Talk:Tsushima Strait

message: *We need to add relative and absolute sizes of the Tsu-Shima strait and Korea Srait. One historian mentioned the Korea Str. as circa 64 nautical miles - near a degree of Longitude, and as I recall, the Islands are offset more towards Korea.  I was skimming rather than purusing, so should be able to run that down sometime very soon.  Would rather have geographer or navigator input instead of historian, but he's likely to be close.  Someone also dropped the hyphen as is used by British historian Richard Hough ("The Fleet that Had to Die"). My principle focus is on the Russo-Japanese war +/- a couple of decades. Drop me a note if the map bugs you enough to request a replacement!  ttfn --Fabartus 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Needs 

message: <S>To see what this is all about and should have taken place herein, see quick links:
 (My Talk) (Article 11) and (His Talk) (Article 85).  See Also: RFC w/r/t Mr. Tan
*Ok Mr Tan, here's your new map.  Now for my bill... 
**$480.00 - Four hours of talk with Admins about you    
**$120.00 - An Hour-plus generating a map blowup        
**$180.00 - Another hour+ getting around upload problem 
**$350.00 - Use of my son's expertise and software (1 hr)  (see -- I'm only a humble consulting engineer, so I come cheap.)
**========
**$1130.00 - Since you're a special friend and all, you can just pay me back one lost day, or $565.00, your choice for not respecting other people's time. --Fabartus 22:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just joking, everyone! Right...? --maru 22:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I was pretty vexed, but yeah it was a pointed joke about respecting one anothers time and efforts. I hereby apologize for hasty judgement based on others difficulties with Mr Tan. User:Fabartus 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tans Bill for New Map 

message: *Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the 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.
**While not 'needful' in this arty as much as in Tsushima Islands, a further nice addition would be a reference to the channel dividing the original monolithic Island, with it's name and (Now known to be just a 'Canal'. See Talk:Tsushima Islands Discussion to Move Article ca 17-25 June 2005 User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 02:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified 

message: I am going to reduce the map size to 200+px, for a very large map on an article isn't very nice to me. I hope Mr Bartus wouldn't object to this change. Mr Tan 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map size 

message: Your intention is to make another map that makes mention of Iki, the strait and Tsushima Islands? I encourage that we would have one, but I hope it will not trouble Jon or you too much then. Mr Tan 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Map Promised

message: *Your comment above on Talk:Tsushima Strait#These Facts Need Checked are off point to the question. (My bad! I should have made a distinction, as the Japan Invasions of Korea are well known.) This is the sentence in question:
**"The straits also occasionally served as an invasion path — in both directions. " (Emphasis added for the point in question). User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
*. I also struck out researched and settled issues above, please review the remaining comments on need for data and see if you can help settle those points. Strike out things which are clearly done. My effort in that respect is partial at best. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB
===NEW(er) MAP POINTS===
*The new map does not address the yucky second map showing Iki, and replace both with one nice map per the section  #New Map Promised above.
*The new map does not do justice to Tsushima Island. It is OK for Korea Straits, since so much emphasis is given that name, I can't help but wonder whether it's generation is rooted in nationalistic POV.  In particular, the uncharacteristic lack of comments by the normally loquacious Mr Tan, makes me wonder that twice over.
*The  Tsushima Strait  map is almost as good as the new one I put in just two weeks ago on the 15th! (Just kidding. Yours is prettier, but doesn't show the wider geographic scope, though it does a better job of showing that than the first map I put in here. Then you cover up the island, and for an article on Tsushima Strait, it highlights AND EMPHASIZES the 'Korea Strait'. Huh? That's seems not to be subject level editing.) 
*Do you have the original file, so you can make changes? I need to look at it again but in the main, if you can fix the text smashing the island, and place the inset onto one corner, I do think it would be a better map. In particular, if your copy is editable it would make a better map for Tsushima Islands than the ugly one in there now. (I trust your 'ok' on Copyvio grounds?)
*We can send you the inset, and you can overlay, or I can steal your image, edit it here and reupload it; your call. What're your preferences.
*btw- the map sizing on Korea Strait is 'sickly', I'd upsize it. Lastly, in line with the above, the two maps should be dissimilar, with Iki, Honshu and Kyushu clearly delineated on the Tsushima Strait Map, plus the big island off to the Southwest.
*Lastly, I don't think we can replace the older map until Mr Tan pays the Bill posted above. <G> (Just Kidding) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
:The map is based on free data from DEMIS. Nobody owns an article on the Pedia. HTH. Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
*Never said otherwise.  ALL THIS NAME STUFF is counterproductive bullshit to me. My sole interest is that historical references need to be cited by Wikipedia.  Most people who bother to read, don't read on line. FrankB 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Business 

message: *The new map does not address the yucky second map showing Iki, and replace both with one nice map per the section  #New Map Promised above.
*The new map does not do justice to Tsushima Island. It is OK for Korea Straits, since so much emphasis is given that name, I can't help but wonder whether it's generation is rooted in nationalistic POV.  In particular, the uncharacteristic lack of comments by the normally loquacious Mr Tan, makes me wonder that twice over.
*The  Tsushima Strait  map is almost as good as the new one I put in just two weeks ago on the 15th! (Just kidding. Yours is prettier, but doesn't show the wider geographic scope, though it does a better job of showing that than the first map I put in here. Then you cover up the island, and for an article on Tsushima Strait, it highlights AND EMPHASIZES the 'Korea Strait'. Huh? That's seems not to be subject level editing.) 
*Do you have the original file, so you can make changes? I need to look at it again but in the main, if you can fix the text smashing the island, and place the inset onto one corner, I do think it would be a better map. In particular, if your copy is editable it would make a better map for Tsushima Islands than the ugly one in there now. (I trust your 'ok' on Copyvio grounds?)
*We can send you the inset, and you can overlay, or I can steal your image, edit it here and reupload it; your call. What're your preferences.
*btw- the map sizing on Korea Strait is 'sickly', I'd upsize it. Lastly, in line with the above, the two maps should be dissimilar, with Iki, Honshu and Kyushu clearly delineated on the Tsushima Strait Map, plus the big island off to the Southwest.
*Lastly, I don't think we can replace the older map until Mr Tan pays the Bill posted above. <G> (Just Kidding) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
:The map is based on free data from DEMIS. Nobody owns an article on the Pedia. HTH. Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
*Never said otherwise.  ALL THIS NAME STUFF is counterproductive bullshit to me. My sole interest is that historical references need to be cited by Wikipedia.  Most people who bother to read, don't read on line. FrankB 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW(er) MAP POINTS

message: First of all, is it the Southeast Asian people who traveled across to Honshu around the 10th century BCE? Wasn't it the northern asian people? It is more precise to retain the previous edition, because which variation of Mongoloid contributed most to the first Mesolithic migrations (Jomon) is not clear, but at least it is not Southeast Asian people who migrated via Tsushima Strait. To my poor knowledge, Jomon is believed to be consisted of many origins including northern asian, south asian austronesian (so not Mongoloid) and variety of Han Chinese. Secondly, I didn't know that Mongoloid is offensive term. I learned that Mongoloid is the equivalent term of Caucasoid. Is it usual to avoid the term Mongoloid in Wikipedia? At least I don't care. I reverted the page. Please discuss your points here. Isorhiza 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not offensive to me as I understand it to be a scientific term just like Caucasoid, but some people find it offensive due to negative connotations often associated with the Mongols as being "savage" and "crude". There is also the term Mongolism which is an outdated and very un-PC name for the condition we widely know today as Down syndrome.--Sir Edgar 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "mongoloid" racially offensive term?

message: "Tsushima Strait" and "Korea Strait" are two competing terms for the body of water that makes the narrow pass between Japan and Korea. Because "Korea Strait" is more widely accepted, "Tsushima Strait" has often been used in reference to the Eastern Channel. It has also been used, on occasion, instead of the term "Korea Strait", especially after Japan made a canal dividing Tsushima Island into two. 
In reality, the term used should be "Korea Strait" with a Western Channel and Eastern Channel. The insistence of the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" is a Japanese POV that has been adopted to a large degree in the West. However, it is not only confusing, but inaccurate. Simply put, you cannot have two straits in one body of water like that. 
Thus, the article should either be entitled "Tsushima Strait" or "Korea Strait". Because "Korea Strait" is more widely used, the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" must be mentioned in the main "Korea Strait" article and not have a separate article. There should also be a statement that "Tsushima Strait" is a misnomer as it is a replacement term for the Eastern Channel of the Korea Strait. 
Of course, "Tsushima Strait" is more widely used than "Eastern Channel" and, as a result, deserves significant mention in the article. It should also state that the Western Channel is sometimes inaccurately referred to as the "Korea Strait" and the Eastern Channel as the "Tsushima Strait". There needs to be clarification in a single article.--Sir Edgar 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose moving information here to the "Korea Strait" article. In other words, a merge.--Sir Edgar 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure on what you're basing your argument that it "doesn't exist"--surely you aren't saying that there is no Sea of Japan since it's just part of the Pacific Ocean?  As you noted later, the Tsushima Strait is the eastern channel (a very real place) in a larger strait.  I don't believe this is the only case of a single channel in a strait having a name... LactoseTIT 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tsushima Strait is a misnomer for the Eastern Channel of the Korean Strait.--Sir Edgar 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't really matter whether it is or not, according to the manual of style.  What's more, one could just as easily say "Eastern Channel" is a misnomer of Tsushima Strait. LactoseTIT 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was pointing out how your argument sounded; I'm glad you agree it is not logical.  In any case, pay particular attention to the part about the manual of style.  —LactoseTIT 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tsushima Strait" does not exist.  

message: Re: . What do you mean, "obscure"? East Sea is the Chinese name for the East China Sea, while East Sea is the South Korean name for the Sea of Japan. These facts are hardly in dispute. In other words, there are more people calling the East China Sea the East Sea than there are people who call the Sea of Japan the East Sea. We do not introduce any confusion by mentioning both, since the primary names of both seas are kept as the article names. In fact, we serve to reduce the potential for confusion. --GunnarRene 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Sea and East Sea 

message: The paragraph beginning
 But the reason the strait is famous is that one of the most decisive naval battles of modern times,
seems to give way too much detail on strategy for a geography article; it seems to me a single sentence here would suffice.
Coughinink 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - Battle 

message: In the section about the famous naval battle, there is a reference to missing second map.
 ... took place there due east of the north part of Tsushima and due north of Iki Island (shown in red on the second map) 
Can someone provide this map, or do we need to edit out the reference?
Carl Gusler (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Map 

message: Tsushima strait is an another name in Korea strait. It's not a easten channel of the Korea strait. Arstriker (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Description