Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2

message: I find it ironic that the Japanese were the ones who gave the name Sea of Corea and now denies it.  It is clearly shown in their geographic book that the sea is named "Choseon Sea" or Sea of Corea.  So what is the deal??  Japan still believes that they could police Asia but their time is long over...  It is the 21st century now... No longer the 20th... So good luck to Japan... By Daniel McBeth
It is also called Sea of Japan in the map from Britain and many other sources.  Which source are you looking at?  Only One?
I don't understand what you mean by "police Asia" when recognition of this name began from the West, not the East.
So by your logic, the Western Power is policing over this issue.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I meant the 1895 Japanese World Atlas...  There are ten different editions of this.. Before their imperial era.   What I mean by policing Asia is how Japan renames every place on Asia...(Claim = "Their Imperial Era")  Example such as Liancourt Rocks... Japan calls it Takeishima, while it belongs to the Koreans and its real name is Dokdo/Tokdo.  Sincerely Daniel Mcbeth
Give us more example for your claim that Japan is still acting like police in Asia (besides "Sea of Japan/East sea" and "Takeshima/Dokdo" cases). This is a typical claim only coming from Koreans (and somtimes from Chinese) and not from the rest of the Asia. Who else is claiming that? It rather seems to me that the way you talk is a typical Korean who believes Korea is the center of Asian cultural evolution. Look yourself before making claim on others.  Best wishes, Jean-Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.122.134.136 (talk • contribs).
Oops...  Sry for the long delay of response...  I had to go on a camping trip....  Well more examples of the Japanese oppression on its neighboring nations are not only between Korea and Japan....  Currently, Japan is occupying one of the Ryu-Kyu isles that belongs to China...  China is demanding the return of this island but Japan is refusing...  Their claim is the World War II battles over rYU-kYU islands...  They're also claiming many of the underwater islands that belong to Korea and China...  And also...  I am not Korean.......... But I do believe that weak countries such as Korea, Vietnam, Israel and other countries are too much oppressed by other "Big" neighboring countries...  Thank You...  By Daniel McBeth
:No way, Ryukyu (Okinawa) is habited by people that belong Japanese ethnic group. -Ypacaraí 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Controversy

message: This so-called "Sea of Japan" is rightfully supposed to be the Sea of Corea. The Qing and the Wa never claimed it for themselves. The Japanese never claimed it for themselves before the problem of Dokdo happened. This is probably a move by the Japanese to claim the sea as their own. Dats one of those many things dat i cant stand bout my country's lovely, kind, honest neighbors. They're sooo honest. they NEVER lie. cough cough cough. NOT! dis isnt da first thing dat da Japs and Chinese have tried to take away from us, but i can tell you dat it will be da last. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kprideboi (talk • contribs).
:Hiya.  First off, I'd like to encourage you to sign your comments to talk pages  You can do so by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~.  Secondly, while your comments are appreciated, it would be much easier for all of us if you were to add them to the conversation you propose to be commenting upon rather than starting an entirely new section.  Finally, while you certainly do have the right to your opinion, please do remember to be civil and refrain from using racial slurs ('japs') in making your points.  Thanks.  --ZonathYak 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please have a little bit of politeness in your comment? You Koreans can NEVER, EVER win Japan over this issue with that kind of attitude.davidmj926 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Japan doesn't force anyone to. People just use their heads and recognise "Sea of Japan" is the best term. John Smith's 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sea of Corea 

message: Well, the International Herald Tribune uses it.
In the articles concerned with the N.Korea missile test, most maps have 'Sea of Japan' only becuase NHK (Japanese broadcasting system) was the first one to tell the world about the missile test.
Well, geographically, Dokdo (Takeshima) is more closer to Korea, and if dokdo is korean territory, we should use the East Sea of Korea. 
However, because Dokdo is still a disputed area, I think it will be good to use the Sea between Korea and Japan before Dokdo's dispute ends. However, in my personal opinion, dokdo is korean territory because the koreans owned it since written history exists except for the colonnial time.
::Huh?  I suppose if ownership of Dokdo would actually place the Sea of Japan within the territory of Korea (just to be generous, I'll go ahead and count NK's and SK's shares together), that would make sense.  But as it is, Korea's 'share' of the sea is more or less dwarfed by Russia and Japan's shares, the ownership of a jumble of rocks in the middle of the sea notwithstanding.  --Zonath 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should think from NPOV and should not think from POV. It doesn't have a meaning to talk about a supposition. In addition, It isn't appropriate to talk about the issue of possession of Liancourt Rocks here. I cannot agree to the way of thinking to connect a name of the sea with possession of Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is unrelated. Gegesongs 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: But the thing is, Dokdo is NOT a disputed area. It's clearly Korean, and Japan is just poking at it to see if they can make it theirs. I think people should recognise that. In my point of view, I think it is as stupid as saying "Oh, Canada is USA, because it's close to USA." Now, everyone would laugh at that and think you're a moron, but they don't do that to Dokdo just because it is a very tiny island, and Japan is, after all, more influential. If Korea was a big powerful country, they wouldn't have a chance to even suggest the idea. This is what I would say. IF Dokdo is Japanese, Japan is Korean. It's as clear as that. (Anonymous) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.183.153 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media & Dokdo 

message: [1] 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 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectman, can you add this material to the Sea of Japan naming dispute article instead?  This section should be a summary only.  Can you please fix it?  Thanks.--Endroit 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they say that that description is unnecessary because of a summary, it also deletes this description. "when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." It is the opinion of South Korea what relate this problem to the history of colonial rule. It is not fair to write only the opinion of S.Korea.Objectman 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that part was added by Appleby.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  And I think that part is unnecessary.  In addition, I think the following is unnecessary:  "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919."--Endroit 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.Objectman 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about Naming (The opinion of Korea about the map of Europe.)

message: Since the last post here was in February, all previous discussions are in the archives. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Is not true. Only S and N Koreans insist on using other names on the sea. Should be modified appropriately from NPOV. It is Europeans who came to consensus on the use of the name in 19th century. Before that, there were many names applied, I agree. Japan established imperial government only in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, Japan doesn't have any power on the propagation of the name of the sea. The last sentense "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted because this is the worst propaganda. The words is here just in order to mislead readers to the POV that the name Sea of Japan have relationship with Japanese colonial rule. If you think about this by neutral and healthy mind, it is obvious that such a POV have no ground. Say, if it was Korea who have colonial rule on Japan in early 20th century, still this sea must have been "Sea of Japan" from the view of the rest of the world, because Japan archipelago (under the colonial rule of Korea) differentiate this sea from the Pacific. In that case, Koreans must have insisted Japan should be officially named East Islands. :-)
Sea of Japan by The Ministry of Foreign Affair of Japan
Isorhiza 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: summary should be short and comprehensive. Isorhiza 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: What's wrong with creating Naming dispute subsection?  Not everything about naming is disputed. Who's arguing there has been only one name for the sea? Who's arguing the name of the sea has never been standardized? --Kusunose 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You introduced the subcategory "Naming dispute" for the first time in Revision as of 02:15, 21 May 2006. First, I don't like the look of your edition with subcategory from the view point of esthetics. There is no other subcategory in this article. The category "Naming" and subcategory "Naming dispute" is very closely resembling and either of which does not have long description which needs subdivision. Secondly, I guess that you tried to distinguish "consensus" and "dispute". But my point is that almost nothing is settled as consensus. You placed the sentense outside of Naming dispute: "Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919." Readers may have impression that there were many names equally used before 1919, when the Bureau standardized the name. Here Korea POV can let readers think that Korea could not participate in the decision because of Japan's colonial rule, therefore the decision's effect is doubtful. However, from POV of Japan, the naming was almost settled before the Bureau standardized the name. Japan had no influence on the decision because European people decided to use the name "Sea of Japan" in 19th century. Therefore, the sentense you left there is still not neutral. My point is to leave pointer to Sea of Japan naming dispute and very brief and neutral (as far as possible) description here. Please read Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for further discussion. Isorhiza 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming dispute subsection 

message: Ive unblocked Applebys 3RR ban, accepting his argument that since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo this article should use Dokdo in the intro, and switching to a redirect is effectively vandalism William M. Connolley 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liancourt rocks / Dokdo 

message: I wrote about two oceanic currents yesterday, but Appleby deleted. Why? Stop vandalism.--Mochi 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appleby always delete topics which is disadvantage to Korea without specific reason. This user is not neutral, not suitable for English wikipedia. -- Himawarichan 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Friends, do not accuse him of vandalizing. We are no better off with our sock-puppet and Ni-channeru. Ken ta987 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ocean currents

message: I strongly recommend that this article do not use a map of the sea with the tag "Sea of Japan". Instead, I put a picture where there is no tag.
:Sea of Japan is the english name, regardless if Koreans like it or not. Nevertheless, the previous map also listed alternative names where applicable, and by that is much more useful than your map.  Also, watch the WP:3RR!-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the previous map too, because it's always useful to have detailed information in an Encyclopedia. It's more "encyclopedic" that way.  Please change it back to the previous map.--Endroit 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... i already reverted it. Try reload. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, thanks!--Endroit 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone edit the map to change from "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" to "Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin)" per result of the vote? --Kusunose 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated image -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Kusunose 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: actually, because the recent poll was inconclusive, i think the map should remain as is, while the issue remains open. Appleby 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the poll was 57.9% for Tsushima basin, which was also the name when i first came across it on Sea of Japan, which was also the name i first use to create the map. In lack of a better option, please leave it at "Tsushima (Ulleung)" -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of a neutral picture 

message: The article Tushima Basin is being requested to be moved to Tsushima Basin or Ulleung Basin.
<BR>
Please vote for or against Tsushima Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Tsushima Basin).
<BR>
Please vote for or against Ulleung Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Ulleung Basin).
<BR>--Endroit 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulleung Basin vs. Tsushima Basin 

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 able to vote. Appleby 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notice of poll 

message: Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, of course you can be fair despite your Nippophilia.  I know that.  I think that I'm very even-handed despite my various leanings.  I just know that this is an emotional issue for some (I'm a Seoul Man!) and I was merely indicating that someone else might have been less likely to rile up those already inclined towards passionate displays.  No biggie.  Have you also visited the page on the dispute over the name?  They get it on over there, big time.  I bowed out of that one months ago. Unschool 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the first part of Masterhatch's comments, about the islands, but I think he is wrong about the second, and more important issue, regarding the parties to the dispute.  The conflict is between Korea and the rest of the world.  Japan has no motivation to discuss the issue, and the only reason that it has been a big issue over the past 10-15 years has been the efforts of Korea to persuade the world community to listen to them on this.  Another way of putting this:  The dispute is between Korea and the status quo (an undeniable characterization, that I hope even Masterhatch would agree with), which simply makes it their issue, not the Japanese.  I think that Masterhatch is fooling himself by trying to make this into a Japanese-Korean conflict. Unschool 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While i agree that korea is trying to make it a worldly issue, it must be noted that most of the world just doesn't care. Japan cares, that is why they are ignoring it (hoping it goes away syndrome). It is between japan and korea. Since japan is refusing to deal with it, korea is trying to bring the rest of the world into it. The IHO and all other official governments just don't give a darn and are not interested in changing. It is up to korea and japan to resolve this. Status quo will remain until they do. If they never do, then status quo will exist indefinately. See, korea has no historical backing for "east sea" over "sea of japan" and the only reason korea wants the name to change is because of their dislike for japan. You don't see koreans trying to change "East China Sea" to "south sea" or the "yellow sea" to "West Sea". It is simply because of the word "Japan" that the koreans want that body of water's name changed. This is nothing more than a long series of disputes between korea and japan. Over history, korea got the short end of the stick too many times and are just trying to one up japan every way they can. I lived in korea for 4 years and i know this is how the people there feel. There is a strong "dislike" for the japanese and any way the koreans can get ahead of them, they will try. So, again, this dispute is between japan and korea, or shall i say between korea and japan. The international community made up its mind at the the last IHO meeting and has withdrawn from talks and told korea and japan to solve it amongst themselves. I will repeat, the IHO removed the international community from the dispute at the last meeting and left it up to korea and japan. Oh, by the way, i am not fooling myself into thinking that this is only between korea and japan, because it is only between them (thanks to the last IHO meeting). Masterhatch 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Sigh.) Well, I am glad at least to see your on-point analysis of the Korean motivations for this—I agree, their antipathy, not history, drives this campaign.  I realize now that our disagreement on the parties to the issue is largely one of semantics (which, unfortunately, does not exactly solve the edit issue).  You are, very understandably, citing the "letter of the law", so to speak, by giving us the IHO ruling.  And of course, in that sense, you are correct.  I have regarded it as a more informal debate within the court of public opinion, which is where Korea is attempting to engage the world community.  Would you agree to that characterization?  It doesn't tell us how the page should read, but am I correct in thinking that we are more in agreement on this issue that not? Unschool 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totaly that korea is trying to make it an informal debate within the court of public opinion. But the key word is trying. But that isn't where the conflict or controversy is. There isn't enough people who care or even know about it outside the circles of korea and japan for it to be a controversy between korea and the rest of the international community. The part of the international community that actually might care (the IHO) made up its mind, ending any international controversy. The controversy is almost entirely among the circles of the koreans and japanese. But i think we can end this silly debate by using the sentence "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." as suggested by Zonath. Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: why don't we state the three facts briefly; sea of japan is the most common name; korea proposes east sea; japan opposes korea's proposal. unless anyone can cite any other country or internat'l org actually opposing korea's proposal. Appleby 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gotta tell you, Appleby, I think Zonath's suggestion is on-point.  It's uncontestably true.  I would be willing to add that the Koreas favor changing the name, but I oppose listing Japan as "the" opposing side, because, even if it's only the result of inertia, most of the world opposes the change, too.  So I suggest Zonath's language as a compromise. Unschool 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cool with that, Appleby.  What say you, Masterhatch? Unschool 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Masterhatch 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: While i strongly disagree that Dokdo should be the title of the article, it is. I think it should be liancourt, but that is a different story for a different time. but since the article is currently named Dokdo, this part of the article "Takeshima (Dokdo)" needs to be switched back to Dokdo (Takeshima)" I have been accused in the past of being a pro japanese editor (mostly by korean POVers), but i am neither pro korean nor pro Japanese here on wikipedia. If anything, I am pro English POV, which in most cases goes against Korea and for Japan. user:Mythologia is deliberately reverting to japanese pov by putting the japanese name for those islands ahead of the agreed upon name here on wikipedia (which happens to be the korean name). In my opinion, that is blatantly a POV edit and you page protected it so it can't be fixed. As for the other part, "There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community" vs. "There is a controversy between Korea and Japan" it should also be reverted back to my last edit. Why? because the international community has already decided on a name (sea of japan) and the IHO told korea and japan to work it out for themselves ei between korea and japan. Therefore, the dispute is not between korea and the rest of the world, but korea and japan. The rest of the world uses Sea of Japan, not east sea. Mythologia has been vandalising this page to add japanese pov and you edit protected it with the blatant pov still in the article. I strongly urge you to revert it back to my last edit, which is the closest edit to before the "revert war" started (which is what you should have done in the first place). Masterhatch 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first part of Masterhatch's comments, about the islands, but I think he is wrong about the second, and more important issue, regarding the parties to the dispute.  The conflict is between Korea and the rest of the world.  Japan has no motivation to discuss the issue, and the only reason that it has been a big issue over the past 10-15 years has been the efforts of Korea to persuade the world community to listen to them on this.  Another way of putting this:  The dispute is between Korea and the status quo (an undeniable characterization, that I hope even Masterhatch would agree with), which simply makes it their issue, not the Japanese.  I think that Masterhatch is fooling himself by trying to make this into a Japanese-Korean conflict. Unschool 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While i agree that korea is trying to make it a worldly issue, it must be noted that most of the world just doesn't care. Japan cares, that is why they are ignoring it (hoping it goes away syndrome). It is between japan and korea. Since japan is refusing to deal with it, korea is trying to bring the rest of the world into it. The IHO and all other official governments just don't give a darn and are not interested in changing. It is up to korea and japan to resolve this. Status quo will remain until they do. If they never do, then status quo will exist indefinately. See, korea has no historical backing for "east sea" over "sea of japan" and the only reason korea wants the name to change is because of their dislike for japan. You don't see koreans trying to change "East China Sea" to "south sea" or the "yellow sea" to "West Sea". It is simply because of the word "Japan" that the koreans want that body of water's name changed. This is nothing more than a long series of disputes between korea and japan. Over history, korea got the short end of the stick too many times and are just trying to one up japan every way they can. I lived in korea for 4 years and i know this is how the people there feel. There is a strong "dislike" for the japanese and any way the koreans can get ahead of them, they will try. So, again, this dispute is between japan and korea, or shall i say between korea and japan. The international community made up its mind at the the last IHO meeting and has withdrawn from talks and told korea and japan to solve it amongst themselves. I will repeat, the IHO removed the international community from the dispute at the last meeting and left it up to korea and japan. Oh, by the way, i am not fooling myself into thinking that this is only between korea and japan, because it is only between them (thanks to the last IHO meeting). Masterhatch 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Sigh.) Well, I am glad at least to see your on-point analysis of the Korean motivations for this—I agree, their antipathy, not history, drives this campaign.  I realize now that our disagreement on the parties to the issue is largely one of semantics (which, unfortunately, does not exactly solve the edit issue).  You are, very understandably, citing the "letter of the law", so to speak, by giving us the IHO ruling.  And of course, in that sense, you are correct.  I have regarded it as a more informal debate within the court of public opinion, which is where Korea is attempting to engage the world community.  Would you agree to that characterization?  It doesn't tell us how the page should read, but am I correct in thinking that we are more in agreement on this issue that not? Unschool 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totaly that korea is trying to make it an informal debate within the court of public opinion. But the key word is trying. But that isn't where the conflict or controversy is. There isn't enough people who care or even know about it outside the circles of korea and japan for it to be a controversy between korea and the rest of the international community. The part of the international community that actually might care (the IHO) made up its mind, ending any international controversy. The controversy is almost entirely among the circles of the koreans and japanese. But i think we can end this silly debate by using the sentence "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." as suggested by Zonath. Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: why don't we state the three facts briefly; sea of japan is the most common name; korea proposes east sea; japan opposes korea's proposal. unless anyone can cite any other country or internat'l org actually opposing korea's proposal. Appleby 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gotta tell you, Appleby, I think Zonath's suggestion is on-point.  It's uncontestably true.  I would be willing to add that the Koreas favor changing the name, but I oppose listing Japan as "the" opposing side, because, even if it's only the result of inertia, most of the world opposes the change, too.  So I suggest Zonath's language as a compromise. Unschool 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cool with that, Appleby.  What say you, Masterhatch? Unschool 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Masterhatch 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: an edit needs to be made

message: There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.
====Consensus poll====
Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above.
* Support. Unschool 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you're the only one with "hwabyeong", you sockpuppet. Just so everyone knows, Shougiku Wine was recently identified as a sock puppet account of Mythologia.--Sir Edgar 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your vote doesn't count, Mythologia/Shougiku Wine.--Sir Edgar 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless anyone has any specific objections, let's scrap this poll and move on to the next one, since it's patently obvious that the consensus opposes this change.  --Zonath 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Why not put my suggestion up with a second poll? John Smith's 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I think my proposal is far more neutral. I think we should put it to the vote. John Smith's 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it one more try, since it seems that discussion on this topic has more or less dried up, and nobody has yet to put forward a more reasonable alternative.  Perhaps John Smith's suggestion will be able to generate more consensus than the previous one.  If not, we'll most likely just have to be content with leaving this page in a protected state for at least the foreseeable future, as I don't really believe that this dispute is going to just go away.  Heck, maybe it's in the best interests of the article for it to remain protected -- after all, this is pretty much the longest stretch in at least a year that the article hasn't been vandalized. --Zonath 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of decision reached

message: Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above.
* Support. Unschool 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you're the only one with "hwabyeong", you sockpuppet. Just so everyone knows, Shougiku Wine was recently identified as a sock puppet account of Mythologia.--Sir Edgar 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your vote doesn't count, Mythologia/Shougiku Wine.--Sir Edgar 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Unless anyone has any specific objections, let's scrap this poll and move on to the next one, since it's patently obvious that the consensus opposes this change.  --Zonath 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Why not put my suggestion up with a second poll? John Smith's 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I think my proposal is far more neutral. I think we should put it to the vote. John Smith's 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it one more try, since it seems that discussion on this topic has more or less dried up, and nobody has yet to put forward a more reasonable alternative.  Perhaps John Smith's suggestion will be able to generate more consensus than the previous one.  If not, we'll most likely just have to be content with leaving this page in a protected state for at least the foreseeable future, as I don't really believe that this dispute is going to just go away.  Heck, maybe it's in the best interests of the article for it to remain protected -- after all, this is pretty much the longest stretch in at least a year that the article hasn't been vandalized. --Zonath 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus poll

message: I object to the proceedings of the poll as the version that has been put forth in the article's edit is different from the one we're voting on. See here:
Poll proposal- 
"Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."
Current edit-
"Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, both North Korea and South Korea have advocated for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea; North Korea, the East Sea of Korea. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."
You cannot say one thing and do another. People voted on the poll's initial proposal, not the current edit. Just because you realize that the wording is highly biased, doesn't mean you can try to soften it and it will be acceptable to all. 
Also, the current vote shows 15 in favor and 10 oppose. That is exactly 60%. Hardly consensus. And Wikipedia rules suggest more than 60% to avoid future conflict.
By the way, you need a comma after "However".--Sir Edgar 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many voters opposed the Push as POV, hence it was changed. And, e.g. for page moves, 60% is acceptable. Where did you get the Wikipedia rules suggest more than 60% from? -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at the real "feeling"spirit behind the votes, several expressed full support if "push" was changed, and I doubt any of the "supports" would be lost because of such a minor thing.  Furthermore, at least one more oppose would disappear if we reheld the vote even as is, due to a permanent ban.  When you look at it in this light, the consensus is pretty clear--though it doesn't stop us from trying to improve it even further. LactoseTIT 01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Common sense. Getting a bare majority will not stop the edit wars. But rather than spend the extra day or two to get everything ironed out in the wording, people are pushing for a quick poll and then get surprised when a large minority expresses opposition. Fagstein 08:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This case is certainly not closed just because Sir Edgar thinks so.  And besides, Sir Edgar is advised to gain significantly more consensus on his wording before inserting it into the article.  At the point when Sir Edgar unilaterally imposed his own wording, he had only 1 out of 25 people supporting him (himself), which is only 4%.  Thats' called editing against consensus.  Sir Edgar is advised to read Wikipedia:Consensus himself.--Endroit 08:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, people have done such polls with simple majorities in the past on other pages. I said a 60/40 majority was necessary. Yes it was close, but as was mentioned some of the terms have been changed already. Now you had every chance to object to the terms of the poll before it finished. But you didn't. Objecting now that you have "lost" is not good sportsmanship. I suggest you wash out the bitter taste in your mouths and let it go. John Smith's 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was an somewhat informal poll to get us "set up"--now we can work on something better if we want.  Sir Edgar, if you are unable to understand the meaning of "feelings", I will change it to spirit (without quotes).  It's clearly enough to get us started (better than we were). LactoseTIT 13:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a sport. Or an election. We're trying to reach consensus. Saying "you lost, tough" isn't likely to lead us in this direction. Fagstein 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a good point; what's the next proposal?  The last one got us enough power to have a decent "placefiller"--do we want to dive right into an election for one with the small changes suggested throughout the previous poll? LactoseTIT 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be fine to make further edits to that section without the need to bring every small change back here to vote on.  If some change doesn't make certain people happy, they'll revert the section and bring their concerns here to discuss.  I think as long as people act reasonably, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. --ZonathYak 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So work on a consensus then.  The majority feel it is a good start--don't force a completely different change on everyone that isn't close to what most people seem to want.  Clearly, you should be discussing such a radical change here rather than just putting it forward.  No one is putting forth your version but you; I really don't think we need to lock the article based on a lone user's persistent edits.  LactoseTIT 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper conduct in poll and carrying out of it. 

message: Would it be possible to update the links Hokkaido to Hokkaidō within the body of the page as Hokkaido is only a redirect to Hokkaidō.
Pygenot 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Hokkaido as Hokkaidō 

message: What? The Sea of Japan is unfairly named because Japan freakin' took over Corea!!
It should be refered to in textbooks, internet pages, and atlases as East Sea!
It's only called "sea of Japan" because of the Japanese dudes!
There are so many Japanese Invaasions of Corea, yet they changed their history books to make themselves look good, and to make sure that the other countries don't figure out what they did to us!
Now they're trying to take our creatoin of kimchi now that it shows that it helps the immune system!
WHAT THE ----?!?
Those Japanese people may have contributed to the world a lot, but look at what they did to us koreans!
GAAHH!!!
:I assume that you probably have a double-digit IQ, judging from your tact, spelling, and writing style. Because of that, I fear that I am only wasting my time by posting a response to your rambling claims, so I will make my response concise in order to type it as quickly as possible.
:I am a typical citizen of the United States of America, of European descent and a native speaker of English, and I have never once in my life heard an anglophone refer to the Sea of Japan, verbally or in writing, as anything other than "the Sea of Japan." FIN. Ebizur 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats pretty obvious since Japan simply suppressed Korea and used Sea of Japan to give the impression to other countries that it is theirs. Good friend100 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't about fair names. It's an encyclopedia. Fair or not, the more commonly recognised name is Sea of Japan. --PeregrineAY 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE CALLED "[[East Sea]]"!!!