Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 4

Outside view
I've been asked to take a look at this article, with regard to the recent edit war. I'm afraid that, having read the article, and the recent dispute, I can't really see the objection to Appleby's latest insertion. The dispute has two sides, each of which presents evidence and argument. We should refer to the evidence and arguments on both sides as clearly and as neutrally as possible, and leave the reader to decide which (if either) has the greater weight. Appleby's addition of the Korean evidence seems to me to have helped to do just that. Does this in fact count as a compromise, and is everyone happy with it? If not, what (in brief, and schematically) what are the main objections and defences?

Not that the article doesn't need work, however. There's a some repetition, partly because the structure of the article is a little unclear. (I've changed the non-standard use of italics to the standard inverted commas to mark the mention of names.)

I'm surprised, incidentally, that most of the suggested names, including the two main modern suggestions, are ungrammatical; just as it's the Irish Sea, not the Ireland Sea, the English Channel, not the England Channel, the Persian Gulf, not the Persia Gulf, surely it should be either the "Japanese" or the "Korean Sea" (I suppose "East Sea" is OK, though "Eastern Sea" is more euphonious). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to comment on this. if some people have this much trouble with something this obvious, i'm sure you can imagine the bias i saw when i first got here. it's enormously helpful to have someone not already familiar & prejudiced take a look and comment. if you could, i, for one, would very much appreciate your suggestions on structure and presentation, or any other work that needs to be done. some things have been carefully negotiated despite the inelegance, others are just the overlooked results of the revert war. thanks for adding some sanity and calm to this discussion. Appleby 16:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikmachine's Comment 3
Ok. The dispute is too long & lengthy. Here are my comebacks, since the last time I've argued.

1) I remember somebody mentioning the Korean government & Japanese government doing research. Japanese government searched something like 1400 maps; Korean government searched something like 700 maps. And this guy sent me the document that the Japanese government research team filed.

You see, half of the maps searched are not related to Sea of Japan/Sea of Korea/East Sea. Therefore, you cannot call the research done by the Korean government as POV.

2) I'm counting the maps right now. I'm 1/8 done. From what I am seeing, most of the "Sea of Japan" come from the 1700s and later. Before then, few "Sea of Japan" stick here and there. Even then, I see more "Sea of Korea" and "East Sea" (counted separately) than "Sea of Japan".

This is because Korea was an influential trading partner with the Arabians, especially known for its porcelains, until the 1400s. Then, in 1600, Korea became a hermit kingdom. From then on, Japan took off. (Wikimachine 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC))

3) Also, Masterhatch & other Wikipedians,I really don't like the map with the question mark. Since the goal of this cyber institution is to educate people, I think that putting a map with "Sea of Japan" and another with "Sea of Korea" would be the best. Yes, I understand that this can get messy as more maps added on.


 * So, I have a compromise: putting one representative map for the Japanese government's claim, and another representative map for the Korean government's claim. (69.180.195.61 17:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC))
 * The "Question mark" map is perfect because it is as NPOV as one can get. If we use one map from each side, then we will argue about who's map goes first and then there will be arguements about which map each side uses. Using just the question mark map shows perfectly that there is a dispute about the name. It says, "What do we call this body of water?" A question mark map shows that neither side is right nor wrong.Masterhatch 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone!
Ahhhh!!! Great job! I hated it how the "compromise" from back in May 2005 showed the japanese argument in one sentence followed by the korean sentence, and so forth in pargraphs and headlines, to the pointed that it gave everyone the impression of two battling writers struggling to get more paper space over the article. Eww. Now it's so concise! And the map that highlights that it is a "dispute"! --Yonghokim 06:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Logical Flaw
I would like to add portions of the following into the "Arguments" section....

After showing all the map data, the Korean argument always concludes that: Therefore, "East Sea" is more appropriate than "Sea of Japan."

There is a logical flaw in the following argument: If "Sea of Korea and East Sea combined" is more popular than "Sea of Japan," it follows that "East Sea" is more popular than "Sea of Japan."

The Korean argument always fails to explain why it is necessary to tally "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea" together in all their data. The Korean argument perhaps makes a very huge logical jump, and seems to assume that the rest of the world accepts that "Sea of Korea" is equivalent to "East Sea." There is an error in logical reasoning here.

Korea was very successful in dragging the entire world into this local dispute between Korea & Japan. However, they made a serious logical mistake of pushing for "East Sea" rather than "Sea of Korea." All the maps data gathered by everyone show that "East Sea" is less favorable than "Sea of Korea," and has been so in the last 300 years. And the rest of the world does not believe that "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea" are the same thing.

We shall distinguish between "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea" and revisit all the arguments we've seen so far. Then we see that there is no reason to call it "East Sea" all of a sudden, after 300 years of that name being out of favor. Looks to me like that name came from nowhere.

"Sea of Korea" seems like a much, much more logically acceptable name than "East Sea."

--Endroit 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that everyone except East Sea supporters see this logical flaw. There is also a huge logical flaw with Koreans combining "East Sea" and "Oriental Sea" and claiming that they mean the same thing. Masterhatch 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

So, can I create a new section under "Arguments" called "Logical Flaw"?

In that section, I'd like to mention strictly the difference between "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea" logically, semantically, & etymologically. This "argument" will consider all interpretations within all of the West-European languages (the languages on the maps used by the European explorers).... English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. This "argument" will allow for the possibility that "East" and "Orient" mean the same thing, without agreeing to nor denying it. It will also allow for "Sea of Korea", "Korean Sea", "Bay of Korea", "Mer de Coree", and anything with the word "Korea" (in any Western-European language) to be grouped together. However it will NOT allow for "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea" to be grouped together.

... Oh, and I'd like this to be strictly a logical argument to point out the "Logical Flaw" of the Korean point of view, using the Western-European language norms. There will be no place for any Korean or Japanese point of view here!

The conclusion in this "argument" will merely dispel "East Sea" as a valid alternative to "Sea of Japan." However, it shall NOT endorse "Sea of Japan" in any way whatsoever. (This will leave "Sea of Korea" open as a valid alternative.)

For this "argument," I'd like to omit any reference to the differences between "East" and "Oriental," because.... "Oriental" is the opposite of "Occidental," and in the days of old map-making, "Orient" probably referred to the entire Asian Continent, any area east of Europe. And so one can argue that "Orient" meant "East" back then, especially in Italian and French. --Endroit 18:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * long story short, the korean gov't obviously knows that "sea of korea" was much more prevalent than "east sea." but they also know the reality of the de facto usage of "sea of japan" today & what a tough battle it is to change a standard name. they thought pushing "sea of korea" would sound too nationalistic, so as a tactical concession, they have chosen to push "east sea" as a less nationalistic name, that does have a historical basis, that is not (or at least less) tied to a specific nation. it's simply a practical, tactical move, which they consider a compromise, as they have explained officially, i remember reading several times. their tallies are aimed to show that "sea of japan" had NOT been the international standard before japan's expansionism. of course, japan's resistance has required a further compromise, so that korea now is basically asking "sea of japan" & "east sea" be used together. they're just being realistic, i think. Appleby 23:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * summaries of korea's position do tend to fudge the wording on this distinction. if you think it'd clear things up for the reader, go ahead & make a new subsection, but it seems to me a detail in korea's position, not a "logical flaw." Appleby 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong... it sounds to me like the Koreans really despise the word "Japan." And so they are trying to eliminate this "J" word from the map... like the question mark we have on our Article page. As Masterhatch says, I will point out the problem as short and concisely as I can make it. The Koreans did NOT prove to us that "East Sea" is a more appropriate name in its own right.--Endroit 12:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

K.I.S.S.
I don't have a problem with the proposed addition as long as it is kept simple and short. We don't need (I feel anyway) a long section in the article about it. Masterhatch 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is a candidate for what I wish to add. Please verify for accuracy and let me know if I need to change anything.  Or if Masterhatch wants to take over from here and add his version instead, I shall yield....


 * Logical Flaw


 * "In the last 4 years, Korea has been using some flawed logic in claiming that "East Sea" is a better name than "Sea of Japan." In particular, they have been relying on some data which conclude that:  "The number of old maps using 'Sea of Japan' is less in numbers than those using 'Sea of Korea, East Sea & variants'.


 * However upon close examination of these Korean data, one finds instead that the number of maps using "East Sea" is equal to or less than the number of maps using "Sea of Japan." (The number for "East Sea" would be less, if you count "Oriental Sea" separately.)
 * --Endroit 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

did you read my comments above? obviously, i don't think "logical flaw" is the right heading, to begin with. the two statements you quoted are not inconsistent: korea's position is that no one name was prevalent. their counts purport to show that "sea of japan" was not the standard name; they are not claiming "east sea" alone was the standard name, only that it was one of the names used, & it is the appropriate international name because it refers to the continent, just like north sea, instead of a specific country.

, already linked in article, has detailed discussions:
 * The next question would be: In spite of De Fer's designation, why was the sea's name changed to Sea of Korea from Oriental Sea? We recall that Europeans traditionally referred to Orient a vast region to the east of Turkey, including Asia Minor, China, Korea and Japan. As the 18th Century set in, they started to subdivide the Orient into Near East, Middle East and Far East. In the process, they must have searched for better names than the vague Mer Orientale or Oriental Sea. They eventually opted for Sea of Korea.
 * As the directional names became universal, east (or est in French) instead of Orient came to be used. Maps created by John Senex chronicle the process of the sea name's transition from Orient to east, and then to Corea.

the executive summary of, also linked in the article, states: "Sea of Korea was used on 53 percent of the maps. East (Oriental) Sea was used on nine percent of the maps, and four percent of the maps used East Sea and/or Sea of Korea." see also

they're not dumber than you or me. even if some summaries or nationalists simplify the positions, on both sides, give the parties due respect in the article. i would be fine with a very short sentence, saying that "east sea" is korea's compromise, even though "sea of korea" was more prevalent, according to its counts. again, it's a detail that may or may not be necessary, but calling it a "logical flaw" is certainly not NPOV. btw, thanks for discussing the matter beforehand, which is sometimes more than i can say for myself, as masterhatch knows :-) Appleby


 * Speaking in terms of Laws of Logic, the Korean historical data may be used to discredit "Sea of Japan," but cannot be used (in any logical manner) to endorse "East Sea." Appleby, mine is neither the Japanese nor the Korean perspective, although it is a critique of the Korean perspective.  If the Koreans use their piece of data to discredit the use of "Sea of Japan," they would also have to discredit the use of "East Sea" simultaneously (making their whole argument moot)... Their data clearly favors "Sea of Korea," but not "East Sea," not "Oriental Sea," and not "Sea of Japan."


 * Let's suppose though, like they say, that we need to throw out "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Korea" simultaneously. What right do the Koreans have to rename it "East Sea"?  There may be other alternatives, such as "Oriental Sea", "KJ Sea", "Sea of Japan & Korea", "Sea of Friendship", etc., and why didn't they take a vote outside of Korea?  Korea does NOT have a right to throw out "Sea of Korea" in favor of "East Sea" and they do NOT have a right to endorse "East Sea" on behalf of rest of the world.  To use their historical data to prove that "East Sea" is the appropriate name, we have to assume 2 things:  1) "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Korea" need to be thrown out.  2) "East Sea" is the only other alternative.  Now speaking in terms of the Laws of Logic, those would be illegal assumptions.


 * Although driven by my knowledge of the Laws of Logic, if you think "Logical Flaw" is too strong please suggest an alternative title. Thank you.--Endroit 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy. How's that for a title? Anyways, both of you have made some great points but I want to mention two things. I don't have much time as I am on my way to work shortly, so I will be brief. Since I am living in South Korea, I can tell you that Koreans are taught in school and that they truly believe that "East Sea" is the first name and most common name and proper throughout. They believe it as strongly and stubbornly as they believe in fan death. The second thing is, while "Orient" means "eastern", it has no connection to the "East" used in East Sea. The nomenclature (is that the right word?) of the two names is completely different, so it is a logical fallacy to say that they are the same name. On a side note, one of the English textbooks that I teach with here in Korea has a map of the world and it is marked "Sea of Japan" with no mention of East Sea. When my students saw this they went on a rant about how that is the wrong name and how East Sea is the right name blah blah blah. I kept my mouth shut as I didn't want to stir the pot and go against what Korean teachers are teaching them. Masterhatch 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

responses to claim of "logical fallacy"
if it's neither korea nor japan's perspective, whose position or critique are you citing? wikipedia is not a collection of individual editor's opinions or analysis; it's a collection of facts sourced to existing publications. if you don't have a citation, it doesn't go in the article. Appleby
 * I didn't know there were only 2 views represented in your discussion... Japanese or Korean. I am a proud American citizen.  However, as I said before, I am critiquing the Korean position, and so I wouldn't care if you categorized me as Japanese.--Endroit 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

of course, this is the discussion page, so this discussion certainly belongs here. so, let me respond to your points, from my understanding:

1. korean historical data may be used to discredit sea of japan, but cannot be used to endorse east sea
 * korea is using the map counts to show three things: that sea of japan was not the standardized international name before japan's expansionism, that it became the standard as japan increased its control over korea, and that east sea was one of the various names used before sea of japan was standardized. there's no logical inconsistency in their position. they are not using the count for east sea to prove east sea should be standard; it's more complicated, as explained below. Appleby
 * There you go again.... You've raised another fallacy in the Korean data. The Korean historical data suggest that the Japanese militant expansionism started in 1800.  In reality, Japanese militant expansionism in the 19th century began with the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895.  And the imperial Japanese government responsible for this expansionism came to power only in 1868, after a civil war, in what is called the Meiji Restoration.  If "Sea of Japan" started to be a de facto standard at around 1800, that does NOT coincide with Japanese expansionism!  This is a very crucial point.  Why did the Koreans omit the 19th Century data (1800's)?  You CANNOT argue Japanese expansionism without the 19th Century data.... That's another Logical Booboo (or Logical Fallacy).  There are too many fallacies in the Korean use of their historical data.--Endroit 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * some of their studies (incl  & view in chronological order, see maps of 1846, 1851, 1862) DO include 1800's, but as you pointed out, meiji policy began in 1868, & japan began military incursions into korea in 1870's, forcing an unequal treaty i think in 1876. Appleby 23:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

2. if koreans use their data to discredit sea of japan they would also have to discredit east sea.
 * not having been the standard is not what discredits sea of japan; it's the fact that the data shows (according to korea) that japan's militant expansionism coincided with the standardization on "sea of japan," whereas various names were used before. korea's complaint is that of the various names, japan's name got to be the international standard just because japan colonized its neighbor and took away its voice by force. Appleby
 * In terms of the Laws of Logic, if any of the premise(s) is wrong, the whole argument is invalid. Although Japan is also claiming that "Sea of Japan" was already the de facto standard before Japan's militant expansionism (in the early 1800's), we will ignore Japan's historical data.  Korea's latest historical data  show that already during the 1800's, "Sea of Japan" has 49% vs. "Sea of Korea/Oriental Sea/East Sea combo" with 43%.  Considering that "Sea of Korea" and "Oriental Sea/East Sea" must be counted separately, the numbers for the 2nd popular name (whatever that is) is significantly lower than the most popular name, "Sea of Japan."  If IHO had been able to decide on a standard in 1867, they would have been most likely to chose "Sea of Japan," based on the Korean historical data.  Therefore, it would be wrong to conclude that "Japan's Militant Expansionism" caused "Sea of Japan" to be a standard.  So it follows that this argument cannot be used to discredit "Sea of Japan."  If Korea is forcing this issue, it should be categorized as Logical Fallacy as well.--Endroit 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

3. let's suppose, like they say, we need to throw out sea of japan and sea of korea.
 * korea's not saying we NEED to throw out sea of korea. i don't think they would mind if sea of korea was the international standard. they are saying that sea of japan needs to be thrown out because it was standardized unfairly. they're only offering to forego sea of korea, even though it was widely used, or may have even been the previous standard, in order to compromise on a less country-centered name. they therefore propose that, instead of creating a new name out of thin air, since east sea has a historical tradition, & refers to the continent rather than a country, that east sea be newly adopted as the standard name.Appleby
 * I strongly disagree with that last point. While it is true that Korea is saying that "East" refers to the continent, that is simply not true. "동해" is a specific reference to the body of water off the coast of Korea just as South and West sea are in Korea. "동해" does not refer to the continent. Oriental Sea could refer to the continent, but East Sea definately does not. That is a "Logical fallacy" that the East Sea supporters keep trying to use. So, inlight of this, East Sea is no better or worse than Sea of Japan for that body of water. Wait, I am wrong. Sea of Japan was named by foreigners from Europe and therefore could be considered a "neutral" name in that respect. East Sea is a name given by one of the disputing parties involved. Korea did not choose a neutral name by choosing "EAst Sea" for that body of water for the international community. If Korea really wanted a neutral name for the international community to use, it would have gone with a name that does not derive from either Japan or Korea. For example, Oriental Sea is the perfect neutral name. East Sea is by no means even close to being neutral. Sea of Japan is closer to being a neutral name than East Sea is. Masterhatch 06:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * responding to your point further up, i think we can agree both country's textbooks leave something to be desired, & that the "man on the street" might often be misinformed, in any country. but that's different than saying there is an inherent "logical flaw" in the actual official position, a glaring flaw that the nat geographic, rand mcnally, encarta, & the times somehow overlooked but we managed to discover?
 * & i thought korea's argument was that WESTERN maps used (among others) "east sea" (in english) or equivalent in other european languages, not that it's a translation of korea's name. i'm not sure how it is in canada, but i can assure you that "oriental" is a passe, if not taboo, in the u.s., due to pc revisionism, so is not a realistic option. i'm sure korea would receive just as much, or even more, criticism if they advocated "sea of korea" or made up an entirely new name. they picked one of the names from western maps, that doesn't name a country, that is equivalent to "north sea" in relation to the continent. some people may disagree with the strategy, but it hardly seems like a "logical fallacy" to me. Appleby 23:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any logical explanation why East Sea has to be favored over Sea of Korea. Their preference seems to be based on purely qualitative (emotional, etc.) assumptions on the part of Koreans.  The historical data has nothing to do with the need to argue for a neutral name.  And besides, most of the old maps use non-neutral names anyways.
 * Regarding Masterhatch's concern about "East Sea" not being a neutral name, I'd have to agree. I also agree that "Oriental Sea" is more neutral.  If I were traveling West to Asia, stayed over in Tokyo, and returned to the U.S., "East Sea" would sound like a misnomer.  "East Sea" is NOT a neutral alternative to "Sea of Japan," just like "East Sea" would NOT be a neutral alternative to "Lake Michigan," and "East River" would NOT be a neutral alternative to "Mississippi River."  If "Oriental Sea" is passe as Appleby suggests, how about "East Asian Sea"?  In Hangul I believe that would be "동아해" or in Hanzi, that would be "東亜海" and this should sound neutral in Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Western European languages. In any case, if the Koreans conclude that "East Sea" is a neutral name, that should be categorized as another Logical Fallacy.--Endroit 23:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

4. what right do koreans have to rename it east sea?
 * what right does any country or body have to name an international body of water? did japan have a right when it submitted the name to the iho while it militarily occupied korea? what authority did the iho have (it consisted of around 20 countries at the time & korea was unrepresented)?


 * as far as i understand, iho, un, most media & reference works, & wikipedia are simply reflecting "whatever everyone else is calling it." if everyone started calling it something else, they'll simply follow (in other words, it wouldn't be a "violation" of a determination of what the name ought to be). apparently, rand mcnally, nat geographic, & a few other publications do not simply reflect what everyone else is doing, but have some process whereby they determined that east sea ought to be used together with sea of japan.


 * & if it's all a matter of reflecting what the actual popular name is, why can't a country or even a person propose that the popular name be changed? if enough others agree, then it becomes the new most widely used name, & the standard changes, as they often do. nothing wrong with that, is there? each country & publication can decide if they buy korea's argument; the reason this topic is in wikipedia is that some major publications have started changing, & if enough others do, then we'll have a new standard, if not, we won't. indeed, korea's trying to have a vote, & almost got a vote circulated at the iho until japan objected. they wouldn't be opposed to new proposals from other countries. if, for example, mexico suggested korea-japan sea, & other countries agreed, i'm betting korea wouldn't object. Appleby


 * In terms of the Laws of Logic, yes the Koreans can try to gain support for "East Sea" using various methods, including aggressive e-mail campaigns. That is irrelevant.  But they CANNOT use their historical data to conclude that "East Sea" is an appropriate name... not logically.--Endroit 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry for the rambling, despite the title of this subsection, but just some thoughts that, obviously, don't belong in the article, but i think are interesting if you want to discuss it. Appleby 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As per your request, I shall answer all 4 items in this section. However, it will take a few days, since I've got other things to do, and am doing this on my spare time.--Endroit 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate 2
Thank you Masterhatch. "Logical Fallacy" it is. Can I list my original suggestion into the "Argument" section, with the title change now? Or should I add a one-sentence Korean rebuttal as Appleby suggests? I truly fail to understand the Korean perspective, and can only come up with the following sentence at the very end.... "The Koreans, however, don't find any fallacy in the way they draw their own conclusions." With all the revisions included here is "candidate 2"....

Logical Fallacy

"In the last 4 years, Korea has been using some flawed logic in claiming that "East Sea" is a better name than "Sea of Japan." In particular, they have been relying on some data which conclude that:  "The number of old maps using 'Sea of Japan' is less in numbers than those using 'Sea of Korea, East Sea & variants'".

However upon close examination of these Korean data, one finds instead that the number of maps using "East Sea" is equal to or less than the number of maps using "Sea of Japan." (The number for "East Sea" would be less, if you count "Oriental Sea" separately.) The Koreans, however, don't find any fallacy in the way they draw their own conclusions.--Endroit 11:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * endroit, you haven't actually responded to any of my points. you've raised a separate issue, answered above, but you're simply ignoring my responses to your previous flawed reasoning. i don't have a good feeling about where this is going if you're not going to respond to my points in discussion. most importantly, you haven't answered the threshhold question (where's your citation? your opinion or "critique" belongs in the discussion page, or your own blog, but doesn't go in the wikipedia article, whether you're an american, japanese, or korean. the content you want to add has to be attributable to a recognized authoritative publication, or, since this article is about a properly recognized dispute, the disputing parties' own positions) Appleby 14:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) edited Appleby 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, I am merely trying to point out the problems for the way the Korean data are used, and will demand Wikipedia editors to point out the flaws somewhere in the Article, if you reject this inclusion. I am also thinking of third party mediation. I maintain that the Korean data show very low numbers of "East Sea" data to bolster their argument, and this point MUST be made clear somewhere. The Logical Fallacy I accuse them of is called Fallacies of Relevance or Ignoratio elenchi. For the reasons just stated, I refer only to the Korean data for citation. If you have any other questions, please number them & relist them, separately from your comments, as I have trouble trying to sort out your questions from you very long essays.--Endroit 08:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * endroit, wikipedia is not the place for your personal thesis, critique, or analysis. please refer to Verifiability and No Original Research. Please do ask for mediation, as I do reject the inclusion without appropriate citations, or at least your response to my 4 numbered points above. i don't really have new questions for you, but i think i explained why your assumptions are incorrect, which would make the conclusion invalid. Appleby 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, there is no need for mediation as long as we are reaching a concensus. I believe we already agree that the Korean historical data is not being used to prove that "East Sea" should be the standard. However, most people will misinterpret the Korean historical data for what it is. We can't just let the Korean historical data sit there unexplained, in an "East Sea" vs. "Sea of Japan" dispute page. And Wikipedia is not a medium for misinformation. Also, please give me some time to respond to all 4 points you have mentioned.--Endroit 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * i appreciate your taking the time, & i too will take the time to respond to you here. while a discussion can continue on this discussion page as long as you like for our own edification, please do not forget that anything you want to add to the article needs to be properly sourced per wikipedia policy. please read the policies linked above; basically, you need a citation to a reputable publication (not yourself) that says what you want to add (or, if it's japan's argument, it has to be identified as such). your own original research, critique, or analysis does not go in the article. thanks. Appleby 21:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimachine's Comments
1) "In reality, Japanese militant expansionism in the 19th century began with the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-1895. And the imperial Japanese government responsible for this expansionism came to power only in 1868, after a civil war, in what is called the Meiji Restoration."

Not true, buddy. Japan was planning long before to take over Korea and war with Russia. Even then, Korea was a hermit kingdom, and, therefore, its voice could not be heard in the international community --> Sea of Japan became the "standard" (who says?).


 * Wikimachine, please do me a favor. Go look up your history book and tell me exactly WHAT YEAR they (Japan) were planning "to take over Korea and war with Russia."--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

2) "...show that already during the 1800's, "Sea of Japan" has 49% vs. "Sea of Korea/Oriental Sea/East Sea combo" with 43%."

Dear Wikipedians, I think that we need to give history some considerations. Back in 11th~14th century AD, Koryo was renowned for its porcelains, which one of the Chinese philosophers praised as one of the ten small wonders of the world. That is why the Middle Eastern traders came to Koryo, and Koryo got its English name, Korea. My memory's quite vague, but I am pretty sure that Japan was not recognized as a legitimate government by the Chinese emperor (and it was chaotic anyway) at the time. So, the Arabian mappers named the body of water east of Korea as "Mer de Coree" (probably "East Sea" came around when the Arabian mappers found out what Koreans called the sea). And then, around late 14th century~early 15th century, the Koryo porcelains were prohibited due to some national reforms by the new dynasty, Choson, and the porcelain trade was over. Even though trade in Korea was discouraged by its government and the traders didn't bother to make visits, "Sea of Korea" and "East Sea" remained for a long time -until 18th century. Then, "Sea of Japan" came around. See? Depending on the time in history, one of the three was being used the most. Therefore, the statement above is irrelevant.


 * Wikimachine, yours may sound like a convincing argument for "Sea of Korea," but NOT for "East Sea." Please explain how the name "East Sea" was derived, historically.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

3) "most media & reference works, & wikipedia are simply reflecting "whatever everyone else is calling it."

Yes, but we can still point out the inevitable truth while still giving the information that is recognized by the international community.


 * As Appleby said, that's IF you cite your source.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

4) "Regarding Masterhatch's concern about "East Sea" not being a neutral name, I'd have to agree."

Personally, it would be better if the Korean government supports "Sea of Korea", but Korea's trying to be most neutral as it can be. Korean government wants Japan to be as agreeable as possible, and does not want to insult Japan by enforcing "Sea of Korea" over "Sea of Japan". And that is why, even though, throughout the recorded history, "Sea of Korea" (in different forms &languages: Mer de Coree, Mare de Coree, Eastern Sea of Korea, etc.) has been used the most, the Korean government is supporting "East Sea". It is the most neutral name because it is justified historically and geographically (sea that is east of the Korean peninsula, not the continent).

(Wikimachine 05:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC))


 * That's what I've been trying to say.... The arguments for "Sea of Korea" are much, much stronger than the arguments for "East Sea."  And trying to use the arguments for "Sea of Korea" instead, to support "East Sea," results in Logical Fallacy.--Endroit 23:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I visited Masterhatch's user page, and read that one of his major aims as a Wikipedian is to keep Korean POV out. So, Masterhatch is Korean POV POV. I seriously don't think that these are POV's, but truths. Korea's already a weak and small country, and, with people like Masterhatch, Korea will have no voice in the international community. (Wikimachine 06:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Well, if one is to go to my contributions one will notice that I havne't been contributing much lately to any article. I am getting ready to leave korea soon and have been busy doing other things more productive than play on wikipedia. Yes, my user page says that, but that is in reference to Korea pushing non-standard names on Wikipedia. As for your comment about Korea being a weak and small country: that's not my problem. And as for your comment about Korea not having a voice in the community: Wikipeida isn't here to promote Korea or any other country or idea. It is an encyclopaedia here to state the facts in a NPOV way. Putting East Sea in front of Japan is extremely POV. Sea of Japan is currently the standard international name and therefore for Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, we must use the standard international name (which also happens to be the most common name). I don't hate Korea. In fact, I love it here. but when i come here to wikipedia, i remove my personal feelings and aim to use what is correct. To be honest, when speaking to koreans or foreigners here in korea about that body of water, i always use EAst Sea and not Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 18:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. Don't use capital letters for headers. It is considered shouting. Masterhatch 19:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that you had wonderful experiences in Korea. :< I'm having wonderful experiences in the states. Well, the thing is that the name of the sea is something that we can't change, but we can point out the inevitable facts.

Allow me to say in the article the history of the name of the sea. For example, "Back in 11th~14th century AD, Koryo was renowned for its porcelains, which one of the Chinese philosophers praised as one of the ten small wonders of the world. That is why the Middle Eastern traders came to Koryo, and Koryo got its English name, Korea. At the time, Japan was not recognized as a legitimate government by the Chinese emperor (and it was chaotic anyway), and the trade was mainly with Korea. Therefore, the Arabian mappers named the body of water east of Korea as "Mer de Coree" (probably "East Sea" came around when the Arabian mappers found out what Koreans called the sea). And then, around late 14th century~early 15th century, the Koryo porcelains were prohibited due to some national reforms by the new dynasty, Choson, and the porcelain trade was over. Even though trade in Korea was discouraged by its government and the traders didn't bother to make visits, "Sea of Korea" and "East Sea" remained for a long time -until 18th century, when "Sea of Japan" became the international de facto in IHO."

(69.180.195.61 15:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
 * What was the point of repeating yourself? I read it the first time. Masterhatch 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical maps and studies,(SK) In 2002, the University of Southern California
I've read the website, and there was a decsription that 'The Sea of Korea Maps Digital Archive consists of 172 original old maps (1606-1895) which include the "Sea of Korea". 'and 'The Sea of Korea Maps Digital Archive consists of 172 original old maps, dating from 1606 to 1895, in English, French, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Latin, German and Russian. It was formed by digitizing the combination of two private collections. The David Lee Collection (of 132 maps) was assembled for the purpose of documenting the application of the term "Sea of Korea" (or similar terms) to identify the body of water between Japan and Korea'. As a result, most of the collection must include the phrase 'Sea of Korea'. So I can't understand why this collection is used to compare the number of maps which uses the word "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan". I think, this part should be deleted. Poo-T 03:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Masterhatch 04:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * can't argue with that. how about moving it to external links? Appleby 05:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now is the time to delete it, to clean up the whole Article. If you keep it, it will eventually bolster my "Logical Fallacy" argument (above).--Endroit 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical maps and studies,(SK) South Korea's Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries website
This link shows a page in Hangul, displaying "Error# 404 - Page not found." Please correct the link or delete it altogether.--Endroit 07:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox moved here from the main Sea of Japan page
The Infobox with the various names of Sea of Japan was moved here from the main Sea of Japan page.--Endroit 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please build a concensus here, whether to add the Russian name and/or the Chinese name into the infobox. If there is no discussion here, I shall add them in.--Endroit 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

um, how about, if there is no discussion, i shall NOT add them in. china & russia are not parties to the dispute, any more than england or brazil. & their local language names for this sea are even less relevant. Appleby 18:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, i step away for a few days from wikipedia and things go nuts. The info box belongs on the Sea of Japan page, not this one to be consistant with the rest of the bodies of water on Wikipedia. I see no real logical reason that the Chinese name should be included, but we definately need the russian name as Russia is a bordering country. Masterhatch 19:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

welcome back to the wild & crazy world of wikipedia. please see comments in sea of japan. what other bodies of water articles have infoboxes of local languages of bordering countries? i couldn't find any, but didn't look too hard.Appleby 19:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Masterhatch, I'm sorry for moving the Infobox. I have no preference either way or the other where the Infobox appears.  However, when people started to dispute material contained in the Infobox, I thought it must belong in the Dispute page.  Appleby, I found one example page using such an Infobox: East China Sea.  (However, it's a rare example).  Please build a concensus here, whether the Infobox should be moved back to the Sea of Japan page or not..--Endroit 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * HOnestly I don't care too much either way where the info box was, but to me it seems "logical" to have it on the main article, not the dispute article. But like i said, it doesn't make too much difference to me.Masterhatch 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I too think putting the infobox on the main article is "logical". The infobox lists "local names used in surrounding countries", not "suggested international standard" which this article addresses.  --Kusunose 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe Kusunose and Masterhatch have clarified the intent of the Infobox. Thank you very much. The Infobox merely states the names of the sea in various languages, for informative purposes. As long as these are not disputed, I will move the Infobox back to the main Sea of Japan page. I will wait a couple days to see if anybody has objections.

As to the question about whether we should follow the style of other Wikipedia entries.... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which provides NPOV (neutral point of view) information, which the Infobox clearly does. (These local language names are not disputed, and hence are NPOV.) East China Sea also has an Infobox, and shows the various language names, regardless of whether the English name is disputed or not. The same rule should apply to Yellow Sea, if anybody would want to add an Infobox there too.

Upon moving the Infobox back, there will be 3 changes from before: 1. The Chinese name will be omitted (while the Russian name will be included). 2. "Hanguk-hae" (한국해 / 韓國海) portion will be deleted from the South Korean name. 3. Link to "Hepburn romanization" will be corrected. --Endroit 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian name in the Infobox
Regarding the listing of the Russian name in the Infobox, please refer to the Dispute Article, under the section title "Historical developments of the dispute". Please read the paragraph starting with "In 1977"....

"In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled 'Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty'. The resolution recommended: 'when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice.'"

This means that whether or not Russia is party to the dispute, the Russian name could be considered by the United Nations, because they share the "given geographical feature"... which is Sea of Japan. That's why it is important to list the Russian name in the Infobox. After all, the dispute involves not just Japan and Korea, but the United Nations as well. I believe Masterhatch agrees with me on this point.--Endroit 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes i agree with you about the Russian name there. Masterhatch 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Hanguk-hae" (한국해) in the Infobox
Why is "Hanguk-hae" in the Infobox, as a South Korean name? (That's 한국해 in Hangul, 韓國海 in Hanja). It seems YAZASHI added it on April 23. Is "Hanguk-hae" some kind of a recent naming trend in South Korea? .... does not have much historical precedence nor is it very well documented. It seems to be used only as an "acceptable alternative" to "Donghae" (동해 / 東海). If the name is rarely used, it shouldn't belong in the Infobox. Please build concensus here.--Endroit 17:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The Sea of Korea (韓國海) is, as you say, an "acceptable alternative" to the East Sea as the intenational name for the sea. It has historical precedence (see Sea of Japan naming dispute) which East Sea does not have.  If the infobox is kept here, it can be kept as an alternative.  If the infobox is put in the main article, it should be removed as it's not a local name.  Of course, if someone confirms that using the term within Korea is common, put it in the infobox. --Kusunose 03:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Hanzi in the Infobox
By definition, Hanzi means "Chinese characters", and because Japan and Korea are both Hanzi-using nations, the Chinese name should be of interest to some Wikipedia audiences.

In general, the Chinese usually reciprocate the use of local Hanzi used by the Koreans or the Japanese. Although there is heavy tendency to ignore Hanzi in favor of Hangul (Korean) or Kana (Japanese); when translating into Chinese, Hanzi is always required.

For example please look at this (from the Chinese Wikipedia).

As you can see in the above map, the Hanzi for Seoul (서울) is 首尔, which is the simplified form of 首爾. China has basically accepted the South Korean request to use this Hanzi of their choice, for Seoul. See the article about this here:.

It is a big deal if China does NOT reciprocate the local Hanzi. Specifically, East Sea (동해) shows up on this same as 日本海 (meaning Sea of Japan).

As we know, there is a discrepancy in the use of Hanzi between the Korean (Hanja) and Japanese (Kanji) names for the Sea of Japan (East Sea), as shown in the Infobox. And for some people, the Chinese are the authority in the use of Hanzi throughout the world. Since Korea and Japan are Hanzi-using nations, the fact that China did not reciprocate the use of East Sea (东海 / 東海) is a very critical piece of information.

Furthermore, there is added historical significance to the use of Chinese names in the region. In Chinese Hanzi, East Sea (东海 / 東海) refers to East China Sea instead. Please look at this (from the Chinese Wikipedia). This use of Chinese names is very deeply rooted, and could have affected the naming of all the seas by the European explorers in the early 19th Century. Specifically, the Europeans may have resolved the name-conflict between the Chinese and the Koreans by standardizing the name "Sea of Japan".

Why should such important information be omitted by Wikipedia?

It suffices to merely put the Chinese name for the Sea of Japan, into the Infobox. Please build concensus here. If there is no further discussion, the Chinese name will NOT go into the Infobox.--Endroit 20:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Quality
I have followed this dispute--in other venues--for about two or three years now. While I actually have fairly strong feelings, that is not my concern now. This article, on my first, quick glance, appears relatively NPOV. My concern is that (probably because of the additions and changes made over time) this article is crap. It has absurd elements, such as the bulleted list of uses that merely repeats what is found in the previous paragraph. I don't have time to clean it up right now, but somebody should.

Also, I made a couple of grammatical corrections the other day, which someone who must be a non-native English speaker, reversed. If you will promise to check out the rules for conjugating English verbs, I will promise to try and do a better job of explaining my edits, which I guess I should have done the other day. Unschool 06:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh, how I wish I could take things back in the record here. I must apologize for my snippy tone in my comments.  While I know we must not necessarily be NPOV on discussion pages, we all benefit from being generally civil.  My apologies to whomever I have been so brusque. Unschool 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * relax, it's just british/canadian usage for group nouns. wiki policy is that both styles are acceptable, & the original author's style should generally be left alone. that said, since i'm an american english speaker, that annoys me too (as well as the punctuations outside of quotation marks), & i also had an unintentional back-&-forth with masterhatch about this. if masterhatch doesn't reverse you, your version is fine too. if you look back in history, i did some extensive editing of the article, but trying to negotiate with people with strong feelings makes for cautious editing. please feel free to delete that repetitive bullet list, improve the readability of the map counts paragraphs, & make other improvements. Appleby 06:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the insight. I didn't realize it was a Commonwealthism, but I did suspect that it had something to do with someone's perception of a whole country as a collective noun.  It's certainly not something to get into a tiff about.


 * And you are certainly right about this being a sensitive topic. I don't know if I want to get into it.Unschool 06:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Masterhatch, your revert was anticipated, as you can see here. I'm certainly not such a chauvinist that I need to get into a row over an issue like this; as Appleby pointed out, both are Wikiceptible, and I don't feel threatened by the "peculiarities" of my Commonwealth cousins :).  I have in fact, always criticised the behaviour of those who feel it necessary to make everything American.  In this particular case, I was simply ignorant of the Commonwealthism, and mistakenly thought the writing was a VANKer whose English was  bit on the weak side.  Just stay calm; I've seen your User page right now, you're obviously a very intelligent man and you need fear nothing from the minor edits of an insignificant Emile fan. Unschool 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I do find it strange, though, that the original author was in fact from the U.S. but wrote in the commonwealth style. Masterhatch 23:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Everytime I stumble over this article I wonder if there is a Korea strait naming dispute. -- Mkill 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There isn't one Cleric71 11:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a big problem with labelling this entry as it is
If it is a dispute, we should be exercising some neutrality in naming the dispute. The earlier proposal of "Dispute on the naming of the body of water surrounded by Korea and Japan (and Russia if you must)" appears ideal.

This is espeically so, as the other Korea-Japan dispute over the Liancourt Rocks uses the neutral 'Liancourt Rocks'. Cleric71 11:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this convention we follow, we need to mention "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" once, at the begining of the article. Although your wording may sound better, you have to reach concensus here and override the previous decision before you can change it.--Endroit 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, an it appears that a vote of 12 people was undertaken on the name. I am sure that you will agree that such a vote proves ABSOLUTELY nothing. The way the article is presented at the moment shows an overwhelming (and unnecessary) bias towards the Japanese view. Such a bias should be removed immediately. Cleric71 12:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * cleric71, this is a carefully watched & much contested article, & changes will need discussion & consensus. you saw the previous poll; if you disagree with the methodology or application or just want a new poll, you can get to work on this talk page, but it just won't happen without discussion first. Appleby 21:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleric, it may appear that there is a bias towards the Japanese point of view, but that is because "Sea of Japan" is the official and overwhelmingly most common name of that body of water. Only to Koreans does it seem bias. To the rest of the world, it is perfectly acceptable and NPOV. Masterhatch 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

& if japan & korea agreed to call it "east sea," then that would be perfectly acceptable & npov to the rest of the world, too. other countries don't care either about List of areas disputed by the United States and Canada, but that doesn't make the status quo the same as NPOV. cleric should present arguments here to build consensus, but the dispute is legitimate, the label matters, & rational discussion about it is welcome. Appleby 01:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

unschool, as i said above, the fact that the vast majority of people/countries don't care about this dispute doesn't make them pro-japanese. un, iho, & publications that use "sea of japan" generally do not support japan's position, they generally explicitly follow a policy of using the most widely used term, which could be "sea of qwerty" for all they care. korea & japan are the only parties to the dispute arguing what the name should be. Appleby 07:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your rv, Appleby, because what I had done more accurately reflected the situation. I am not Japanese, but I am a geographile, and I do care about this.  So by saying "Those who favor the term 'Sea of Japan' . . .", I am including myself and many others.  Now while I will not say that there are no non-Koreans on the other side, the fact is, the impetus behind the East Sea 'movement', if you will, has been provided entirely by actual Koreans.  The resistance, however, has not been led by the Japanese alone, but also by people around the world who do not favor capricious change to satisfy the chauvinism or hangups of particular groups (in a similar vein, I oppose the prudes who wish to change the name of 'Intercourse, PA', or the ostensible liberals who want to remove the historic crosses from city seals).  I do not oppose all change, but it has to be well-considered, and needs a consensus amongst people who will be affected.  I had no problem with Zuiderzee getting changed to Ijselmeer, because it was an internal Dutch matter.  But this is an international body of water, and the international community, as a whole, has not embraced this proposed change.  So those who favor the Sea of Japan should not be labled as "pro-Japanese".  Indeed, I am very sympathetic to the Koreans, historically speaking, for the incredible cruelties visited upon them by the Japanese during their decades of occupation.  I do not personally wish to be labeled as "pro-Japanese".  Nonetheless, I am one of those who favor using the name 'Sea of Japan'.  Do you follow me?
 * I want to change it back the way I had it, but await response. Unschool 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

what could be more logical than the impetus for change being driven by the aggrieved party? what makes this dispute significant, of course, is that major independent publications have recognized that there is a legitimate dispute.

i think the obvious solution is for you to provide citations to organizations, scholars (obviously, not counting wikipedia editors as such), publications that support japan's positions on the merits (as opposed to following the policy of reflecting current usage or local usage, which by definition are not pro-japan positions). then they would belong in the existing response of publishers section (with modified title), & i (or others) would then also add non-korean citations supporting korea's position. then, in the arguments section, both sides would be referred to in equivalent language, either by the main party country name, or a fuller description, although i prefer the former for brevity. sound reasonable? Appleby 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally don't see any problems with Unschool's revision, using the wording: "those favoring the term 'Sea of Japan'", except... it probably sounds very bad and painful to the Koreans.
 * First and foremost, I believe this whole thing IS a "Korea vs. the International Community" issue by definition. Ever since 1992, Korea began its campaign directed towards the UN, IHO, and map publishers throughout the world, TO CHANGE THE INTERNATIONAL NAME.  Naturally, Korea's complaint was directed more towards the International Community, rather than Japan.  Therefore, it IS accurate for Unschool to use these words: "those favoring the term 'Sea of Japan'", as there are those who are opposed to Korea's proposal (even outside of Japan).
 * The "Korea vs. Japan" aspect of the struggle is a secondary issue, as Japan explicitly opposes the move by the Koreans towards the International Community.
 * The fact that most of the International Community still prefer "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" or "Sea of Japan" (after 13 years already) shows that not much has changed since Korea started the "East Sea" campaign. Moreover, it shows implicit preference for the term "Sea of Japan" by the International Community.  Implicit, tacit, or passive ... as opposed to ... explicit, open, or active.  Korea still has more work to do towards the International Community, as there are still those (even outside of Japan) who are opposed to renaming the sea to "East Sea".  I agree with Unshool's version, as it is more accurate than the current version of the article.  So I wouldn't mind if Unschool made the change.  However, since this is a contentious and emotional issue for the Koreans, I wouldn't mind if he waited a bit longer to hear out the Korean explanation from the Korean point of view, and possibly find a few citations like Appleby says.
 * If anybody can find a few cartographers or university professors outside of Japan actively opposed to the term "East Sea", it may help ease the pain for the Koreans. I believe such expert opinion can come from geographers, anthropologists, psychologists, or politicians, for example.--Endroit 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appleby, your suggestion sounds reasonable, at least at first glance. But I have a question--about as philosophical as we can get about Wikiputes like this one:  Namely, must we automatically give equal credence to both sides of an argument, just because there are two sides?  To give an extreme example, let us say that some right-wing reactionary wacko accuses Hillary Clinton of being an agent of the PRC.  They cite circumstancial evidence, put together a case for their point of view, and manage to convince a couple of Wikipedians that they have a valid argument.  And then someone creates an article called "Hillary Clinton Communist Spy Controversy".  Now I'm not a big fan of Hillary's, but I would recognize the absurdity of such a position.  In such a scenario, I would not wish to be labled as "pro-Hillary" (because, quite honestly, I am not), but I would not mind being labeled as one of "those who deny the Hillary-PRC connection".  And I'm sure I would not be alone.


 * This is not to say that the Koreans are equally absurd&mdash;I'm not saying that. But they are in an extreme minority position&mdash;the international consensus is against them.  Of course they have the right to continue their attempts at persuasion.  But it does not mean that we have to recognize both sides as equally legitimate&mdash;as my interpretation of your proposal reads.  You say (if I'm reading you correctly) that we need to change the verbiage on both sides to either 'pro-Korean' and 'pro-Japanese', or else call the two sides 'those who favor Sea of Japan' and 'those who favor East Sea', implying that their positions are equally tenable.  Hey, maybe they are.  But at least part of the argument here is that, in fact, many of us&mdash;including those such as myself that enjoy debate for its own sake, regardless of the outcome&mdash;simply don't see the Korean position as being equally tenable.  Theirs is an argument worth making, but it does not start (in my humble opinion) with equal standing to the status quo.


 * I guess I can find non-Japanese sources supporting the "Japanese position", but then you say, you'll just find non-Korean sources supporting the Korean position, and then both sides will be seen as equal. But what if there are ten sources that favor "Sea of Japan" for every one that favors "East Sea"?  Do we still, (I ask this of the community as a whole), need to treat both sides as being equal in the debate?  In matters of logic, I will support the right of one person to stand against the whole world.  But there is no logical right or wrong in this matter; it is, by definition, a matter that needs to be decided by consensus&mdash;not only in Wikipedia, but on the world stage.  And in such a "debate", the numbers who favor each side bear a great deal of weight in the "argument".


 * Accordingly (and I thank Endroit for your thoughtful support), I again state my desire to change the wording to that which I placed in my edit of 3 Dec 2005 at 06:56. It is simply the most honest characterization of the parties to this debate.  Unschool 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

the fundamental difference between your example & this dispute is that this dispute is recognized as legitimate by reputable publishers, & thus has its own article. that legitimacy makes korea & japan, the two parties to the dispute, have equal standing in the dispute article. in the main article about the sea, the minority position is reflected accurately as a minority position. in the dispute page, i think the focus is properly on the active participants. & obviously, we do not cite to ourselves for the contents of articles, i will insist on citations to reputable publications. Appleby 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unschool, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what matters here is the Neutral point of view policy and the Cite sources policy. Please read these carefully before you formulate your revisions.
 * As to your question about equality, please read the section Undue weight in the Neutral point of view article above. It says:  "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."  This could go both ways, of course, so please beware.
 * Finally, once you formulate your revisions, you need to convince people here and reach concensus in this discussion.--Endroit 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Endroit, I think its obvious that I'm being careful; I've many times made comments about what I believe should be done without being so precipitous as to do so unilaterally. The one exception might be when I changed "Japanese groups" to "Those who favor 'Sea of Japan'", and, despite advancing arguments for my position, I have not (yet) reverted Appleby's revert.  Unschool 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appleby, you make a significant point that I must confess I hadn't thought of&mdash;namely, that this article is, after all, not the article about the body of water itself, but rather about the dispute. Frankly, I am embarassed not to have recognized the difference, and I thank you for pointing it out.  I sit corrected. Unschool 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY
I am sure that any reader of this article will agree that it is very BIASED toward the Japanese point of view. Just by looking at the name of the article, and the first reference to it in the article (including the fact that only "Sea of Japan" appears in bold) shows this.

Masterhatch suggests that only Koreans seem to see it as bias. BUT are Koreans an inferior people who do not deserve to be heard? Surely an information source such as Wikipedia should be adequately sensitive to both the Korean and Japanese perspectives (and PARTICULARLY so as the topic at hand is a DISPUTE about a name). As Appleby says, the only other interested party to this dispute are the Japanese. The Korean position is just as important as the Japanese point of view. The rest of the world don't really care.

Masterhatch, you continue with the argument that "Sea of Japan" is the 'official name' and that it is the name that is more commonly seen in maps. This is quite IRRELEVANT as you fail to address the historical circumstances surrounding how this all came to be.

The question is "SHOULD PAST POSSIBLE WRONGS STAY AS POSSIBLE WRONGS OR SHOULD THEY BE RIGHTED?"

What is important in an information source such as Wikipedia, for it to maintain its credibility, is to maintain some FAIRNESS. I am not asking for the name "Sea of Japan" to be dropped altogether from the article - far from it. In fact I am only proposing that two names ("East Sea" and "Sea of Japan") be used simultaneously and given at least EQUAL IMPORTANCE, and without the level of hierarchy currently seen in the article. I am sure that most people will agree that this is appropriate as the article in question is a DISPUTE about a name.

'''THE LABEL FOR SUCH A DISPUTE SHOULD NOT PROMOTE A PARTICULAR POSITION OR IMPLICITLY SUGGEST A SOLUTION TO IT. '''

On one final matter - as I have noted above, putting this matter to a vote is absolutely MEANINGLESS. It is insignificant whether 8 people voted in favour of using "Sea of Japan" three months ago. Knowledge is NOT something that is built upon by consensus. It is not a matter to be put to vote. Knowledge is knowledge. It should be objective, fair and neutral. '''THIS ARTICLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM, I AM SORRY TO SAY, IS FAR FROM FULFILLING THESE REQUIREMENTS. '''

As long as this article stays the way that it is, it will remain a very sub-standard article. Cleric71 08:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an inapropriate treatment of the subject in Wikipedia actually. See Neutral point of view:


 * We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. .... Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views . To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
 * Hermeneus (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Hermeneus, you are making a statement that the Korean perspective is a minority view. Being one of two perspectives on the issue (with no one perspective being necessarily or obviously superior to the other), it HARDLY QUALIFIES AS A MINORITY VIEW.

For those pushing the line that it is a minority perspective as the Japanese perspective has 'official status', you will no doubt acknowledge that it is only a consequence of unfortunate historical circumstances. Please read my quote above about "Should possible wrongs stay as possible wrongs or should they be righted?"

As Hermeneus' quote states, "(i)f we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should represent their competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties". As the representation among experts on the subject is arguable (and has been debated at length here), I will not attempt to make a claim on that. However, on the point about concerned parties, I could put forward an argument that there are two Koreas to one Japan (only to illustrate the fact that the Korean perspective is NOT a minority vewi).

Hermeneus, please also address my other NUMEROUS points.'''

Cleric71 10:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear User Cleric71, please calm down. Look at it this way: The discussion you are trying to start has been fought here at least since February 12, 2003, when this article was created, or rather moved out of Sea of Japan. After these almost three years of discussions and edits, a consensus was reached. Now you come in screaming and want everything changed IMMEDIATELY. Do you really think this will work? I would suggest you calm down, read the arguments of the other side, check the history, have a good nights sleep over it, and if you still have suggestions for improvement after that we can talk about it. -- Mkill 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mkill - consensus obviously has not been reached because there are many like me who feel that the article is entirely inappropriate. I am sure that I am not the only person with this type of reaction. You will agree that this matter is a contentious one, and that is why CONSENSUS WILL NEVER BE REACHED

And as I have noted above, this is not something to be put to consensus. I guess to correct this article, what you are saying is all is need to do is round up enough pro-Korean Wikipedians so that a "consensus" will be reached the other way. Do you feel that this is the way to go about this????Cleric71 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Should I take this lack of response as agreement with my points???Cleric71 02:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If Cleric71 is still intent on wreaking havoc on the Wikipedia system, I am against it, and there is nothing more to talk about.
 * However, if Cleric71 has any constructive suggestions regarding the content material, and is willing to work within the Wikipedia system, I would like to hear them. Let me make it clear first that I disagree with all of Cleric71's suggestions so far, regarding any changing of titles, page locations, and naming conventions already agreed upon.  Please make new suggestions regarding the content material in a more civil manner.  Thank you.--Endroit 04:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let it be known to Endroit that I have not done any havoc wrecking on the Wikipedia system at all. I have taken extreme care to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. From the post of Endroit, it appears that such controversial topics as naming of the dispute is not something that is open even for discussion.


 * I stand by all my above comments - people on this board continue to state that the naming convention has been agreed upon. It obviously isn't, as there continue to be people like me who oppose it. There will probably never be agreement. After all, the topic at hand is a dispute!


 * People contributing to this board need to exercise some openness, and at least allow discussion of the name. Until when will the argument be pushed that - 8 people voted 3 months ago, we have an agreement, and therefore we don't discuss this any further?


 * I have no material disagreement with the content. The glaring problem is the naming.Cleric71 07:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have merely stated my opinion here, as you have yours. As other people add their comments here, a concensus is built.  You have to wait a few days for the others to respond (if they care to respond to you here).  If people believe that you are seriously trying to build a concensus here, and they have an opinion, they should place their comment here as well.--Endroit 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote that you are referring to was not a vote on the name of the article. The vote was on the order of the naming within the articles. The name of the article has never been a problem because of the MoS. The MoS is very clear that the most common English name be used on articles and articles aren't meant to have two names. You can't have an article with two names. That just doesn't work. That is why there are redirects! Now, the official and most common name of that body of water is Sea of Japan in the English language (and international community). East Sea is not given equal weight to Sea of Japan in the international community. In fact, it is given no weight except by Korea and a small handfull of publishers outside of Korea. All of the official govenment bodies that have anything to do with naming of geographical features use Sea of Japan. Wikipedia refects this and takes it a step further by adding (East Sea) after Sea of Japan in articles. Wikipedia doesn't have to do this as East Sea is not and official name, but it does this because of a consensus that was reached (take note of the vote you keep referring to) and because there are groups that are disputing the name. If East Sea is ever given official status then Wikipedia will recognise that. Until then, Sea of Japan is the name that is used on this online encyclopaedia. That is simply common sense as Wikipedia is not here to promote the name East Sea over Sea of Japan; in fact, wikipedia isn't here to promote anything at all. Most of the world doesn't care about this petty dispute. MOst of the world uses Sea of Japan not because they like Japan better than Korea but because Sea of Japan is the official name and has been the most common name in international contexts since the beginning of European exploration into the area. East Sea has been around for a very, very short time. Oriental, Eastern, and Korean Sea have been around a lot longer and have a greater precidence than East Sea. Masterhatch 08:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Masterhatch's argument can be summarised thus:

1. The name of the article has never been a problem

2. We cannot have two names for articles

3. More maps use the Japanese-preferred name

4. Wikipedia has been making a major concession by including the expression East Sea in parentheses

5. Wikipedia is not promoting one name by using the Japanese-preferred name

6. It is the official name that matters

These are my arguments on these points:

1. The name of the article is a problem as people like me have a significant objection to it
 * I stand corrected. People have had a problem with the name before but once cooler heads prevailed and they actually read the MoS, they realised that the most common English name is the name that is to be used for articles. Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The MoS is quite inconsequential. The fact remains that many people have a problem with the name.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Inconsequential? The MoS holds a standard to follow. Without it, Wikipedia would be a mess. Many people have a problem with it? You are right, but those "many" people are a small minority compared to the people that either just don't care either way or prefer Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, inconsequential. If you read the Manual of Style carefully, you will see that the guidelines there are meant to be "elastic" and adapted as appropriate. When that reference is being made, it is clearly referring to a situation such as ours. The MOS is not set in stone, and probably supports my line of argument more than yours.Cleric71 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As to your remark about the pro-"East Sea" supporters being a minority, I beg to differ. You agree that there are a group of people who don't care one way or the other. That takes out the international community from the equation. We are then left with two parties - the Koreans and the Japanese. If you are taking the line that the Japanese have a larger population than the Koreans (making an assumption that all Japanese prefer the Japanese-preferred name and that all Koreans prefer the name "East Sea"), well I guess the Korean perspective is a minority one. But, this is a very simplistic, ignorant and insensitive way of assessing the dispute. A more appropriate assessment will show that both perspectives are at least significant (in a non-minoirty sense). Cleric71 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

2. There is no reason why we cannot have two names (Wikipedia allows two names to be put in the heading). Conventions are conventions only.
 * Show me an article with two names that is the same case as this one. Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of establishing whether there is another article showing two names. Fact is that there is no reason why we cannot have two names.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a very good reason why we can't have two names: There is only one offical name for that body of water, not two. If wikipedia had two names, wikipeida would be inaccurate. Masterhatch 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a very dangerous innuendo in your post - a suggestion is being made that the Japanese preferred name is the accurate one. Cleric71 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep calling it the Japanese preferred name when in reality is the internationally preferred name as well? That is awfully narrow-minded of you. Masterhatch 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I merely stated that "Sea of Japan" is the Japanese preferred name. There is nothing wrong with that statement. I also recall that you agreed that the international community is essentially out of the picture as a non-interested party to this dispute. Do you now have a shift in argument? If so, what are your reasons for such a shift? Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

3. I agree. But that is hardly the point, as it is due to past wrongs. As the proponents of the Japanese-preferred name do not agree, perhaps this should be rephrased in a fairer manner as "past possible wrongs".
 * Past wrongs? to me it sounds like you are out on a vendetta and taht is all you care about. Past wrongs didn't eliminate East Sea from the world maps and past wrongs didnt' start the use of Sea of Japan. Sea of japan was the most common name world-wide before japanese imperialism. East Sea was never a common name on maps in the international commmunity.


 * Just because you do not agree with my point about past wrongs does not justify an assumption that I am "out on a vendetta". You are simply repeating the Japanese preferred argument here. You will recall that in my post, I at least acknowledged the possibility that the Japanese do not agree with this position. If I was really "out on a vendetta", I would obviously not be promoting the joint use of the two names. I would be promoting one over the other.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I know that Japan did horrible things to Korea (and other countries), Sea of Japan was the most common name used before the rise of Japanese imperialism. Besides, it was westerners who named it Sea of japan, not the Japanese. Masterhatch 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are repeating the Japanese-preferred argument here. The pro-"East Sea" argument is contrary to this, as you will no doubt know. I accept that you accept the Japanese-preferred argument. It is just a problem that that is not the only signficant argument - please see that I am at least trying to acknowledge that there is another argument here.Cleric71 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am repeating fact. Masterhatch 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as you go along this line, I don't see any point in engaging in any further discussion with you. You are saying that one side of the argument is fact, and that therefore, there is essentially no dispute. If that is the case, is there any point in labelling this article a dispute at all? Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia has been promoting the Japanese-preferred name by using it solely for the title, and only giving subsidiary consideration to "East Sea".
 * Sea of Japan may be the Japanese preferred name, but it also the international preferred name. East Sea has no significance outside of Korea and never has. It is the Korean hatred of the Japanese that is pushing for this name change and nothing else. You don't see the Koreans trying ot change East China Sea to South Sea. Why? because the Koreans don't ahve a problem with the Chinese. Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It remains that the Japanese preferred name is being promoted. In any case, the international community do not care what name is used. It could be the Sea of ZOWEJGWL for all they care. You also make some assumptions that are not supported with any evidence here - the part about the Korean hatred for Japanese.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I lived in Korea for almost 4 years and I know that the hatred of the Japanese is a very real thing. Secondly, using "Sea of Japan" does not promote the Japanese case at all. By using Sea of Japan, we are simply using the most common and official name of the body of water. Nothing more. Masterhatch 19:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no dispute with you about the fact that some (but not all) Koreans have a hatred toward the Japanese. My point of contention is the lack of proof re your statement that this "hatred" is the only motivation for pushing the name change. Frankly I do not think that this is the case. In any case, the original point of my post was that the Japanese preferred name is being promoted by the article.Cleric71 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is not promoting the, as you call it, the "Japanese preferred name". It is reflecting the name used by the international community. What part of that don't you understand? Masterhatch 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By labelling the name of the dispute as "Sea of Japan naming dispute" it is quite clear that the Japanese preferred name is given priority here. I would not have this evaluation if the name was East Sea/ Sea of Japan or Sea of Japan/East Sea. I don't think I need to explain that my suggestions have some sensitivity and fairness to both sides of the argument. Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia is promoting one name by using the Japanese-preferred name singly in the title, and with the greater emphasis in the body.
 * It's not my fault that the international community doesn't recogonise East Sea.Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I take it then that you agree that the Japanese preferred name is being promoted here? You continue with the line that the international community is a major interested party to this dispute. The major parties to the dispute are the Koreas and Japan.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only parties involved in the dispute are the Japanese and the Koreans. Funny thing is, since this is the English section of Wikipedia, we use the English name. East Sea is not an English name for that body of water. Sea of Japan is. Masterhatch 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are making statements in a manner that is very "matter of fact". X is Y, Y is Z. I disagree with you, and the very reason that we are having this discussion is the fact that we have a dispute. Your statements actually suggest that we have no dispute at all. I am lost for words. Cleric71 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is pretty "matter of fact", don't you think? Sea of Japan is used by the English and international community and has been for hundreds of years. East Sea has never been in greater international use than Sea of Japan. What is your point? Masterhatch 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you dragging the international community back into this when you agreed that they are not an interested party? See my post for point number 2. As I have noted several times previously, the itnernational community don't care what the name of the sea is. Also, as I have noted several times previosuly, I don't dispute the fact that Sea of Japan is being used more frequently than East Sea (you will recall that this is quite insignificant).Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

6. The official name arose due to "past possible wrongs", thereby removing its signficance.
 * What Japan did to Korea has nothing to do with the name of the body of water. See point number three.Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that why Korea was unrepresentated at 'that' IHO meetingCleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Korea didn't exist as a nation at "that" IHO meeting; it was a colony of Japan. You can't play the "what if" game. you can't say "If Korea was its own nation, it would have presented East Sea to the IHO and things might have been different, so therefore we have to give East Sea greater weight." Masterhatch 19:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that you have actually supported my argument with your post above.Cleric71 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't support or oppose anything. I am merely stating facts. I am not here to argue with you or to argue for or against either name. Wikipedia isn't here to argue for or against either name either. Masterhatch 08:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By stating the fact that Korea was a colony of Japan at the time of that meeting, you agree that Japan caused Korea's non-representation at that meeting.Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am quite frankly shocked with your final quote. You are again implying that the topic of the label for this dispute is not an issue at all. As long as you hold this view, I see no point in continuing this discussion. You say that there is nothing to discuss, and I say that there is. As long as you continue to hold this position, we will get nowhere. It is very disappointing that you refuse even to consider that this is an issue.


 * For a constructive solution to this problem I suggest dispute resolution. The one I like best is the use of a group of advocates. Cleric71 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to share Endroit's view that the heading is not something that can or will be changed. I am lost for words at the fact that something so contentious is being promoted as being a "non-issue". Of course it is an issue - a very, very significant one at that. Perhaps the first step in our discussion is to ask the question: "Is the heading for the article an issue or not?" Cleric71 08:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's look at it logicially. There is only one group of people challenging the name: the Koreans. And they can't even agree on a name. The international community calls it "Sea of Japan". It is a minority group of people that are trying to change the name and thus far are unsuccessfull and until they are successfull, the name is Sea of Japan. So, in the title, we have the official name and that fact that there is a dispute. East Sea is used on about 3% of world maps. That hardly gives it enough weight to be included in the title, don't you think? If it was a 60/40 split, it would be totally differnt, but it's not. East Sea is insignificant and we here on Wikipedia aren't out to give it significance. Is it an issue? Well, the international community doesn't seem to think so. Why should Wikipedia? Masterhatch 09:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are simply repeating your old arguments here which I have refuted. I think it is now time to start that discussion about whether the name of this dispute is an issue or not. The fact that Masterhatch and I are having our 'discussion' probably proves that it is. So if no one has any objections, I will start that discussion shortly.Cleric71 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleric71, it seems like you are the one repeating your old arguments, about changing the title. Why bother to start another discussion?  We've already heard your position.  And Masterhatch and I oppose this position of yours.  But apparently, the title cannot be changed anyways.  Nevertheless, you should wait a few more days, to see if anybody agrees with you.  You have to BE PATIENT.  Are you really willing to work within the Wikipedia system to try to build a concensus here?--Endroit 10:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Endroit, the title can be changed. I tried it yesterday. There is no problem with changing the title. The reason that I am proposing to start another discussion is because the location of this one is not very eye-catching. Also, I'd like to think about my arguments over the next couple of days, and present it in a better way. I realise that you and Masterhatch oppose my view, but don't you see that is just the point - we have a disagreement, a non-consensus, and therefore, we have an ISSUE.Cleric71 10:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know. Apparently you broke the rules yesterday, when you moved the pages without concensus.  Please follow the rules this time.  Thank you.--Endroit 10:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not break the rules. I only did three edits, per the Wikipedia three edit rule. You can be rest assured that I have been and will continue to follow the rules. Cleric71 10:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chime in here. Cleric, as I explained to you before, moves are not "edits". Moves are much destructive, since non-admins often have to fix a bunch of double redirects when they revert a move. The 3 revert rule is for edits. It does not cover moves. A move is not an edit. It's a page move. Honestly, you should get a consensus before doing ANY controversial moves and you had to know this would be controversial since we have an entire article on the Sea of Japan naming dispute. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Woohookitty, please see my post below on your post.Cleric71 07:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For your information, see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's not a rule but a guideline though. --Kusunose 12:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem where the article claims that:

"The dispute does not extend to each other's local language names. South Koreans generally do not object to Japanese maps calling the sea 日本海 (which translates as Japan Sea), and Japanese do not object to Korean maps calling it 동해 (which translates as East Sea)."

It needs to be substantiated. Unless someone actually has reliable statistical data, this portion of the article should be deleted, because it is not based on anything substantial. The article claims something and there is no backup. Unless it is changed to something like: "Some people claim that the dispute does not..." but I think that's just silly way to go about this.


 * I think the purpose of that paragraph is to let the reader know that the dispute is about the international (or English) name and not about local names. The Koreans are not trying to get the Japanese to change what they call that body of water in the Japanese language and likewise the Japanese aren't tyring to change what the Koreans call it in the Korean language. The dispute is entirely about the International name and not local names and that paragraph--i feel anyway-- is needed so that the reader knows this. Besides "generally" is better wording than "some people". Masterhatch 06:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly
I'm not involved in this but I really think you guys need to look at dispute resolution because there seems to be a big gap here. Just a friendly suggestion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we are fine for the moment. Right now, everybody is having a civilized exchange of opinions on the talk page, and that's what the talk page is for. -- Mkill 14:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that will be where we eventually have to go Cleric71 07:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

& cut the guy some slack, yes he tried to be bold & moved once, but now he's participating in discussion, without having violated any rules. everyone, including cleric, just chill. & it might help for all newcomers to peruse the archives. Appleby 16:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I already did, which is why my original indefinite ban of him got shortened to a day and then less than half a day. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Woohookitty, I honestly cannot believe that you even considered banning me. I quite clearly had no malicious intent. As I told you before, I took care to abide by the Three Edit Rule as I understood it. My "redirects" were a consequence of the fact that I tried to "rename" the page, which as far as I was concerned was an "edit" (everyone will know that in Wikipedia, you cannot rename a page without redirecting it). Don't you think that a more appropriate thing to do in such a situation is to give me a message? You will recall that when you gave me a message about my redirects (in the true sense of the word), I ceased doing them. The fact is that I took "redirects" and "renaming" to be separate things.Cleric71 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also consider the fact that I have made numerous edits to other articles, and that I have never even been close to being banned.Cleric71 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not buying that. You would've been blocked for a short time anyway. I'm not explaining this again. We don't have pardons here. I stand by my decision. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said, and maintain that I should not have been banned. It is disappointing that a Wikipedia administrator took such an extreme action on someone who acted responsibly. I guess we will just have to reluctantly agree to disagree here.Cleric71 08:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

in response to the discussion above: cleric, are there any examples of other wikipedia articles that have two disputed names in the article title? do any other encyclopedias title this subject with both names? unless you can find some examples, i think that would be a hard sell.


 * I fail to see the point of finding another article title with two disputed names. You and others pushing this line of thought are saying that we need some precedent. Why is precedent so important? Do we always need to play "follow the leader". Are we scared of being the leader ourselves? Why can't we be bold and actually set precedent? I recall that as Wikipedians we are asked to be bold. Cleric71 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

on the other hand, i would like to see both "sea of japan" & "east sea" bolded at first mention, & i agree that in the dispute article (not the main article), the first mention should be a something like "sea bordered by north korea, south korea, russia, & japan" to avoid assuming the conclusion. & finally, as unschool pointed out, can we eliminate the repetition in the introductory sentence & the bullet list immediately thereafter? Appleby 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Appleby that the intoductory sentence could use some work and does need changing. Masterhatch 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Cleric71's revision for the first sentence of the "dispute article" wasn't bad at all, except he forgot to mention Russia. But then, if we include Russia in the first sentence, we would have to rephrase the second sentence also....--Endroit 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

i did as described above, listing the bordering countries clockwise, & moved the sentences around to be more logical to me, & tried to streamline the wording. Appleby 21:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Appleby, for your cleanup efforts. It's looking much better now (though I still disagree with you on the 'Japanese groups' thing (see my diatribe above). Unschool 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Appleby did a fine job in this revision (21:32, 4 December 2005 version). Here are a few points that I've noticed:
 * 1) An exception was made to our rule by not mentioning "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in the beginning, thus making this a more NPOV article about the dispute (as suggested by Cleric71).
 * 2) The text was streamlined, removing redundant material, and thus making it easier to read (as suggested by Unschool).
 * 3) The International Community response has its own paragraph, where it talks about the UN & the IHO responses. This seems to show more clearly that the International Community represents the 3rd party in this dispute.
 * 4) The positions of North & South Korea were clarified, that the North supports the South.
 * 5) The statement that it is sometimes called "Japan Sea" by the Japanese was omitted, which seems OK to me because it means the same thing as "Sea of Japan".
 * 6) The statement that Sea of Japan "is currently the most widely used name" was introduced, incorporating some of our discussion here.
 * 7) A link to the 1990s was introduced, which is interesting, and helpful in showing the times when this dispute was a hot issue.--Endroit 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
All interested parties to this discussion: Please refer to the discussion between Cleric71 and Masterhatch in the section "WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS ARTICLER IMMEDIATELY" (particularly the one on the six points originally posted by Masterhatch and responded to by Cleric71). We have quite clearly hit a brick wall. Masterhatch continues to hold the position that the label of the article is not up for discussion at all. I don't see any point in individually talking to Masterhatch, as we have some fundamental differences on the matter (i.e. we have an issue vs. we don't have an issue, the Japanese-preferred argument is fact vs. there is another significant argument etc. etc.)

Please post your comments, and perhaps we may need to go to Dispute Resolution later on. Cleric71 09:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleric71, what is it that you are trying to do? If you are putting forward some petty arguments against any individual for proving your personal point, that's not very constructive for Wikipedia, and I don't think anybody would be interested.  Moreover, I think you should be careful not to make any personal attacks against an individual, as we have strict rules against that here at Wikipedia.
 * Now if you are trying to change something here at Wikipedia, that's a different story. What is it that you are trying to accomplish here, Cleric71?  Please redefine your intent in you own words, so that we can all understand what you are saying.  You have stated that you wanted to change the title of the articles Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute.  Is that it?  If that's the case, I have already said explicitly that I'm against it also.  It seems that you have been failing to reach a concensus here in this discussion.  I haven't heard anybody support your position regarding the changing of the titles.--Endroit 09:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am quite surprised by your post. If anyone has been personally attacked, it is me. Masterhatch has said that I have a "vendetta", among other things. I never made any such accusations against anyone. Cleric71 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not failing to reach a consensus here. You appear to suggest that all it takes to reach a consensus is to round up enough supporters for a position. That hardly proves anything.Cleric71 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not see the need to re-elaborate what I have been trying to quite obviously change in Wikipedia. I am not sure that you Endroit have been reading all the posts. For those who have not had the time to read all the posts, I will repeat it: the label for the article should be changed from "Sea of Japan naming dispute" to something more appropriate such as "Sea of Japan/ East Sea naming dispute" or "East Sea/ Sea of Japan naming dispute" or "Dispute concerning the name for the body of water bordered by the Koreas, Japan and Russia".


 * Some elements of this change include the following issues:


 * (1) we have an issue on the label vs. we don't have an issue on the label; and
 * (2) the Japanese preferred argument is fact vs. there are two arguments to this dispute.Cleric71 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I encourage everyone to participate here - so far we only have firm comments from Masterhatch and Endroit.Cleric71 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

actually, i may have misunderstood cleric before. i was opposed to including both names in the main article, but naming the dispute article is something else. let's make it clear that the main article is appropriately titled as simply "sea of japan," & is not up to further discussion. but there is no reason that both names cannot be included in the dispute article title.

cleric, may i suggest that the best way to convince others of your position would be that you find other publications that identify the dispute in a different way. if scholarly articles or encyclopedias or international media refer to this dispute in a differnt way, that's how wikipedians are convinced. i don't think there's much point in arguing korea or japan's position here, because our opinions don't matter. it's all a matter of citations, basically. Appleby 15:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appleby, I'm only going to respond to you today (I just don't have the time to spend hours on this board). You are the only one on this board demonstrating any openness on the issue. First of all, I applaud your openness and willingness to consider a different position. On your suggestion, my comment is - we can always set the precedent here. This is particularly appropriate as there is no official name for the dispute per se. Leaving aside the naming issue for the actual body of water, there is no real established name for the dispute. I have not done this but any attempts to search for an official name for the dispute is likely to result in no official or widely accepted names.Cleric71 09:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Very well said Appleby. I agree 100% with what you just said. Masterhatch 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masterhatch and Appleby. We don't have an issue. There is only one user in this thread who has hit a wall, and that is Cleric71. Dear Cleric71, please understand that the article in the current form is not "Japan-sided", as you perceive it. Your arguments so far did not convince other people here. Please stop, or find new arguments to strenghten your position.
 * As far as I see it, I can exactly copy all arguments you brought up to rename the Baltic Sea to East Sea. It is known under this name in Danish (Østersøen), Dutch (Oostzee), German (Ostsee), Norwegian (Østersjøen), and Swedish (Östersjön). You only have one language to back up your claim, I have FIVE. For me, as a German, if any body of water on this planet should be called East Sea in English, it is the Baltic Sea. So pardon me if I don't care about your agenda. -- Mkill 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

mkill, you should relax, too :-). the international name of this sea is legitimately disputed. you can't copy to the Baltic Sea article the fact that many reputable publications are using "East Sea" as the alternative or secondary international name. nobody expects you to care, but please have the courtesy to learn about the issue before pronouncing a judgment, otherwise, it'll just be troll-bait. thanks. & cleric, don't be discouraged if you believe the dispute article name should be changed, we just need more sources & less attitude. Appleby 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're right, I'll shut up :) -- Mkill 00:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Final remark
I know I said that I wouldn't post anything else, but I'm just going to post one last comment. I think that my comments and arguments were quite logical and persuasive. I also think that I did a pretty good job at refuting the arguments made by the others on the board, and in presenting some fresh perspectives that were "screaming out to be told". I still firmly believe that logically, my arguments hold stronger than the others on the board.

Alas, appeal to logic, and to good strong argument, is not what matters on this board. What matters is getting agreement from others on the board. As the others on this board were mostly favouring the other argument, I am resigned to the fact that no matter how convincing my argument was, it simply did not matter.

You won't be seeing me on this board anymore. I've got to get on with my thesis and job.

Farewell

Cleric71 10:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

cleric, i don't need to dance around the obvious fact that i'm a supporter of korea's position. but you have to choose your battles & your battlefields. this is wikipedia, & it follows its own rules & policies, which is to reflect the most common names, & collect consensus facts from reputable publications. this is not the place for setting standards or breaking new ground.

i understand your frustration, because despite being convinced of having a valid or even superior argument, everyone else seems to be reflecting what everyone else does, begging the question & resulting in circular logic when, as must happen sometimes, changes are needed. it is especially frustrating when even the un or iho, which people cite as "standard-setting" bodies, actually just collect the existing common names, not determine what the correct names ought to be, nor have any regulatory or legal authority in this matter.

but that's the nature of any change. the fact is that many independent publications, & most of the most reputable ones (who are reputable because they investigate & evaluate disputes & set standards), have judged korea's position valid to the extent that "east sea" is now the secondary label. a change in the "standard" happens with these standard-setting publishers. once there's a critical mass of these publishers, wikipedia, iho, un, & others will simply follow, because that's what they do.

i don't mean to get too philosophical or lecture to you, but it all comes down to the right time, place, & manner, even if you have the valid arguments. Appleby 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said. Funny thing is, we were both typing at the same time and you saved first, so i got the edit conflict. Anyways, you said it better than i was going to. I simply wrote a short paragraph about how Wikipdia isn't a medium for change referring to the "no original research" policy. Masterhatch 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)