatch is to dig into a literary meaning of the name and claim that it is not correct (because it's not the most eastern sea from asia). If one follows this logic then she should really check if the Black Sea is really Black and White Sea is White.  2) The fact that 'East Sea' also happened to be one of the original names of the sea is not relevant, since it's a local issue. From a global prospective, the name 'East Sea' is more neutral. In the same way as Eastern Cuisine is more neutral than a Japanese cuisine. Would anyone claim that Chinese cuisine is actually Western Cuisine, just because it's West of Japan? In Japan maybe, but not in the rest of the world, so it's a local issue. We are not trying to discover hidden meanings, but trying to understand the neutrality of the name. --Optimus2005 09:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for proving my point that the Korean arugment for using "East Sea" is a weak one at best. Neither "East Sea" nor "Sea of Japan" are "neutral" names so to speak, but history shows us that "Sea of Japan" is by far the more common name in historical western maps. I just don't get the logic that the koreans are saying by using their local name and saying it is more neutral than the current one. It is not neutral if it is based from their language. Masterhatch 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If East Sea is not neutral name because of all those reasons.... we ought to neutralize the Carribean, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea, Red Sea....
No. Neutrality is not based of geographic location or some other factors that you have suggested.
Neutrality is based on history. If it was named that way long time ago & somebody else changed it later... we need to change it back. (Wikimachine 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the name 'East Sea' 

message: Here are the various arguments that I can remember & I would like to make a summary of the topics on which we can focus.
Also, there are some points that I have pinpointed with my previous evidences.
* Historical reasons: It's definite that South Korea has the advantage in this, especially when East Sea has been used for 2,000 years while Sea of Japan has been used for only 200 years.
* Frequency of the maps: Apparently, the surveys by Korea and Japan differ in their results. But one must note that Japan is known for having white-washed their history, and people should wonder why there are protests going on right now in China.
* NPOV: This article presents the two POV sides of the dispute. It cannot be NPOV. I also mentioned that the article tends to be siding with Japan.
* Neutrality: (repeat) People are constantly bringing up these NPOV names such as the Central Sea or whatnot, but that's not what this is about. We are not trying to create a new name for the sea. We are bringing back the historical evidences to change it as it was before Korea lost voice in the international community and Japan did everything as they wanted to. East Sea, Sea of Korea, and Sea of Japan are the top three choices. There are other variations according to different languages (i.e. Choson Sea, Mare de Coree, etc.), but among these three most frequent and oldest names, we need to choose one.
* Why not Sea of Korea: (repeat) I think I already posted in a previous thread that the reason why Korea is promoting East Sea is because promoting Sea of Korea would be way too offensive to Japanese & too much of a dramatic change. That's why, although Sea of Korea was used more often, East Sea is a neutral name in today's political environment. So... if last thing the Koreans want is Sea of Japan, then of course they would go for East Sea, which is more likely to be enforced than the other.
* Favoritism: People are arguing that changing the name to something other than Sea of Japan favors South Korea or whatnot. Notice that the current name favors Japan anyways. 
* Current standard: People are saying that Sea of Japan should be used because it is the most dominant name right now. Ok... That's not what we are doing right now. We are presenting the dispute as it is, not trying to change the name. No matter who wins in this little discussion page, the world won't budge a bit. But I'll say this. Sea of Japan became widespread as Korea became a hermit kingdom and lost its influences while Japan opened its trades, industrialized, and grew. 
(Wikimachine 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimachine's Final Clean Up 

message: Just an FYI, but  just created a cut-and-paste copy of this page at East Sea (Sea of Japan) naming dispute, as well as a cut-and-paste copy of Sea of Japan at East Sea (Sea of Japan). I changed them to redirects, but someone more knowledgable about POV forking and proper naming of redirects may want to look into it. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV fork

message: The last sentense of the article Sea of Japan is a propaganda and should not be there. All the dispute should be moved to this article and only NPOV should be left there.
"The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule."
The sentense is there in order to mislead readers to relate the name Sea of Japan with Japanese colonial rule on Korea. 
IHB just standardized the name. But before that there was already consensus among the western countries. Japan (same as Korea) did nothing with the consensus among western countries.
Only Korean POV insist on the sentense to stay there.
Isorhiza 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the removal of that sentence. It is missleading the reader to equate japanese colonial rule with the international naming of the sea. That sentence belongs on the dispute page, not the Sea of Japan page. Masterhatch 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The last sentence "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted as I mentioned above. But the whole section is written from POV of Korea, because Korea POV is trying to make this "controversy" between Korea plus North Korea and Japan. However, from another POV, only Korea is actively trying to change the name. Therefore, the whole section is under dispute. I would not like to describe our POV there (eg. Korea is actively pushing their position that the name of the sea should not be Sea of Japan, because they don't like the name. North Korea supports the view. A few chart/map publishers accepted Korea's view and changed the name on the map, but most chart/map is still unchanged because the name Sea of Japan is already widely accepted and settled name. See the battle between Korean activist and others in Sea of Japan naming dispute.) It will initiate another flame. So what is neutral solution is that leaving pointer to the dispute page and very short neutral description there. I would like some neutral person who doesn't involve in either part will edit the section. I personally understand why and how Koreans doen't like the name and maybe both nations can seek for solution, but that is another story. Neutral description only should be accepted in Wikipedia even if it is lacking detail. Isorhiza 06:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Isorhiza. You say Sea of Japan is a widely accepted and settled name, and I happen to agree with you, but before that, East Sea, the ORIGINAL and HISTORICALLY CORRECT name, was an accepted and settled name. Only after Japan distiguished themselves internationally in the auto and electronics industry, other nations began to accept that since Japan was the strongest nation in Eastern Asia, that they had a right to change the name of East Sea, into Sea of Japan. Nearly always, if you look around the map, powerful and reknown countries name bodies of water after themselves (i.e. English Channel). If a puny weak country tried to stop the English channel from being named that, who would listen? Even if the name of the body of water would be histroically incorrect, nobody would listen...
Oyo321 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently learned, thanks to kind suggestion by Appleby, that in Wikipedia original or histrically correct is not important. You should also ask Appleby for which section to be read to understand what is wikipedia and what is not. I would like to add that before discussing about Japan, you must learn hitory of Japan first. Industry in Japan was not so highly developed as you see today when Japan united Korea in 1910. There was no auto and electronics industry. Instead, japan had silk, copper, silver and iron. During the first International Hydrographic Conference in London in 1919, Delegates of Japan had very few opportunity to express comment. That shows how small was the power of Japan internationally. I could find only a few comments from Delegates of Japan through 77.5 hours of meeting, and those were not about the naming of the Sea of Japan. (ref. International Hydrographic Conference London 1919, Report of Proceedings) --Isorhiza 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To all- I would also like to say that even I, an active Korean, have not even heard of the name "Korea Sea." Koreans wish for the name "East Sea," like I've said before, is histroically the most accurate name." In Korea, the name "Korea Sea" is very rare.
Oyo321 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Korea, the name "Korea Sea" is very rare. So you mean, in English Wikipedia editors should use "East Sea" because it is the most common name in Korea, irrespective of what is common in English speaking community. Thank you, that is the point that we are repeatingly arguing, and you proved it kindly. --Isorhiza 09:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule. 

message: I'm curious about how the name was standardized at the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB). Is there anyody who have read the proceedings of this meeting? Detail of the discussion may be impossible, but at least proceeding is available in university's libraries. Reading history of International Hydrographic Organization, it seems that International Hydrographic Conference was not fully political, but rather scientific meeting. So I guess Korea could participate in the meeting even if they were under colonial rule of Japan. needs more investigation. I also found that IHB was formed after the 1919 meeting of International Hydrographic Conference, so the description here needs minor revision. The information source is page 2 of United Nations' General Assembly. Isorhiza 04:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no record in the Proceedings of International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919 that Japanese Delegates has submitted the name of Sea of Japan. The truth was that the foundation of International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) was agreed by delegates of countries at the meeting. Therefore, the sentence: 'At the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine international names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name "Sea of Japan"' is not verifiable. We must seek for verifiable source for the development of the dispute. --Isorhiza 07:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical developments of the dispute: International Hydrographic Conference London 1919

message: Name                                                	Map                                                                                                                  	Link	Status
MAR CORIA                                           	아시아 지도 Manuel Godinho, 1615                                                                                          	    	
MAR DI CORAI                                        	동아시아 지도 Sir Robert Dudley, 1647                                                                                      	    	
Ocean Oriental                                      	Philippe Briet가 제작한 지도, 1650                                                                                         	    	
MAR DE CORÉE                                        	Jean Baptiste Traemier가 제작한 일본의 섬들 지도, 1679년                                                                         	    	
MER ORIENTALE OU MER DE CORÉE                       	프랑스의 지리학자 Guillaum de L'isle가 제작한 인도차이나 지도, 1705년                                                                    	    	
Sea of Corea                                        	동아시아 지도 John Green, 1747년                                                                                            	    	
MER DE CORÉE                                        	프랑스에서 출간된 중국의 지도, 1748년                                                                                              	    	
M. DE CORÉE                                         	프랑스에서 출간된 아시사 차트, 1761년                                                                                              	    	
MAR DI COREA                                        	Prof. Antonio Chata의 새로운 방법으로 만를었고, 베네치아의 의회에 의해 지지받는, 아시아 나라의 지도, 1777년, 이탈리아                                       	    	
SEA OF COREA                                        	브리태니커 백과사전의 중국 항목, 1778년                                                                                             	    	
Sea of Corea                                        	러시아 지도, Bowen in 1780                                                                                                	    	
MER DE CORÉE                                        	지역과 나라를 다룬 아시아 지도, 마드리드 소재 스페인 국립 박물관, 1785년                                                                         	    	
COREAN SEA                                          	아시아의 섬과 지역, 영국 런던, 1794년                                                                                             	    	
GULF OF COREA                                       	Samuel Dhun이 런던에서 만들고 Laurie and Whittle이 출간한 지도, 1794년                                                              	    	
MER DE CORÉE                                        	아시아 전도, 프랑스 지리학자 Dezauche, 1800년                                                                                     	    	
MER DE CORÉE OU DU JAPON, (한국의 바다(Sea of Korea)     	라는 글자가 크게 인쇄되어 있음), 아시아 전도, Dezauche, 1805년                                                                          	    	
COREAN SEA                                          	쿡의 항해기 런던에서 발간한 쿡 선장의 항해를 기록, 1808년                                                                                  	    	
GULF OF COREA                                       	Lizars의 아시아 차트, 런던 발간, 1833년, 1840년 재판                                                                               	    	
SEA OF COREA                                        	종합 세계 지도, 영국인 Wyld 발간 , 1845년                                                                                        	    	
SEA OF JAPAN                                        	T. Tallis의 일러스트된 전도, 영국 출간, 1851년                                                                                    	    	
Please add more. Link: External (or internal) link to the image of the map, Status: Confirmed or blank. Isorhiza 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Checklist of maps mentioning this sea, excluding those published in Korea or Japan

message: there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features of this sea, currently underway at Talk:Tsushima Basin. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be eligible to vote. Appleby 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the poll is still open for more input, until june 19. thanks. Appleby 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notice of poll 

message: It is 明治改訂の万國輿地分図 and I think early translater misspelled. it is the time to correct form Meizi to Meiji for 明治. 
Jlok
:All Wikipedia articles use the Meiji spelling. "Meizi" is clearly the wrong spelling.--Endroit 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meizi kaiteibankoku yochibunzu: [[Meiji]] or [[Meizi]]? 

message: :And Japan asserts it is irrational about the South Korean opinion that "Oriental Sea" is the variants of "East Sea".
If someone wants this added back in, please come up with a less POV way of stating it. As it is, it is only a POV statement. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself didn't put it there, but you should modify it to a less POV or NPOV statement, not delete it. (Wikimachine 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oriental Sea comment removed from main page

message: jjok, this has been discussed before, either in this or related talk archives. korea & japan are the parties to the dispute. afaik, russia & china are just reflecting the status quo, no different than tanzania or tanzania or the u.s., but if they actively support either position, i'd be interested in a citation. Appleby 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: parties to the dispute

message: Those who revert a page without discussion should be banned out from the editing of the page (not from other pages). This should be included in the rule of Wikipedia. --Isorhiza 03:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Cite your sources#Text that is.2C or is likely to be.2C disputed. I would personally consider adding the idea that 'some people' link these naming disputes raised by Korea to an upswing in Korean expansionism to be somewhat controversial. In these cases, the above policy seems to allow 'revert first, then discuss' rather than the opposite (which seems to be what you're espousing.) --Zonath 05:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your advise. --Isorhiza 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for banning [[User:Dollarfifty|Dollarfifty]] from edition 

message: *At the 1919 meeting of the International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB) to officially determine international names of bodies of water, Japanese delegates submitted the name "Sea of Japan" . At the time, Korea could not participate because it was under Japanese occupation. The "Sea of Japan" had been used almost exclusively on international maps, although the parties disagree on when and which name was previously prevalent.
I moved this paragraph to discussion, because such a fact cannot be verified.
*International Hydrographic Bureau began its activity in 1921 according to IHO's webpage.
*There is no record that "Japanese delegates submitted the name Sea of Japan" during the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919 according to the Report of Proceedings of the conference .
Note that during the conference, it was decided to form International Hydrographic Bureau as a permanent organization.
- Isorhiza 06:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. So, Masterhatch's arguments are now baseless. (Wikimachine 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Hydrographic Organization 

message: "Korea's position is that while "Sea of Korea" is actually the most common historical European name, "East Sea," in reference to the Asian continent rather than a specific country, is more neutral and analogous to the North Sea."
I took it out of the article.
There's many things wrong with this. This is what Masterhatch has been advocating, but I've never heard of this before.
First of all, "East Sea" refers to the term Dong-hae, which means "east sea" in Korean language. Since this body of water has been called "Dong-hae" by the Koreans, the Arabian mappers named the sea "East Sea".
Ok? It does not refer to "Sea east of the Asian continent" or whatnot.
Second of all, S Korea advocates this name not because of the idiocracy mentioned above but because it wouldn't offend the Japanese as much. Imagine how Japanese would react if the body of water suddenly became "Sea of Korea". That would not be neutral anyways, which S Korea is advocating for. (Wikimachine 18:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement 

message: Introduction should "introduce" the article. It seems that in this case it points out every detail of the case.
I did not delete. I moved much of the introduction to the "historical reasons" section as I found them repetitive.
Remember what your English professor told you. Do not write repetitive statements.
So that's what I did. (Wikimachine 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation as requested by Dollarfifty 

message: The information about the studies is important and adds to the article. User:4.23.83.100 apparently felt it was an editorial. Is there any reason not to include this? See:[] For some studies, it's unavailable, but for where it's verifiable information I think it should be included (I'm not talking as much about the first thing reverted out of the three, though it was taken from the reference as well, and is more correct than what is there now). LactoseTI 09:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that user keeps removing the information, it seems like page blanking. There is nothing wrong with those additions per se. Komdori 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial? 

message: What about the Gulf of Mexico? People in the United States don't complain about the name of the large body of water. The name makes sense because Mexico (I think) has the longest coastline on said body of water. Japan shares the longest border with the sea in dispute, hence, maybe Sea of Japan is not a bad name. 202.215.17.129 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: We all should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a tool to discuss  which name is proper with. We should write what is widely accepted to be true, and always cite sources.
I personally think that it is desirable that the cited sources are in English so they can be easily confirmed by English speakers. Please give me a response.--Akira 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support --Isorhiza 10:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No disputes here

message: http://www.eastsea.org/ have gathered 26 maps including East Sea (or Eastern Sea, Oriental Sea, Sea of Korea, etc).
The year ranges from 1440 to 1845. So someone please refer this website in the article.
In addition, I could find only one (old) map saying Sea of Japan, which is from 1815.
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Corea_and_Japan_Map_in_1815.jpg)
If someone has more resources on maps with Sea of Japan, please post them. 129.97.245.62 03:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that not one of those maps you pointed to actually uses "East Sea"? Oriental and Eastern Sea have a different nomenclature than East Sea and can't be used to mean the same thing. East Sea dirives from Dong hae (meaning east of korea as can be compared to Nam hae (south sea) and Seo Hae (West Sea)) and Oriental/Eastern dirives from being East of Europe. East Sea has no precedence in European naming and only has been used in English in the past 10 to 15 years (as a result of koreans forcing the name on everyone). Masterhatch 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as i know, Korean uses Yellow Sea for Seo Hae. Seo Hae is just a conventional way of saying Yellow Sea. Also, Seo Hae implies only a small portion of Yellow. Even historial documentations call it Yellow Sea. Unlike Seo Hae, Dong Hae has been documented and called "Dong Hae". I'm assuming East Sea, Eastern Sea, and Oriental Sea mean basically the same thing. 129.97.245.62 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing about English name. --Isorhiza 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One more input. According to the article Orient. "The term "Oriental" is derived from the Latin word oriens, which is the present participle of "orior": to rise. The implication is that it refers to the rising sun, hence the use of Orient to describe the "land of the rising sun", i.e. the Far East, and is exactly analogous with the Chinese term for Japan." Therefore, "Oriental Sea" is analogous with "Sea of Japan". --Isorhiza 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can assume all you want, but East Sea is not the same as Eastern Sea and oriental Sea. Masterhatch 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me add that in the 1600's, "East Sea" meant "Baltic Sea" in English. See this map. So it is a big lie that "East Sea" meant "Sea of Japan" in English back then.--Endroit 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very dangerous to make a hasty generalization. 129.97.245.62 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is even more bogus to count "Sea of Korea" as being the same as "East Sea". That is outright deception. These guys are liars.--Endroit 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps with East Sea 

message: The debate used to be in dokdo museum.KoJa though I could not find the current site. (dokdo museum seems moved somewhere in www.dokdo.go.kr)
Other examples are KoJa and 
reference 8 also mentions about the ownership.Ko This cite looks nice as a citation though I hope someone can find more reasonable site for the citation.--Jjok 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I was confused about the ownership of the rocks.--Jjok 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: I deleted the following paragraph, because Ministry of Foreign Affair of either Korea or Japan does not mention this. MOFA of Korea states only about "Limits of Oceans and Seas" published in 1928  (they say 1929, but actually it is 1928 according to database of the library of the Harvard University.). I challenged the fact a week ago, but nobody could provide source. So I understand that it is ok to delete now. I agree that it will be added again anytime, if there is verifiable source. I paid attention not to delete Korea's point that at that time Korea was under Japanese occupation. It is beyond my scope. --Isorhiza 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: The number of  and  tags is not helpful and frankly annoying. Can't you use something like  -- just once -- instead? 128.135.96.110 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely, could you help? --Isorhiza 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of "citation needed" 

message: I move that the this talk page should be added to the category Comedy. I found myself laughing so hard at some of the arguments on this page that it surely must rate as one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia.
Bathrobe 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which arguments, do you mean? --Isorhiza 07:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. this article has become somewhat of a joke. It used to be fairly well written, but it now reads more like two children fighting over who is right and who is wrong. I have given up trying to keep out all the BS and POV. People are too concerned with having an "equal" number of arguments on both sides that stupid shit gets put in to try and create "balance". This is an encyclopaedia, not an essay about which name is correct. This article is being used as a battleground and that is totally sad. Masterhatch 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to add Category

message: Holy cow! How does anyone add or correct information when anonymous Tokyo IP addresses undo everything here? Can someone read the links and correct the introduction? North Korea uses "East Sea of Korea" itself but joins the South Korean position for simultaneous use of SOJ and ES, even according to the Japanese site! The second Korean site doesn't argue that "Sea of Korea" should be the international name, it says "if" ... "then" the proper name would be "East Sea" or "Sea of Korea." There is no doubt that the official South Korean position is for the use of "East Sea," and North Korea supports it, so what's with the intentionally confusing introduction?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanKim (talk • contribs) .
:Actually, according to the article of Chosun Ilbo, NK supports the concurrent use with SOJ though it does not say what the concurrent name should be. By the way, would you help find the corresponding article in Korean? I failed to find it.
:MOMAF of SK site says "In fact, if we strictly follow the general practice in designating geographical names, a sea area lying to the east of the Eurasian continent and the Korean peninsula should be named either the East Sea or the Sea of Korea." I also do not understand what kind of rule they are strictly following. The easternmost sea of the Eurasian continent is Sea of Okhotsk. If they follow the rule that the East Sea there is internationally called as the Baltic Sea and the East Sea in China is the East China Sea, thus the Sea of Japan or the East Sea of Korea are more suitable rather than the SK centric East Sea and SK should support NK position.--Jjok 03:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see that NK supported the SK's proposal of the concurrent use, though I failed to find the description that NK supported "the East Sea" instead of "the East Sea of Korea" either in SK or JP official documents. Thus, "South Korea and North Korea requested that names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" should be simultaneously used as an interim measure (North Korea also proposed the name "East Sea of Korea" to be used)" looks illogical. You also seem not to want to describe the NK's proposal in an equal manner with the SK's. What is the reason?--Jjok 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring 

message: DanKim and Korealist above are confirmed to be sock puppets of each other. This article has a history of sock puppetry. For full details on related sock puppetry, see:
# Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo
# Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Room218
# Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NekoNekoTeacher
# Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby
# Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke
--Endroit 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sock puppetry]] 

message: I hadn't realised I would stir up such a hornet's nest. When I changed "Japanese" to "Opponents", I was merely bringing the article into line with the first paragraph, which says: "There is a dispute over using the name "Sea of Japan" to refer to the sea bordered by Russia, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea. Although Sea of Japan, or equivalent translations, are commonly used in international productions, North and South Korea insist on different names."
The rest of the article then slips into a tone of "Koreans vs Japanese". The only reason that anyone could object to my edit as "biased" is a belief, which seems to be prevalent among Koreans who see Japan as "the enemy", that this is a dispute between Korea and Japan.
Bathrobe 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hornet's nest

message: I just added the info, with reference, to the fact that the 9th Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names on 27 August 2007 endorsed Sea of Japan as the name of the body of water. Cla68 13:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New support by international community for Sea of Japan

message: the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan".  <<? No.
:actually, iho chief said, 
:"I encourage the three countries concerned to find a solution acceptable to all of them, taking into account any relevant solutions, or else to agree to differ and to report the outcome of these discussions to the next conference." 
::The IHO declined the name use both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". They did not decide to only sea of japan name use.
::1. IHO cheif said, "these discussions to the next conference." 
::2. Previous IHO's map delete that only "sea of japan" name use.
::3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.
::4. so, IHO did not decide to exclusively "sea of japan" name use. 
::: According to IHO's technical resolution, 
:::It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche.  
::: so, exclusively 'sea of japan name use' did not permited.  "Sea of japan/ East sea"(twin use) is right. Panelequal3 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IHO did '''NOT''' decide to exclusively 'sea of japan' naming use 

message: Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean).
According to Wikipedia naming convention, 
Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:
#For all international articles use: Sea of Japan
#For all Japan articles use: Sea of Japan
#For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
#For all Japan/North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
#For all Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
#For all North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.
::so, use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right.Panelequal3 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)