Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 2

message: ====Echo of Korea BB Posting RFI====
*I'm echoing here the  request for info on Korea Vs Tsushima Strait I posted on The Korea BB -Click for Talk, as is geographical, some of which should also be in this arty. This from the Korea BB:
**== Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified ==
*Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the Tsushima Strait article, I suspect because of the double use (and somewhat opposing usages) regarding the term Korea Strait. (My Bad, iirc). Without a definative resource, this should be let alone pending term clarification.
**As I wrote Mr Tan this morning, the scope and exact meaning of that term needs researched and defined, and he is in a great seaport to research such in chandlers shops where current nautical charts are available. I'm sure we can count on him to clarify that, as well as get the relative breadths (widths) of each channel passing along the length of Tsushima Islands. 
**I have asked him also to run down what the north and south island are called as well, as historical references available to me are using clear references to both such as 'Opposite the southern Tsushima Island', etc. 
**A clear reference to Iki Island and their respective relative distances and bearings would also be desirable in the arty. 
**'Needful' in this arty a few reference notes about the channel dividing the original monolithic island, with it's name and some reference (estimate) to the distance it saves on the the trip from the naval bases in the Inland Sea and destinations on the Korea Strait side of the Yellow Sea. 24.61.229.179 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strait

message: *I'm echoing here the  request for info on Korea Vs Tsushima Strait I posted on The Korea BB -Click for Talk, as is geographical, some of which should also be in this arty. This from the Korea BB:
**== Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified ==
*Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the Tsushima Strait article, I suspect because of the double use (and somewhat opposing usages) regarding the term Korea Strait. (My Bad, iirc). Without a definative resource, this should be let alone pending term clarification.
**As I wrote Mr Tan this morning, the scope and exact meaning of that term needs researched and defined, and he is in a great seaport to research such in chandlers shops where current nautical charts are available. I'm sure we can count on him to clarify that, as well as get the relative breadths (widths) of each channel passing along the length of Tsushima Islands. 
**I have asked him also to run down what the north and south island are called as well, as historical references available to me are using clear references to both such as 'Opposite the southern Tsushima Island', etc. 
**A clear reference to Iki Island and their respective relative distances and bearings would also be desirable in the arty. 
**'Needful' in this arty a few reference notes about the channel dividing the original monolithic island, with it's name and some reference (estimate) to the distance it saves on the the trip from the naval bases in the Inland Sea and destinations on the Korea Strait side of the Yellow Sea. 24.61.229.179 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Echo of Korea BB Posting RFI

message: ====Historical Adds====
*TIP: Try Dictionary.com for quick checks. 
::I added to the arty a moment ago, splitting history and adding references for my changes viz political imperative behind splitting the island.  
::Someone like you User_Talk:Mr Tan or User_talk:Mel Etitis with an interest in the article proper should chase down the names for the south and north island. It boggles the mind that they aren't individually named by now. These are stubbed 'TBDL01' and 'TBDL02' (from "To Be Determined Later").
::I didn't do any true copy editting yet, though I've been asked to... I just got here this morning as I was writing a note to User_talk:Mr Tan. (which is not finalized, being in another window!) Sigh - I guess it's the way of a Wiki. Fabartus 12:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TBDL

message: *TIP: Try Dictionary.com for quick checks. 
::I added to the arty a moment ago, splitting history and adding references for my changes viz political imperative behind splitting the island.  
::Someone like you User_Talk:Mr Tan or User_talk:Mel Etitis with an interest in the article proper should chase down the names for the south and north island. It boggles the mind that they aren't individually named by now. These are stubbed 'TBDL01' and 'TBDL02' (from "To Be Determined Later").
::I didn't do any true copy editting yet, though I've been asked to... I just got here this morning as I was writing a note to User_talk:Mr Tan. (which is not finalized, being in another window!) Sigh - I guess it's the way of a Wiki. Fabartus 12:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Adds

message: ** I would suggest the TBDL be put up in the geography section in bracket form---tells people that the northern and southern islands have an alternative name. Post objections here. Thanks.
* Also, only the Iki and Tsushima Islands make up the Iki-Tsushima quasi National park, not the entire Nagasaki prefecture. Thanks.
Mr Tan 03:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 050616 Edits

message: I removed the following passage:
:The present inhabitants of the islands are culturally and ethnically Japanese, speaking Japanese dialects. Contributing to intermarriages with the Koreans, the local inhabitants did share some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture, especially in the celebration of the Tsushima Arirang festival. 
We don't need a section of demographics on this article unless it contains population and other information. It isn't worth noting that Japanese people lived in an island of Japan!
I request Mr Tan to provide evidence of "intermarriages with the Koreans."
It can be evidenced in their language and culture. -User:Mr Tan
And we cannot demonstrate "some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture" with the "Tsushima Arirang festival" because it started in 1988 as a tourist attraction. --Nanshu 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The news article here was deleted. Thank you and sorry, but a full quote violates copyright. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: An individual case proves nothing. If you believe the intermarriage rate in Tsushima is significantly highter than in the rest of Japan, you need a stat that prove your belief. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you need a stat. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: So you are talking about things you don't know. It means nothing but a nuisance. --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Buddhism is the most widely followed religion, although Shintoism and Korean Shamanism have some following among the local people.  Of late, one can also find a small Christian community made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.
--Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There is also a small Christian community, made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.
I don't know whether this is correct, but it's not worth nothing here because the demographic ratio of Korean is only 0.124%. --Nanshu 01:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Around the islands one can also see Korean signs in addition to the Japanese signs, mainly to assist Koreans visiting the Tsushima Islands.
This isn't worth nothing. Fortunately or unfortunately, we can find Korean signs along with English and Chinese (Mandarin in simplified Chinese) in most tourist sites. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr Tan, you don't understand the point. This is "Demographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Of late, the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists.
Then read Cho's article. Does he say, "the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists"? No. He doesn't associate Aritayaki with tourists at all! This means Mr Tan's statement isn't based on his source (aside from Mr Tan's misunderstanding about Aritayaki).
I think these problems are fundamental. Unless he change his editing approach, he will repeat such absurd remarks. --Nanshu 06:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics and culture

message: Mr Tan, you have to prove linguistic influence from Korean that is worth nothing in the article. A single word doesn't sufficient. Actually, you can find a couple of Korean terms in Japanese slangs (mostly dirty words) such as パチギ (박치기) and タンベ (담배). --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic influence?

message: This needs fact check.
:Buddhism is the most widely followed religion, although Shintoism and Korean Shamanism have some following among the local people.  Of late, one can also find a small Christian community made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.
--Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a small Christian community, made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.
I don't know whether this is correct, but it's not worth nothing here because the demographic ratio of Korean is only 0.124%. --Nanshu 01:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: :Around the islands one can also see Korean signs in addition to the Japanese signs, mainly to assist Koreans visiting the Tsushima Islands.
This isn't worth nothing. Fortunately or unfortunately, we can find Korean signs along with English and Chinese (Mandarin in simplified Chinese) in most tourist sites. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Tan, you don't understand the point. This is "Demographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean signs

message: Mr Tan, you are really hopeless. You know nothing about this topic and stubbornly insert to the article craps, the product of your mistaken interpretation of fragmentary information and your imagination. You edited this article even though you didn't know what "Tsushima Province" was. This time, you are talking about Aritayaki without knowing what it is.
What's Aritayaki? Aritayaki is a type of pottery made in Arita. So where is Arita? Is it located in Tsushima? No. It is in Saga Prefecture (as explicitly stated in Cho's article). Cho's article  consists of three parts. He talks about Tsushima in the first part, then shifts his focus to northern Kyushu, and put a conclusion. What you referred to has nothing to do with Tsushima! --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of late, the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists.
Then read Cho's article. Does he say, "the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists"? No. He doesn't associate Aritayaki with tourists at all! This means Mr Tan's statement isn't based on his source (aside from Mr Tan's misunderstanding about Aritayaki).
I think these problems are fundamental. Unless he change his editing approach, he will repeat such absurd remarks. --Nanshu 06:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aritayaki

message: I have removed the transportation section; for it makes no mention of the transportation neither in Tsushima, Nagasaki nor in this article. Unless a short paragraph is mentioned concerning the transportation system, I would suggest that it will be removed. Mr Tan 02:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: :Tsushima's economy is largely dependent on fishery and agriculture, although in recent years tourism has also been a supplement to the islands' economy.
I removed the economy section because it seems to run counter to the truth.  --Nanshu 07:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: :According to the Wei chronicles (魏書), Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C, later setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.
The source isn't the Weishu. Mr Tan mixed it up with 三國志 魏書. See 三國志 魏書 倭:
:始度一海，千餘里至對馬國．其大官曰卑狗，副曰卑奴母離．所居絕島，方可四百餘里，土地山險，多深林，道路如禽鹿徑．有千餘戶，無良田，食海物自活，乖船南北巿糴．
We cannot confirm from this souce "Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C." --Nanshu
Go and see -User:Mr Tan
I saw that. So what's your point? --Nanshu 04:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanguozhi

message: :According to the Sanguo Zhi, there were 1,000 families in Tsushima, setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.
The terms of 對馬 and 對海 depend on extant manuscripts of Sanguozhi.
But where was the pseudo-Japanese pronunciation of Tsuikai taken from?
Also, why did you translate 國 as kingdom? Sanguozhi only states:
:其大官日卑狗 [*piko]、副日卑奴母離 [*pinamori]
Obviously they correspond to Japanese hiko 彦 and hinamori 鄙守. Adn these terms indicate that Tsushima was under the control of 邪馬台国. --Nanshu 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsuikai kingdom?

message: After the downfall of the Baekje, many refugees came to Japan actually and can be seen in Japanese history books, such as Nihonshoki.  It recorded as follows:
* 664: Prince of Baekje was settled at Naniwa (currently in  Osaka Prefecture).
* 665: About 400 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province (current Shiga Prefecture).
* 666: About 2,000 refugees from Baekje were settled at the eastern part of the mainland.
* 669: About 700 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province
However, no settlement at Tsushima could be found in record.  If there was significant settlement, such as hundreds of refugees, it must be recorded in the same way as above mentioned.  The Baekje was an important ally of Japan so the refugees were treated politely and they do not need to stay such a small and remote island.  If someone wants to insist that there were refugees at Tsushima, please show us the source.  An original analysis is not welcome.  --Corruptresearcher 04:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugees at Tsushima caused by the downfall of the [[Baekje]] 

message: ===Request for Comment on Section Title===
*Request for Comment:
**This morning I added two book references under Reference Heading, since changed to Additonal Reading.
**The update/add that I did was on the socio-political background of the recent history of the Islands. Which Heading is more appropo - my references do indeed NOT deal with Tsushima specifically, BUT DO deal with the political-economic climate at the time in chapter length detail. 
**At this time, I also acted boldly and changed the Heading from Apologies, which is of NARROW UTILITY Fabartus 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: *Request for Comment:
**This morning I added two book references under Reference Heading, since changed to Additonal Reading.
**The update/add that I did was on the socio-political background of the recent history of the Islands. Which Heading is more appropo - my references do indeed NOT deal with Tsushima specifically, BUT DO deal with the political-economic climate at the time in chapter length detail. 
**At this time, I also acted boldly and changed the Heading from Apologies, which is of NARROW UTILITY Fabartus 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment on Section Title

message: I do not understand why Prof. Mel Etitis has
* Reinstating
** The blog that Ypacarai removed (added by an annoyomous user)which has no relation to the Tsushima Islands topic
** The name of the strait: Korea or Tsushima? I feel that Korea, rather than Tsushima, is better. Since the Tsushima Islands are stuck between the Western and Eastern Channel (also known as Tsushima Strait, Korea strait should be the appropriate name used, unless you mean to say that even the Western channel, which the northern part of Tsushima faces to, is also known as Tsushima strait.
** After explaining the grammatical errors in Talk:Tsushima Island#Baekje connections? Mel Etitis still persistently reverted the edits, without giving any reasons in the first place why this is bad, good, etc
Tan 19:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Edits 

message: Edit-warring is not good, ok? Cool down, take a walk in the park, sort yourselves out first, and look up editing 101. Then come back and do it right. :-) Kim Bruning 11:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protected

message: Please do not revert the changes, for I have done proper ammendments. Scan the talk page first, for the answers of my reasons of the edits all come from there. If still in doubt, feel free to raise your objections, but let me answer them first before reverting, so as to prevent confusion. 
Tan 19:07, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You pestered admins to unprotect the page because there were no more disputes, and as soon as the protection was lifted you dived in with a series of edits, many of which are very controversial.  That's not acceptable.  I'll ask User:SlimVirgin to replace the protection until you've learnt to behave. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that you think that I have nothing to do but respond to your demands, but believe it or not it's possible not to answer for an hour or so wihtout having left the debate.  On Talk:Zanskar and elsewhere I have, in the past, responded to your demands for detailed explanations as to where your English was poor (this was when you were still insulting other people for their English, and claiming that yours was perfect).  In every case, your response was to ignore what I said, and to carry on insisting that you were right and everyone else wrong.  You've done the saem to others, as the RfC against you brings out.  Not one person tried to defend you; every editor who contributed agreed that your behaviour was unacceptabele — and still you behave in the same way. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, you won't.  In fact your attitude is, if anything, getting worse — you're becoming more instead of less arrogant in your dealings with me and others. Until you give reasons for your changes, especially the grammatical ones, they shouldn't be made.  See above for numerous objections to what you want to do.  The onus is on you to defend your proposals. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's interesting to see that you've changed neither your fractured English nor your willingness to lecture other editors on their use of English. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather with the way you like to lecture others on grammar. If you were a professor, I'd understand, but you're not, so let the good ol' Professor do the lecturing around here, okay? Listen to my advice, for Heaven's sake, and you'll be better off, I assure you. Problem is, what goes in one ear goes out the other. Earplugs won't prevent our words from escaping. JMBell° 12:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not revert 

message: As discussion seems to have dried up, I have unprotected this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I am going to place the previous version of mine into this article, along with some ammendments. The purpose of this is merely adding information, and especially in retrospect to User:Mel Etitis, I would gladly appreciate if you would stop reverting and come straight to the point if you still have doubts in your mind. I would also be very pleased if anybody have doubts and come straight to me and ask his or her questions. Thanks.
Also, please feel free to add information or copyedit if anybody wishes to.
Mr Tan 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it, yet again.  All the old problems were there, including both disputed changes and spelling mistakes that have been pointed out ("Korea Strait", the misspelling of "incoporate").  In other words, as soon as protection is lifted, you ignore everything that has been said on this page, and make all your changes again.  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've just reverted your edit, which you marked as minor, and whose edit summary was "tidying".  This was actually a substantial edit, much of which had already been discussed (and opposed) here.  In other words, your claim that it was minor and merely tidying ws a lie.  Don't do that again. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You have again made extensive edits, including controversial ones, and labelled your edit minor. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: I do not like reverts, for it can really be confusing. Can you please specify the problem of the "Korea Strait" and list out your other problems? If you are trying to mean that there is a defect in the spelling, just look up the page itself--Korea Strait, not Korea Straits. If you are doubtful why I added "Korea" and not "Tsushima", please check the atlas and the information in Korea Strait to analyse my reason.
I will never know where are your problems if you do not tell me, but I will do ammendments to those you highlighted. Anyway, some of the questions which I believe that may solve the problem is on this very talk page. I'm happy and willing to attend to all your doubts but not so with immediate reverts, and things can get very confusing and complicated. I'm sorry to say that, but that is where I find it offensive. Thanks.
Mr Tan 12:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Mel Etitis 

message: If anybody who insists on plain reverts without making his explanations (clearly), I should see no proper reason in my new introduction of edits . 
Again, if anybody who has objections, please state so, preferably in the form of a list here. If there is nobody placing his objections, or doubts here, I will revert in three days' time. All I need is attention and full co-operation. Although no rush is needed, the matter cannot remain stagnant. Thanks.
Mr Tan 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to Mr Tan's edits 

message: :If waiting for response, please leave page in original version, i.e. version used before editing was started. Is to prevent confusion by othor editors and readors. Thank yo. ring a bell? 19:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto. There is more garbage than users to clean it up, and so the litterbug must be brought to justice! But he will not listen! JMBell° 12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not treat me as if I'm dirt. I'm not a litterbug, and I'm here to contribute information. I do not tolerate people using vulgaraties. If you really object, explain why, but you all didn't! This is why I cannot understand.
Mr Tan 00:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, am I treating this guy like dirt? Did I even come close? I really think he should reread everything we wrote to him - he seems to have forgotten all our objections! This I cannot understand. JMBell° 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messages by JMBell 

message: Did you look at my final reply? Also, did you tabulate the differences between the Korean and Japanese sources? For the economy, I see no reason in why Mel Etitis reverted; see . I had corrected it, and use data from that source.
What are my misunderstandings on the Oei Invasion? Check Korean sources to tabulat your facts.
See ""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).   of the  for the Island(s). I want to include this fact, but I fear Mel Etitis.
Mr Tan 11:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr Tan's comment

message: * post objections here.
Mr Tan 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr Tan

message: Found the definition of incorporated in . I apologise for trouble created. I think that made it part of, the original phrase, is better. I hope that Mel Etitis will not revert anymore, for I believe that this is the source of his reverts. Also, if anybody has objections in contrast to the content, feel free to post your objections here. On the other hand, I have made the statement of the location of the Tsushima Islands (with advice from User:Zonath in a way that I hope it will suit everyone.
Mr Tan 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: I think this page needs to be refactored. --Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring