Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 2

message: Okay, so the bulk of contention between Nanshu and Sewing is the title of this article itself. Besides some bias I notice in the article itself, the article's title becomes problematic NPOV wise because what's being disputed is the name of the sea. By picking one particular name, the article is perceived as violating NPOV (for the affected parties, that is). I propose an NPOV title to the article by calling it "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas". --Yonghokim 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please mind the plural 's' in Koreas, Nanshu. Tsushima strait has nothing to do with the 'other' Korea, North Korea. Also, Russia has no part in this conflict (does not want it called East Sea of Russia). Your argument with coast line length is also growing thin. Please concider that the Koreas' coast length along this water in question, is a conciderable quote of their total coast length. --himasaram
Actually, some of us DO have a problem using the name "Sea of Japan" for the article title. Since the name is disputed (no matter how much Nanshu disparages the South Korean argument), including the name "Sea of Japan" does in fact violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not only that, both the Korean and Japanese arguments have large accumulations of historical evidence that should be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions. I say we change the name of this page to a neutral title, like the article "Liancourt Rocks". --Leonhart
Ok Nanshu, you win. Please, take the Sea of Japan and the Liancourt Islands (sorry, forgot its japanese name) for yourself. --Yonghokim 04:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing "Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan and the Koreas" as an NPOV title 

message: Leonhart added Chosen hachid no zu 朝鮮八道之図 by Hayashi Shihei 林子平 with the following caption:
:A 220 year-old Japanese map clearly displaying the body of water between Korea and Japan as the "East Sea."
It may be "clear" to Leonhart's eyes, but actually, there is no such term as Tokai 東海 on that map. All we can see is the character "東" and the Hangul 동 with furigana "togu" トグ. It merely indicates direction. In fact, we can confirm other directional signs (north, south and west) on the map.
It is surprising to people unfamiliar with Korea that this silly report was made not by a elementary school student but by a professor named Kim Mun-gil, and that it got media coverage without the simple error corrected. But this always happens in Korea. --Nanshu 15:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chosen hachido no zu

message: I will descibe about my edit.  Leonhart wrote that "prior to the latter half of the 19th century, "Sea of Japan" was barely used".  However, this source shows a different fact: among the maps possessed by the British Library, "Sea of Japan" was used in 86% of maps from 1801 to 1860.  "Sea of Japan" was nearly common already at the former half of the 19th century.  It is not 100% so I weaken the expression.  Of course, this source is biased (Japanese Foreign Ministry) and someone may have other sources.  Concrete information is welcome.  By the way, this source shows an interesting fact: 2 of 5 maps which uses "Sea of Korea" are Japanese ones.  But for me it is quite natural because this sea is direction of Korea from us. --Corruptresearcher 09:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When did "Sea of Japan" get common?

message: ----
End of story, really. Logically, if there is no Japan, then there is no sea. So, it must be the Sea of Japan.
:Well, if there was no Korea then the "Sea of Japan" would be the Yellow Sea, would it not?  So perhaps "Sea of Korea" does make sense... But of course, that doesn't hold water.  We don't call the Adriatic the "Sea of Italy," nor the Indian Ocean the "Ocean of Africa," as such logic would entail.
::Your arguement holds little water. There is the English Channel, Gulf of Mexico, East China Sea, Indian Ocean, etc. So there is already great precidence world-wide to name bodies of water after countries. If the entire landmass of Korea had never existed, how can you say the body of water would be the Yellow Sea? The Sea of Japan is by far larger than the Yellow Sea. I'm pretty sure you don't have the power of seeing into alternate universes. For all we know, it could have been called The North China Sea, had Korea never existed. The fact is, and the bottom line is, if there was no Japan, there would be no sea. Case closed.
:...actually, I think the whole dispute is rather silly.  Ultimately both sides need to accept that their name is just as silly and irrational as the other.  -- Visviva 08:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No Japan, No Sea

message: I have removed a section added to the article by User:Kojangee.  I thought it contradicted Wikipedia policy on original research, but further investigation shows it to be lifted from a Japanese government website.  It is therefore presumably a copyvio, not to mention untrustworthy, although it would be nice to have a paragraph discussing the study.  I have also reverted a series of subsequent edits by Kojangee which profoundly failed to reflect a neutral POV.  -- Visviva 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, this article is full of problems. Since I was only patrolling the recent changes, I didn't notice that the Korean government study had also been cut-and-pasted.  Apparently it was there for a while, too..  Sigh.  I've removed it as well.    Wikipedia is not a universal information repository.  Both studies should be summarized and linked, no more.  -- Visviva 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic contributions