Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Before contributing, please review some of the older discussions.


 * Talk:Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan
 * Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)
 * Talk:South Korea
 * Talk:Korea
 * /Old discussion

What we are NOT discussing here
On this page we are not discussing the name of the article Sea of Japan nor the Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan.

Why are we not discussing the name of the article, when this is a very fundamental issue? This deserves treatment in both entries.Cleric71 12:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote on the order of the names
I've archived the old discussion, after re-reading it once again. We all know the arguments, so hopefully we can start afresh. Currently (16:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)) most articles about Korea use East Sea (Sea of Japan) or East Sea of Korea for articles about North Korea. This form has been challenged as POV.

So far we have established:
 * In international contexts and articles on Japan Sea of Japan alone does not seem controversial.
 * In Japan/Korea related articles, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is acceptable and not disputed (example: Korea Strait).
 * In Korea-related articles the other form should be mentioned when the water is mentioned first.

The basic disagreement seems to revolve around the question of whether East Sea as an English word is the most common form to refer to the water in Korean-related contexts, and to a certain extent whether a local variation (context dependency) should be considered. It appears that in publications since the late 1990s East Sea is becoming more common, but should we readily discount the literature from before?

I suggest we vote on the following possibilities in articles related to Korea:

'''The vote is now finished. Please do not vote anymore.''' Masterhatch 8 August 2005 14:37 (UTC)

East Sea first

 * East Sea (Sea of Japan) / East Sea of Korea (Sea of Japan)
 * 1) Visviva 16:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)  Nothing's perfect in this world, but this seems like the best compromise.
 * 2) Kokiri 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Weak support for this position, mostly because EB have adopted a similar solution.
 * 3) Menchi 03:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Both methods are equally informative, but this is more "topical" (for articles with topics related to Korea).
 * 4) KissL 11:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (via WP:CS). This would be similar to the (consensual) decision about Gdansk/Danzig (see Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice), using a geographical criterion for the use of different names rather than a temporal one.

Sea of Japan first

 * Sea of Japan (East Sea) / Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
 * 1) Masterhatch 20 July 2005. I support this because "Sea of Japan" is the official name and most common name in all contexts (including Korean), new or old, in English (and most other languages). The vast majority of reputable sources use "Sea of Japan" and many have compromised by using "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and I feel that that is a fair compromise.
 * 2) Sea of Japan is at the moment the more common term, so should take precedence. When (and if!) this other term supercedes it we can have this discussion all over again. Also it is the more accessible name, and WP aims for man-on-the-street readability. When I see "Sea of Japan" I know it's, duh, the waters around Japan, but when I see "East Sea" I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't instantly see where it is in my mind's eye. Maybe after a bit of thought (if even then), but certainly not instantly. GarrettTalk 11:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Sea of Japan' is the most common form used in English so needs to be first. This is already covered by the general naming conventions from which *all* specific naming conventions spring from. --mav 22:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sea of Japan first. If the UN changes it's tune, so will I. Basically, I use logic on this issue. Take away Japan, and the sea is gone. Same for the Irish Sea, English Channel, etc. etc. Also, it is the offical name. When Korea stops calling Australia "Hoju", maybe I'll change my mind... Kojangee 22 July 2005.
 * 5) Sea of Japan first; I agree with mav.  Tempshill 17:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) as per Mav and Garrett. DES 17:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) “Sea of Japan” is the normal name. I frankly see no need for anything else outside the specific context of the Koreans pushing another name. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) "Sea of Japan" is used with precedence in the global community. "East Sea / East Sea of Korea" is used in Korea and North Korea, but it is only country to the last. I wish that "the Sea of Japan" is used with precedence. --Maizuru 12:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A non-topological, but rather geographic, description
Proposed article title: Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan, the Koreas and Russia


 * Yes I disgress in that voting is the way to solve such heated argumentation. I believe the article already takes a side on the issue by merely titling itself according to one of the sides in the argument, when what is at stake is describing the controversy, not becoming partisan to one side. Therefore, I suggest ridding the article name of any topological or semantic nomenclature, and describing it solely based on geographic accidents that make the sea unique. My proposal is Dispute over naming the body of water between Japan, the Koreas and Russia --Yonghokim 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about that article here, I'm afraid. If you want to change the name of that article, start a discussion on the talk page there. Kokiri 08:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Not time for a vote
Kokiri, you are calling for a vote? On what grounds? If you look at other disputes that have had votes to determine the most suitable name, this one doesn't even compare. For example, Tsushima Island(s) had a major split. Both sides had countless arguments for and against and simple logic couldn't win out. With that dispute, there was no clear cut answer and neither side seemed more POV than the other. Even international English publications seemed split on the usage. Besides, the format you used for the potential vote on the Sea of Japan/East Sea doesn't cover some of the compromises that have been worked towards. Your vote table is incomplete. Are you calling for a vote because that is the only way you feel you can win? I am not saying a vote is a bad idea; I am just saying that for this situation, it is not currently a good idea. We would need more people actively involved in the discussion in order to make any vote valid.

Going back to Tsushima, the Sea of Japan/East Sea dispute doesn't even come close to Tsushima in any way at all. Both sides in Tsushima had logical arguments that were not POV and there were many people from various backgrounds participating. The Sea of Japan/East Sea dispute had 9 people participate in the last month. One appears to be a sock puppet and only 4 people of the 8 valid posters posted more than once or twice. To have a vote with so few people having participated would not be right. In order to have a vote that means something, there would have to be more than a mere handful of people who have participated. That just hasn't happened. There is nothing stopping either side from rallying the troops, so to speak, and having a bunch of people vote who have had no participation.

Uncle Ed hit the nail on the head when he said "Mountain out of mole-hill". That is exactly what has happened here. Sea of Japan is not POV in English. East Sea is. This is an English language section of Wikipedia, not a Korean language section and if East Sea supporters realised that, then this mole-hill would never have become a mountain. Wikipedia is not here to support the POV of the Koreans and help convince the UN to have the name officially changed. There are proper channels to have names changed, and Wikipedia is not one of them. We here on Wikipedia are meant to recognise the fact that there is a dispute but use what is official and most common until such time as that changes.

The worst part about this discussion is that East Sea supporters put up very few points to support their cause. If one goes back and reads the old discussion, one will see that the vast majority of posts made by East Sea supporters are "proposals" and after I called for "no more proposals", they just changed the word "proposal" to "summary" or "context". They put up countless proposals with only their opinions to support them, not facts. If their proposals were backed up with hard facts and they weren't all the same, then maybe some real progress could have been made. I bent over backwards in the discussions to try to reach a compromise and I thank you Visviva for at least trying to work towards a consensus. Visviva's last proposal was the only one that was any different from the previous ones. I went back and re-read the discussions again and the strongest point made by East Sea supporters (at their own confession) was that East Sea is more common in Korean texts in Korea. I have never disputed that. That is a fact. But I refute that because the majority of publications outside of Korea use Sea of Japan in English articles in Korean contexts. Only in Korea will you find East Sea more common than Sea of Japan and there is a simple reason for that. It is called propaganda by the Korean government, Korean media, certain Netizen groups, etc. As far as I know, the English language section of Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine for Korea. The English language section is here to use the English names. East Sea is not an English name for that body of water. It is a simple translation of the Korean name for that body of water (dong hae). I am not going to review all of the arguments made by the Sea of Japan supporters, as that would take too much typing and would be pointless as one can just go and read the archives. But I will re-mention some of the more important ones.


 * 1) Sea of Japan is the official name of that body of water in English (according to the UN).
 * 2) Sea of Japan is the most commonly used name in the English language and the majority of countries, English speaking or not, call it Sea of Japan even in Korean contexts. Putting the unofficial and least common name in front of the official and most common name is POV.
 * 3) This is an English language section of Wikipedia, not a Korean language or a Korean English language section.
 * 4) When no additional context is provided, the name Sea of Japan tells you roughly where this body of water is. The name East Sea tells you absolutely nothing and requires additional information to be comprehensible (east of what?).
 * 5) Allowing two non English speaking nations' POV to take position over the official and most common name in English on Wikipedia would set a horrible precedent.
 * 6) If there is no Japan, there is no Sea (as defined by marginal sea).
 * 7) Very few people outside of Korea know where East Sea is. The vast majority of English publications, Internet or otherwise, (including encyclopaedias, textbooks, and maps) refer to it as Sea of Japan.
 * 8) The name East Sea is being spread using ill-informed propaganda that is POV.
 * 9) There are four countries that border the Sea of Japan and the two that call it Sea of Japan have a greater coastline and population along the sea than the two countries that call it East Sea (East Sea of Korea). To Russia, the Sea of Japan is south and to Japan it is west.
 * 10) The majority of maps and writings, past and present, show Sea of Japan. The MoS states that the most common English name be used. Wikipedia is not a medium for change; it is a medium for reporting facts. The facts are clear. Sea of Japan is more common than East Sea past or present in English.
 * 11) Since English is the new Lingua Franca, names must reflect what is most common to avoid confusion amongst not only native speakers of English, but non-native speakers as well.
 * 12) Wikipedia is not here to support or popularise Korea's disputes.
 * 13) There is no controversy over the name in the English speaking world, so why is there on Wikipedia? Why do we have to make a mountain out of a mole-hill?

Reading the old discussion, one can realise that the vast majority of questions posed by the Sea of Japan supporters were not answered. The majority of reputable English publications, such as text books, maps, magazines, and encyclopaedias use Sea of Japan or Sea of Japan (East Sea) in Korean contexts. The ones that use Sea of Japan (East Sea) have found a fair compromise that is NPOV in English. If the majority of reputable English publications find Sea of Japan (East Sea) a fair and worthy compromise, why can't Wikipedia follow them? It seems fair to me. I want Wikipedia to be a reputable source. Using POV names in front of the official and most common ones does not make Wikipedia a reputable source. What part of this don't East Sea supporters understand? Masterhatch 18 July 2005


 * I was under the impression that we're getting nowhere. I am not trying to win anything, but (believe it or not) trying to work towards a solution. I have changed your list into a numbered one, only in order to refer to the lines easily. (1) is unfortunately disputed; (2) is correct, but only the part most commonly used name in the English language is a valid argument in terms of the Manual of Style; (3) is not disputed; (4) is irrelevant (MoS); (5) I agree, but this is not the point; (6) true, but irrelevant (MoS); (7) this is, if I understand the previous discussion right, the point we're talking about; (8) that might be possible, but irrelevant (MoS); (9) irrelevant (MoS); (10) the first point is what we're talking about, the second point (not a medium for change) is undisputed (MoS); (11) irrelevant; (12) totally agree; (13) disagree (South Korea has been successful in making it controversial), but irrelevant.


 * The argument for using East Sea is that in Korea-related writings the name East Sea has become the most common English name. You can counter this by (1) stating that using East Sea over-values publications since the late 1990s, or (2) arguing that we should not consider local differences in English names. If we focus on these two points (valid arguments in terms of the Manual of Style as I understand it), then the above vote is on (and maybe we can reach agreement without a vote). Kokiri 20:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Answers to your answers
 * 1) As far as I understand it, back in 2004, the UN made its ruling to keep using Sea of Japan and told Korea and Japan to go back home and work it out from there. So the UN ended the dispute in the international community. Although as far as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), Korea is again allowed to bring East Sea forward at the next IHO meeting as is any country that wishes a name change. When the UN made its decision, it did not give East Sea equal or greater weight to Sea of Japan. Sea of Japan was decided as the clear cut official name of that body of water.
 * 2) How is this "and the majority of countries, English speaking or not, call it Sea of Japan even in Korean contexts" not true? All you have to do is leave korea and leaf through textbooks, maps, encyclopaedias, magazines, etc. and you will rarely see East Sea before Sea of Japan. And there are far more English reputable publications outside of Korea than inside of Korea. The books inside of Korea that use East Sea are a minority in English.
 * 3) I am glad we agree on something.
 * 4) To the naming dispute on Wikipedia, you are right. It is irrelevant. But to the international community and the UN in deciding names of places and bodies of water, it is very relevant.
 * 5) I am glad that you agree, but I think it is a very good point. If we agree to use the local name of East Sea in front of Sea of Japan, what is to stop someone from changing Rome to Roma on Italia (Italy) pages? That would be awfully silly wouldn't it? Roma is not the English name for Rome. Italia is not the English name for Italy. East Sea is not the English name for Sea of Japan. The Italy and Rome pages just mention the local names and don't try to replace the English ones (because this is an English section of Wikipedia).
 * Yes, irrelevant for Wikipedia. It is just a cute fact so that is why I mentioned it.
 * yes, it is true that very few people outside of Korea know where East Sea is. It is also true that the vast majority of English publications (reputable or otherwise) outside of Korea use Sea of Japan, not East Sea even in Korean contexts. I consider Wikipedia to be a reputable source. Let's stick with the most common and offical name in English.
 * 1) Why is this point irrelevant? I consider propaganda very POV. Also, you have to look at the fact that much of this Korean propaganda is being spread using misinformation. For example, they use a select group of maps that say East Sea disregarding all the maps that say Sea of Japan (yes, Japan has done this too, but the fact remains that Sea of Japan maps far out number East Sea maps) and then go on to claim that before 1919, East Sea was the most common. These POV propaganda groups also say that Japan originally named the body of water for the Europeans when in fact, the Europeans named that body of water themselves. In reality, if the Japanese told the Europeans what name to call it, they probably would have said "Nippon Sea" or something to that affect (maybe even West Sea). The point is, these POV groups pushing East Sea aren't using facts to back up their claims (I guess that is why the UN decided to continue using Sea of Japan).
 * No, it isn't so irrelevant to Wikipedia as it draws a comparison that is very relevant. East Sea is the minority way of calling that body of water in English AND amongst the countries that border the Sea of Japan.
 * 1) I am glad that you agree that Wikipedia is not a medium for change. Let's put that belief to practice. Sea of Japan is the most common way of referring to that body of water in English either past or present even in or out of Korean contexts. That's Fact Jack. East Sea is used by a minority group of people pushing for change. I will repeat. Wikipedia is not a medium for change. If the UN and other official bodies recognise East Sea as equal to or greater than Sea of Japan, then Wikipedia will reflect that. Until then, the most common and official name shall be used.
 * 2) It is not irrelevant. I feel it is very relevant. Why do you think names are standarised in English?
 * 3) I am glad that you agree. So, where's the problem? Why has this mole-hill become a mountain? Putting East Sea (the unofficial and least common name) in front of Sea of Japan (the most common and official name) is supporting and popularising Koreas disputes!
 * 4) I still say there is not controversy in the English speaking world. Korea has a problem with Japan (as they should) and has brought their fight to the English speaking world where, honestly, very few people care. The subject is controversial between Japan and Korea, not for the English speaking world. The Koreans are trying to create controversy in the English speaking world where there isn't one. The vast majority of people outside of Korea know it as Sea of Japan and for the vast majority of people outside of Korea, they have never even heard of East Sea.

Kokiri, you said, "The argument for using East Sea is that in Korea-related writings the name East Sea has become the most common English name..." I say, only in Korea has it become the most common in English. Outside of Korea, Sea of Japan is still the most common even in Korean contexts. The vast majority of English textbooks, maps, nautical charts, encyclopaedias, magazines, teachings, governments, schools, and even spoken English uses Sea of Japan. I am pulling my hair out right now. I wish I could go back to an English speaking country for just one day and go to a library and leaf through a hundred different books on the subject and make a list to show you that Sea of Japan is more common in English. But, alas, I am in Korea and my current contract isn't finished for quite some time.

Many reputable English publications are now using Sea of Japan (East Sea) as a way of compromising. I feel that this is a very fair compromise. It lets the reader know that there is in fact a dispute and it also lets the reader know which name is the official one. Wikipedia is a reputable source so let's follow the majority of other reputable sources. Masterhatch 19 July 2005


 * (1) That's also what I know. It doesn't resolve the dispute, really. However, let's not get bogged down on this one, because the MoS urges us to use the most common English name, not the "official" one; (2) as mentioned, I agree, except for the Korean context since the late 1990s; (5) I haven't come across anyone claiming Roma being anything other than Italian. I think one can consider East Sea an English word, since English publications (from Korea, mostly) use East Sea, but do not use West Sea or South Sea (which they would if they'd use the translations from Korean, if I understand this correctly). Anyway, no to POV; (7) this depends if one focuses more on recent publications (where East Sea is more common), or more on older ones (where Sea of Japan is more common). I think this is the key point we should be talking about; (8) Since the MoS leaves out the political part, and so should we (yes, I, too, consider the naming dispute (as described in its own article) a ridiculous undertaking); (9) the MoS doesn't consider this line of argument.


 * If you want to take my word for it, I am in an English speaking country, and I am sitting in a library. The books I have to hand confirm what I pointed out under number (7) above: if one focuses more on recent publications East Sea is more common, but for older ones Sea of Japan is more common. This is what we should be talking about, imho. (I suspect you'd find the same in English books in a library in Korea). Have a good day. Kokiri 09:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the MoS says use the most common name. If we look at all the books, not just the new ones, Sea of Japan comes out number one. Sea of Japan is also most common in spoken English (if that counts for something, I don't know). There is no need to exclude books or other reputable sources because of age. Sea of Japan has been officially the name since 1919 and even before 1919 it was still the most common. Disregarding reputable books published before the late 90s (what's that, six or seven years?) seems POV to me especially since no official name change has taken place in English. As for "West Sea" and "South Sea", until I "corrected" it, "West Sea" and "South Sea" were being used in several places on Wikipedia in front of "Yellow Sea" and "South China Sea". South Sea, West Sea, and East Sea are simple translations from Korean to English. They are not the English names for those bodies of water. The only difference is that Korea hates Japan and that is why they want the name changed and that is why they are spreading East Sea everywhere as much as they can.


 * I don't know what library you are in, nor do I know which English speaking country you are in. And I certainly don't know which books you are looking at. But can you honestly say that if you looked at every atlas, textbook, encyclopaedia, and reference book at your disposal in that library published in the last 5 to 10 years that East Sea or East Sea (Sea of Japan) is the most common way of referring to that body of water in Korean contexts? Since I am not there with you, I can not disprove or prove what you said. But honestly, I highly doubt that the majority of books in a public library in an English speaking country use East Sea more often than Sea of Japan. On the 29th of June, ChirsO made a post that lists 15 very reputable books and sources that all use Sea of Japan, not East Sea even in Korean contexts. I must note that ChrisO appears to be neutral in this debate.


 * I don't understand your logic in trying to disclude slightly older books when there has been no name change, official or otherwise. I also have trouble believing that the average public library in the English speaking world would have more books that have "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan". Masterhatch 19 July 2005.


 * Most of the books cited by ChrisO were dictionaries, and old ones at that. Even the Columbia Encyclopedia is little better.  For the most part, atlases I have seen do not have a separate map of Korea, but rather present "Korea and Japan" on a single page; by our terms in this discussion, that is a Korean-Japanese context, not a Korean context. Overall, however, I don't think reference-fighting is a very valid way of addressing this dispute.


 * I am disappointed in the behavior exhibited by you and Kojangee in this discussion. You both seem to have come into this as if it were a "debate," a sort of miniature version of the international dispute which you could win through your legalistic prowess.  You then grew angry with Kokiri and I for attempting to seek compromise and address those points where you actually showed how this naming convention might negatively affect user value -- in short, for behaving like Wikipedians and not attack dogs.  What you fail to understand is that neither Kokiri nor I are particularly fond of the term "East Sea," nor do we see ourselves as obliged to defend some East Sea POV. IMO, the fact that a legitimate international dispute exists is ample grounds for the current policy.  For my part, I am simply trying to find an optimal compromise so I can go back to editing.  You seem to have nothing better to do with your time than to keep trying to score rhetorical points against an imaginary foe.  Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.  In the previous discussion I permitted myself to briefly sink to your level.  For that I apologize.


 * If a vote can help us get back to editing, by all means let's vote. If we publicize this well enough, I'm sure we can get adequate participation.  If the consensus favors a change in policy, I'll wholeheartedly support it.  On the other hand, I'm happy to continue on the "edit-and-let-edit" note with which we ended the last discussion.  Life is too short for this crap; every minute we spend discussing this is a minute we could be spending adding content.  -- Visviva 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have nothing personal against either you or Kokiri. I think you two have done an exceptionally great job at expanding and contributing to Korean pages. I applaud you for your hard work. If you are not so fond of the term "East Sea", why do you defend it so rigorously? There is no longer an international dispute over the name. That was settled in 2004, although the Koreans are trying to continue the dispute. The UN told Korea and Japan to go home and work it out amongst themselves. Does that mean that the English language section of Wikipedia should be a battle ground for Korea and Japan? Personally, I don't like either name and I would much rather see a completely neutral name adopted. But that is my humble opinion and Wikipedia is not a place for new names. I only support Sea of Japan here on Wikipedia because it is the most common name in all contexts as well as the official one. I never "grew angry" with anyone here on Wikipedia, especially you or Kokiri. I was (and am) just frustrated that for some people seeing the forest through the trees seems impossible. I guess I just became over-zealous in trying to show the forest. For that, I apologise (sagwahaeyo!).
 * I still feel that there aren't enough people discussing this to have a vote, but I will vote anyway. Masterhatch 20 July 2005.


 * With regards to your logic in trying to disclude slightly older books, I can't follow you. All I am trying to do on this talk page, is to make sure we focus on the relevant bits. If you feel older books are important, one of the options should cater for your position. I hope you will join Visviva and me and declare your position above. We then can widen this vote by involving Wikipedians who are not as involved in the subject as we are. Kokiri 22:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A slight change to the menu
In the summary of the dispute readied for the vote, Kokiri uses this sentence: "It appears that in publications sinc the late 1990s East Sea is more common, but should we readily discount the literature from before?" I feel that this sentence is inaccurate and I would like to see it changed to: "It appears that in publications since the late 1990s East Sea is becoming more common, but should we readily discount the literature from before?" I am requesting this change because I can't believe that it is already more common to use "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan". I do acknowledge, though, that it is becoming common in various (but a minority of) publications. Masterhatch 20 July 2005.


 * This is the same problem faced in the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE and MB vs. MiB votes.
 * But the problem is, can a small number of adoptive writers sway over the vast majority of other authors, many of whom will no doubt end up referencing pre-change works in their own writing? It remains to be seen. Certainly, until such time comes, your rewording looks sound to me.
 * Oh, and while you corrected his spelling of "since" you spelled "becoming" wrong. Just a thought. :) GarrettTalk 11:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My spelling mistake is now fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. Honestly, I didn't care that Kokiri made that spelling mistake as I have made lots myself. I was more interested in the wording. Masterhatch 20 July 2005

I have changed the sentence accordingly. If there's anything else, feel free to fix it yourself. I won't get upset. As for the already: and , or and. That's what's easily verifiable. However, I'm very happy with is becoming, because the case is surely not very clear. Have a nice day! Kokiri 12:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Visviva and I have already gone over the "Google" searches in an earlier discussion. I have always hated Google searches as proof (reasons explain in the old discussion) because you could come up with a hundred different ways to prove East Sea is more common and likewise, I can prove Sea of Japan is more common. It is all a matter of how it is all typed into the searches. In my opinion, Google searches prove very little and Visviva appears to agree as that discussion was left for dead a long time ago. But yes, I agree, that East Sea is becoming more and more common (check out my previous posts on propaganda in the old discussion). Masterhatch 20 July 2005.

political correctness?
I could trawl through all the arguing looking for the answer, but it's getting late so let's take it from the top...

...is this new name just political correctness, in the sense of BC and AD being "corrected" to the non-religious BCE/CE? Is it just that some countries don't like to think of it as being "owned" by Japan?

If so, I don't see what the problem is. There's no way political correctness is going to overcome established academic publication, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned such political correctness is silly!

Basically I'm just curious to know if this new name was merely instituted to keep people happy, rather than to be more accurate (i.e., changing Moslem to Muslim and Koran to Qur'an).

I think I'll go to bed now... *looks at watch* *decides to check watchlist one last time* ...bah, I can sleep in... :) GarrettTalk 11:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not going to go in depth as to the history of the dispute as one can read all the old discussions and get all the answers to all the questions. I think the only subject not discussed, though, was political correctness. I never thought of that as an issue here per se. But if you want to look at it from a politically correct POV, then yes Sea of Japan is not politically correct in Korean terms and that is one of the reasons that the Koreans want the name changed (to a term that is equally not politically correct from Japan's POV). Another argument by Koreans to have the name changed is that they say the name Sea of Japan implies ownership to Japan. While the Koreans are using this during their debates, no one here on Wikipedia has used that for a basis as an argument (probably because East Sea supporters here on Wiki are smart enough to know that that is a logical fallacy). We all know that the Gulf of Mexico doesn't belong to Mexico and the Indian Ocean doesn't belong to India. So, that hasn't been an issue here on Wikipedia. As for your question about keeping people happy, one East Sea supporter did suggest that we must use East Sea to keep the Korean Nationalists happy. Which term is more accurate? Well, that is what much of this debate has been about. Historically, Sea of Japan was the most common name of the body of water in English and other European languages and was made official in 1919. Prior to 1919, East Sea was used by Europeans on some maps, but those usages are a small minority compared to the number of times Sea of Japan is used on maps and other writings. Starting in the mid 1990s, the Koreans have been pushing for a name change and spreading the name East Sea everywhere as much as they can. They have been unsuccessful as of the last UN resolution in 2004 to have the name officially changed. Officially, the name is still Sea of Japan. Despite not being successful at getting the name officially changed, the Koreans have been very successful at spreading the name everywhere trying to make it appear as if it is official. It is the animosity between Korea and Japan that has sparked the Korean’s desire for a name change. I hope that answered your questions. Masterhatch 20 July 2005
 * Yes indeed it does! Thank you! It is much as I suspected. GarrettTalk 00:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When is the vote? I've not gone away, but have been occupied lately on other things. Kojangee
 * The vote is right at the top of this page, right now. Masterhatch 22 July 2005

What about a "Best Before Date"?
Most votes that I have seen here on Wikipedia have a "voting is finished" date already preset. I am wondering when the voting will close on this vote. The voting started on July 18th and the first vote was cast on July 19th. It is now July 26th. I dont' think one week is long enough, but we do need a closing date. How does August 1st sound? That is about two weeks. I am also wondering what constitutes a victory and what happens in the even of a tie? In the event of a tie, I suggest status quo until such time that another way can be thought of to solve this dispute. Masterhatch 26 July 2005.

When is it going to end?
I am just wondering when the voting is going to be closed. The voting started on 18 July. It is now 4 August. Currently, there are 8 votes for Sea of Japan first and 4 for East Sea first. Doing some simple math, that is 12 votes in 17 days. The last vote was cast on 30 July. On 26 July I asked Kokiri if he could set a closing date. I suggested 2 August. But there was no response. Kokiri hasn't made a post on Wiki since 23 July, so I can only assume that he never read my last post. Since Kokiri called for the vote, in my opinion, he should be the one to close the vote. But since he seems to be inactive with Wiki at this time, I am suggesting that the voting be closed on 8 August. That is exactly three weeks from the start. If no one objects, I will close the vote on that day. Any thoughts? Opinions? Masterhatch 4 August 2005


 * I agree. Two weeks is ample time. The vote can't stay in limbo forever. Kojangee August 8th, 2005 21:38 (Beijing Time)

I am closing the vote
Currently, there is a dispute about the name of the body of water that separates Korea and Japan in Korean contexts. The Naming conventions (Korean) simply says that there is in fact a dispute. Posters have tried to resolve the dispute through discussion. That was going no where fast. So, Kokiri requested a vote.

At 16:16 on 18 July 2005 Kokiri requested a vote on whether East Sea or Sea of Japan should be used on Korean articles. Prior to the vote, it was agreed by various posters that for international and Japanese contexts, only Sea of Japan needs to be mentioned. For articles relating to Korea and Japan, Sea of Japan (East Sea) (or in the case of North Korea Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea) is acceptable. It was also agreed that the "other" name need only be mentioned once at the first mentioning.

On 26 July 2005, I asked Kokiri for a closing date on the vote. Kokiri never responded and at the time of me writing this, he hasn't made a post since 23 July 2005 on Wikipedia. I had suggested 2 August 2005 as a closing date. That would have been about 2 weeks. On 4 August I made a post saying that 8 August would be a good closing date as that is three weeks from the start. I then asked if anyone objected if I closed the voting on 8 August. Only one person responded and that was Kojangee. He is in favour of me closing the vote. Since there are no objections, I am officially closing the vote now.

There were a total of 12 votes cast. Eight in favour of Sea of Japan first and 4 in favour of East Sea first. I believe that gives a mandate to use Sea of Japan first on all Korean context articles with East Sea following. So, the following will be the new naming convention for the disputed body of water:


 * 1) For all international articles use: Sea of Japan
 * 2) For all Japan articles use: Sea of Japan
 * 3) For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * 4) For all Japan/North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)
 * 5) For all Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)
 * 6) For all North Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)

As per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mentioning of the sea. Masterhatch 8 August 2005 14:33 (UTC)

This is a very inadequate way of deciding on the naming for the article. It looks like a vote was somehow conducted among 12 interested people. The fact that 8 people voted for a particular name over another proves absolutely nothing! The name should reflect the dispute - we should have "East Sea/ Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan/ East Sea" used alternately to be fair.Cleric71 12:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an easy question to answer. The name of the article follows the Manual of Style which basically says that the most common name be used for articles. Sea of Japan is the official English name and the most common English name. Only in Korea is it disputed. Besides, the name of the article wasn't being voted on. The vote was about the order of the names in articles. Read the archives. It was a messy situation for quite sometime. A vote was the only way to solve it in a civil manner. Masterhatch 20:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
In previous discussion Cleric71 made a good point. A 'voting', unadvertised, over a short period of time and between only 12 people is not statistically representative. Therefore it cannot be regarded as a consensus. The page history of Sea of Japan which shows daily edits just confirms this fact. It's kind of hypocrytical to deny that 'Sea of Japan' is not POV because it includes the name of a particular country (when there's a dispute). It's an established fact that both 'East Sea' and 'Sea of Japan' are correct names. Given this fact the more neutral name should go first. --Optimus2005 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The vote was very well advertised and the results follow the MoS quite well. Also, East Sea is not a neutral name. Masterhatch 01:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if we ignore the vote on this page, there is still a huge amount of consensus on this issue from other sources. First of all, on the 'Sea of Japan' page on almost every foreign-language Wikipedia that cross-links to the English page (except for the Korean one), the name that comes first is "Sea of Japan" (in the local language, of course.)  Second, using Google (which is admittedly a crude tool) to search for both names comes up with over a million hits for "Sea of Japan" and about half that for "East Sea".  In addition, a search for "East Sea" comes up with hits to pages on the Dead Sea, East China Sea, etc...


 * I would also highly dispute that anyone here really feels that "It's hypocritical to deny that 'Sea of Japan' is not POV because it includes tha name of a particular country (when there's a dispute)." After all, I don't see hundreds of page edits attempting to change East China Sea into South Sea.  Sure, you can easily say that the name of that partiular body of water is not disputed, but I don't see why that should really work in your favor, since it would seem that the presence of a dispute would place a greater burden of showing NPOV on the party who wished to use the non-standard name rather than the internationally-recognized one.


 * Finally, a big reason for having any consensus or policy at all on this issue is to discourage the daily edits which are cited (ironically) as support for the idea that the policy should be changed. Of course, there is no doubt that if the policy was for naming the body 'East Sea', then the Sea of Japan contingent would be the ones making the daily edits that had to be reverted, but having any policy is better than having none, since it tends to lend a bit more consistency.


 * At any rate, if anyone wants to see the policy changed, I would wholeheartedly encourage them to work up the momentum to build a new consensus on the issue. Assuming everything else stayed the same, all you would need in order to change the outcome of the voting would be about 9 friends.  That shouldn't be too terribly difficult, should it?  --Zonath 16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah,a group of Koreans could just register and mass-vote against.This wiki

disadvantage,is the mob rule of the masses.The popular opinion dominates everything,however wrong it may be(and also corrupts articles by molding them into what the combined wiki hive mind thinks on the subject).Thankfully its just a name.Voting is just a exercise of showing who has more supporters,not who is right. FrozenVoid 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Change to the naming convention
It's been 5 years since the vote took place, so I want to test if the consensus has changed. I don't necessarily want a re-vote, where people just murmur ambiguously and vote what they want without considering the merits of the arguments put forth. The last vote was too much Japanophiles and Korea-bashers. I want an extensive discussion, and I am here to bring new arguments to support my case.

Since the last vote, we've learned whether East Sea gained wide acceptance or not. Various institutions such as the National Geographic, Britannica, etc. have embraced dual usage of both names.

I would like the following amendments:


 * For all articles relating to the naming dispute, use Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 * For all articles relating to topics on both Japan and Korea, use Sea of Japan (East Sea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunbum Park (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For all articles unrelated exclusively to topics on Japan or Korea, use Sea of Japan.
 * For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Japan, use Sea of Japan.
 * For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Korea, use East Sea.

This is my rationale for requesting the changes.


 * Sea of Japan (East Sea) is only useful in indicating name-usage superiority if that was how it was written in all the articles.
 * But the naming dispute is not about name-usage superiority, only whether East Sea is a valid international alternative.
 * East Sea is a valid international name. This is true both in terms of the adoption of the dual usage, and, at least with the moderate position taken up by the Korean side, the academic debate as well.
 * It's really superfluous to say Sea of Japan (East Sea) when just one could be mentioned.
 * Users should have the option of choosing one over the other. In Korea-related articles, users should be allowed to prefer East Sea.
 * It's really forcing it if an article relating to Korea's territorial waters has to mention Sea of Japan when there is an equally valid alternative.
 * Fairness of a situation or arrangement can be testified by reciprocity. Someone in previous discussion said "In reference to Japan, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is accepted. In reference to Korea, East Sea (Sea of Japan) is fine. I'm American, I speak standard midwestern English. I use both names interchangably. Let's keep domestic politics out of this. Both names make sense when speaking of the countries in question. Internationally East Sea is vague, so we use the other. This is a really simple issue, we should be fair and reasonable about it" I am taking this suggestion further, saying in reference to Korea, simply East Sea should be used.

Not about name-usage superiority. Equally valid international name. Superfluous. Reciprocity. Thanks. (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Having two names spread across the wiki would be detrimental for readers. It's not forcing to name a body of water by its most common name on wikipedia articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then your rationale would pre-empt any usage of East Sea at all. The confusion you mention would not only be solved by redirect, but also I have hard time imagining how that confusion would arise. I wonder if it would be significant when we also have redirects. Only way that would occur would be if the user were to check across multiple articles, but the fact that the naming uses would differ on different topics exclusively dealing with Japan or Korea would mean their uses would be contained within their respective Japanese and Korean contexts, without any rooms for overlapping confusion. I'd assume the confusion wouldn't exist because mentioning of the sea would either have to be a trivial fact, or, if it were a defining feature of a topic unrelated to the naming dispute, it would be mentioned alone in self-contained context with all that would be needed to understand the topic without needing to notice the different usage...
 * We're not here to name the article Sea of Japan differently but to discuss name usage. It's okay to use different names in different contexts, even on a wiki. That's why we have redirects. Has redirects been determinental at all? Nope. (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC))


 * *For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Korea, use East Sea. 
 * I am opposed to that. This is the English Wikipedia, we should be using the English common name, which is "Sea of Japan". For Korean articles it should be "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" or "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". "Sea of Korea" would be much less ambiguous than "East Sea", since "East Sea" is the "East China Sea", not the "Sea of Japan". We should not be using WP:JARGON on Korean articles, since our audience is the English speaking world at large, not the English-speaking Korean population. Korea is not an English-speaking locality, so ENGVAR doesn't apply, and neither is Japan. (Regardless of how many partisans argue that Korea and Japan are English speaking localities, they are not, it's not the legal language or commonly spoken with great fluency by large portions of the populations) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment this really should be an RFC if you wish to change it. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like subsequent contributors to log onto an actual user account, so it's easier to keep track of who's saying what. If you know are so familiar with Wikipedia you must have a user account, Mr. 65.93.12.101. Please log on and claim your comments. (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * WP:AGF please, IP's are known to edit! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you must be not assuming good faith about me assuming good faith. Well if Mr. 65.93.12.101 is so knowledgeable about Wikipedia it wouldn't hurt to either log onto the account he already has or create a new user account, which would take 5 seconds. It's hard to keep track of who said what when the names are all numbers. (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * What you said Mr. 65.93.12.101 about common usage really pertains to article naming, not name usage. We are free to "WP:use different any english names in different contexts" and that's why we have redirects. (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say, actually. It's okay to use East Sea (Sea of Japan), but we can't use jargons of non-English speaking localities? I'd think East Sea with redirect would be the same thing as East Sea (Sea of Japan). (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

In this debate, I've said it before and I'll say it again, commonness is irrelevant. We have lots of precedent on wikipedia for using spellings, terms, etc relevant to a certain subject that may or may not be the most common terms/spellings for those words. The name must be linked on first use anywhere, so any questions can easily be answered by a click-through.--Crossmr (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Two notes to Chunbum Park: IPs can edit freely in almost every part of Wikipedia (the only exception I know of is on WP:RFA). There are, in fact, editors who have edited under the same IP address for much longer than you've been on Wikipedia.  While some people believe people that registered accounts should be required, until such time as they are (if that ever happens), IPs have equal rights in basically all ways.  Second, the IPs point is also valid--this needs to be an RFC if you actually want a change.  I doubt that many people actually watch this page, so you can't get a decent consensus without an RfC.  I'll think about your proposals and provide my input in a few days.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: I do see that you've notified the relevant pages and Wikiprojects, which is at least a good start; still, I think an RfC is really the right way to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing equal rights. Why do you treat IP like a real person? Making an account is very easy thing to do. So he should do it, if he wants to partake in the discussion and later perhaps a revote. (Chunbum Park (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

my two bits
Five years since the last vote..wow time flies. Anyways, looking around the English world, East Sea never gained the naming popularity that the Koreans expected it to. I still see almost exclusively either just "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of japan (East Sea)". Except for things published by Koreans, I have never seen "East Sea" stand alone. I can't see a reason to change the naming convention because it reflects current English usage (albeit not Korean Englsh usage). Masterhatch (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The problems with using "East Sea" by itself, even in exclusively Korea-related articles, are that 1) that's not what North Korea uses exactly (North Korea uses "Korea East Sea") and 2) Korea is close to another "East Sea" (East China Sea, which is referred to in China and Taiwan as simply "East Sea").  I understand that this is a matter that is important to the national pride of the Korean editors in the Wikipedia community (and therefore I haven't tried to revisit the clearly-(IMO)unacceptably-POV wording of, for example, the opening paragraphs of Goguryeo and Balhae) but Korean editors shouldn't simply ignore the Chinese, in addition to the Japanese, community in proposing ideas that simply 1) introduce confusion and/or unnecessary need for disambiguation and 2) endorse a Korea-centric view of the world.  --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No need for a re-vote; "Sea of Japan" is still the primary usage in English and much less ambiguous than "East Sea", which is regionally specific just to Korea. --mav (reviews needed) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Can't believe you are worrying for the North Koreans' position too? But what you say really either pre-empts any use of East Sea at all or is really relevant to article naming. Chinese and Taiwanese can use East Sea in their articles, that's fine, and that can redirect to East China Sea; Koreans should be able to use East Sea too, which will redirect to Sea of Japan. East Sea in place of Sea of Japan is not really a matter of national pride, unless you make it an issue, and if you do that'd be Japanese national pride. I'd observe more prideful and fervent actions by Japanophiles and Korea-bashers, even to the point of mimicking sock puppets for Korean side provided by pro-Japanese users. For Koreans, well for anybody really, it's superfluous to write Sea of Japan (East Sea) and especially to mention Sea of Japan when discussing Korea's own territorial waters, wihch might or might not be a Korea-centric topic to begin with (who knows?). Are you really going to pick on Goguryeo and Balhae? It's funny how it works out like that. Japanese-POVs really love to gang up with Chinese-POVs and vice versa on disputed topics with Korea. Points taken, but I want other people's opinions - less Korea-bashers, less Japanophiles, more reasonable people. (Chunbum Park (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC))


 * It's simple, use the Russian name. "Японское море" is the Russian name, which is "Japan Sea". Since Russia borders this sea, and is neither Japan, China or Korea, that satisfies your complaints about Sinophiles, Nipponophiles, and also Koreaphiles which you didn't bother to mention. "Japan Sea" and "Sea of Japan" are equivalent names under English rules of gammar, and "Sea of Japan" is more common in English than "Japan Sea", so the body should therefore always be referred to as "Sea of Japan". 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
I'd like to know whether these piped link used by Korean editors are acceptable or not. Sea of Japan (East Sea) This one is used on South Korea. Another version is Sea of Japan (East Sea) the Sea of Japan (also called East Sea) which was used in Korea Strait. See this too. `Probably these are used more in Korea-related articles. IMO, it is undue weight on the naming dispute. I think clarification of the use of these piped links is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing greatly wrong with Sea of Japan (East Sea), it doesn't exactly cause an issue and in fact may be advantageous due to explaining why the bracketed name is there. Sea of Japan (East Sea) however is clearly bad and should be changed. There's absolutely no point in not allowing a link to the article on the body of water itself (which would be the self-evident point of the wikilink). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think both of them are problematic (though the second is more serious), because they take the reader to somewhere they would not expect from the visible text. The relevant section of the WP Manual of Style deals with this issue.  Kanguole 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Current Korea Strait setup is still bad, Sea of Japan (also called East Sea), phrases such as also called is not justifiable on articles where the body of water in question is not a large topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected it. I thought it was an international article as one of the categories was International straits. Or is it a Japan/Korea and South Korea article? Oda Mari (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Korea Strait article includes both international and Japan-S.Korea border categories. Using one over the other to justify a particular usage does not work in that WP:NC-SoJ #3 says to use both names when the topic covers both countries.  In that the strait is the K-J "border", has been the avenue of approach into Japan for many centuries, and will someday have a tunnel between them, #3 is the more pertinent category.  Deletion of East Sea can only rile up the EastSeaophiles. Including East Sea (in parens with a link to the naming dispute article) is more NPOV.--S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with S. Rich here, that this is primarily a Japan-Korea article, so it should get the treatment for category three. I also agree with everyone else that the piping through to the naming dispute is not appropriate.  Qwyrxian (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on East Sea use in Korea-specific topics
I suggest: Chunbum Park (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For all articles relating to the naming dispute, use Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 * For all articles relating to topics on both Japan and Korea, use Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 * For all articles unrelated exclusively to topics on Japan or Korea, use Sea of Japan.
 * For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Japan, use Sea of Japan.
 * For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Korea, use East Sea.


 * Oppose for reasons I gave already. I also believe that there is no compelling reason to reopen and revisit the issue; I am not necessary in agreement with the status quo, but it is the status quo.  (Incidentally, I have no opinion on the issue that Oda Mari brought up; I can see good arguments for the piping to be acceptable and for it not to be acceptable.)  --Nlu (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the current naming convention reflects real English use. The only time you see East Sea by itself is from Korean published articles in English. Masterhatch (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is misleading. Dual usage appears only on maps because that would be the only place it would be necessary, but this does not somehow make using East Sea alone in Korea-specific context inappropriate, and most literature does not specifically deal with Korea, anyways. What I am suggesting is not contrary to the conventions outside of Wikipedia.  (Chunbum Park (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Oppose Okay, I see three changes here. The first effects only the article Sea of Japan naming dispute; however, it doesn't really effect it, because at no point does that article refer exclusively to the "sea" only to the names the two sides want to give it. So there's no place where we could give that hybrid name. The second change allows the use of "East Sea" alone on Korean articles.  That is a direct violation of our principles on naming, which is that we care only about the name in English, not the local name.  For instance, we have articles on Florence and Moscow, despite the fact that these are not the local terms for those places.  Third, this proposal erases the North Korean option, which, despite what any of us may feel about North Korea as a country, doesn't seem to be equitable in an encyclopedia.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * East Sea is not a local name. Donghae, maybe. They're both English names - that would be the reason why both are used by National Geographic, Britannica, Encarta, etc. (Chunbum Park (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * In order to make this change, you're going to need to provide pretty conclusive proof that the dual name is regularly used in English, more often than the single name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't put unnecessary burden on my proposal. This isn't about which usage is more frequent, but whether East Sea is equally valid, alternative international name. A more reasonable proposal would be comparing the frequency of Sea of Japan (East Sea), Sea of Japan, and East Sea in Korea-specific contexts. (Chunbum Park (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Oppose Seems this was settled way back when WP:NC-SoJ.--S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason for this RFC is to test consensus again. What you say doesn't help if consensus has changed.
 * If you're going to "oppose," please provide a valid reason. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a catwalk where people who oppose murmur something and walk away. (Chunbum Park (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * My reason is perfectly valid and clear -- we have a precedent, a settled discussion, a workable protocol, and I provided the link which documents the earlier decision. I did not merely murmur something and I'm certainly not walking away. If we reach a new, changed consensus, then wonderful. But my position is to oppose.--S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See, the thing is, Chunbum Park, consensus simply isn't going to change just because time has passed. In order for consensus to change, you need to show us what is different now, or what was decided incorrectly before.  Yes, consensus can change, but it doesn't usually do so spontaneously.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh consensus isn't simply going to change just because time has passed. I don't need to show you anything. I am here to find out just like the rest of us. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * No you did not provide any justification for your position. What do YOU find wrong with using East Sea in Korea-specific contexts? Referring to outdated consensus doesn't mean anything. People in previous debates provided valid reasons to shape the consensus. It's your turn to do the same. (Chunbum Park (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Oppose it's fine the way it is.
 * *For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Korea, use East Sea. 
 * I am opposed to that. This is the English Wikipedia, we should be using the English common name, which is "Sea of Japan". For Korean articles it should be "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" or "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". "Sea of Korea" would be much less ambiguous than "East Sea", since "East Sea" is the "East China Sea", not the "Sea of Japan". We should not be using WP:JARGON on Korean articles, since our audience is the English speaking world at large, not the English-speaking Korean population. Korea is not an English-speaking locality, so ENGVAR doesn't apply, and neither is Japan. (Regardless of how many partisans argue that Korea and Japan are English speaking localities, they are not, it's not the legal language or commonly spoken with great fluency by large portions of the populations). As for "East Sea" being written in English, that doesn't matter, alot of things are written in English but aren't used in English by primarily-English speaking people. This is JARGON because it is used by a small restricted population amongst themselves, where a different term is used by the world at large. Further, it is ambiguous, since many translated things that reference an "East Sea" actually refer to the East China Sea. Hong Kong is an English speaking locality (English is a legal language there) and some stuff from there refers to the East China Sea as the East Sea. "Sea of Korea" atleast makes it much less ambiguous, since it shows it is connected with Korea, and not any old east coast. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * East Sea is not a jargon. It's equally valid international name in English. You are confusing it with Donghae, which would be transliteration of Korean 동해. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Where do you live, and have you ever been out of South Korea? (I assume you live in South Korea and have never left that country, from your statements) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firstly, the inconsistency of calling a body of water by different names across wikipedia would be detrimental. It is clearly not WP:NPOV to change the name of something depending on the national group the article involved is more closely related to. As for whether the East Sea is an "equally valid, alternative international name," yes, it's a name in the English language, but that doesn't change the fact it's the local South Korean name. Sea of Japan is still the most common name, and there is no evidence to show that East Sea by itself has become, or is becoming, an equally accepted and widespread name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be "local" if it is international name? Then by your logic Sea of Japan would be local as well? It's natural to use Korean name for Korea-specific context. It has nothing to do with NPOV because it's not about article naming. Inconsistency is solved by redirect. And the issue is not at all about which name is more commonly used, only that both are equally valid alternatives suitable for different contexts. (Chunbum Park (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * As I said, there's no evidence for it's being an international name. Sea of Japan is an internationally recognised and used name, being the official name listed by the International Hydrographic Organization. WP:NPOV is not about article names, it is about everything in the entire encyclopaedia, and is a pillar of wikipedia. The english wikipedia uses the english name, not the korean of the japanese name, and the most common and widespread english name for the sea is the Sea of Japan. Inconsistency is not solved by a redirect or by a pipelink, the text still says "East Sea". The pipelink does not affect the consistency at all. Finally, no, as explained, using different names in different contexts is not valid or suitable.
 * Please use edit summaries Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * East Sea is also internationally recognized. Being a legitimate international name has nothing to do with being the most popular. Of course we should use the most frequently used name to name our articles. But it's also necessary to use different names for different contexts. (Chunbum Park (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * In that case I ask you to define "internationally recognized" and "legitimate international name". I still disagree with your second sentence per WP:NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do people doing real work and policymaking care about Wikipedia's NPOV? Being a legitimate international name has nothing to do with the most popular. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Please go back and re-read WP:NPOV, which explicitly states that Naming is not subject to NPOV in the same way that other things are. Note, for instance, the first 2 sentences of that section which state, "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."  Don't worry--this is a common misunderstanding with regards to naming; but WP consensus is that NPOV is only one factor in deciding the names of articles, places, events, etc., and not necessarily the most important one.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The current setup follows "The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed." In this case, when the context is Korean, we mention the alternative names and occasionally through wikilinks even the controversy can be shown, eg. Sea of Japan (East Sea).
 * At any rate Chunbum, you keep saying East Sea is "internationally recognized" and a "legitimate international name". If you could explain what you mean by that, it would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because UNCSGN conferences stated both names should be used until the dispute is resolved, which would also necessitate participation from Japan that it was unwilling to provide. This position was adopted by various publications and institutions, including National Geographic, etc. (Chunbum Park (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I was AGFing until this point, but you've just about lost it there, given that you've flat out misunderstood or misstated the truth there. The UNSCGN has, every single time the issue has been raised by the Koreas, stated that it is not the UNSCGN's position do determine names, and has urged the 3 countries to develop their own solution. Never once, as far as I know, have they ever taken a position recommending either a single or a dual name.  If you have some official information contradicting this, please bring it up on Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding UNSCGN has urged the 3~4 countries to come to their own agreements, and the convention is that until that agreement has been reached all names would be used. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Please explain UNCSGN.--S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * UNCSGN = "United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names" (I think I mistyped the acronym a few times above). It's a conference sponsored by the UN every 4-6 years (recently).  The goal of the conference is to bring together both governments and geographers to achieve international standards on the name of places, geo-features, etc. The conference doesn't actually vote, or make decisions, or issue edicts (kind-of like the UN General Assembly, in fact).  Rather, it's a place for people to talk and, when possible, agree on how to name places.  In the past 4 conferences (you can read details of this on Sea of Japan naming dispute), South and/or North Korea have raised the issue to the conference suggesting that the international name be either East Sea, East Sea of Korea, or Sea of Japan (East Sea), with the joint name being their most common push in recent years as far as I can tell.  Each time, Japan and sometimes other countries object, sometimes on procedural grounds; each time, the committee has explicitly stated that the purpose of the conference is not to make rulings, and that these three countries need to sort it out amongst themselves, then report their agreement back to the committee.  Thus, even though the Koreas would like the UNCSGN to make some rule "requiring" the use of joint names, the conference actually has no such power nor desire.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but we are not obliged to follow whatever the United Nation uses. Ergo, we're not obliged to call the Republic of Macedonia "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," and we're not obliged to call the Republic of China "Taiwan, Province of China."  Indeed, doing so would violate Wikipedia's principles.  --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Chunbum Park, you submitted this matter for a rediscussion.  People are giving their opinions.  Please do not act like everybody else is wrong and only you are right.  --Nlu (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it seems like many people here just have their mind made up without willing to really examine the reasons I've brought up and having good reasons themselves. They just walk in here, vote what they will, murmur some WP:yyy jargon, and walk away. (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * To me, your statement describes your own position. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much with 65.... on this one. What are you expecting us to say, Chunbum Park?  I can tell you that I have examined the naming issue very closely, and have found no indication that the English name is anything other than "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".  I don't understand why you don't see that the burden is on you if you want change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure said something very odd. Is "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" really a name? Again you're putting unnecessary burden on me. If there's creative barnstar, you should get one. (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, you don't have to take up the burden, but you should know that if you don't, the currently existing consensus will certainly remain...it just makes sense that no one else is going to make your case for you when we're already happy with the status quo. Your choice, I suppose. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You use the term burden of proof like some magic word or spell from Harry Potter. Burden on me what? I posted the links in the section above RFC. I hope they haven't gone unnoticed. (Chunbum Park (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Please see WP:BURDEN. In this case you are the editor who wants the change made, e.g., add/subtract material, so the burden is on you. And since we work by WP:CONSENSUS, the change you suggest can only come about when involved editors are agreeable.  Also please keep WP:CIV in mind.--S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You posted no links in the section above. It's just your opinion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They must have gone unnoticed. " " (Chunbum Park (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Park-shi, 2 of these 3 support the idea. But really this is a subject that needs the "most reliable" academic WP:SOURCES. --S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sea of Japan commonly used in English. "East Sea" unrecognizable. No need to go back and forth between various articles. Confusing to readers. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Except perhaps to allow conventions which allow native names within native articles. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Use "Sea of Japan" in all cases. This is the most common name in the English-speaking world. There is no such thing as a "Korea" article or a "Japan" article etc. - there are only "Wikipedia" articles. Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification requested from last two editors: are you suggesting we change the current standard? Because right now we do have use different names in different articles (see the project page). Chunbum Park was merely asking for a change in how we divide up the different names. In other words, it doesn't actually sound like you're proposing, but rather that you're proposing a 3rd alternative. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly am suggesting that. The current guideline is illicit. It states "For all international articles use... For all Japan articles use..." and this is egregious pandering. However, if forced to choose only between the existing guideline and the proposal, I oppose the proposal and recommend keeping the current guideline. The proposal includes "For all articles relating exclusively to topics on Korea, use East Sea". This will leave the typical user in the situation of asking herself "What is this 'East Sea' entity of which they are speaking?" and then have go look it up, which is unfriendly and breaks the reader's concentration. This is the English Wikipedia. To the extent that English-speaking Koreans are using it, those persons need to recognize that, by choosing to operate in English, they are engaging with the broad world of English speakers, which - for better or worse - uses terms not normally used in Korea. The Korean Wikipedia may of course use whatever terms it likes. Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As with my earlier post above on this topic in 2005, I agree with mav.  "Sea of Japan" is the common name of this body of water.  Tempshill (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Your suggestion is a laudable compromise, IF the term "East Sea" had any kind of notability in the English-speaking world, but it doesn't, so I can't support it. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No one in the English speaking world uses "East Sea", except under pressure from Korean speakers, which this RFC is just another weak attempt at. We English speakers don't go screwing around with Korean WP.  Kindly stop screwing around with English WP.  70.131.144.130 (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)