User:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea

Now that I have got an idea of the major points in the case, I have decided it is a good time to work through each of the issues together. Please remember to assume good faith in the other editors and try to discuss the issue not past behaviours etc. Please be patient as this could take some time as we work through the issues in a very minor step way. Please put this page on watch for changes so as we can move as quickly as possible. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's Comment
Not really, but I don't see the harm, as long as searches for East Sea directs readers to the primary, most likely topic. The other uses (besides as an alternate English name for the Sea of Japan) are not recognized by any general English dictionaries, encyclopedias, or mapmakers. Wikipedia could be inclusive of even extremely rare uses, as long as we don't mislead readers about the actual primary use and the rarity of the other uses.

However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less a multilingual dictionary, so mere translations of local language names don't belong here. We should only rely on reputable English sources to decide what goes into the disambiguation page list. Appleby 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu's Comment
My thoughts are multifold:


 * 1) Regardless of whether the other sources are NPOV, one of Wikipedia's pillars is its NPOVness, and therefore:
 * 2) Wikipedia needs to avoid ethnocentrism, and therefore:
 * 3) East Sea should not redirect to Sea of Japan, but should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation).  Throughout the Talk:Sea of Japan debate, I believe I've already shown that a large portion of the world's population, when given the description "East Sea" (in English) will not think of the Sea of Japan but will think of either East China Sea, South China Sea, or Bay of Bengal.  Indeed, it is my contention (but not a determinative point) that more people in the world associate "East Sea" with East China Sea than with Sea of Japan.  Where there is ambiguity, Wikipedia should not pretend that an ambiguity doesn't exist, and here the ambiguity is plain.
 * 4) Further, even if arguendo Appleby is correct that the English language sources are unanimous that East Sea refers to Sea of Japan (a point that I do not concede at all, particularly in light of all the evidence you're going to find when conducting a news.google.com search), Wikipedia should still not, as a matter of policy, redirect East Sea to Sea of Japan.  Doing so is an implicit endorsement of the Korean official argument that because the name of the sea is unambiguous, that the proper name of the sea is East Sea and not Sea of Japan.  Worse, it is an implicit rejection of the legitimacy of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Sri Lankan users of their common usage of "East Sea" to refer to the sea that is east of their home state -- effectively, stating to them that their use of "East Sea" is ethnocentric while using "East Sea" for "Sea of Japan" is not.

Wikipedia is a wiki that is supposed to be worldwide in its perspective, and in this case, "East Sea" is a name that is used by various people across the world in a way to refer to a sea that is east of them. The fact that the Korean government and populace magnified the use of "East Sea" to refer to Sea of Japan (and thus leading to a magnification of the naming debate, which is already adequately covered by existing Wikipedia articles) should not be extended to impose an ethnocentric redirect that will create more confusion than it prevents. --Nlu (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I also largely endorse Endroit's comments below. --Nlu (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Endroit's Comment
(Please note that I am also addressing some other issues, as requested by MyNameIsNotBob over e-mail).

1: Whether East Sea (and East sea) should redirect to Sea of Japan or East Sea (disambiguation) first or disambiguate first.
The question boils down to this: whether to redirect first (like Appleby says), or to disambiguate first (like most others say).
 * Our Criteria

In essense, Appleby is saying this: If other encyclopedias have a simple redirect to a single article, Wikipedia MUST follow that example and do the same. Let me point out that there is no such "policy" nor "guideline" in Wikipedia.

I believe that the relevant criterion here is Disambiguation, which is a Wikipedia guideline. Under it, please read the section "Primary topic". It says:
 * When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page.

This suggests that consensus is required for anybody to use the primary meaning as "the title of the main article." Initially, Appleby made his changes without consensus when he redirected East Sea (and East sea) to Sea of Japan. But we have since discussed this at Talk:Sea of Japan (and below that) and reached consensus against Appleby in using Sea of Japan as the main article.

Here's my count showing where the consensus lies....

In favor of redirecting to Sea of Japan:
 * 1) User:Appleby
 * 2) User:Deiaemeth
 * 3) User:71.139.187.166 (San Francisco, CA, USA)

In favor of using East Sea as the disambiguation page, or redirecting to East Sea (disambiguation):
 * 1) User:Nlu
 * 2) User:Endroit
 * 3) User:Robdurbar
 * 4) User:219.98.32.175 (Kyoto, Japan)
 * 5) User:Masterhatch
 * 6) User:Nobu Sho
 * 7) User:Fagstein
 * 8) User:BD2412

The consensus from Talk:Sea of Japan seems to believe that redirecting to a disambiguation page disambiguating first is more NPOV, while redirecting to Sea of Japan would be rather Korean-POV. So the consensus reached in Talk:Sea of Japan seems to be an objective one based on WP:NPOV, without risking compromising any factual accuracy.

Also, I wonder if Appleby is suggesting to change WP:Disambig altogether. Disambiguation pages are a unique feature of Wikipedia not found in other encyclopedias. And of course, the "disambig" has its own unique guidelines, namely WP:Disambig. This guideline specifies how to disambiguate, based on consensus of Wikipedians. And it's clear that this guideline even allows subjective decisions to be reached by consensus, without violating WP:NPOV, WP:V, nor WP:NOR.

I strongly believe that challenging WP:Disambig and WP:Consensus are out of scope of this mediation. If the scope here in this mediation is enlarged, we'll have to involve those other editors from WP:Disambig and WP:Consensus. Then there will be an even bigger dispute. And I insist that if Appleby does not formally challenge WP:Disambig (via another RfM or whatever), I suggest that he follow it.


 * Breaking the Consensus

Other than that, breaking the consensus (as suggested by Appleby) usually occurs in one of the following 2 situations: 1. When a minority POV editor tries to assert his position. 2. When there are problems such as: factual accuracy, copyright violations, law violations, etc.

I contend that #1 has occurred, because Appleby is advocating a Korean-POV.

And I shall defend the position that #2 has not ocurred, as there are no problems with factual accuracies in redirecting to a disambiguation page, East Sea (disambiguation). disambiguating first.


 * Appleby's Citations

For the sake of discussion, I will discuss Appleby's citations here. If you look at the behind-the-scene story on how the "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" notation occurred in many of the mainstream English-language references, most people will find that those reference works merely reflect the Korean-POV. Of course, that depends on whether one wants to read it or pretend that this behind-the-scene story didn't exist. One needs only to review all the citations provided by Appleby to reveal the Korean-POV, which I will do here.

Appleby's interpretations of his so-called "consensus of reference works" do not hold up when scrutinized. Here are Appleby's citations which are in question. And we will scrutinize each of his cited reference works by reading their fine print....

1. Encyclopedia Britannica (East Sea)

(lacks fine print)

1a. Here's Britannica's article Appleby did NOT cite: Encyclopedia Britannica (Sea of Japan)

The Korean name means “East Sea.”

2. Encarta (Japan, Sea of)

(lacks fine print)

3. Encarta (East Sea)

(lacks fine print)

4. Columbia Encyclopedia (Japan, Sea of)

Author not available, JAPAN, SEA OF., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2005

5. Columbia Encyclopedia (East Sea)

Author not available, EAST SEA., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2005

6. American Heritage Dictionary (Japan, Sea of (East Sea))

(lacks fine print)

7. American Heritage Dictionary (East Sea)

(lacks fine print)

8. National Geographic

Sea of Japan (East Sea) Early in 1999, the National Geographic Society recognized the fact that the term Sea of Japan was legitimately disputed by the South Koreans. In keeping with the Society’s standard place-name convention, we      recognize that where a geographical feature is shared by more than one nation, and its name is disputed, we use the most commonly recognized form of the name first and label the disputed name in parentheses. Thus, on our maps, the Sea of Japan appears as the primary label for this feature while the East Sea appears below in parentheses.

9. Rand McNally

(don't have access to this one)

10. World Atlas

East Sea or Sea of Japan? What is the historically correct name for the body of water lying between Korea and Japan? There are many opinions, and in      the world of geography and maps there is often more than one answer. In short, it depends on whom you ask. Before the 18th century, no one name was consistently used, and in      fact varied names such as 'East Sea,' 'Sea of Korea,' 'Sea of Japan' and 'Oriental Sea' appeared in and on old maps, publications and atlases. Then for a variety of reasons the "Sea of Japan" became more prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the late 1990s the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) began an aggressive letter and email writing campaign, all in an      effort to get the world, especially map makers, travel guides and geography web sites to include the East Sea, whenever the long-established Sea of Japan was found in print. Their claim that the East Sea has some historical precedent worked, as some major book and map publishers, educational web sites and other reference materials now include the East Sea name along with the Sea of Japan. At worldatlas.com we play no favorites, nor do we claim to know all of the answers, so until the two countries can reach a unified decision, we will continue to show both names on our maps. We simply ask both sides for their understanding. For additional information and opinions, we      suggest the following two sites: East Sea (http://www.eastsea.org/) Sea of Japan (http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/sea.html#1)

11. Google, Yahoo , Google , Yahoo


 * With respect to the Google and Yahoo links, most of them appear to talk about the Sea of Japan/East Sea naming dispute without taking sides. (This is similar to the Wikipedia article Sea of Japan naming dispute.)  And so that's not going to prove that "East Sea" means "Sea of Japan" at all.

So the "consensus" of the fine print from Appleby's cited reference works (above) suggest the following: In the late 1990's, the publishers decided to use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in response to an "an aggressive letter and email writing campaign" by a Korean minority group VANK.

Hence, the publishers merely recognized that "East Sea" is a "legitimately disputed" name for the "Sea of Japan".

None of the citations specifically say that "East Sea" is an "accepted" alternate name.

Aside from that, Britannica specifically says that "East Sea" is the Korean name.

The "consensus of fine prints" shown above casts a cloud of doubt over the assumption that "East Sea" is simply an alternate name for "Sea of Japan". In reality the "consensus of fine prints" (of the "consensus of reference works") says that "East Sea" is a disputed name for the "Sea of Japan" advocated by the Koreans, or simply that "East Sea" is the Korean name.

Masterhatch's Comment
For various reasons, I have stopped editing on Wikipedia. But since I got involved in this naming dispute, I feel obligated to see it through.

East Sea should redirect to the disambig page for the simple reason that there are too many other notable East Seas out there. To suggest that only the Korean East Sea redirect to Sea of Japan is POV and egocentric. Besides, "East Sea" is not the English name for that body of water, it is merely a literal translation of the Korean name "Dong hae". It has been through mass internet propoganda that the term "East Sea" for that body of water even exists in English today. Masterhatch 06:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobu Sho's Comment
Yes, for reasons as below.
 * 1. International names and local names are not of equal value.
 * 2. Was not named under Japanese influence.
 * 3. Has been defacto for centries, Korean claim for "East Sea" started from 1990s.
 * 4. Korean lawmakers claiming for "Sea of Korea", contradicting "East Sea".

Mediators Comment
We are still awaiting a comment from Deiaemeth. I have emailed him checking if he is interested in becoming involved in this mediation. He has to have seen my comment on his talk page as he has made comments in the last day or so. MyNameIsNotBob 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Same Question again
I don't know that everyone responded to the question above, so I am going to ask it again - with reasons. From the "Deciding to disambiguate" section on Disambiguation:


 *  Confusion 
 * Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

So, asking that question, I want you to think, realistically, is there a chance that a reader is going to be pressing the "Go" button on East Sea and expecting to get information about a different place to another user pressing the "Go" button? If there is no chance, simply answer "No. There is no chance of confusion.". If you believe that there is a chance of confusion, please list at least two (to demonstrate possible confusion) scenarios where a reader will go to East Sea expecting different pages. For example, "User A reads Boston Weekly which says 'Ali concluded her travels of Korea with a visit to the East Sea'. This is obviously referring to Sea of Japan as that is the only East Sea near Korea. User B reads Science Journal which states 'The Chinese government is concerned about rising mercury levels in the East Sea'. The East China Sea is the only sea that the Chinese government has dominion over so thus it must be referring to this location." Please base your article choices on Reliable sources. MyNameIsNotBob 07:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Please limit your answer to the question above. Don't address other related issues at this point. When we have reached an agreement here, we will move on to those issues. MyNameIsNotBob 07:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu's comments
(Please see User talk:MyNameIsNotBob/East Sea as to why I declined to put my own comments in either "Party A" or "Party B" and declined to try to talk to others to see if there can be a "party representative"):

I think it's more likely than not that a significant number of users will type "East Sea" and expect to get "East China Sea" rather than "Sea of Japan"; after all, that was what I expected, and I have spent the last 23 years living in the United States. In the Chinese community around the world, there is no other expectation but to have "East Sea" refer to "East China Sea." Again, I am not advocating East Sea -> East China Sea; such an advocacy would be ethnocentrism. I am, however, expecting the same level of NPOVness and cultural courtesy out of our Korean colleagues. --Nlu (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying you are wrong here but wikipedia is not about original research. Can you cite a source that leads to this conclusion? Please refer to Reliable sources and WP:NOR MyNameIsNotBob 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are newspapers and news agencies not reliable sources? I think I've cited enough of those.  --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, WP:NOR applies to articles, not to arguments and discussions. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And discussions apply to articles so the sourcing of discussions about contents of articles needs to talk realistically and as such follow article standards. We need to conclusively establish the point. MyNameIsNotBob 09:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The East Sea disambiguation article merely links to the East China Sea article. And the East China Sea article says "In China, the sea is called the East Sea."  I believe it is sufficient to just refer to the East China Sea article as the source in this case.  If you disagree, please tell us how this line of thinking may violate Reliable sources or WP:NOR.--Endroit 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Endroit's Comment
Sorry, what was the question again? I'll take a few guesses....

1. Is a disambiguation page necessary?
 * Yes.

2. When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?
 * Dead Sea. Here in the United States in my neighborhood, that would be the Dead Sea.

3. Is there a chance that a reader is going to be pressing the "Go" button on East Sea and expecting to get information about a different place to another user pressing the "Go" button?
 * Yes. Everybody has a different perception of "East Sea."  There IS great risk of confusion.

Dead Sea citations: --Endroit 09:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) From The King James Bible, Ezekiel 47:18 and Joel 2:20.
 * 2) WebBible Encyclopedia entry for East Sea.

Appleby's Comment
again, i don't think a disambiguation page is necessary, but i won't object to its existence per se.

the independent english editors of the various major dictionaries and encyclopedias have already considered what readers are looking for when they look up "east sea," and they decided to refer the reader to "sea of japan," and no other topic.

the other uses are not recognized by any general English dictionaries, encyclopedias, or mapmakers. mere translations of local language names don't belong in english wikipedia; we should consult reputable English sources to decide what goes into the disambiguation page list.


 * Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, ; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of
 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea ; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) ; East Sea: See Sea of Japan
 * National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
 * World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea)

endroit's bible argument is curious, as i don't think he ever advocated listing the following in disambiguation pages or countless other examples at. needless to say, Anvil and Asia don't go to disambiguation pages.Appleby 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Anvil - the rendering of the Hebrew word, "beaten," found only in Isa. 41:7."
 * "Asia - is used to denote Proconsular Asia, a Roman province which embraced the western parts of Asia Minor, and of which Ephesus was the capital, in Acts 2:9; 6:9; 16:6; 19:10,22; 20:4, 16, 18"

re BD2412's comment, sure, many common terms do not have a "primary" use, listed in general english dictionaries and encyclopedias. However, when they do have a primary use, as with East Sea, they go to the primary topic: North Sea, South End, South Park, East Bend, North Beach, North River, East Central State, East-West Corridor, EastWest, East Cape, South West Territory, North-south Lake, North-east passage etc etc. Appleby 18:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BD2412's comment
Since I'm slowly being dragged deeper into this discussion, I'll stake my position here. "East Sea" welds a map coordinate to a common geographic formation, like West Coast, South River, or East Valley. Case closed. It should be a disambiguation page (but not, mind you, redirect to a disambig page). BD2412 T 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)