Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 4

message: Earlier discussions on this page have been archived:
*Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 1
*Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 2
*Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive A The file apparently doubled somehow before this, I'm cutting the 'TOP' to this location as it seems the older/most out of date. FrankB 13:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: #This was cut out of the discussion below, as while germane, it is clearer and briefer to present the conclusion — that it is a form of logical fallacy to rely on it for the relavant issue. It was replaced by My paragraph (1) below after Mr Tans presentation of my text as part of this discussion. (I preserve the sub-numbers by numbering this reference), and duplicate his point (immediately below) so the two can be compared on the same screen.
##) Article Supplied Fact -- I suspect and believe originally inserted by Mr Tan, but for which I have since asked for substantiation (of him as he is both 'relatively' local and multilingual.), inthat, the article also refers to a causeway, and also to two canals. Sub-point — A canal, is not a permanent sundering of the land, a two km WIDE ship channel (As I originally understood the text meaning coupled with other references to 1 km, s.a. ...'in places 1 km to 2km wide' — I accepted such at face value, but it began to bother me, and still does. A confirmed history of whatever happened there between 1895 and 1900 is badly needed.) with a subsequently added causeway (presumably with a ship bridge) would still be divided. I however, consider it more likely that a 2km Isthmus (or an Isthmus averaging 1 km to 2km wide) maybe or is being misconstrued into something it is not. If so, the Canal is a more technically correct engineering term, and the two main land blobs (islands) have not ever truly been sundered.  I'd like a solid reference either way.
##) Article Supplied Fact -- the point was made by me several days ago (Coincidentally just below the link I provided in my Request for Clarity (see Discussion Header) as an example. I'm amused, as it was unintentional.) that if there were indeed two islands, that they would have a name — that's human nature and experience speaking to Mr Tan — the names may have been buried less prominently in the text theretofore and I just overlooked them (as my focus is on history -- specifically, Battle of Tsushima), but however, when I next looked at the text, they were present. My orignal sentence was couched in terms TBDL## which concept suddenly blossomed into several other locations within the text, presumably for alternate or foreign names (Mr Tan again.). The existance of these names is indicative, but not conclusive as they merely describe 'Where terms' when translated, and hence can be local references of no particular note. (What we need in this arguement is a  'native' of Tsushima, or failing that, a native of the Prefecture of Nagasaki. If you are such, please identify yourself much better!)
##) This is pure inference based on the following, and my experience as a sailor (Closet Admiral) with naval historical interests and avocaton:
##)  These are Solid Historical Facts (I added references at same time): (a) Japan was broke (nearly bankrupt) after both wars and ended up borrowing (before and during) to finances the R-JW, MORE TELLING STILL, she was still bootstrapping a feudal economy into an industrial economy, and had mainly light SUBSIDIZED industries but had for decades made extraordinary efforts to avoid borrowing of foreign capital despite unfavorable trade terms and the need to import technical advisors across the board military and economic, and pay premium salaries to do it, but she suddenly cuts a channel she can live without while b) smarting at the rough handling by the (then racist) powers (c) called the Triple Intervention; (d) Her leadership did immediately foresee and conclude that a likely war with Russia or another major western power would be happening eventually; (e) Her major naval (home) ports WERE (are) on the Inland Sea, while her (f) economic and political focus and National Interests was on/in Korea and Manchuria, specifically, the Liaodong, and Jilian portions thereof. Those things may be counted on strongly — I merely glued them together and then infered (as an engineer as well as amateur historian with special interests in matters naval and with a lot of economics courses) taken together with the article facts, the text I composed. Under the cash position she was operating in at that time, a matter much discussed in the various references I'm using, My Tactical and Strategic presentation is conclusion, but as you can see a defensible one — what it is not, is evidence one way or the other of ONE vs. TWO islands. It can't be as it takes a reference from the asserted fact that there is two islands permanently sundered by said hypothetical channel. Since 'channel' was once misinterpreted for nearly a century into canals and proof of life on Mars, I think we should avoid that particular pitfall. Circular arguements prove nothing. 
The below was excerpted from the below discussion so they could be compared on the same screen. A summary is presented at my paragraph 1.1 below which was the above text.    FrankB || TalktoMe 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FrankB Circular Argument

message: I would like to observe that with 36 pages of prior PRINTED history, participants in this MOVE discussion should restate their arguements (IN FULL but CONCISE TERMS) here for the sake of clarity and understanding. IF AN CASE or TWO is LENGTHY, Please provide an CLEAR Paragraph TAG built from clicking the matching Paragraph in the text above, and inserting it as the full html address pipe Para_Title_Above. (Like this: Intro)  Those of us, without a dog in this fight, will surely appreciate it!!!!  Sincerely,    FrankB || TalktoMe 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A request for clarity

message: :My evidence from earlier discussions:  (User:Mel Etitis by fab)
:::On the other hand, the reasons for "Island" aren't wholly convincing; names that are plural in one language often become singular in another, and we should be asking whether the English name should be singular or plural.  The Columbia Encyclopedia (and another edition), Britannica, American Heritage Dictionary, various academic writers (e.g., , , , ), The Japan Times, other relevant Wikipedia articles, Wikitravel, and many reputable Japanese and foreign sites (such as , ),  all refer to islands, and those sites that use the singular appear to be referring only to the largest island, ignoring the smaller islands (which may be insignificant, but which nevertheless exist).
:There's at least enough doubt over the question to mean that changing the article's name (which means either changing many other relevant articles, or leaving this article out of step with the rest of Wikipedia) shouldn't be rushed into. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence/Arguments by: [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] 

message: :I spent just twelve minuits for google search. I found many examples for "Tsushima island". To make Mel Etitis's one-sided evidence more fair, I add the following links. 
Encyclopedia : 
::http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9338912
::http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tsushima-Province
::http://www.docoja.com/cgi-bin/mainwordj?geog+Tsushima_island+dico/geogifg 
:News :
::http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20001104b3.htm
::http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GC23Dh03.html
:Academy :
::http://www.yale.edu/ycias/pier/resources/lessons/geography.htm
::http://meme.biology.tohoku.ac.jp/POPECOL/RPcontents/AB40(2).html
::http://www.seto.kyoto-u.ac.jp/publication_e/publication_25.htm
There are more examples.Baru 13:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence/Arguments by [[User:Baru|Baru]]

message: Tsushima is officially recognized as an island by the government of Japan. The official data of Tsushima island such as area and population are all of one large island. There are no data available for the alleged two portions of Tsushima as independent islands. Also Tsushima is widely known as the the third largest island in Japan; it cannot possibly be the third largest if it were merely a group of smaller islands. Hermeneus 02:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Attached Statement Correction by fab w/notification to User Talk:Hermeneus — Any of Japan's four main islands dwarf Tsushima, Q.E.D. fabartus as mediator extraordinaire! FrankB || TalktoMe 02:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japan the four main islands (plus Okinawa) are not generally counted among the islands of Japan but only parts of the mainland Japan, just like continents are not counted in the list of islands of the world. You don't count the main islands when you talk about the islands of Japan because islands are considered as parts that are isolated from and subordinate to the mainland even if the mainland also consists of islands as in the case of Japan. From a larger perspective the entire Japan is but one of many archipelagos surrounding the Eurasia continent, and the Eurasia continent itself also is only one of many land masses on the globe from a still larger perspective. Not to mention the Japanese do know that the four main islands are "islands" also; otherwise they don't call their nation "island nation" (島国). You just don't count them in such a list. Besides that's not the point of my argument. The point is that Tsushima cannot possibly be the third or eighth (counting the main islands) largest if it is consider as a pair of two smaller islands; and since the Japanese government does recognize Tsushima as the third largest island, the Japanese government does not recognize Tsushima as islands. Hermeneus (talk) 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence/Arguments by: [[User:Hermeneus|Hermeneus]]

message: I just located Mr Tans cited source way up above for the text I wrote. It is by a professor at Columbia University, and part of his discussion (This is quite a way down in the posting) he refers to a personal visit he made in 1974. The link is: | Gari K Ledyard  (Gari Keith Ledyard gkl1@columbia.edu Fri, 2 Oct 1998 17:12:04 -0400 (EDT) ). Mr Tan placed this above on the 14th.
*It appears to me that Mr Tans english is NOT at fault and I and a few users owe him an apology, as he quotes this professor pretty much verbatum. (An Eye Witness Account by a scholar of Far Eastern Studies) — (Emphasis Added - fab)  
:"On another occasion I was hiking high up in the mountains (Tsushima is mostly mountains, and they are very steep), it was a very clear day and as I looked to the northwest I saw the hills of Korea stretching out seemingly forever into the distance.  Korea looked very, very big, and Tsushima felt awfully small.  It was easy to imagine why Korea was taken seriously by most people on the island.
:I once read an article by a Korean writer arguing that Tsushima was Korean because its NAME was Korean.  He etymologized Tsushima as coming from "tu shima", which he said was obviously a reflex of Korean "tu sOm" (< syem), meaning "two islands."  It is true that today Tsushima is  indeed two islands. But in traditional times, Korean maps always depicted it as a single island, and correctly so.  Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, perhaps one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between the great Aso^ Bay and the Japan Strait, not only dividing the land mass into two islands but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea (between Korea and Tsushima) into the straits of Japan (between Tsushima and Japan).  This capability proved crucial during the Russo-Japanese War, when the Russian Baltic fleet, which had spent the better part of a year sailing around Africa (England would never have let it through the Suez canal) in order to be re-based in Vladivostok, was smashed to pieces and sunk by the Japanese in the "Battle of Tsushima."  Tsushima has only been "two islands" for only about a hundred years, and the "two islands means Korean sovereignty" theory turns into a bubble. 
:The name Tsushima has a long textual history, appearing earliest in the Chinese "History of the Three Kingdoms" (Sanguo zhi, compiled before 297 CE and partly based on the earlier Weizhi of ca. 250, though the latter is now known only through quotations ..."
**I believe a comparison of Mr Tan's insertion, cited in my para 1-4 or 1-5 above compares verbatum with this professor, and vindates Mr Tans text change, though not his lack of using a pair of quotes! I still own the responsibility for jumping to the conclusion that the professors "blasted a cut" coupled with "one or two kilometers wide" referred to the width of the cut. The construction of the sentence is poor, and the comma offsetted parenthetical (?)phrase isn't clear to me even now as to it's object (actual meaning): The cut, or the isthmus? "Cut" however, connotes a canal, not an extravagant outlay for overengineering. Thus, a canal is my interpretation pending further information. FrankB || TalktoMe 05:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complimentary Evidence by Mr Tan, unearthed by fabartus

message: 1.I investigated more than ten maps of Tsushima sold in Japan. But, I found neither Kamino-shima nor Shimono-shima.
2.I also didnt find any geographical definitions of Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. Baru 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence/Arguments by: [[User:Baru]] (Map and Definition)

message: Before entering the main discussion, you should note:
*Tsushima-jima 対馬島 refers to the main island. Islets around it are out of the scope of the article.
*We should distinguish words in common use (CU) from academic terms (AT). The former is often conventional and inaccurate, but the latter is not.
Some provided damn long explanation of Manzeki-seto, but the real focus of the discussion is whether to take account of artificial waterways in the case of counting islands. I consulted the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard (JHOD)  and received an answer: there is no clear standard for that.
So the way we should take is to consult the authorities. The Geographical Survey Institute (GSI)  and JHOD treat Tsushima as a single island. That is the answer. In terms of "authoritativeness," books like Britannica cannot compete with them.
Treating Tsushima as two islands in inappropriate. Physically (but not necessarily geographical), Tsushima consists of three parts since two canals divide the mass. In addition, the terms of Kaminoshima and Shimonoshima do not appear on GSI maps. They seem CU and are not official terms, at least in the field of geography.
FYI, Tsushima-jima is AT and certainly not CU. Tsushima-jima is highly unnatural Japanese word. Whatever the true etymology of Tsushima is, Tsushima-jima sounds duplication of "island" (shima and jima (see: rendaku)). As it is AT, -jima (shima 島) is singular. Although the Japanese language does not distinguish singular/plural in common usage, academic field does by using gunto 群島, shoto 諸島, etc.
I don't think this is important for the current discussion, but maybe I should point out factual errors. According to , Manzeki-seto is 40 meters wide (originally 25 meters wide) and Funakoshi-seto is 49 meters wide and 242 meters long. GSI maps back this up .
--Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanshu's comment

message: The below is a Wikipedia Article Sub Section on Revert Wars, and one all the original participants here should read. Its amusing regardless (fab)
*Disinterested bystander view -- KTC 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by KTC 

message: or a SHORT (one sentence) explanation of what it is herePhilip Baird Shearer 11:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the compromise 

message: Requested move: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island. --Nanshu 06:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~ 
*Oppose.  If the discussion had continued, I might have been persuadable, but apparently Nanshu isn't interested in discussion, so I'm left (for the reasons that I gave above) inclined to a preference for the plural.  I'd be happy to go with a move to Tsushima, as suggested by Septentrionalis below. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Neutral. If this article was about Tsushima island and a few more surrounding islets (if there are any), I'd stick with the plural. But I'm not knowledgeable enough in this field. JMBell° 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have also noticed from Osani's comment, he stated even if Tsushima is not seperated by a canal, there are islands around the two islands, and Tsushima should be considered as Islands, rather than island. Thus I would greatly appreciate to those voters to reconsider their opposition vote in retrospect to this fact. Mr Tan 13:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I count 5 Support and 3 Oppose, with one explicit abstention, and a number of implicit ones. Can somebody please check my count and sign after me that you have done so. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well this would be a good Baseball score, but I wish it had been more clear cut. The last vote was Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea who takes action when, but I'm voting now, knowing there is a possibility that my vote will not be counted. Atsi Otani 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE HERE ON Requested move: [[Tsushima Islands]] &rarr; [[Tsushima Island]] 

message: I don't know what the issues are regarding the number of islands, but in case it's helpful, I'm copying the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry below.
:Tsushima, archipelago, Nagasaki ken (prefecture), off the coast of southeastern Japan. The islands lie in the Korea Strait separating Japan and Korea, and divide the strait into the Tsushima Strait (west) and the Korea Strait (east). The archipelago consists principally of two rocky islands, Kami and Shimo, which are separated at one point by only a narrow channel. Kami has an area of 98 square miles (255 square km), while Shimo has an area of 174 square miles (450 square km). 
:The islands are heavily forested, and lumbering is the principal economic activity. Shiitake mushrooms, millet, soybeans, and buckwheat are produced on the limited agricultural land. The archipelago is part of the Iki-Tsushima Quasi-National Park. The principal towns are Izuhara (the administrative centre) and Kechi on Shimo and Hitakasu on Kami. 
:Historically, the archipelago was a stepping-stone between Korea and Japan, and throughout its early history it was raided by Korean and Japanese pirates. From the 12th century to 1868 the islands were the fief of the So daimyo family, who often acted for Japan in diplomatic relations with Korea. During Mongol attempts to invade Japan in 1274 and 1281, the islands' population was massacred. In 1905 a Russian fleet was defeated by Japan in the Battle of Tsushima, which took place north of the islands. Pop. (1980) 50,810. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::What's wrong with having the bilingual infobox, by the way? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::Do you see such bilingual infobox in any other article describing a land or teritory? Tsushima is under Japanese rule for long long time. Tsushima isn't under special condominium. No other country is claiming posession of Tsushima. Therefore we don't need such bliningual. I will keep removing that infobox. --Ypacaraí 15:50, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
The Korean have made Tsushima as a dependecny during Silla , the Joseon dynasty ruled Tsushima from 1419 to around 1592, and Tsushima forged strong cultural and economic links with Korea. Even Korean maps, until 1860, claimed Tsushima as Korean. Also, the people of Baekje may have connections with Tsushima  and . Syngman Rhee and Masan claimed Tshshima in 1950 and 2005 respectively. 
And the Korean impact on Tsushima is very significant, just like the Japanese on Sakhalin, who attempted to colonise the island, and ruled the island from 1855? to 1945. And again, I have stated my reasons very clearly on  in contrast to the Japanese name on Sakhalin, which answers your question on "...has such bilingual infobox in any other article...". And Sakhalin is not disputed and not claimed by Japan, and the Japanese name was there for a very long time. 
Thanks, and I will reinstate the infobox in a short time if there are no further objections. Mr Tan 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Above isn't replying to you, it's to Slimvirgin. I have no more patience for keep up with your gibberish, Mr Tan --Ypacaraí 22:44, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Now look here; I see no resentements in Sakhalin with the Japanese (Karafuto) and Chinese (Kuyedao) names; why are you so fussy about the Korean name in Tsushima? I have told you why, but I seem to be speaking to a deaf woman.
Also, there is mention of Daema-do day in Tsushima from " the Masan city of Korea declared June 19 as "Daema-do day" on 18 March 2005,..."  here, how can people know the Korean name if they have no infobox? And there is no strong objections on the Korean name being displayed besides you. You are creating confusion for readers who want to know what is "Daema-do" like this. Even if you hate me or don't like the Korean name, at least please have a sense of consideration for the avid readers. Mr Tan 03:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of islands

message: Apologies; I have realised that "対馬島" is simply Tsu-Shima. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The capacity of the human mind is much greater than you think. An experienced sysop can immediately size up the situation and act accordingly. Wonder some more, Tan. It's good for your development. Ever heard of a thing called philosophy? JMBell° 23:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romaji 

message: The case whether Tsushima is an island or islands is doubtful. So I have made a provisional edit that the "Japanese government consider Tsushima as an single island", from "tsushima is the third largest island". I don't know who originally introduced the initial sentence. Mr Tan 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments 

message: I have seen that Kusunose have put up the Korean "Daema-do" name in a sentence, but for the sake of article organization, an infobox would be much better, as it states the romanization and the Hanja name of Tsushima--that would be more informative. In Ypacarai's last edit, I see no effort in him removing the Hangul name.
Also, I cannot make out what he mean by "There has been caltural influence from Korea, where they are called Daema-do (대마도)." Mr Tan 06:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I say below, there is good reason to mention the Korean name in the article, but not in the infobox. The islands are Japanese, not korean, and to mention the Korean name in the infobox would suggest Wikipedia's support of a (non-existent) Korean claim. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kusunose's edits 

message: Does this article need page protection? I see no stopping of the revert wars, and there appears to be no sense of consensus on this talk page. Perhaps the only way to cool things down is for a 3-4 day page protection to be enforced. BlankVerse ∅ 11:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Page protection just postpones revert wars. There is no possible end till Mr Tan give up his bilingual infobox.  Adding such a bilingual (or trilingual) infobox to an article on a territory that belongs to only one country and not under territorial dispute is wrong and can't be overlooked.
I have explained repeatedly, but he just doesn't seem to listen, insisting on his way without reconsideration. And he is the only one who has strong objections to my infobox, and it was merely to make the article neater. Like Tsushima, Sakhalin, for example, is not under territorial dispute with other countries and has the Japanese and Chinese names besides Russian! How many times do I have to answer your same old stupid question, again and again? Mr Tan 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And again, as so many times before, you assume that if someone doesn't agree with you it's simply because they don't listen  to you — even when, as here, arguments against your position have been offered. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection? 

message: Firstly, why are you concentrating on the infobox? The infobox is merely for making the article look neater, and that's all. I am here to talk about having the name of a specific place in different languages.
Secondly, I have already repeatedly said that 
* Sakhalin is controlled by Russia, and is no longer contested by other countries. The Japanese (Karafuto) and Chinese (Kuyedao)  names were already there, and they were not added by me in the first place, and please check the history into further detail before accusing me that I introduce the Japanese and Chinese names. I only added the infobox in order to make things look more organized. 
* Tsushima Islands is controlled by Japan, and is also similarly not contested by other countries. The Korean name had been there all along, since the original content was already in Tsushima province, follow its history:. And for many months, until now, there was no objections on the Korean names. And Ypacarai had done edits on Tsushima before that. Why is making such an objection now?
Thus I see no good reason to why names in foreign languages of a specific place that was not contest by any countries, yet the  languages belonging to those foreign countries is culturally abusive, or whatso ever. So long as another country, even though they does not claim to that place any more, the foreign name should not be rejected. In fact, it should be used as a sense of honor. And the Japanese name was placed on top, then the Korean name, and not the reverse. If it is the reverse, then it is an insult. But it isn't! And furthemore, there is no harm in the Korean name. And having the Korean name would be beneficiary in many parts of this article.
There is no wikipedian rules saying that you can't add the Arabic names in Gilbartar, but an infobox is suggestable in order to make things look neater. I don't know anything much about Gilbartar either, but I know Arabs have played a significant role in its history.
For the matter of Ypacarai, there is no reason why both of us should be blocked. Rather, we should have the initiative to settle down and discuss the matter, and work in harmony together. But why did you remove the Korean names, even it was quarantined? It was to be in a standby mode, and what you did is certainly absurd! And I will not fight with you only if you are willing to discuss with me until we have reached a steady conclusion.
For the matter of Frank Bartus, I see no direct relations between my RfC and this specific case. I cannot do anything to control's one mouth, but I can and am aware of what I am doing now is wrong or right. Mr Tan 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to see where ground is the same and where is violently and vehemently in opposition, so please standby. We'll get to you, in your proper turn. FrankB || TalktoMe 17:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Tan 

message: FrankB says: I just left this note for Tan on the Korean Names issues:
:I don't have time tonight for long points, but this is exactly on point wrt the issue between you and Ypacari:
::You wrote (on T:TI): "However, what I saw on Tsushima and Sakhalin was very starkling shocking; I had mentioned that Korea had contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name should be put up, he removed the infobox relentlessly, along with the Korean names. On the other hand, he had just removed the infobox in Sakhalin (History:[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sakhalin&action=history)), saying that the infobox was "unnecessary". So is he targeting the infobox or the Korean name? "
**He is objecting to the Korean Name — appropriately so. 
**Korea has never controlled and occupied either place in modern times.  Whether it did so before them is immaterial, and I believe disputed.
**China and Japan both owned Sakhalin, or at least half of it. Russia traded Japans interest in it for the Kurile  Islands, IIRC. 
**Korea has no business there, and never has. Korean names would be appropo in an Korean Wiki. Not in an english one. 
**Those historical Japanese and Chinese names however ARE still present in source materials, such as the books I'm using as references, so they are something Wiki wants to provide to people that may be looking at such older documents of any kind, such as perhaps an old novel that uses that sort of old name. If the novel was written in the 1920s, its author had no way of telling that the name of Ceylon would be todays Sri Lanka. So old name references are kept out of courtesy to certain types of readers. Notice that two of the copyrights on the references I'm using are well before 1910, another two or three are before 1940. 
**If you were arguing that we should include a Russian Name for Sakhalin, you would have a point. But a Russian or Korean name for a place like Tsushima, that they never occupied is inappropriate. You can't even travel directly from Korea (Legally) to Tsushima, but have to go to customs elsewhere, probably in Honshu.
**Some scholars work with source materials of another country or language, otherwise, even Japanese and Chinese writing would have no place in Wiki, in this case, Wiki makes sure far eastern topics have the translated names so that those readers also can check their translations. But the common denominator is that this is english Wiki, and historical ownership determine what is correct.
............
But let me add here, as the above contains a comment about the Korean Influences on Tsushima:
*My country influences the culture of the whole world, but it would not be appropriate for an Arabic or Spanish Wiki to be using English terms in articles because that was true. 
**More to the point Korea's direct cultural contributions were pre-Modern. 
:::User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 07:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For What its Worth (Tan)

message: FrankB rebutts below indented once more, and in italics. Mr Tans post spans several edits ending: 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My statement to Frank Bartus' objections 

message: *I am sorry to have to apply such 'Tough Love', Mr Tan, but you need to leave this article immediately, and go do others where you can make a contribution without costing other editors their precious free time. We've had that discussion several times now... What you've done here is detrimental to Wiki, and you just do not seem to understand something so clear cut — The ArbCom CAN HARDLY IGNORE IT. It needs to keep good editors happy, not let you Play and abuse their time.
*When someone challanges your text on content, it is probably a good signal that you should now leave that article and go on to some other where subtle nuances and fine shades of meaning, and slight differences and your limited understanding of the Adult world do not matter so much. 
*Please face your limitations RIGHT NOW, and understand that someday you will be embarassed by the behavior you now apparently think is 'OKAY'.  It is not. People have been very patient with you, but that time is ending. You now have too much visibility to not be watched carefully in all that you do, as it is clear to everyone that sees your arguements with others, you just do not have the necessary acedemic and analytical tools to participate in finishing an article. If you can accept that, the ArbCom will probably go easy on you.
*I am willing to help you, but you must take what I say to heart and make it practice. I only wish you well, but you are making it damn hard for me to not join in with others recommending a harse sanction by the ArbCom. Even if you just adopt that little change in behavior — that recognition that the heat in the article Talk reply to you means you did something you wouldn't do if you were fully trained; If you could master that little thing, then you could be trusted to not disrupt the well intentioned work others are trying to finish. But YOU MUST learn that trick, and moreover, you must learn to discipline yourself to not act afterwards on THAT point... whatever point it may be.
*My server is blocked for maintenance, so I'm emailing this to Mel Etitis, hoping he can post it for me.
Still Your friend, User:Fabartus ||  Talkto_FrankB 17:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Conclusion, a Personal Plea

message: * In the first place, I'm not a psychopath who goes around insulting you Japanese people. Secondly, I'm a Singaporean, not a Korean, an I am neutral in my POV between these two races.
* Coming back to the point, there is no big need for evidence because the Naming convention has been widely accepted by wikipedians, and it has become official policy, and my proposal strictly corresponds to the manual-of-style used on Baitou Mountain, which is used as an example on Naming conventions (Korean), and the naming conventions is official policy. If there is problem with Baitou Mountain, why should they use it as an example on the Korean naming convention?  The people would have voted and chosen a better example if they think it is defective!
* Thirdly, there is nowhere where it says whether we can or cannot state the romanizations of multiple languages, irregardless whether the English name of the topic is commonly used or not. It is common sense, and so long if the second name is widely commonly used as well, it should be stated, just like Paektu to Baitou, and Daemado to Tsushima. 
**For your information, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for clues. And my aim on Tsushima Islands is exactly as on Baitou Mountain--all they state is "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article", but they didn't state that we can't add an infobox to state alternative (popular) variants of used names in non-European languages and its scripts, however. So, this says that we should use "Tsushima" in every sentence of the article where needed, but this does not say that we cannot use an infobox that states the Korean name "Daemado" as well, and that is what I want. Thus the Korean naming convention is still co-applicable in Tsushima and as on Baitou in that more indirect sense. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
:Who said evidence is not needed? That is the most preposterous thing I have heard in the past few days. Why don't you check out the story of the parallel postulate and tell me if supporting evidence is really necessary? Your arguments are all null and void without evidence, even if it is official policy like naming conventions. Please cite a few sentences as your proof. James Bell 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
* It is not really needed as such, because I have already explained about the wikipedia policy and the Baitou mountain. Neither could I find any direct evidence, but I have found some clues and have given quotations from the clues to his questions and I have given a statement on the clue on why the policy is remains valid on the modern wikipedia outlook, but I am still searching for more direct evidence. Please read carefully before making any criticisms on comments. 
In the meantime, let's wait for Heremeneus to return before I make anymore comments. Thanks. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)
STOP referring to the Korean naming conventions because they say nothing that supports your argument. The naming conventions are rules on how to appropriately create and name pages. The name of this page is "Tsushima Island," and it's the standard English name that is loaned from Japanese language. Such a page name requires Japanese naming conventions, not Korean ones. There is no room for the Korean naming conventions as far as Tsushima, the very name of the page, is the standard English name of the island.
STOP referring to the Baitou article because it is irrelevant to the Tsushima island. The Baitou article is mentioned in the Korean naming conventions page as an example to show what the bilingual infobox table would look like and nothing more than that. Also bilingual infobox is required by the naming conventions only when the standard English name is lacking. Tsushima does have the standard English name and so the infobox is not required by the naming conventions. 
None of the naming conventions justifies the use of the bilingual infobox when there does exist a standard English name. If you believe that one of the naming conventions justifies the use of the bilingual infobox even when there is a standard English name and insist that the Baitou article is an example of this, then please quote the relevant text from the naming conventions. Otherwise the example of the Baitou article is utterly irrelevant.
You could add the infobox even when it is not required by the naming conventions. However, if you add the infobox for a reason other than the naming conventions, then naturally the naming conventions don't support your argument in this case. If so, please stop referring to the Korean naming conventions or the Baitou article already, and stop speaking as if your argument is supported by the "official policy" of Wikipedia. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
* To be frank, I am utterly shocked and confused. 
* I used the Baitou Mountain because you said that "The name of this page is "Tsushima Island," and it's the standard English name that is loaned from Japanese language. Such a page name requires Japanese naming conventions, not Korean ones. " So I'm using the Baitou Mountain, because it is the standard English name loaned from Chinese, and such a page requires Chinese naming conventions, but the Korean naming conventions applies there! 
** And why do you think that the Baitou is lacking a standard English name? Please quote the part of the naming convention to support your claim. And how do you define the definition standard? To me, Baitou is equal to Tsushima, Paektu is equal to Daemado. And many people (Koreans) uses Daemado as well, just like many people (koreans) uses Paektu. What I want is a billingual infobox on Tsushima, because the conditions on Tsushima are parallel to Baitou. 
* And there is no need for the naming conventions to explain such a thing where it "justifies the use of the bilingual infobox even when there is a standard English name". Thre is no oppposition to this case, however, in the naming convention itself. However, in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it says that "The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known, so those too can be searched for..." and this proves that we should add in Daemado because Tsushima is also known as Daemado. In the process, the Korean naming conventions is also co-applicable, because it tells us to provide the Hangul, Hanja and romanizations if the Korean name (in English romanization) given. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)
:Tan, if I were you, I'd shut up now or else I'd be facing the ArbCom sooner than I'd like. You're just repeating the same old stupid questions and everybody's tired of shouting the same old stupid answers in your face and having them fly in one ear and out the other. Now, if I were you, I would take a break from Wikipedia, and find some good books to read, improve my English so that I can better comprehend what others are saying, and then, only then will I return. Sound good? James Bell 4 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
::BTW, let me list down the people who could request for arbitration: Mel Etitis, Hermeneus, Frank Bartus, and me. The nice thing here is that once upon a time, we were willing to help you. We were your allies. And now, what have you done? Through your stubbornness and density, you have alienated all of us. The nicer thing is, you don't seem to get a hint. Wake up, kid, this is real life. You're not playing a game anymore. Your decisions determine your life and there's no turning back once you make them. James Bell 4 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
* Bell: No, I did not do any uncivil edits, only talk. And how could you Arbitrate me just because I open my mouth? I am only voicing out my opinion, and freedom of speech is permitted to a great extent in wikipedia. And if you observe, I have just quoted a sentence from the naming convention that might possibly support me in my case, which Heremeneus demanded for. You are far too hasty. Please let me finish up this discussion as soon as possible without interruptions. Thanks. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
* Bell: By the way, this will probably be the last case that I will be settling on. After that, I will leave wikipedia, for good or temporarily. For the case of Zanskar, I will settle it in the long run. I'm very sick and tired of all these houndings from you all, anyway. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
There is NO convention that justifies the inclusion of the bilingual info box when there exists a standard English name of the object. It doesn't exist, period. STOP making up a convention. Such a convention exists only in your head. It doesn't exist in any part of the naming convention pages. That you have failed to quote a single sentence of the alleged convention is the very proof of its nonexistence. Non-existent convention justifies nothing. It can't support your argument because it doesn't exist.
If there is no convention, there is no example of the convention, either. The Baitou article is an irrelevant example because there exists no convention which the Baitou article is an example of . The Baitou article is merely an example to show what the bilingual infobox table would look like and nothing more than that. The Baitou article may also be an example of a convention that exists only in your imagination. However, such a bogus example is completely irrelevant as a matter of fact. As far as you cannot prove the existence of the alleged convention by quoting the actual sentences from the naming convention pages, it means nothing. So stop referring to the Baitou article until you could provide the relevant quotation.
It does not matter if Baitou is the standard English name or not because the very naming convention which the Baitou article is claimed to be an example of does not exist in the first place. It cannot possibly be an example of a non-existent convention. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 13:29 (UTC)
The English naming conventions says "Title your pages using the English name... If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.... The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known." Since "Tsushima island" is the "commonly-used English name" of the island, this does not apply. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 14:33 (UTC)
::I don't want to restart the discussion, but suggest that those who can't see the difference between this article and Baitou Mountain read the first sentence of said article. Compare this to the third sentence of this article. HTH. Have a nice day everyone! Kokiri 09:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kokiri's edit (cont.)

message: =====Tsushima → Tsushima (disambiguation) & Tsushima Islands → Tsushima =====
According to counts by Google, the singular form is by far more common than the plural form on the web.  Also "Tsushima islands" can also refer to the group of several nearby islands instead, so the plural phrase over-counts.
:"Tsushima Island":
:* 3,480:	"Tsushima Island"
:* 6,030:	"対馬島" (Japanese pages only)
:"Tsushima Islands":
:* 642:	"Tsushima Islands"
:* 63:	"対馬諸島" (Japanese pages only)
The singular form beat the plural form in academic and governmental websites as well.
...
SNIP SNIP
... by having the article named not Tsushima Islands, not Tsushima Island, but simply Tsushima, and simply have the Tsushima disambiguation page moved to Tushima (disambiguation). The whatever-you-want-to-call-it is very often referred to simply as Tsushima.—Tokek 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *My new vote is down below. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *Vote withdrawn. JMBell° 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMPRESSED VOTES ON THE Proposed COMPROMISE 

message: According to counts by Google, the singular form is by far more common than the plural form on the web.  Also "Tsushima islands" can also refer to the group of several nearby islands instead, so the plural phrase over-counts.
:"Tsushima Island":
:* 3,480:	"Tsushima Island"
:* 6,030:	"対馬島" (Japanese pages only)
:"Tsushima Islands":
:* 642:	"Tsushima Islands"
:* 63:	"対馬諸島" (Japanese pages only)
The singular form beat the plural form in academic and governmental websites as well.
...
SNIP SNIP
... by having the article named not Tsushima Islands, not Tsushima Island, but simply Tsushima, and simply have the Tsushima disambiguation page moved to Tushima (disambiguation). The whatever-you-want-to-call-it is very often referred to simply as Tsushima.—Tokek 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *My new vote is down below. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *Vote withdrawn. JMBell° 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tsushima]] &rarr; [[Tsushima (disambiguation)]] &amp; [[Tsushima Islands]] &rarr; [[Tsushima]] 

message: Results: 1/11(-1)/9 | The name of the article will be "Tsushima Island". (Even if we disregard User:J-ka's vote, the total votes for Tsushima Island outnumber the "Tsushima etc." choice by one.)
Could we wait a little before rushing to judgement?  First, I took this not be a majoritarian poll in the style of Western pseudo-democracies; Wikipedia strongly discourages those.  Polls are for trying to gain consensus.  It appears that there's no consensus, with opinions almost exactly divided between two options (somewhat oddly, I must admit, given that – as the long preceding discussion brought out, the references to the place were similarly closely divided, but between options 1 and 2).  Secondly, the person who set up the poll, violet/riga, should close it.  We've waited this long; an extra hour or so won't hurt.  I'll contact violet/riga with a reminder.
My own preference would be to rule out option 1, and ask those who voted whether they'd be prepared to change their votes in order to get us closer to consensus.  Given that the normal procedure in the case of lack of consensus is to stay with the status quo, that might be incentive enough to compromise.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to come over and close it when I saw that I'd been beaten to it.  I don't like the fact that the vote was so close, and would like to see a better consensus.  However, the discussions have gone on for such a long time that I am not too convinced that extra time will help sort it out.  That's the best option we have right now though, so unless there are any objections I will soon reopen the poll.  violet/riga (t) 10:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments On the Final Approval Vote

message: ???
Has there been a determination to accept the first two votes above to resolve the 'S' issue with respect to 'copyedit needs' per the below posted efforts to copyedit?  In other words, the article text content still refers to 'TI' and/or to 'TIs' many times besides the article title even if Proposition Three Carries the Day over the other (first) two propositions for the article title. If that third case is the selected alternative, the English language tenses still need fixed up... relative to The 'Second Place' Winner in the two other Vote categories, I would hope? Which at the moment, would be Singular  tense by a 7:1 tally (unless 'User:J-ka' vote is counted).
*If you're going to oppose that logic, let's have it below, now, please! FrankB 8 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
<----- Comments Opposing Logic of using Tense as implied by winner of 1st two options  --------->
*People aren't choosing between the first two, but between all three.  There are many votes for the third proposal alone; we don't know which of the first two those people would have chosen. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
*That is indeed the problem or potential problem, which is why I raise it as something for all to look at and think on. I want to see what was intended by whomever kicked this form of voting off.  FrankB 9 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
<------------------- Post such above and between the lines please ------------------------------>
<---Neutral--->
*As far as I can see, the third option does not require any choice as to the phrasing of the article. Whether it wins or not, much of the article can be written using "Tsushima is", which has no relation to whether Tsushima is an island or two islands or whatever. After all, Japan is four major islands (plus many others). 19:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No Big Deal

message: ...Well, spend a couple of hours copyediting the thing and suddenly I'm all attached. Saw earlier that an anon's (4.23.83.100) edits had been reverted. Because I'm curious, I took a look. Saw a bunch of deletions that messed up the grammar and such of the article, plus some re-wording. The anon just made most of those changes again. I left a note on his talk page, and after considering it a bit, I reverted his changes. I figured, the grammatical errors and awkward wording had to go, and most of the other re-wording didn't change the meaning a whole lot, except to slant it. So... that's my justification. --User:Jenmoa 9 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
:<amends edit summary> Actually, it was entirely an rv. I had meant to change something or other but changed my mind. --User:Jenmoa
*I just partially reverted this talk— the file apparently doubled all sections.  The top (older) was cut out into Archieve 'A'. FrankB 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Jen