Talk:East Sea/Archive 2

Untitled
the first entry is just wrong. "East Sea" is not just Korea's local name, no more than "Sea of Japan" is Japan's local name. both are English terms found in major dictionaries and encyclopedias.


 * Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, ; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea ; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) ; East Sea: See Sea of Japan
 * National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
 * World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * Search engines, "East Sea" without Wikipedia: Google  Yahoo
 * Search engines, "East Sea" in English, without Wikipedia or partial names "South East Sea" and "North East Sea": Google Yahoo

since the primary meaning of East Sea is the Sea of Japan, this page should redirect to Sea of Japan, & the current content here should be moved to East Sea (disambiguation). see User:Appleby/Sea for more. Appleby 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

english dictionaries are a pretty good source of what english words mean, and to distinguish foreign terms translated from loanwords that are recognized as english, which is important because this is the english wikipedia. also, per WP:NPOV, majority views are confirmed by widely accepted reference works. Appleby 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV, "Representing views fairly & without bias" does not imply having to hang on the majority view, plus I would think that in most cases the reader would stumble upon the 'East Sea' usage by means of a translated or foreign document. My preference would be having the reader come to this page rather than Sea of Japan, and then either having to do the extra clicks to disambig or worse yet, not noticing the disambig notice and reading all about what he *thought* was the Baltic or some such.Bridesmill 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving it as a disambiguation page? There clearly appear to be multiple meanings. I agree "Sea of Japan" is probably the most common one, but "East Sea" is such a generic term that it should have a disambiguation page. Fagstein 04:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your comments. please also see South End North River, even North Sea and South Park. also, my request for comment was on whether the first entry on this page should be treated as an english term, or as a foreign term on the same level as other uses which actually are foreign terms not recognized by english dictionaries. Appleby 05:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I understand... kinda. "East Sea" is obviously an English term as it has two English words in it. However, it is a term which has Korea as its frame of reference (the sea is East of Korea). I'm not quite sure what this discussion is about though. Is there something on the disambiguation page you feel is in error? Fagstein 15:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

please refer to the citations above, since wikipedia content consists of "material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false" and "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources" (WP:V WP:NOR)

i think there's a difference between actual english terms recognized by english dictionaries and foreign proper names merely transliterated into english. for example, south koreans call several of its mountains Namsan (which translates as "south mountain"), but you won't see those listed in the disambiguation page for South Mountain, even if korea occassionally uses "south mountain" in their english publications. the reason is that "south mountain" to mean the south korean mountains is not a part of the english language.

here, "east sea" to mean "sea of japan" is a part of the english language, as seen in the cited reference works. on the other hand, "east sea" to mean the tokai region or bay of bengal are not uses recognized as a part of the english language, afaict.

can someone provide a reference work entry or some other evidence of significantly widespread use of "east sea" meaning the tokai region or bay of bengal or etc, enough to consider it a part of the english language? on the flip side, should all the Namsans be listed under South Mountain? Appleby 16:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the disputed tag - just what exactly is in dispute here factually speaking? Although East Sea in English predominantly refers to what is also known as the Sea of Japan, it is neither the primary or most common English name for that body of water, nor doeas it refer to taht particular body of water exclusively. The other examples provided - South End, South Park and North River seem to have those pages because that's the meaning that was written about first - not exactly a useful precedent. North Sea does not as far as I see have any other attributed meanings in English usage. And for precedents in the other direction - Southend and South Sea exist as disambig pages - I'm sure I could find others. QED precedence on WP provides no standard and can't really be used in an argument either way. I would strongly recommend leaving this disambig page lest users looking for one of the other East Seas are misguided as I mention above. On the other hand, the first line could use a bit of re-writing. Bridesmill 17:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Which leads me to think - what do I think East Sea means? 1st things that came to mind where East China Sea and the Baltic. To expand on this, Googling the issue (-wp & -korea) clarifies this somewhat. China & Taiwan have similar lobbies re. their respective seas, so *if* this page moves to Sea of Japan, we can expect complaints from other legitimate claimants to the name. English usage did not even become dominant until the late 1990's, at the behest of letter-writing campaigns etc. originating from Korea. My venerable old 1970 Britannica Atlas does not list any East Sea, in fact listings in English for East Sea appeart to be in response to active South Korean lobbying - and as soon as a reference starts to use this meaning, even parenthetically, it becomes a further reference to substantiate the name change. Bit of a self-licking ice cream cone actually. Thus the request by Appleby to not bother with the background and concentrate only on WP policy is somewhat disengenuous. Again, lets change the first line but lets not use this as a political platform.Bridesmill 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * regardless of your personal views, isn't it "non-negotiable" wikipolicy that wp consist of "material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false"?


 * i agree there should be a dab page, but i think the searches should work consistently throughout wikipedia by taking readers directly to the most likely result first (see more examples here). the dispute tag is there because there is no indication that "east sea" in english does actually refer to the tokai region or bay of bengal with any frequency, and because the reference to "sea of japan" is shown to be the primary use by citations above. south end, south park, & north river were written about first and remain the direct link because these terms have a primary english use, and the less common uses are preserved in the dab page separately. this page seems inconsistent and misleading in giving equal weight to uncited minority views, contravening WP:NPOV. major/minor views are determined by reference citations, of course, not the number of wikipedians, since WP:NPOV cannot be overridden by wikipedian consensus.


 * i would just like to see some sources contradicting the above citations that sea of japan is the primary use, and any sources indicating that the other uses, in english, are significant enough for inclusion, to avoid misleading inconsistency.


 * somewhat separately, assuming arguendo that this page remains the direct link, we can still discuss how to reword the first line. Appleby 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline here is disambiguation. Please read it carefully.  Since there is "risk of confusion" by jumping to "Sea of Japan", we should leave this a disambiguation page.  Similar cases where disambiguation was used are as follows:  Pasadena, Monterey, Riviera, Toledo, Hoboken, Nome, Newcastle, Navajo, Santiago, Akron.  Also, jumping to "Sea of Japan" would amount to a support of the Korean-POV, which obviously violates WP:NPOV.--Endroit 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer again to WP usage; I think you are making assumptions about why South Park and South End & North River point the way they do; with the exception of TV fans, I am certain the show is not the most common geographic use. As I mentioned, the existence of redirects which argue the opposite point makes it somewhat dishonest to use other use on WP as a precedent for either dab or redir argument. The awkward little bugbear about NPOV now is this issue of letter-writing campaigns to effect what is essentially a Korean political drive which matches what you would like to see happen here - so going the way you want is in essence agreeing with a very politicized campaign which is by defionition POV. Right, wrong, or otherwise I'm not comfortable with that and I don't think WP in general is comfortable with it either - lets all just stay far away from politics. As I mention, current reference usage is due to exactly the pressure going on here - common usage varies - but is not the easiest thing to pin down, it's like 'custom' or 'common law', and whatever the refs say, there are many who will view East Sea as a translation of the most common (to them culturally) language.  To avoid either politicizing or steering people the wrong way I think the status quo with a vastly better first line is the way to go, to do otherwise would be to 'game' wiki for the aims of furthering political views. Agree w/ user:Endroit. Bridesmill 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

bridesmill, thanks for taking the time to comment here. i respectfully disagree, however, with the meta-analysis of reputable sources and speculation on their motivations, which seems explicitly prohibited by policies that cannot be overridden by wikipedian consensus or any guidelines. if an aggrieved party's campaigning for change itself makes the proposed change suspect, i don't see how wikipedia will decide what historical developments or changing standards to accept or reject. i'm not proposing that wikipedia be an agent of change, but merely to accurately reflect reputable sources. but anyway, life goes on. Appleby 19:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Which leaves us with my earlier question - exactly what 'facts' are wrong on the page which lead to the tag? And I am not speculating on anyone's motivations; either the sources or VANK's, which have been publicly stated as you well know - I am stating a fact. My aim is to have a useful page - not one that panders to a political campaign - especially when many others can lay claim to East Sea as being theirs - it is a descriptor, not an identifier.Bridesmill 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * there still is little or no substantiation of many of the uses listed, and no indication that any but the first is the primary meaning, thus the tag. i don't think it's reasonable to conclude that the all the professional authors, fact-checking staff, and layers of editors at the reputable publications cited above simply caved to a baseless email campaign ... if they can be so easily persuaded, their content would look a lot different, and they would not be considered reputable publications.


 * ""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V


 * the relevant question here is not who campaigned for what when how (facts properly described in Sea of Japan naming dispute), but what do the reputable references say is the meaning of the english term "east sea," and thus best serve readers? Appleby 21:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reputable sources you cite tend to all give East Sea as the acceptable alternate to Sea of Japan, certainly. but WP is notably fuzzy in these instances - there does not appear to be either a hard and fast rule or a hard and fast practice. In light of the prevalence in current refs, the Sea of Japan meaning absolutely belongs on the top of the page, but given how many interpretations are in use for East Sea, and local understanding thereof varies, I will still argue to stick with this dab page. I quote from WP:NC (places): "The testimony of locals and people familiar with the country should be considered above Google evidence", many of the other meanings of East Sea - though not as frequent in usage - also meet WP:V, and given that the dab line says "xxx may refer to:" the bar of proof and WP:V is considerably lower than if it said "xxx is" or "xxx means". I agree that the main point here is how to best serve readers - I assure you I have no political eggs in either basklet on this one. But I do strongly feel that the reader is best served through the dab - even if East Sea = Sea of Japan is the most common, it is but the most common meaning of many translations. In spite of it doesn't matter how many dictionaries, pulling it off the dab (which will still be needed) disallows other meanings which if not today as popular have just as much legitimate claim to the name. Bridesmill 21:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for your thoughtful responses. a rational discussion can be difficult on this topic, and i realize that i am outnumbered. however, i believe that i have offered relevant policies and citations, and since the relevant policy is one that cannot be superceded by wikipedian consensus, the best i can do is leave a tag for now.


 * i think we basically disagree on whether "east sea" is a descriptor or a proper noun. i think the cited sources demonstrate that it is a proper noun, just as North Sea is the name of a specific entity, not a phrase meaning any sea to the north in various languages. sure, it is an alternate name, but still a proper noun. mere descriptors would have no place as an encyclopedia entry. the issue is whether the other uses are also proper nouns in english. anyway, that is i think where we differ, but i do thank you for your courtesy and reasonable dialogue. Appleby 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, this has nothing to do IMHO with being 'outnumbered' - and you debate well and politely. Part of the problem, I think, is that you are very close to the issue and have a bit of a 'conflict of interest'. That aside, the debate on whether this is a proper noun or descriptor is interesting, in the sense that, while North Sea is both, and I can think of no other references to a North Sea in the English language, until very recently 'East Sea' was almost universally a descriptor of many places. While I respect your desire to get away from calling 'that' body of water the Sea of Japan, and if you tell me that I now 'have to' call it the 'East Sea', I will do so, esp once UN agrees to that. Where I have the biggest problem is the insinuation that henceforth East Sea shall mean (that body of water) and no other, because through various means a number of references have been persuaded to list it as an altn name for 'that body of water'. How will this sit with Germanic peoples, for whom East Sea is the proper English for 'their' East Sea? and what about the Chinese 'East Sea', etc etc? One question which has not yet been answered is the Factual dispute tag - there are 'no' facts in violation - just interpretation on what to send where and how - can we stick on the 'controversial' or 'NPOVlong' tags instead? At least until we find a more amenable way of putting the first line (why was Donghae taken out of that btw?). Perhaps the best solution is to call the place 'Donghae', and then the English is back to being either the translation or the description with no demerit to other groups having 'their' "East Seas" - Plus I am somewhat curious that Korean people would want an English name slapped onto a body of water which is obviously of cultural importance to them - it would seem that the Anglo names have a colonialist bent to them (and being Canadian, I have seen the impact of english language 'dominance') - but this is obviously a part of the discussion better suited to the dispute page ;-)Bridesmill 23:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * there are several issues you bring up:
 * i wouldn't ask you or wikipedia to call it "East Sea", because i respect wikipedia policy of reflecting reputable sources and common names. as a recognized alternate name, "east sea" is and should be mentioned secondarily in parenthesis, and even that only on the first mention, after which it is simply "sea of japan." i have no problem with that, because that's how wikipedia works.
 * North Sea isn't exactly a descriptor for britain or the scandinavian countries, or for english speakers, or the vast majority of the world population. it's simply the english proper name, used in english texts, regardless of the location or nationality of the writer. there is no insinuation that "north sea" "south park" "south end" shall have no other meaning. it's just a matter of convenience and accuracy for the reader to direct them to the most likely intended article, while still preserving a dab link & list of less common english meanings. of course, when there is no single primary meaning, it makes sense to go to a dab page, but here, there clearly is one primary meaning of the english term "east sea."
 * similarly, for germany, their english name for the baltic sea is the baltic sea. they have their local language name, of course, but in english, they popularly and officially call it "Baltic Sea." china also generally supports and uses "east china sea," although there are inconsistencies. afaik, china does not officially advocate that "east china sea" be known as "east sea" in english, & "east china sea" is far more common actual usage by the chinese themselves. everyone's free to use any name they want, all that wikipedia is concerned about is whether that use is recognized by reputable english references.
 * i don't think wikipedians, whatever they personally believe, should be proposing new names, promoting proposed names, or advocating one name or another, period. we should just go about our business of creating a reliable, accurate, useful encyclopedia by reflecting reputable sources. i don't deny i have personal biases and interests, but honestly, i don't understand how second-guessing my intentions instead of discussing wikipedia policies and reliable citations will help wikipedia users.
 * i don't think it's a fact that the english term "east sea" has the currently listed recognized uses. wikipedia is not a collection of all possible trivial facts, nor a multilingual dictionary. thousands of terms have obscure "may refer to" meanings in biblical references, but are not listed in wikipedia dab pages. millions of foreign language words could be translated into english, (e.g. Namsan) but are not in the dab lists at the english name page (under South Mountain). what is motivating the exceptions for this page? Appleby 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You are hanging again on your three examples which support your POV, look again at the dabs mentioned by myself & endroit. dabs do not just refer to everything that is proven and verified to the same standard as article content. If you want and insist, I will dig up references for all of the East Sea instances given - as I mentioned, first time I heard it I assumed East China or Baltic Seas. Plus Googling '"East Sea" -korea' still comes up with 27K hits. Insofar as second-guessing your intent; this is, in terms of dab, a reasonably straightforward issue of telling people where to go for various incarnations of the phrase 'East Sea' - straightforward that is if you leave the politics out of it. Which kind of implies to me that if this is really difficult for someone to accept the logic of 'make it user friendly', Occam's Razor applies. You also downplay VANK et al, but both the dispute page and your worldatlas link above highlight the effectiveness of this campaign. IMHO the dispute issue should be left to the dispute page (which can be highlighted here) but this page should help readers rather than hang on definitions. Bridesmill 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in here. You all bring up good points (though there are some holes in the arguments on both sides). I'm kind of on the fence in general about this, since I've never heard of "East Sea" in this context, but Appleby's sources seem to indicate it's a primary usage. That said, the apparent Wikipedia policy Disambiguation suggests that in case of dispute, we should use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Also, can we remove the "factual accuracy" dispute from the disambiguation page? The dispute is over whether the page itself should become a redirect, not anything on the page, right? Fagstein 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * i would like some type of dispute tag to remain, since i do think the content as it is violates WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are policies that, again, cannot be superceded by wikipedian consensus or "guidelines" such as WP:DAB. i think the policies dictate that 1. "east sea" redirect to "sea of japan", with a top link to "east sea (disambiguation).", and (2), as a separate issue, "east sea (disambiguation)" should contain a list of meanings of east sea that are shown by citation to reputable references to be significant english uses. thanks. Appleby 06:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "East Sea may refer to......" Yes. East Sea "May" refer to those terms. So what's the problem? That does not mean this article looks down on the position of the name of the "East Sea" meaning the Sea of Japan. Appleby's talk is nonsence. He may want "East Sea" to mean the Sea of Japan only, so that it can support Korea's claim on the naming dispute (since Japan claims that calling the Sea of Japan "East Sea" may cause a confusion). What about Northern Territories? It even refers to the mispelling of Northern Territory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an English dictionary. What's the problem offering as much information as possible? Michael Friedrich 06:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"East Sea" in South Korean context is secondary, and it's pointless to discuss which of secondary ones is primary. 130.54.130.227 07:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all: I know there has been some Korean POV mentioned as a reason why there should be this disambiguation page and I just wanted to point out that one reason why there is a disambiguation page for the "East Sea" in the first place is that there are some partisans positing a Japanese point of viewas well.  The inclusion of the Dead Sea, to me, seems like a particularly egregious example of throwing everything but the kitchen sink attempt to minimize and cloud the fact that English publications do refer to the Sea of Japan as the East Sea as well.  When deciding whether or not to keep this page, we should keep in mind that there are interests here that are not purely for the desire for good disambiguation.


 * There have been many examples of disambiguation pages posted above. What makes examples like Akron or Santiago different from this case is that those names are the designated name in English.  Akron, for example, are 100% places in the U.S. and that is the official name of all those places listed.  Likewise, Santiago, Chile is how we refer to Santiago in English publications and is how it has been designated.  Most of the examples listed follow this pattern.  Either they are the definite English term or they are the way English publications spell the name from another language, the agreed upon use.  What makes East Sea different is that the disambiguations are simply translations of the local names but aren't the agreed upon English equivalent.  Even, the Vietnamese "East Sea" has been mentioned as Bien Dong, not as East Sea (for whatever reason).  This is the same for the Bay of Bengal, Tokai, and Baltic Sea examples.  I agree, if there is confusion, we should have disambiguation.  However, that concern has to be balanced with the fact that we aren't here to protect everyone's potential attempt to translate a local name into English and expect the correct hit.  The reason why we call it Baltic Sea is because that is its only English name.  The difference here is that East Sea is also an agreed upon name in English sources as cited above.  This is an important distinction and one that seems to have been ignored in this discussion thus far.  There is a "search" button as well as a "go" button for a reason.  If someone could post examples that are more analogus to this situation, like where there is a disambiguation page where local names are translated into their English equivalent and match the English equivalent and are thus added for the purposes of avoiding confusion I would appreciate it, otherwise this page seems like a special exception.


 * A hypothetical: Do we want to get to the point of the absurd so that when an Arabic speaking person types in "God", the English translation of Allah (the Arabic word for God), they should EXPECT to come to a disambiguation page which lists Allah to prevent any "confusion" whatsoever?  To me, thus far, that seems to be the principle/rule that is being advocated and it seems to lead to absurd results if followed consistently.  Thanks!Tortfeasor 08:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No sense throwing in strawman arguments. The only people who seem to be arguing against this dab do so becuase of a strong support for the Korean POV. IMHO the Korean POV has nought to do with (for or against) the issue - as policy says, when in doubt, dab. And there are plenty of examples above where this is done. the God/Allah example is spurious - everyone knows Allah is the Muslim interpretation; perhaps one of the reasons that I am curious about the Korean motivation for using East Sea rather than Donghae - this is like Muslims sayiing 'from now on we want Allah to be known by the English name'. East Sea is much, much more than just the {place whose name noone agrees on} - it is a reasonably common descriptor, more so than 'North Sea', and I have yet to hear a native anglophone argue that this is not so. Print references to East Sea being an alternate (I can find none which state it is the primary) for {the other place} are there only recently and we all know how they got there; even one of the refs provided above by Appleby states the curious nature of sudden reference to 'East Sea'.

Finally, East Sea may refer to many things - QED there is no factual dispute, once again, nobody is saying that universally it does absolutely mean these things, in which case a Dispute tag would be very valid - remember, that a dab does not deal with facts, it deals with ambiguities, by definition - and as long as we are here arguing the point, that in itself is solid proof that ambiguity exists.Bridesmill 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bridesmill: Thanks for the comments.


 * First, it isn't a Korean point of view to say that East Sea is a designated English term for the Sea of Japan. That is plain fact.  And it still is the reason why that fact makes this case different than the other examples on this disambiguation page (Bay of Bengal et al).  If you could address that point I would appreciate it because I want to reiterate that the dismabiguation pages cited are not examples of local terms translated into their English equivalents.  I just don't see any other disambiguation page where the examples are merely translations of local names into English.  Simply saying there is Akron and there is disambiguation is not enough because then you are giving equivalent weight to English names and mere personal translations.  Personal translations into English and an official English designation are two different things and, at the very least, should be given different weight.  An example of this kind of policy to a certain extent, I believe, is when you type al-Quds into the search box it automatically goes to Jerusalem because we in the English speaking world know that city to be officially known as Jerusalem.  Additionally, your suggestion of a transliteration into Donghae is irrelevant because that's not what the Sea of Japan can also be called, it is specifically designated as East Sea.


 * Also, if the Korean point of view doesn't matter one way or another (which is what I think you are saying), than I fail to see why you point out VANK and other groups that have lobbied for the change as if that is relevant.


 * Secondly, honestly I'm not throwing in any strawman argument because I'm not mischaracterizing the principle that is being advocated and then knocking it down. I am trying to understand the concern/principle that is being promulgated and at least making it consistent because I think this disambiguation page is unique so far.  (I'm assuming the God hypothetical is what you are refering to as the strawman.)  And yes, the God hypothetical is rather spurrious because that was my point.  If you start doing disambiguation pages just for the fact that we are translating local names into their English equivalent (and if that isn't the principle please let me know) than when you type "God" in the search box and press "go" you should, if consistent, believe that the first page should be a disambigaution for "God" and have links to articles like "Allah", "Jehovah", "L. Ron Hubbard", "Zeus", "Kami" etc.  I think one of your stated reasons as to why we should have this page is because people in Vietnam, who have an East Sea in their local language (or Bay of Bengal et al) will come to this site and want to look it up and will translate their term for East Sea into the English equivalent and if they come to the Sea of Japan will be confused.  If that is a reasonable expectation (instead of an unrealistic and naive assumption on the part of the searcher) than I don't think you can't fairly say that someone who speaks Arabic who doesn't know that in English speaking nations the god of the Quran is generally (and I say generally because despite what you say I have seen papers refer to the god of the Quran as simply "God" and not Allah in English documents, books, etc.) translated to "Allah", will go to an Arabic to English dictionary translate Allah into "God" and come to the same problem as the person who speaks Vietnamese.  (Is there a difference that I am missing?)  I am curious and concerned as to how far the principle that seems to be advocated will take us because it is a slippery slope to the absurd.  Because "God" may refer to many things, and because disambiguation deals with ambiguties, as long as we are here arguing the point, that in itself is solid proof that ambiguity exists.


 * Third, if you were refering to the Japanese point of view that I mentioned as the straw man argument I did not mean to insinuate anything to anyone involved in this discussion. However this argument has had a long and storied history with partisans on both sides.  Seriously, the Dead Sea is included because it's mentioned in the Bible twice as the East Sea?  I think its a legitmate concern.


 * If you could clarify the "anglophone" comment, I'm not sure what that meant.


 * Bridesmill, thanks for the great discussion! Tortfeasor 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 RfC discussion
(just because it's becoming a bit big in the edit pane)

By anglophone I mean those looking at the words from a English Language (as a first or primary language) perspective. And also dealing with frequent translation for people with english as a second language - it is very, very common to hear people referring to the East China & Baltic as the 'East Sea' regardless of what dictionaries might say - and that is why the dab is so important. I apologize if I drag inot the dispute itself, just that this dispute strikes me as very strange - that Korean people should so very much want an English name. And yes, the Dead sea being referred to twice in the bible is IMHO (and I'm not Judeo-Christian btw) a valid reason to have it on a dab - it is particularly the 'unusual' uses that make dabs so useful. If this dab goes, then Riviera Northern Territories and South Sea would also have to go - and IMHO also the Passadenas and Montereys inter alia. The Korean POV is the problem of East Sea belonging first and foremost to {the sea beside Korea}, and becuase of some interesting politics and efforts, in the last 20 years a number of references have listed East Sea as being an alternate for the {other one} - now by implying that, there seems to be this motivation (on the part of a small contingent) to make all other uses of East Sea, unless they are specified in more references than your collection, somehow 'irrelevant'. My prime aim is a useful wiki. If that is not your prime aim, or if you see the political aspect as more important, I can't help that. The issue is ambiguous, as I have said, and there appears to be no clear consensus - what the dab page says there, is when in doubt, dab. So far, since the RfC, only 2 people argue from the position of doing away with the dab & having the Sea of Japan reference as a redirect - and both those people have some conflict of interest. IMHO, respectfully, although the debate is interesting, it also puts the weight of consensus to 'lets just keep it' and see how we can make the first line useful & meeting your desires.Bridesmill 01:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think everyone's goal is a beter Wikipedia and that should have gone without needing to have been said. It is hard to translate "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" seen on a map to its Wikipedia equivalent.


 * The basic issue, then, is whether this disambiguation page should come first or not. (Not whether there should be a disambiguation page at all.)  I am citing pages, like Jersualem (al-Quds) and the Temple Mount (Noble Sanctuary/Haram al-Sharif) where the common English name, regardless of the Arabic translation into English, is first and I don't see the harm that would come about if the disambiguation is a link at the top instead of appearing first.  Whether or not there are other translations of East Sea, the main one is the East Sea refering to Sea of Japan.  While east sea is a generic term, East Sea also has a specific connotation.  No one is saying remove disambiguation and no one is arguing Riviera, Northern Territories, and South Sea should go.  There are many cities of Atlanta but the one that pops up when you hit "go" is Atlanta, Georgia and there is a disambiguation link for the rest.  But when you hit "go" for Georgia there is a disambiguation page.  Why?  Because there is both a state and country that use the English spelling of "Georgia".  All I am saying is that it seems these pages show a tendency to defer to the main usage of the word and while I am sure there are people who think East China Sea and Baltic Sea are the East Sea I don't think that that is enough evidence on it's own because then we go into the whole God/Yahweh/Osiris ridiculouness.  Mere translation doesn't make a term irrelevant, but it does make it less important.  I put greater weight on the fact that East Sea has a specific definition because I believe it makes Wikipedia more precise and thus a better resource.


 * In response to your comments about Korean motivations. Basically, Korea has a right to change the name because if countries share a geographical feature they should compromise or have two seperate names as per international law.  I'm not sure, still, how the Korean campaign is relevant to this discussion (unless you are saying that we are usurping that campaign for our own political reasons) but what Korea is doing is the same thing it would have done if it were able to particpate in 1919 when names of geographical locations began to be standardized.  It is no more strange for Koreans to argue for East Sea today than for Japan to suggest Sea of Japan in 1919 and if I am missing a distinction, I would appreciate if you told me.


 * Finally, to make a claim that you have a vast majority doesn't seem right to me, yet. There haven't been many people talking about this topic and if you are assuming a conflict of interest on my part, than you should check the contributions of all the people who participated last time when this topic went up for mediation, etc.  I have never assumed bad faith on your part and I would appreciate the same.  Does the ambiguity of east sea supercede the fact that there is a specific meaning for East Sea?  It's a legitimate question but there isn't a need to suggest I have a conflict of interest.  Thanks for response from your fellow Anglophone.  Tortfeasor 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

we can't create an encyclopedia based on personal testimony of how common certain uses are "no matter what the dictionaries say." that is a clear violation of WP:NOR. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." WP:V it doesn't matter how many times the bible uses a certain term ... "knowledge" in the biblical sense, i.e., sex, is not listed as a "may refer to" under Knowledge. see also here for the difference between wikipedia and a bible dictionary. what matters is significant english language usage, as found in reliable references WP:NPOV WP:V. views of tiny minorities, as shown by references, should not be represented as significant minorities. WP:NPOV. conjecture about ulterior motivations or some underground conspiracy about widely accepted reference works is specifically rejected by WP:NOR & WP:V. that some wikipedians feel a certain way does not create verifiable ambiguity, as content is verified by reliable references, not wikipedian opinion. "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:V if the references do not evidence ambiguity, there is no ambiguity, as far as wikipedia policy is concerned, since wikipedia is not a democracy, but an encyclopedia. the disambiguation guideline you cite is a "guideline." once again, the policies i see being violated are "absolute and non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus." Appleby 06:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

now, can we get back to constructive work on an encyclopedia by applying these wikipedia policies to independent references rather than personal political speculations? Appleby 06:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A review of Appleby's citations
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)

Consensus check

 * Whether "East Sea" should redirect to Sea of Japan first or disambiguate first

This issue has already been discussed in Talk:Sea_of_Japan, Talk:East Sea/Archive 1, and then this page (Talk:East Sea). It has also failed mediation as shown here in 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:
 * 1) User:Appleby
 * 2) User:Deiaemeth
 * 3) User:Tortfeasor

In favor of using East Sea as the disambiguation page, or redirecting to East Sea (disambiguation) :
 * 1) User:Nlu
 * 2) User:Endroit
 * 3) User:Robdurbar
 * 4) User:Masterhatch
 * 5) User:Nobu Sho
 * 6) User:Fagstein (Vote removed pending further debate)
 * 7) User:BD2412
 * 8) User:Bridesmill

Others are welcome to add comments here as well.--Endroit 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, people have been doing homework while I slept (sorry, won't happen again ;-)) I had no realization that this animal had dragged on so very long. It appear that there are thus 8 for, 3 against. If we take out those with a conflict of interest= User:Nobu Sho, User:Appleby, User:Deiaemeth, User:Tortfeasor and I am 'tempted' based on Babel profile to say User:Endroit, we have 6-0. Please recall that I came here through RfC. All this talk of NPOV, V, and NOR appears to me to be a disingenuous use of Wikipolicy to further a political cause.  In terms of NOR, I could counter-argue that the very usage of East Sea to point to Sea of Japan is 'Original Research' in that it is a created reality being furthered by several users here. Additionally, while NPOV is inviolable, using NPOV to push a specific POV seems to be contrary to both the spirit and letter of NPOV as it stands. The question must be - are people using English confused as to what East Sea means? The answer is a resounding 'yes' - the answer therefore, if we look once again at WP:DAB, is to use a dab. That seams to be what most non-partisans want, although I am certain there is no complaint about providing the sea to the east of Korea meaning prominence. In terms of fact - you may use East Sea to mean many things - nobody, once again, is saying that it shall mean any of those things, therefore the dispute tage is spurious - just because EB says 'East Sea refers to Sea of Japan' in no way means that it is not allowed to mean anything else. You must ask yourself honestly - is it common sense or a political agenda that is driving you here? Bridesmill 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Wikipedia Policy Check
welcome back to the non-stop, never-ending party. it's deja-vu all over again.

reference to reputable dictionaries, encyclopedias, & atlases is not what wikipedia calls "original research", but the essence of wikipedia that makes it an encyclopedia. here, one side is trying to apply content found in reliable references, while the other side is relying on political arguments. your question, "are people using english confused as to what east sea means" is answered with a resounding "no" by all of the references cited. "may" does not justify trivial or uncited content. "knowledge" MAY mean "sex" in the biblical sense, but that's not what you find when you search for Knowledge and click "go."

we can't create an encyclopedia based on personal testimony of how common certain uses are "no matter what the dictionaries say." that is a clear violation of WP:NOR. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." WP:V what matters is significant english language usage, as found in reliable references WP:NPOV WP:V. views of tiny minorities, as shown by references, should not be represented as significant minorities. WP:NPOV. conjecture about ulterior motives or some underground conspiracy about widely accepted reference works is specifically rejected by WP:NOR & WP:V. that some wikipedians feel a certain way does not create verifiable ambiguity, as content is verified by reliable references, not wikipedian opinion. "the only way to verifiably demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:V if the references do not evidence ambiguity, there is no ambiguity, as far as wikipedia policy is concerned, since wikipedia is not a democracy, but an encyclopedia. the WP:DAB guideline you cite is a "guideline." the policies i see being violated are "absolute and non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus." Appleby 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again - May East Sea refer to any of the items listed on the page? Are you here for political agenda or are we? The previous times this came up, it was no consensus, now ar RfC has brought other (disinterested) people to the table, and all of those disinterested parties see things the same way. Why is it so important to apply a quibbled interpretation of NPOV, V, & OR here when this is not so in South Sea, Northern Territories etc? There is no conjecture about a ulterior motive - the references you yourself have provided clearly attest to that being a fact. Also remember that we are talking about ambiguity which by definition strays away from verified fact and a black/white world. While NPOV etc are hard and fast of article pages, there does not appear to be such a ruling on dab pages. I have to ask again - do you want a common sense solution or a POV pushed? Does it really matter all that much either way? I would suggest it only does if you have an agenda. Which again leaves us to 'when in doubt, dab'. Bridesmill 15:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone: This is what the disambiguation page says about "Primary topic[s]":


 * "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page."


 * All I am arguing, even though the "consensus element" has not been met so far, is that East Sea refering to the Sea of Japan is well known and at least the "majority links element" has been fulfilled because there are are a majority of links in existing articles that link to that specific East Sea in this encyclopedia. Appleby has produced objective evidence towards the fact that specificically, East Sea (different than east sea) is recognized as such a term.  I think the burden then is to show, through objective evidence instead of subjective opinions, why one may think East Sea doesn't have a specific/primary definition.  There is objective, unbiased ways to show that East Sea has a specific meaning, can we agree on that or not?


 * Simple ambiguity is not enough of a reason, by itself, because it is overridden by the fact that the primary use is preferred. And no one is saying get rid of the dismabiguation page, the arguement is about where it should be.  If anyone can adduce objective evidence to show that East Sea is used specifically another way and official way in a more frequent way than I would appreciate it.  Thanks! Tortfeasor 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you take the same argument to Northern Territories, South Sea, & Riviera, where similar situations exist, then go for it. If however this is the only place where you feel that there is a desparate need to somehow put the most common as a direct and then hatnote the Sea of Japan to a dab; that demonstrates you are not acting in good faith. Doing so will result in loss of functionality for the sake of pedantry and politics. If you read the rest of the WP:DAB, you will also see the line which states when in doubt, dab. You cannot use evidence selectively. And please recall that 'East Sea', although recognized as 'an' alternative for the Sea of Japan, is not 'officially' anything as per UN or other international bodies.  Yes, it may be the most commonly cited usage now, but can you ignore the 27k ghits which discuss East Sea in a context other than related to Korea? I am pleading for common sense over pedantry & politics. That's all.Bridesmill 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop accusing me of bad faith (if that is what you are doing) or whatever when I am discussing on the merits of the argument. When there are reasonable disagreements of the interpretation of policy the merits should be discussed, not personal attacks.  It doesn't do much for your argument.


 * 1) As I have said multiple times, no one is advocating removal of Northern Territories, South Sea and Riviera. But see point 2.


 * 2) This is not the only place where I am advocating this position but instead am trying to explain that East Sea in this situation is similiar to precedent as evidenced by other seas that have a specific meaning listed in this encyclopedia.


 * 3) Your insistence on the ambiguity element could be construed as pedantic as well.  Did you know that the Dead Sea was also known as simply the "sea"?  Should we disambiguate the Sea entry to make sure people know what the difference between the generic geographical term sea and Sea (meaning Dead Sea)?  ezek 47:8.  I'm getting this information from the same chapter of Ezekiel that whoever thought that the Dead Sea was known as east sea was relevant so either they are both with merit or they both aren't.


 * 4) I'm not using evidence selectively as you claim but don't show how, instead there seems to be, based on the disambiguation page, some priority to specific terms and that is what I am arguingf.  If you are ignoring the "primary topic" part than you could be selectively choosing which parts to use convenient to your personal point of view/argument.  And since I still support a disambiguation page because as you have pointed out ad naseum "when in doubt dab", I am not picking and choosing which policies most convenient to me.


 * 5) While you may quibble about official or recognized you still haven't shown how the other terms are more official, more often used, etc.


 * 6) Please type "inland sea" in the search box.  Then please type "Inland Sea or inland Sea" and please note the caps-sensitive nature of each entry.  Interesting, isn't it?  If you are going to be consistent than please help me fix and resolve this ambiguity because inland sea can mean many things, like the hypothetical inland sea of Australia that European settlers believed was there, the ancient inland sea of Australia during the Cretaceous, the ancient inland Sea on the North American continent as mentioned in the general inland sea article, the Inland Sea in the fictional universe of author Tamora Pierce in her Song of the Lioness quartet, etc., and the Hudson Bay, sometimes referred to the inland sea (this list can go on).


 * 7) Thanks! Tortfeasor 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First, East Sea does not have a specific meaning other than being an Alternate name for the Sea of Japan. Someday international bodies may rule, but even when that happens I would still argue that it makes more sense to dab first. Second, nowhere have I said that the other uses are more common or more used - similar to the case of the other examples. And if you are going to do it here, then it should be done to South Sea etc etc. You state that you advocate this position elsewhere, but from your contributions, the only places on wiki where you appear to be active are where there are Korea/Japan disputes. I am not assuming bad faith, but one must admit that this is curious. My argument remains that utility and common sense should outweigh pedantry and politics, and some weight should be given to native speakers. I am going to leave this debate - I have made my point, and perhaps on 'a point of law' you will have your way. Unfortunately, your motivation is crystal clear.Bridesmill 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bridesmill: No hard feelings, okay? A point of law though; when did guilt by association (I'm guilty of biased motivations because my interest in this Wikipedia is Korean and Japanese history?) ever become good law?  Actually read what I've edited before you start divining my motivations in your crystal clear ball.  I do my best and always try to reach a consensus and always cite with credible, verifiable, English sources.  If this discussion forks to a different, and non re-hashed tangent I will always be eager to read your opinion.  Tortfeasor 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguments to change this disambiguation page to a disambiguation link
Introduction:

First, to get it out of the way, I would please ask editors to please judge this case on the merits and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Currently, there is a debate over whether there should be a disambiguation page or a disambiguation link for the term “east sea.” Per Wikipedia Disambiguation:  a disambiguation link is where the article discussing the most common meaning of a term can have a link at the top pointing the user to another page pertaining to a different meaning (and often utilizing a similar title) while a disambiguation page is a non-article page that contains no content and refers users only to other Wikipedia pages.

I am proposing that we, with consensus, change the current “east sea” disambiguation page to a disambiguation link.

Background:

I would like to explain the factual background of this case and the term “east sea” for those who are unfamiliar with the debate or have come to this page from request for comment. The "East Sea" (please note capitalization) is a proper noun in the English language and the name of the body of water between the Korean Peninsula and Japanese Archipelago. That body of water is more commonly known as the Sea of Japan. However the United Nations and International Hydrographic Organization have stated that when two states share a geographical feature and dispute the name, the states should either compromise or use both names simultaneously (please see Sea of Japan naming dispute for citations) and Wikipedia follows this policy per Korean naming conventions. So while the Sea of Japan is the default name currently, the East Sea has received acceptance by many major and mainstream mapmaking (National Geographic), encyclopedic sources (Britannica), and the major search engine maps (Google Earth and Yahoo Maps). Therefore, as the following citations will show conclusively to the reasonable reader, “East Sea” is a specific proper noun. Sources here, (Credit: User:Appleby):


 * Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, ; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea ; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) ; East Sea: See Sea of Japan
 * National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
 * World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * Search engines, "East Sea" without Wikipedia: Google  Yahoo
 * Search engines, "East Sea" in English, without Wikipedia or partial names "South East Sea" and "North East Sea": Google Yahoo

And here (Credit: Various editors at Sea of Japan naming dispute):


 * Some publishers and media outlets have responded to the dispute by either adopting both names on maps, or—in very rare cases—leaving the area blank, until a consensus can be reached between Japan and Korea.


 * In 1997, Rand McNally, one of the largest mapmakers in the United States, adopted a policy of concurrent use of both names, "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan".


 * In 1999, the National Geographic Society recognized that the name was legitimately disputed by South Korea. Under its policy (if a geographical feature is shared by more than one nation, and its name is disputed, use the most commonly recognized form of the name first and label the disputed name in parentheses), "Sea of Japan" appears as the primary label and "East Sea" appears below in parentheses.


 * Many other publishers have responded similarly, such as The Times (of London), Financial Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, Encarta Dictionary, Columbia Encyclopedia, World Book Encyclopedia American Heritage Dictionary, World Atlas, and About.com, usually including "East Sea" as the secondary label.


 * In 2003, the French Defense Ministry issued nautical maps included both terms "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea", It set back to "Sea of Japan" as a mono-name in the map issued in 2004.


 * The World Factbook published by Central Intelligence Agency of the United States announced to follow the guidance of the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN). The World Factbook FAQ: Policies and Procedures: Factbook uses Sea of Japan whereas other publications label it East Sea. What is your policy on naming geographic features?

User:Endroit interprets the adoption of the “East Sea” as an alternative name by the above groups merely as a recognition of the dispute. He also notes that “none of the citations specifically say that "East Sea" is an "accepted" alternate name” and also cites the “lack of fine print” as evidence that the “East Sea” is not an alternative name. I respectfully disagree. I would argue that a lack of fine print by a company choosing to use of the name “East Sea” is an implicit acceptance of the name and the requirement of fine print by Endroit is a double standard because no other accepted term would be discounted merely because of the fact that the term lacked fine print. The basic fact is that that the above sources all use “East Sea” to mean a specific proper noun and the citations above are proof that the “East Sea” has entered into the English language as an alternate name for the Sea of Japan. Also note that no other citation has been provided to show that the other general uses of the term “east sea” are recognized as a specific English proper noun.

A common misconception is that the “East Sea” is merely the translation of the Korean word "Tonghae". This is not the case and is a misunderstanding of the Korean position and the position of any country using an English name. For example, the German word for their country is Deutschland while we in the English-speaking world call the country Germany. To say Germany is a mere translation of Deutschland would be wrong. Germany is the English word to refer to the country between France and Austria. Similarly, the East Sea has been adopted as a co-equal or alternative name for the sea between Korean and Japan.

Finally, while some editors think it significant that the recent changes by third-party publications is due to Korean lobbying, I do not. Firstly, the name is legitimately disputed and South Korea is following international law. Additionally, Korean lobbying now is no different than when Japan applied the Sea of Japan at an International Hydrographic Organization meeting in 1919.

(The next section is the body of the arguments but if you don’t want to read them, there is a summary at the conclusion of this post.)

Arguments:

1) The generic uses of “east sea” in the disambiguation page, the mere translations, do not reach the level of the need for disambiguation per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia states that "disambiguation" is the process of resolving "ambiguity" which the guideline defines as, "the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics.  In many cases, this word or phrase is the NATURAL title of more than one article."  (My emphasis).

The guideline gives us the example of Mercury as an example of "ambiguity" which then lists the element, planet, car brand, record label, NASA space program, plant, and Roman god as illustrations of topics which are closely associated with the term Mercury.

The problem with the mere translations on the “east sea” disambiguation page is that they are not NATURAL titles of more than one article. For instance, the natural title of the Baltic Sea, in English, is only Baltic Sea. Not "east sea". Likewise, East China Sea, South China Sea, Tokai region, and the western part of the Bay of Bengal are merely translations and not the NATURAL titles CLOSELY associated with the generic term "east sea."

I would also like to reemphasize that we have disambiguation policies to clear up AMBIGUITY. While ambiguity has a colloquial definition, Wikipedia policy clearly points us to the specific definition. First off Wikipedia:Disambiguation, links to the Wikipedia article on ambiguity. There it says there is ambiguity if a word or phrase can be interpreted in more than one way. Here, interpreted could not mean translated from a foreign language to its English alternative because that is a stretch and also because anyone familiar with the definition of ambiguity would understand the phrase to mean that there was one or more English definitions or understandings of the word or phrase. Also, it mentions lexical and syntactic ambiguities. Again, the other “east sea” terms don’t fit either of those examples of ambiguity. There is a specific definition of ambiguity and I argue that we are not following that guideline here.

2) We must use common sense on when to disambiguate. Wikipedia states when "deciding to disambiguate" to decide whether a reader would realistically expect to view a result.  This is a subjective test because every editor will have their own version of what they would "realistically expect."  However, the subjective test is tempered by the fact that the Wikipedia guideline incorporates the term "realistically."  Further down the "deciding to disambiguate" part of the guideline, it mentions under the heading "list" that there has to be "significant risk of confusion."  The "significant risk of confusion" clause suggests that while some editors will be able to make spurious claims of confusion, this danger of deceit is tempered by the common sense of other editors.  Wikipedia also states that when deciding to disambiguate to do so "carefully and only when needed."  This would reinforce my point that disambiguation shouldn’t be spurious.

Therefore, while a User:Bridesmill argued, “when in doubt, disambiguate,” this must be balanced by the fact that there has to be “significant risk of confusion.” I can’t believe many people searching for the Dead Sea will type “east sea.”   However, if they do, I believe that when the user seas a map of East Asia, he or she will realize that they can disambiguate by click on a link at the top of the page. Would someone typing “east sea” expect to view a result for Dead Sea? Perhaps some editors will believe so. However, is there a significant risk of confusion and is it realistic? Most likely not because the Dead Sea is rarely mentioned in the context of the “east sea.” Similarly, there is little doubt that the other terms on the disambiguation page would cause a Wikipedia to suffer undue confusion by moving this page to a disambiguation link instead of a disambiguation page.

3) If we follow this mere translation of local names into English as a precedent for when to disambiguate, there would have to be a disambiguation page for God and many other spurious disambiguation pages. On the “east sea” disambiguation page it states that, for example, the South China Sea, in the Vietnamese local language is Bien Dong.  If the mere translation of Bien Dong, which means “east sea” in English, qualifies the mention of Bien Dong on the “east sea” disambiguation page than any foreign word that translates into an English equivalent would have to have a disambiguation page.  An analogous situation would be the fact that God, in the Arabic language, is Allah.  Since Allah translated into English is God, God needs a disambiguation page with words like Allah, Kami, Zeus, Deus, etc. gracing the page.

Further, if we allow the Dead Sea in the disambiguation page, it would set a precedent for other disambiguation pages that incorporate obscure Biblical references as important enough to require a disambiguation page instead of a link. For example, the knowledge page would have to have a disambiguation page because the Bible uses the word knowledge to mean sex. (Credit: User:Appleby). Obviously, while it might be of some value to some users to find out that knowledge in the Bible refers to sex, and I agree with this proposition, I don’t think that this obscure fact should detract from the primary usage of knowledge, as set forth in the article.

4)

Wikipedia policy also states that “When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.” There is clearly a primary meaning for the term “East Sea” and it is well known. If one does a search of Wikipedia, explicit of mentions of “East Sea” are solely for mentions of the “East Sea” as an alternate name to the Sea of Japan. Under Korean naming conventions, it is well established by consensus of both long-term Korean- and Japanese-interested editors that the “East Sea” is to be used as an alternate name to be mentioned with the first mention of Sea of Japan. Therefore, the majority of links in existing articles in Wikipedia contain the term “East Sea” as well as Sea of Japan. Other examples of “east sea”, when searched, will only be parts of an article name like East China Sea and are therefore irrelevant to the inquiry of whether the primary meaning of a term or phrase is well known. Additionally, while the United Nations has stated that only the Sea of Japan is the official name for that body of water, it has also stated the principal that when two states disagree over the naming of a geographic body they share, a compromise name or both names should be used. Also, please refer to the evidence already provided, including Google Earth, World Atlas, National Geographic, and Yahoo! using “East Sea” as an alternative name. Finally, there is little to no evidence adduced of any of the other uses of east sea as a primary meaning for the term.

I asking that the consensus of editors acknowledge that there is indeed a primary usage for the specific term “East Sea” per A) the majority of links in existing articles in Wikipedia and B) the acceptance of the term “East Sea” by neutral third parties.

Under the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (disambiguation page) it states that for foreign languages an editor must “be sure an article exists or could be written for the word or phrase in question.” Wikipedia then clarifies that rule by stating that “usually this means that the term has been at least partially adopted into English or is used by specialists.”  Clearly, in this case, the only “east sea” that has been adopted into English is the “East Sea.”  So, the example of the Baltic Sea, the need for disambiguation is fairly pointless because the Baltic Sea has been adopted into English, not “east sea” as an alternative.

5)

Both sides have used other examples of disambiguation to prove their point. I would argue that since there are examples to support both the argument of a need for a disambiguation page and the argument against, examples are essentially pointless. However, I will argue that the “East Sea” is analogous to the North Sea. As shown above, in both neutral third-party publications and searching Wikipedia itself, the “East Sea” has a definite English meaning. Also, I will point out the lack of any other disambiguation page that is there simply because the translated name of the foreign name matches the English name.

Conclusion/Summary:

I am requesting that this disambiguation page be moved to a disambiguation link. Doing so will be an application of a neutral point of view by preserving the disambiguation page while clearly indicating that the primary usage of the English term “East Sea” is the co-equal or alternate name of the Sea of Japan. My reasons, again, as follows:


 * 1) Disambiguation, under Wikipedia policy is to resolve ambiguity.  Mere translation of a foreign language word or phrase into its English equivalent clearly does not fall under the specific Wikipedia understanding of ambiguity or the requirements for disambiguation.


 * 2) The risk of confusion is too small to override the fact that “East Sea” has a primary usage in the English language.


 * 3) If we follow the precedent of this disambiguation page, silly results will occur; such as requiring a disambiguation page for knowledge because the current Wikipedia article on knowledge doesn’t mention sex.


 * 4) Wikipedia policy also states that “When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.'''  Clearly here, based on the citations above and the results of the Wikipedia search engine result test, it is clear that “East Sea” has a primary and specific meaning.  Additionally evidence is the fact that the generic “east seas” don’t have examples of a primary meaning, etc.

Thanks for reading and participating. Tortfeasor 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) The lack of other pages similarly situated suggests that this is not a topic of huge importance or confusion such that it should override the fact that “East Sea” has a primary usage.


 * Oppose - I oppose redirecting "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan". In the Wikipedia article for North Sea, the term East Sea is linked to Baltic Sea.  Most of your citations are in the form "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or "see Sea of Japan", suggesting that the term "East Sea" needs to be disambiguated by the term "Sea of Japan" at all times.  And "East Sea" is only a neologism created by the Koreans as a secondary name for "Sea of Japan" at best, and never a primary name for the "Sea of Japan".  And there are other uses for "East Sea".  Read WP:disambig for the relevant policies.--Endroit 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The idea that "East Sea" has a primary usage, even in the English language, is a Korea-centric POV view.  I would dare to say that more people, numerically, think of East China Sea, when "East Sea" is referenced (in English no less) than the Sea of Japan.  --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Endroit: Thanks for your response.  I would disagree with your characterization that "East Sea" is a neologism.  I don't think place names correctly fall under the definition of the word.  Otherwise, everytime a new creature or astronomical object found, like Nix(moon), it would just be a neologism instead of just plain naming the thing.  But, I don't want to get stuck on a nonsequitur.


 * Also, thanks for your advice on reading WP:disambig but if you notice, much of my argument comes from the those relevant policies. I have bolded, quoted, and wikilinked to all relevant policies.  So if you could comment on my actual arguments, I would appreciate it.


 * Nlu: Thanks for the response as well.  The "East Sea" has a primary useage in the English language, proven by the citations.  (And no one has ever provided another citation showing another primary useage of the term "east sea.")  No other neutral third-party publisher even remotely uses the proper noun "East Sea" for any other place.  I don't think it's relevant what more people consider to be the "East Sea" rather than what reputable sources have to say.  The vague more people can never trump reputable citations.  If you could provide a source backing up your statement, I would appreciate it.  I'm not sure how pointing out what neutral third-party publishers have done is a "Korea-centric POV."  Isn't that like saying Taiwan is an anti-Portuegese point of view because we've stopped calling it Formosa?  If it's relevant, I can discuss the issue but the fact of the matter is many reputable publishers have accepted the East Sea has an alternate or even co-equal name, and by just throwing out "Korea-centric POV" isn't convincing to me.


 * I don't want to badger y'all for responding and I realize that I wrote a lot and so its a lot to read. But, the fact is that Wikipedia policy is clear here.  Despite your personal beliefs that "East Sea" is a neologism (and therefore inherently invalid?) and that more people think East China Sea when hearing "East Sea" ; it is a fact that "East Sea" is a proper noun in the English language, and is accepted by a great number of sources unlike any other term for "east sea."


 * Primary useage exists. Endroit, I don't think the fact that "East Sea" is a alternative name to Sea of Japan invalidates it as the primary useage of the word.  "East Sea" just has to be the primary usage of the phrase "east sea" which it obviously is.  Similarly, Nlu, I am troubled by your vague assertation of more people as I explained above.  I just want to reiterate, that when there is a primary useage, there should be a disambiguation link, not page.  If you both wouldn't mind responding to my five general arguments I would appreciate it because I actually discuss Wikipedia policy, etc.  Thanks again!  Tortfeasor 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. A disambiguation page should include anything someone could be searching for when putting in "East Sea". This would include local versions. Since "East Sea" is such a generic name, it stands to reason there would be a lot of things included. I think direct translations make sense since this is an English encyclopedia and people looking for an article might mistranslate its name when searching for it. I don't see how adding these other items hurts Wikipedia or the disambiguation page.


 * 2. I don't think this page is spurious. It's almost a textbook example of a generic term which could refer to many things. While I think the dead sea example is a bit far-fetched, the East China Sea makes perfect sense in this case.


 * 3. Your "God" example sounds strange to me, firstly because I think it makes perfect sense to link God to Allah, and secondly because God does, in fact, link to Allah. The main difference here is that God and Allah refer to essentially the same thing (only under different languages), while these are different seas.


 * 4. You seem to be implying consensus where none exists. The fact that there's a debate happening here should be evidence enough that a consensus still needs to be made.


 * 5. Your point about translation is well taken. Your example, however, like all others, is meaningless unless this subject has been debated on those talk pages and a consensus has been reached.

All this aside, the only debate here is whether East Sea's primary usage is Sea of Japan. There seem to be arguments here on whether a disambiguation page should exist at all, and that is distracting from this discussion. If anyone wants the page eliminated entirely (a redirect with no disambiguation link), I would suggest discussing that separately.

I don't have a firm opinion on whether it should be a page or link, but I will offer these two main arguments on both sides:
 * 1. Few, if any, links have been found to suggest links to "East Sea" really mean something other than "Sea of Japan" to within even an order of magnitude of those that mean "Sea of Japan". This would imply a primary meaning.
 * 2. If in doubt, a disambiguation page causes less confusion than a redirect and link.

Discuss. Fagstein 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fagstein: Thanks for the response.  I would like to clear up a few things.


 * 1) I agree that there should be a disambiguation.  But for me, I think a dab link and not a dab page is the better choice.  A disambiguation link would also serve the purposes you stated in your 1).  My point is that this page doesn't seem to conform with the primary intent of what a dab page was designed for.


 * 2) As for spurrious, I'm not saying the disambiguation page is per se.  I'm saying that primary usage guidelines should trump potential confusion, espcially because East China Sea is already a proper noun, etc.  If there is a risk for confusion.  I think the map of East Asia will clear up for most users searching for the Baltic Sea that they should click on the dismabiguation link.


 * 3) The God example is silly, I agree.  That was my point.  It seems if we follow what is going on here, than my example would be the logical result.  "Allah" translated into English is "God" like "Ostee" translated into English is "east sea."  I'm saying that God should have a disambiguation page as well.  (It currently does not).  I would disagree with your characterization that God and Allah "refer essentially [to] the same thing."  Just going from what you wrote in your 1), God should also have a disambiguation page and also based on the "when in doubt, dab" argument.


 * 4) Wikipedia states “When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles)."  So, for editors to find the primary meaning, there are two steps.  First, see where the majority of links in existing articles say.  Second, gain a consensu of the ediotrs of those articles.  I am only saying that the first part has been satisfied and I specifically ask for the second part, the consensus of the editors.  I think if you do a search in Wikipedia, the majority of links in existing articles that mention any generic "east sea" refers to the specific "East Sea."  The majority clearly shows "East Sea" is the primary meaning.  I did not mean to imply consensus where there is none.  If you could recheck my results, I would appreciate.


 * 5) Again, I'm just making an argument and bolstering it with evidence.  I do understand that I need consensus, which is why I am asking, not implying, consensus.  Also, I would ask Endroit and Nlu to maybe reread this set of arguments.


 * I hope that cleared things up. Please let me know what you think Fagstein.  Thanks!  Tortfeasor 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Endroit's rebuttal to Tortfeasor
Tortfeasor, your conclusion that "East Sea" means only "Sea of Japan" in English is premature for various reasons.


 * 1) Many people believe that "East Sea" means Sea of Japan in the context of Korea only and/or is a tranlation of the Korean word "Donghae".  Encyclopedia Britannica supports this view, because they specifically say "The Korean name means 'East Sea'" in their "Sea of Japan" article.  Tortfeasor has clearly misrepresented Encyclopedia Britannica in his citation of Britannica above, in violation of WP:NOR.
 * 2) "East Sea" (used for "Sea of Japan") and "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" are neologisms in the English language, introduced by the Koreans in the early 1990's.  There seems to be absolutely no maps using "East Sea" for "Sea of Japan" in English older than the 1990's.  Instead, there are a very few maps using "Eastern Sea" or "Oriental Sea" for "Sea of Japan", but they are very rare in any case.  See the figure below, prepared by User:Jjok based on this data from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Data from the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade fares no better, as they count "Eastern Sea", "Oriental Sea", and "Sea of Korea" together, obscuring the issue.  So far, all parties have failed to produce a single map using "East Sea" (in English) for "Sea of Japan".  (The Korean data tries to hide this by counting the other names together.)  Therefore we must conclude that "East Sea" was not used for "Sea of Japan" before the 1990's, and hence is a neologism.
 * 3) Encyclopedia Americana has said that "East Sea" is an alternate for Baltic Sea (in English) in their "Baltic Sea" article.
 * 4) The Baltic Sea has been called "East Sea" since 1553 (or earlier).  The use of "Baltic Sea" occurred no earlier than the end of 18th century.
 * 5) Furthermore, the citations & interpretations above (in general) by Tortfeasor (and Appleby) are mostly original research in violation of WP:NOR.  The "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" notation implies "East Sea" must be used together with "Sea of Japan", intact with the parentheses for the purpose of disambiguation.  Many English publications actually follow that pattern rather than use "East Sea" (the 2 words) alone.  So I don't see anything wrong with redirecting Sea of Japan (East Sea) (the 5 words with parentheses) to Sea of Japan or Sea of Japan naming dispute, but not East Sea.



We have discussed the other issues already, and even went through RfM, so I'll leave it at that. But in conclusion we have citations showing 6 links which may be equally worthy of redirection as follows: Sea of Japan, Sea of Japan naming dispute, East China Sea, South China Sea, Baltic Sea, and Dead Sea. A "risk of confusion" arises if we try to redirect "East Sea" to any one of them. Therefore we need to disambiguate rather than redirect, per WP:disambig.--Endroit 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * endroit, you keep bringing up citations to 1899 & 1911 encyclopedias, but we just have to accept that language changes over time. there are many words in the encyclopedias and dictionaries of a century ago that have changed meaning and usage. neologism is not a derogative, and does not in any way detract from the legitimacy of the word as it is used in most current english reference works. "internet" is a neologism maybe a decade old in common usage. it's interesting that you bring up historical names, because even your chart from the japanese gov't shows "sea of japan" was an extremely rare name until the 1800's. it's all relative, but "sea of japan" was once a neologism, too.


 * nobody's denying that "east sea" today is a secondary or alternate name for "sea of japan". sea of japan appears with east sea not for disambiguation, but because sea of japan is the primary name.


 * a risk of confusion arises when you click on South Park but expected to see a neighborhood public park. but that risk is small, because the animation is the primary meaning today (note that this too is a "neologism"), and redirecting to the primary meaning serves more readers better, for the greater good.


 * the argument that the chinese outnumber native english speakers is incomprehensible to me. if we follow that logic, chinese usage of english would overrule american & british usage in every case. china refers to manchuria as the "northeast," but of course Manchuria is manchuria in english, as seen in major reference works.


 * it remains that there is no evidence of "east sea" primarily meaning anything other than the sea of japan.


 * it remains that redirecting to the primary meaning is helpful to more people, that's what people are primarily expecting. Appleby 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In case you missed it Appleby, one of my points was that publishers prefer "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or "Japan/East Sea" or variations, over using only "East Sea" (these 2 words only). This implies that disambiguation is preferred by those publishers.  Plus you're trying to push a relatively unknown neologism over the other 5 usages I mentioned.--Endroit 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i replied directly on point. "sea of japan" is mentioned with "east sea" because "sea of japan" is the primary name. of course the primary name is written primarily. that's not disambiguation. disambiguation means more than one possible meaning. the english-language general reference works do not give more than one possible meaning for "east sea."


 * and again, South Park is a neologism that is more helpful to readers if directed to the animation topic, rather than the two dozen other possible meanings South Park (disambiguation). let's leave a disambiguation page for disambiguation, but direct the reader to the primary meaning, like we generally do in other cases in wikipedia. Appleby 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Endroit: Thanks for the response.


 * 1) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who is in violation of no original research.  I think its pretty clear from the sources that "East Sea" has entered into the English language as a proper noun.  I don't think that is original research but common sense.  (If anyone else thinks it's original research to show citations that back up ones' argument and the reading of the citations is based on the plain-meaning than please explain how.)


 * 2) I don't think your neologism argument is relevant.  We're talking about primary usage and "East Sea" being a relatively new word doesn't hurt or help an argument for or against primary usage.  Primary usage simply means the main use.


 * Also, I don't think linking this issue with the issue of past names is relevant. The oldest names or oldest usage doesn't prove primary usage.  For instance, Formosa is the older name of Taiwan but the primary usage is, obviously, Taiwan.


 * 3) I'm talking about primary usage.  Clearly the primary usage of Baltic Sea, in English, is Baltic Sea.  One example from an old book isn't enough I think to counter the multiple sources already provided.


 * 4) I don't think what anyone is doing is original research.  You (Endroit) could arguably be said to be doing original research by interpreting the citations the way you do.  (Not that I thnk you are.)  When looking at the Tsushima Basin naming dispute in talk, Brtiannica citations and other reputable sources were deemed sufficient for the majority to decide that Tsushima Basin was the common name.  Were they doing original research?


 * Also, see . Wikipedia gives guidelines on when to decide the common name.  Clearly "East Sea" meets, at least, the Google test criteria and Reference work test.


 * I think the most important point, and notably not discussed so far, is that Wikipedia specifically states When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles). Endroit, could you tell me your opinion about what the majority of links in existing articles indicate?  Thanks.  Tortfeasor 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Guidelines in Naming conventions (Korean) dictates that Wikipedia use the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" notation, because of the naming dispute. So "East Sea" cannot really link to Sea of Japan here.  Therefore in Wikipedia, "East Sea" links to Baltic Sea the most, because there is one such case in the North Sea article.
 * In general (outside of Wikipedia), there is disagreement whether "East Sea" (the 2 words only, for "Sea of Japan") is acceptable at all in the English language. Again official usage by most international organizations are either "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or variations, whereas "East Sea" (the 2 words only) is generally NOT accepted.
 * What it all boils down to is this: Your "primary meaning for a term or phrase" -- "East Sea" (the 2 words only, for "Sea of Japan") -- is generally not accepted.  It's all a matter of interpretation, as you say, though.--Endroit 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

the guideline is for article body. obviously the name of the article is "sea of japan", not "sea of japan (east sea)", so the name of the current "sea of japan" article would have to be changed, if we follow your logic that article names must be "sea of japan (east sea)". furthermore, "japan sea" should not redirect to "sea of japan" either, since japan sea is supposed to be called "sea of japan (east sea)", according to that logic.

the reputable english reference works direct readers looking for "east sea" (in english, just the two words) to go to the article on "sea of japan". this is what wikipedia should do as well. doing this redirect does not mean wikipedia is proposing something about "east sea", it's just following the reputable english reference works, as required by WP:V & WP:NPOV. we're not debating here the official usage of iho, because that's already been done and the article is named "sea of japan."

the above citations show that the term "east sea" (the 2 words only) is precisely the term that the reference works primarily refer to their "sea of japan" entry. wikipedia should do the same. which current reputable english reference work considers the primary meaning of "east sea" (2 words) to be anything other than "sea of japan"? Appleby 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * 1. All this talk of neologisms and term origins is irrelevant to disambiguation.
 * 2. Verifiability and NPOV do not mean we follow whatever Brittanica does. Wikipedia is its own animal, and follows its own rules.
 * 3. Wikipedia's rules give one guideline for primary usage: incoming links. So far I haven't heard anyone suggest that a majority of incoming links (or even a significant portion) mean anything other than the Sea of Japan. Fagstein 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

wee clarification, the argument is not based on merely following britannica; if we look at the links on the top of this page, the consensus of major english encyclopedias, dictionaries, and mapmakers is clear on what "east sea" means, & WP:NPOV does require us to reflect majority views as majority views, instead of treating all views with equal weight. Appleby 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Endroit is dead on correct. In english, east sea alone does not mean sea of Japan. only in korean publications does east sea mean sea of japan. English writes it either "sea of japan" or "sea of japan (east sea)". East Sea must remain a disambig page because east sea has many meanings in English. Masterhatch 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Masterhatch: Hopefully this won't sound rude but I have to ask how much of the above debate have you read? The problem with your assertion above is the fact that it's not borne out by the citations provided and, more significantly, the fact that this assertion has been made ad nasuem with little to no citations from neutral third-party publishers provided to prove or at least back up the argument.  (Although those kinds of citations have been asked for multiple times.)  It's one thing to believe the blanket statement that you wrote.  That is your right.  But if you don't show how a neutral third-party publisher defines the term east sea as anything but the Sea of Japan, then I don't see how your personal opinion, by itself, trumps the majority reputable citations already provided.  Furthermore, even a cursory look at the majority of reputable sources provided shows that the East Sea, alone, does mean Sea of Japan.  Britannica says under its east sea entry, "see Japan, Sea of" as does Infoplease, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta, etc.  To me, that would suggest, based on the plain meaning of the words, that the majority of reputable citations say East Sea=Sea of Japan, not Baltic Sea or the Tokai region, or the Dead Sea.  If you could explain how those entries from the majority of reputable sources don't mean anything other than East Sea=Sea of Japan it would help me better to understand your position.


 * More importantly, however, I would like to direct your attention to what Wikipedia guidelines actually say about primary usage: "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top."  Although I doubt that the consensus of editors would turn in my favor at the moment at least it seems that the majority of links in existing articles would show that East Sea=Sea of Japan as per the Korean naming convention which was decided by both Korean- and Japanese-interested editors like yourself.  And like Fagstein said above (if I am interpreting his/her words correctly) no one has suggested otherwise.  Thanks for your comments!  Tortfeasor 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)