Talk:East Sea/Archive 2

message: If you look at the behind-the-scene story on how the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" notation occurred in many of the mainstream English-language references, most people will find that those reference works merely reflect the Korean-POV.  Of course, that depends on whether one wants to read it or pretend that this behind-the-scene story didn't exist.  One needs only to review all the citations provided by Appleby to reveal the Korean-POV, which I will do here.
Appleby's interpretations of his so-called "consensus of reference works" do not hold up when scrutinized.  We will scrutinize each of his cited reference works by reading their fine print....
1. Encyclopedia Britannica (East Sea)
       (lacks fine print)
1a. Here's Britannica's article Appleby did NOT cite:  Encyclopedia Britannica (Sea of Japan)
       The Korean name means “East Sea.”
2. Encarta (Japan, Sea of)
       (lacks fine print)
3. Encarta (East Sea)
       (lacks fine print)
4. Columbia Encyclopedia (Japan, Sea of)
       Author not available, JAPAN, SEA OF., The Columbia Encyclopedia,
       Sixth Edition 2005
5. Columbia Encyclopedia (East Sea)
       Author not available, EAST SEA., The Columbia Encyclopedia,
       Sixth Edition 2005
6. American Heritage Dictionary (Japan, Sea of (East Sea))
       (lacks fine print)
7. American Heritage Dictionary (East Sea)
       (lacks fine print)
8. National Geographic
       Sea of Japan (East Sea)
       
       Early in 1999, the National Geographic Society recognized the fact that
       the term Sea of Japan was legitimately disputed by the South Koreans.
       In keeping with the Society’s standard place-name convention, we
       recognize that where a geographical feature is shared by more than
       one nation, and its name is disputed, we use the most commonly recognized
       form of the name first and label the disputed name in parentheses. Thus,
       on our maps, the Sea of Japan appears as the primary label for this
       feature while the East Sea appears below in parentheses.
9. Rand McNally
       (don't have access to this one)
10. World Atlas
       East Sea or Sea of Japan? 
       
       What is the historically correct name for the body of water
       lying between Korea and Japan? There are many opinions, and in
       the world of geography and maps there is often more than one answer.
       In short, it depends on whom you ask. 
       
       Before the 18th century, no one name was consistently used, and in
       fact varied names such as 'East Sea,' 'Sea of Korea,' 'Sea of Japan'
       and 'Oriental Sea' appeared in and on old maps, publications and
       atlases. Then for a variety of reasons the "Sea of Japan" became
       more prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries. 
       
       In the late 1990s the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK)
       began an aggressive letter and email writing campaign, all in an
       effort to get the world, especially map makers, travel guides and
       geography web sites to include the East Sea, whenever the
       long-established Sea of Japan was found in print. 
       
       Their claim that the East Sea has some historical precedent worked,
       as some major book and map publishers, educational web sites and
       other reference materials now include the East Sea name along with
       the Sea of Japan. 
       
       At worldatlas.com we play no favorites, nor do we claim to know all
       of the answers, so until the two countries can reach a unified decision,
       we will continue to show both names on our maps. We simply ask both sides
       for their understanding. For additional information and opinions, we
       suggest the following two sites: 
       
       East Sea (http://www.eastsea.org/)
       Sea of Japan (http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/sea.html#1)
11. Google , Yahoo , Google , Yahoo 
:With respect to the Google and Yahoo links, most of them appear to talk about the Sea of Japan/East Sea naming dispute without taking sides.  (This is similar to the Wikipedia article Sea of Japan naming dispute.)  And so that's not going to prove that "East Sea" means "Sea of Japan" at all.
So the "consensus" of the fine print from Appleby's cited reference works (above) suggest the following:  In the late 1990's, the publishers decided to use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in response to an "an aggressive letter and email writing campaign" by a Korean minority group VANK.
Hence, the publishers merely recognized that "East Sea" is a "legitimately disputed" name for the "Sea of Japan".
None of the citations specifically say that "East Sea" is an "accepted" alternate name.
Aside from that, Britannica specifically says that "East Sea" is the Korean name.
The "consensus of fine prints" shown above casts a cloud of doubt over the assumption that "East Sea" is simply an alternate name for "Sea of Japan".  In reality the "consensus of fine prints" (of the "consensus of reference works") says that "East Sea" is a disputed name for the "Sea of Japan" advocated by the Koreans, or simply that "East Sea" is the Korean name.--Endroit 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A review of Appleby's citations

message: ;Whether "East Sea" should redirect to Sea of Japan first or disambiguate first
This issue has already been discussed in Talk:Sea_of_Japan#east sea disambiguation, Talk:East Sea/Archive 1, and then this page (Talk:East Sea).  It has also failed mediation as shown here in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation), User:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea, and User talk:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea.
The head mediator, User:Essjay, made the following comment upon closing mediation:
*"Having looked through the mediation pages, it doesn't seem to me that this is an issue that has benefited from mediation. The parties don't seem to be any closer to an agreement than when the mediation began. I don't believe it is an issue for arbitration, yet, either; there don't seem to be gross violations of policy that require sanctioning . In short, it is an editing dispute that is unlikely to be resolved with all parties agreeing to a single solution. With that in mind, I suggest an RfC to determine community consensus on the appropriate solution, and an enforcement of that consensus. Mediation closed."
Looking through the above referenced pages, here's my count showing where the consensus lies....
In favor of redirecting to Sea of Japan:
#User:Appleby
#User:Deiaemeth
#User:Tortfeasor
In favor of using East Sea as the disambiguation page, or redirecting to East Sea (disambiguation):
#User:Nlu
#User:Endroit 
#User:Robdurbar
#User:Masterhatch
#User:Nobu Sho
#User:Fagstein (Vote removed pending further debate)
#User:BD2412
#User:Bridesmill
Others are welcome to add comments here as well.--Endroit 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appleby's arguments are entirely justified and appropriate, and should not be discounted merely because of a perceived conflict. Please argue the merits of the arguments, and don't attack those making them. Also, I've removed "or redirecting to East Sea (disambiguation) since that's clearly against Wikipedia policy (and hence, not what I am advocating).Fagstein 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Appleby's arguments should not be discounted merely because of a perceived conflict, but I don't believe that they are entirely justified and appropriate.  What Appleby's argument contains is an implicit ethnocentric attitude which is, in my opinion, inappropriate and not compatible with the NPOV policy.  --Nlu (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus check