Talk:Sea of Japan

Archives
February 2003 - March 2006 April - December 2006

Liancour Rocks(Dokuto/Takeshima)

Liancour Rocks is a neutral name. Please explain the reason why this name is not adopted. --Sir Joestar 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Sea of Japan, not Dokdo. Please see the discussions on Talk:Dokdo. --Reuben 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why neutrality concerns? What's clear and apparent fact can't be argued. Dokdo belongs to Korea. So the very official name of it must be what Koreans call it. --Jinroin 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's Dokdo not Dokuto --Jinroin 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral names should be used regardless of the type of articles. --[[User::l46kok|l46kok]]

WP:LAME

An entry from Sea of Japan appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.

Wikipedia

need for SProtect?

Due to the recent frequent vandalism by anons, I am considering to SProtect this page to prevent anon edits. Any thoughts or comments? -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Forgive my ignorance, but can someone direct me to the explanations for the recent revert by the IP address? From what I see, in every other Wikipedia article, the alternate name is bolded. This article is not locked from editing, I don't understand reverting just for the sake of preventing changes. OpieNn 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main reason: East Sea is not "the alternate name". Note that the Koreas push for different names. And East Sea is a different article. Previous discussion that you may wish to take part in:

• #Possible solution
• #New proposal, new vote
• #Should East Sea be bolded?
• #Should "East Sea" be mentioned at all in the lead section?

--129.241.126.121 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to make little sense to link East Sea to a disambiguation page. Surely there's no doubt about which East Sea is meant in this context. I could see linking to the Sea of Japan naming dispute page, though. --Reuben 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be, it seems to me this list from above pretty much settles the discussion, about East Sea being bolded as a widely recognized alternate name. I also don't see why East Sea is a disambiguation page, since it's not ambiguous at any other encyclopedia.

• American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) [1]; East Sea: See Sea of Japan [2]
• National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [3]
• Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
• World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [4]
• Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [5]
• Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, [6]; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [7]
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea [8]; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of [9] OpieNn 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These citations were already provided by User:Quizimodo as seen in the above discussions (and by User:Appleby before him). In the English language, "East Sea" is ALWAYS used in conjunction with "Sea of Japan", but never "East Sea" alone. These links prove it.--Endroit 08:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

203.63.59.37's comment

this is taken from naming dispute section of the article. --Kusunose 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In dispute to the above stated view point;

Firstly, I should point out that the name “East Sea” or “The East Sea” has actually received formal international recognition. Both the National Geographic Society (1999), and multiple other cartographic organisations have formally recognised the name “East Sea” and will be including this on all future maps produced (Reference: Sea of Japan vs. East Sea , by Matt Rosenberg, February 24, 2002, http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa022402a.htm). This is not to say that they are removing the old name “Sea of Japan” as this is very commonly known, and so it is likely to cause confusion, in unaware peoples, if this name is suddenly replaced.

The Issues Regarding the Name Dispute:

"The Gulf of Corea" was the original English name for this section of sea (Reference: "Asia" from The General Gazetteer; or Compendious Geographical Dictionary by R. Brookes. Eighth Edition. Dublin, 1808.)

The naming of "The Sea of Japan" only came into effect after the (alleged, yet largely accepted) murder of the Korean Queen Min in the early 20th Century (I believe the Romanised spelling of her name is correct), and the subsequent forcible annexation of Korea by the Japanese (who had been, in the years previous, supplied with military equipment and training by Western nations). At this point, and only because Japan now forcibly controlled both sides of this section of sea, was the name changed to "The Sea of Japan".

In all reasonableness, after the surrender of Japan in 1945, and Korea becoming (somewhat) independent again, the name should have been re-adjusted. Note: The Northern half of Korea was administered by the Soviet Empire and the Southern half was administered by the U.S.A – as per the terms of reconstruction for the peninsula. It was as a reaction to the American antagonism of the Soviets in this area that the Korean War resulted; splitting the country in two.

The Americans, and the Western countries allied with them (largely encompassing most of the prominent English speaking countries [and note: we are discussing the dispute over the English name for this section of sea – not the name in any other language]).... these countries were somewhat unwilling to re-adjust the naming of the section of sea. Most likely because of Americans extremely strong influence over Japan at the time, and still existing. Note: Japan is a vassal state to the U.S.A. (if any Japanese wish to dispute this – please study your constitution and you will see the truth of it).

Japan no longer controls both sides of this section of sea. There do exist disputed islands approximately at the centre of this region, however that is a different matter, and for the countries themselves to resolve.

At this point in history it would be unreasonable to name the section of sea after either one country, especially as they have both had the section of sea previously named after them. It is more than reasonable, and should be perfectly acceptable to the governments and citizens of both countries, that the section of sea be named as “The East Sea”. As Japan itself has always (historically) considered itself, and the region of sea immediately around it, to be 'East' (Asia was always histroically referenced around what is now the PRC (China), and in reference to China, Japan is in the East, and so it always considered itself to be East). The section of sea, coincidentally, is also to the East of Korea. And on a global scale the whole region is in “The Far East”.

In summary: At present the official name of this section of sea is BOTH “The Sea of Japan” AND “The East Sea”.

It is more than likely that as time passes the naming “East Sea” will slowly become more prominent, especially as the world population (who grew up with and have always associated) the name “Sea of Japan” slow pass away... the younger generations of world population will likely be more “travelled”, and so be more aware of the differences in the world as a whole.

Note: In this article I mean no offence to any Japanese person with the things that I have mentioned about Japan. It is only mentioned as history has played out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.63.59.37 (talk • contribs).

Sea of Japan

It is loacted a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Korea, Japan and Russia. we think the Sea of Japan is right comment but it is not. Not Sea of Japan but East Sea and also it's not a sea of Japan it's Sea of Korea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.46.181.41 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Your argument is irrelevant. The Sea of Japan is the standard name to speakers of English. Macgruder 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sea of Japan is known better than the East Sea, but the 'fame' does not ensure the 'right thing.' -a networker

Can somebody explain why the title doesn't have the name of East Sea in Parenthesis but the actual article does?

East Sea

I believe the mention of "East Sea" (unbolded, in the intro) was removed in favor of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (bolded) in the "dispute" section (at the bottom), in accordance with a previous discussion at Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 2#Should East Sea be bolded?. Since there was no significant discussion to change that consensus, I will revert the last addition of "East Sea" into the intro.--Endroit 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was no consensus and the intro continued to be written as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" after the discussion. That was changed on 3 May to the version suggested by jnestorius in the previous discussion, which has both "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".[10] And then, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" part was moved to the dispute section[11] thus "East Sea" disappeared from the intro. I prefer jnestorius' version. As the lead section is the summary of the article, we should talk about the dispute there. And it would be better to introduce "East Sea" in conjunction with the dispute, because for those who do not know the dispute, why "East Sea" is in the parenthesis is not obvious. --Kusunose 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should be a summary of the article. The article contains significant information about the dispute, because the naming dispute is very relevant and interesting information, probably for a majority of people who are reading this topic. The naming issue should be very briefly explained in the first or second sentence. Highlimit 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Kusunose and Highlimit, both names should be in the introduction.

Compromise

I was called by an editor here through e-mail (since I have e-mail on my user page) to handle maybe a new dispute here? I think it should be Sea of Japan (East Sea) for the title of the article & also the header for the box. What do you guys think? If there was no consensus before, there may be now. National Geographic I hear does the same thing. See "Sea of Japan -"East Sea", "East Sea" -"Sea of Japan", and "Sea of Japan" "East Sea". I don't think East Sea lags behind that much to be excluded, and plus we must be neutral. (Wikimachine 16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

This isn't a good idea; if any change at all is required, it is much better to use the idea that Kusunose suggested. See my comment below for response to the material Wikimachine added in the above comment after I left this one —LactoseTI^T 16:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Same thing with Dokdo right? We should move Liancourt Rocks to the dispute section.... no. I hereby test neutrality of the same editors who participated in Dokdo poll & here too. I'll request a new RM. (Wikimachine 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Such a parenthetical can lead to confusion, as Kusunose mentions--the approach we somewhat endorse will explain without undo weight. Before you start diving into your old friend Google, see the archives on the the compromise--one name is clearly in much wider usage. —LactoseTI^T 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, you do know that no one was disputing the title, right? Evidently the e-mail you got canvasing you over here was not specific enough. Right now there is just some minor discussion going on about the intro. --Cheers, Komdori 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I still think it's a good idea to move the article to Sea of Japan (East Sea). I hear that many articles (mostly disputed ones) use parenthesis to present 2 names. (Wikimachine 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia deprecates using two names in article titles. If other articles are doing so, please consider renaming them rather than renaming this. --Kusunose 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Click click. I quite don't remember who advocated using two names for Liancourt Rocks... were they Macgruder & Komdori? Nah... They're just too honest. Kusunose, what if "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" itself is a title? See this new search. Remember that Wikipedia procedures are not absolute. We must try to seek a solution that fits best with all of the rules. Sea of Japan is definitely not NPOV. P.S. Wikipedia does recommend, but it does not prevent titles containing 2 or more names. (Wikimachine 14:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is not a solution that fits best with all of the rules. The deprecation of using two names in a title is part of WP:NPOV policy. It also does not meet any of Wikipedia naming conventions as far as I know. P.S. We should distinguish what is technically possible with the MediaWiki software and what is possible within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. --Kusunose 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that part of NPOV states that Wikipedia should not hold two different titles with two separate articles. Why didn't you bring this up in Liancourt Rocks dispute, Kusunose? Your expert help would have prevented another poll. (Wikimachine 16:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

What you are saying is about WP:NPOV#POV forks but I'm referring to WP:NPOV#Article naming. As to Liancourt Rocks, the last RM was the first time double names were brought up as candidates and they gained not much support so I doubt bringing this up there made much difference. --Kusunose 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Japanese-Korean_disputes#Geographic_disputes. Doesn't something click? Liancourt Rocks, Tsushima, and East Sea. Huh. I'm sensible enough to accept Tsushima (actually I don't care about Tsushima, KPOV is wrong) and maybe Sea of Japan too (like Indian Ocean, etc.) but overall you can clearly see an internal systemic bias due to admin lobbying and more. (Wikimachine 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I can support all names based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCON etc. so I don't think it's due to systemic bias. Some people disputes their names based on their perceived neutrality but it is not how article naming work in Wikipedia. --Kusunose 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can give me all the rules and procedures that I already know of and which I included in my handy dandy guide to explain why the Liancourt Rocks should have remained at Dokdo, but when we get to a dispute again you, Kusunose, yourself doesn't stick with them all that much either. For example, there was no consensus in anything, and the only risk in that was sock puppeting, and we had already gotten sock puppeting cleared of, but the admin decided to go on with sock puppeting and yes consensus. Stuffs like this bother me. (Wikimachine 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

I won't make a new RM, but in process I proved that Komdori and Macgruder were not neutral in the Liancourt Rocks dispute. (Wikimachine 13:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Chinese name

I removed Chinese name, because Sea of Japan don't have relation with Chinese. --Masoris 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

seems that someone put it back... Odst 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

I found that there is a redirect for the Japanese word "Nihonkai". I'm removing that and creating a disambiguation page for that word since there exists a named passenger train with the name of Nihonkai and that article can be found at Nihonkai (Train). If there are any problems, let me know. Thanks. Hosikawafuzi 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IHO did Not decide to only sea of japan use

the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". <<?

actually, iho chief said,

"I encourage the three countries concerned to find a solution acceptable to all of them, taking into account any relevant solutions, or else to agree to differ and to report the outcome of these discussions to the next conference."

iho did not decide to only 'sea of japan' naming use.Panelequal3 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHO declined to change the name to "East Sea," leaving it as Sea of Japan and then made the statement that you quote above. By declining to change the name, they left the name as it stands currently- Sea of Japan, and suggested that if it is going to be changed, that the involved parties work out a compromise. Cla68 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The IHO declined the name use both "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan". They did not decide to only sea of japan name use.

1. IHO cheif said, "these discussions to the next conference."

2. Previous IHO's map delete that only "sea of japan" name use.

3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.[12]

4. so, IHO did not decide to exclusively "sea of japan" name use. Panelequal3 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [13] [14]

so, exclusively 'sea of japan name use' did not permited. "Sea of japan/ East sea"(twin use) is right.Panelequal3 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"it is recommended" <>"it is not permitted"; likewise "should" <> "must", plus IHO says even the recommendation can be ignored in case of small-scale maps. Please don't twist interpretation of a conditional 'recommendation' to imply that something "is not permitted". 16:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridesmill (talk • contribs)

Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)

Check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). According to Wikipedia naming convention,

Per the vote that took place from 18 July 2005 to 8 August 2005 here, this is the new naming convention for the body of water that separates Japan and Korea:

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)

Per the conditions of the vote, use (East Sea) only once at the first mention.

so, Sea of Japan (East Sea) is right.Panelequal3 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless Japan, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea have blockaded the entire sea to eliminate the international waters, this is an international article, as it describes the body of water not owned by any of the four countries. Even it were to be a "Japan/Korea and South Korea" article, the (East Sea) parenthetic should only be added once; not throughout the article. Neier 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This sea is not only for japan but also, north and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and south korea and north korea. Panelequal3 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wrong. The sea is not Japan's; it is not South Korea's; it is not Russia's. It is an international body of water. So, the Korean MoS should follow the international article standard. Neier 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

also, like already metioned, Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". this article cleary is NOT true.Panelequal3 08:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions disagree with sources all the time. This article is no different, and, should be kept according to the conventions we've established, and not necessarily default to a single source. Neier 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why do you can't answer this discussion? don't out of topic.

1. Like already metioned, According to IHO's technical resolution, internationally, "Sea of Japan/East Sea" (same use) is right.[15] [16]

2. the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". << this former article is not true. so, i correct this article. IHO did not decided to 'only' sea of japan name use. i already metioned it.

3. check the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). This sea is not only for japan but also, north and south korea's. also, this sea name disputed with japan and south korea and north korea. use as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is right. This was convetioned in wikipedia. why do you change without convetion? Panelequal3 09:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The naming dispute is between the three countries. The body of water is an international geographical feature. The Korean naming convention says that for international articles, which this is one, use Sea of Japan only. Neier 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Like already metioned, This Sea is not only for japan but also north korea and south korea. international? i did not edit other page's sea of japan name. but this page 'sea of japan/East Sea' article is for both north and south korea's. also, cleary The name of the water is disputed. so, only 'sea of japan' name use is JPOV edit. like alreay metioned this Sea is not only for japan but also both korea's. and you think russia permit only use "sea of japan" name? check the russian school text book. russia use east sea name, too.Panelequal3 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

deindent - The history of the naming debate of this article is in the archives, and it is fairly presumptious to try and change the current consensus with just one source. And, your newspaper article that you linked above says that the head of IHO has suggested the map be updated without a name, until a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. It also says that no change can happen without assent by the entire body (not just the head), which is in 2009. The body's current status is "Sea of Japan". If your issue is with the IHO calling it "Sea of Japan" against some other rule that the IHO has, then, you should not bother Wikipedia with that. As for the Korean naming conventions, are you telling me that Sea of Japan is not an international article, and relates only to the two Koreas, Japan, and Russia? That is wrong. It is an international article, and the Korean naming conventions list the international article first as how to deal with the naming issue: Sea of Japan. If your issue is with the Korean naming convention, then this article is the wrong place to be discussing it. And, I don't know or care what Russia calls it, because as I said, the article is about the body of water which no country owns. Current policy is to call the water [[Sea of Japan]. That would be true if Russia called it Sea of Russia, or whatever. Neier 09:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. you said, The history of the naming debate of this article is in the archives, and it is fairly presumptious to try and change the current consensus with just one source. <<<< Actually, i can not edit fair POV edit. bcz, if i insert history of east sea in these page[17], many japanese revert this and attack me, and report to me as 3rr violation. so, i can not edit Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute. so, these article did NOT contain Neutral POV article.

Your edits are more about the content of the naming dispute article, but, if you had inserted them without removing the other point of view, and without renaming every instance of Sea of Japan in the article, you may not have been reverted so quickly. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. you said, IHO calling it "Sea of Japan" <<<< Actually, IHO did not decide to only sea of japan name use. Japnese Kyodo Newspaper and Korean Newspaper contents different. Cleary, IHO chief did not decide to only Sea of Japan name use. also, like already metioned, According to IHO's technical resolution, Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. so, Kyodo Newspaper contents is NOT true. must correct this mistake.

The Kyodo source is about the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names; not the IHO. There was not IHO meeting in August 2007, because as the Korean paper wrote in May, there won't be a meeting until 2009. You cannot choose just one person's point of view and overrule the current practice of the IHO, and the latest results of the United Nations group. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3. you said, It is an international article. What is the international mean? your international mean is diffrent from other. this East Sea not only for japan but also north and south korea's. and article contain disputed sea name. so, for More Neutral POV edit, Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. this aricle is for korea's too. also, russia school text book recoreded as this sea as Sea of Japan/East Sea. Panelequal3 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

International means that it is in a context other than a certain country, or group. The naming dispute is confined to three or four countries; but, this article is not about the naming dispute. It is about the ocean, which is a global/international geographic feature. The Korean naming convention says to use just Sea of Japan in international articles; meaning, any article about a topic that is not confined to Korea, Japan, or Russia. This is such an article. Neier 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Many japanese personal harrasment to me and continually disturbance to edit. this is true. if you check my edit, i did not delete JPOV edit. i just insert KPOV edit.(remain JPOV, but you japanese continually delete any edit)

In your edit to this page, you remove the link to Kyodo about the United Nations August meeting, and insert a link about one person's opinion (the head of IHO) in May. Neier 10:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

don't tell a lie. i did not remove kyodo newspaper source. did you check my edit? Panelequal3 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

in your edits, where did the Ninth Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names elected to retain the title of the body of water as "Sea of Japan". go? Why did you delete it? Neier 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2. What are you talking about? NO. IHO did not decide to se of japan name use. like already metioned, check the IHO's technial resolution. Sea of Japan/East Sea (same use) is right. why do you can not answer this? and continually out of topic?

IHO decided before to use Sea of Japan. The current head (who is not dictatorial) thinks that another solution would be better, for the next time the IHO meets in 2009. Why do you ignore the August United Nations meeting report? Neier 10:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IHO did not decide to "only sea of japan name" use. anything not changed. but, According to IHO's technical reolution use as "Sea of Japan/ East Sea" is possible. so, current situation is "Sea of Japan/East Sea". Panelequal3 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Show where IHO decided (not just their head's opinion) to change the name. I'm sure that they know about their own rules, but, for whatever reason, they had chosen "Sea of Japan". That is not something for us to debate, but for IHO to debate. And, again, I don't see how this can override the United Nations automatically, or Wikipedia's conventions (which only use IHO, UN, and other sources for reference anyway, and not as the final decision). Neier 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3. According to you logic, Sea of Japan/East Sea(same use) is right. According to IHO's notaion, "Sea of Japan/East Sea" is right. and russia school text book use "Sea of Japan/East Sea". 1/4 of world map recorded as East Sea. so, East Sea is right. but, according to NPOV edit, Sea of Japan/East Sea is more NPOV. Panelequal3 10:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Korean naming conventions, Sea of Japan is correct. Neier 10:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? this article is not only japan's. this article is for korea's Panelequal3 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In those naming conventions, #1 "For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]". I don't see how that is unclear in any way, shape, or form. Neier 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

disputed name section

Earlier today I added a section near the top to refer to the naming dispute with a link to the article about the dispute. This was in an attempt to satisfy the concerns of those who wish the disputed name to be given prominence while respecting Wikipedia guidelines on article text and readability. Since then I've noticed that a similar section is at the foot of the article. This is unnecessary duplication. I would suggest that the section at the foot of this article could go. My new sentence at the top explains the dispute (it could be better worded, I took it from the other article) and it then links to that other article if people want more information. Is there consensus for this? B1atv 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to do a section link* from the sentence at the top, to the paragraph below. I think the paragraph below can at least try to summarize the dispute, and link to the main page. Having the Main article link above the ToC seems a bit distracting. Neier 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That makes a lot of sense. I wasn't aware we dd section links in that way. B1atv 12:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the new sentence at the top truly required although a table of contents to be immediately below? How about moving the "Naming dispute" paragraph to the second position? (meaning; between "Physical characteristics" and "Economy") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermint (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC) --Watermint 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the difficulty with that is that the name needs to be clear at the top of the article. People who think this ought to be East Sea need to see this when the name is resolved. I wonder whether it might be better to delete the current second sentence and amend the first sentence to read:

The Sea of Japan, sometimes known as the East Sea, is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Japan, Korea and Russia. Like the Mediterranean Sea, it has almost no tides due to its nearly complete enclosure.[1]

There is no need for duplication - already we have the issue here and at the "naming dispute" article, so we don't need it twice within this article. When I put the current second sentence in I hadn't read it sufficiently enough to have noted the issue was already discussed. So I would propose keeping the existing paragraph at the foot of the article, but making minimal reference to it at the top in the way suggested above. B1atv 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oriental Sea

I heard somewhere that when the Sea of Japan was discovered by the Europeans it was called the Oriental Sea. But then East Asians use Chinese characters and Oriental is written as 東 which means the samething as the East. You see, the boarderline between East and Orient is vague in chinese characters. Well... i don't know much about this, but i thought this might be helpful and would appreciate it if someone did research and put some reference on Oriental Seas. Thanks

-whsskdhkf- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whsskdhkf (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that, if sourced, this needs to go in the article about the naming dispute rather than here. B1atv 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

!

wow, you guys are still arguing about the sea of japan - east sea thing? pathetic. It's sea of Japan, no doubt. It's already been recognized in world geography...o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"often refered to as East Sea"

This edit by Bkinght5 and this edit by Appletrees, and edits by SPA's, have resorted to revert-warring, to add the following phrase:

• "often refered to as East Sea"

Previous discussions have centered around how to mention "East Sea" in this article. I believe there always was more consensus to say "sometimes referred to as Sea of Japan (East Sea)" rather than "often referred to as East Sea". A previous solution had been to use the following phrase in a section at the bottom:

• "some English-language publications refer to it as Sea of Japan (East Sea)"

There never was consensus to say "often referred to as East Sea". As a compromise, I suggest we say something like "sometimes referred to as Sea of Japan (East Sea)" at the top. Please discuss.--Endroit (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not like this suggestion. It's really rarely referred to as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" -- it's almost always referred to as one or the other. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit obtuse, since it's clear that any publications writing Sea of Japan (East Sea) are giving alternative names, not a single name that happens to be spelled with parentheses. --Reuben (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about MilesAgain's version[18]:

• "referred to in Korea as the East Sea"

This may be a better, more accurate way to mention "East Sea" in the intro. ("Sea of Japan (East Sea)" was already covered in the bottom section, so there's no loss.) I'm supporting this one as well.--Endroit (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not terrible, but it would be better if there's a good way to express that it's usually used in a context involving Korea, rather than geographically in Korea. --Reuben (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said to you before, this is the right time for a new poll on this naming change. I oppose to your suggestion. You intend to limit the usage of "East Sea" only in Korea which is a factual untrue. See the Britanica or other encyclopedias. You just completely try to erase the name on this page. --Appletrees (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Until you can decide what name you want to use. Might I suggest a request for comment, since you probably would like some editors who do not have nationalistic ties to weigh in. --Haemo (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: When is it called the East Sea?

Who calls the Sea of Japan the East Sea?

• Only Koreans and -- in parentheses following "Sea of Japan" -- a few publications influenced by the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea's letter writing campaign[19][20] as far as I can tell. The official name is "Sea of Japan".[21] See Sea of Japan#Naming dispute for the details. MilesAgain (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To compare with Dokdo (a.k.a Liancourt Rocks here), almost Japanese call the islet "Takeshima". Your Pov comment is not helping to solve anything. Well, I think the article should be named to the original name, Dokdo like Senkaku Island. And the international committee refused to state that the see is only exclusive for Japan. --Appletrees (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no more exclusivity implied than "Gulf of Mexico" which has a longer shoreline in the U.S., or "Indian Ocean" which is adjacent to four continents, of which India is only a small part, or the "Persian Gulf" which has a similar naming dispute because, presumably, it has more Arabian shoreline. In this case, though, nobody can deny that Japan has a longer coastline against the Sea. If you want to change Wikipedia, you must first convince the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. MilesAgain (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong examples you gave me. --Appletrees (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• From RFC: Just stepping into this dispute, I fear this may irresolvable without some compromise. I searched for "Sea of Japan East" on Google[22] to gain some insight. Aside from articles from Japanese and Korean websites it appears that consensus has been reached to refer to this sea as Sea of Japan (East Sea). Some examples from the search: Worldatlas.com[23], National Geographic[24], MSN Encarta[25]. I suggest a compromise to the community of renaming this article to Sea of Japan (East Sea) as this seems to be the compromise accepted by the above-mentioned sites. Proof that this compromise is acceptable to at least one side is provided by korea.net[26]. —BradV 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like BradV’s compromise to the situation with the addition to (East Sea) in the Sea of Japan title. With other sites already renaming the article in this manner, I also suggest the community does the same. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute & protection - most recent one

What caused the dispute?? how can I help with this issue?? thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Endroit has caused this dispute as you see the history of the article. --Appletrees (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. There's little justification for including East Sea in the article, which makes Appletrees and a host of (not necessarily sock-puppet) IPs the "guilty" party. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong for the accusation on "guilty" party. You just insult me and the other editors with such the inflammatory word. If Endroit did not reported a false file to ANI, the protection wouldn't happen. How rude you are!--Appletrees (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a little more civil than your previous post, but not adequately civil, for which I apologize. Please replace "guilty" by "responsible". Edroit's accusations weren't "false", other than (possibly) the sock-puppet accusation. Disruption is clear, as noted in the WP:AN section, and you have no business removing warnings from an IP's talk page unless, possibly, you were editing under that IP. {{uw-3rr}} warnings are appropriate for all parties in an edit war, including those who are in no immediate danger of violating WP:3RR, and including those from another party. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly uncivil and rude per these comment. Now you are implying that I'm the sock of the anon? You should apologize to me for that accusation. Nope, I've seen many third party editors removing inappropriate warnings given by disputed editors. I don't agree with your opinion on the 3RR warning and did violated on anything. That's why the admin closed the further discussion at the ANI and protected this page. You assure me to think your incivility again. --Appletrees (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not implying you're the sock of the anon. I'm saying that if you aren't the sock of the anon, your removal of the warning was improper. Again, you have been warned, and may be blocked if you remove additional warnings from other than your own talk page. You point to Endroit removing a warning from his own talk page, which is quite allowable, except for the comment indicating that it is unwarranted (even if it is). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I get to know why you're saying these in such the tone as seeing your talk page (you're an admin). In your claim, my past report should've carefully considered and some of editors who deliberately reverted or vandalized my pageseveral times. They should've been blocked but that case has never happen. --Appletrees (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The current "Naming dispute" section reads fairly neutrally. The only issue is that the second paragraph should be removed because it isn't cited and appears to repeat info from the first paragraph. Since the international organization affirmed "Sea of Japan" as the official name, this article is currently titled correctly. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, I hope the Dokdo article goes back to the original name soon not with the current ambiguous name. --Appletrees (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The original name was Liancourt Rocks. Please check the history of page moves. --Kusunose (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The original and current name of the islet administrated by South Korea is called Liancourt Rocks in real life? You must not confuse the article here with the real name. --Appletrees (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is in English. You can discuss the naming issue at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. --Kusunose (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Dokdo is proper noun just like your given name. --Appletrees (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I requested that the locking admin allow the second, uncited paragraph in the "Naming dispute" section be removed. I think that will make the article look better without materially altering its content. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If the paragraph which you strongly oppose to its existence is questioned so much, it might have gone already by "the other party" just like you. Or at least {{fact}} tag would've been hanging there, but that is not true. There is a possibility that the whole section is referenced. Did you check them?--Appletrees (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two paragraphs:

The name of the water is disputed. North Korea proposes the "East Sea of Korea"[4] South Korea proposes the "East Sea",[5] or the "Sea of Korea/Korean Sea" [6] respectively, instead of or as names concurrent with "Sea of Japan".

Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst most other countries, both North Korea and South Korea have advocated for a different name to be used. South Korea has argued that it should be called the "East Sea"; North Korea, the "East Sea of Korea".}}

The second one is almost an exact repeat of the first. So, even if it is using the same source (which is unknown since it doesn't have a footnote), it still isn't necessary. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the paragraph is to clarify the claims of the sides. How many times, Sea of Japan is mentioned in the article in total? And every sentence or paragraphs in the article don't have their footnotes. If you insist so much on removing non-footnoted paragraphs, they should be gone along with the second paragraphs. --Appletrees (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reading through the discussion above, it would seem that the argument was about what Korea calls this sea. I suggest we go to requests for mediation, unless that's been done before and failed. However, my view is we could leave out what North and South Korea call the sea for now, and restore it when there is significant consensus for it to be included on this page. --Solumeiras (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it looks like what sparked the controversy is the "Sea of Japan" => "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" change (at least in part), I would like to bring up the fact that many reputable English sources do refer to the this particular marginal sea as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" (partly due to the Korean e-mail campaigns, no doubt), as listed (in addition to those already cited in the article under "Naming Dispute"---I think I added them):

• • http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368444/Japan
  • http://encarta.msn.com/map_701516412/Japan_Sea_of.html
  • http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=58 (this is about Google Earth; I think they currently display "Sea of Japan" on the Japanese side and "East Sea" on the Korean side. On Google Maps (I don't have access to Google Earth, unfortunately), they only list "Sea of Japan" (in Japanese/Chinese writing), but this may be due to the fact that they have more road/city data on Japan than Korea (Korean peninsula is practically empty on Google Maps)).
  • http://webster.com/dictionary/sea%20of%20japan

Well, that's what I could find in last 15 minutes. Now, I agree that "Sea of Japan" is the primary name used in all publications. But there are enough out there that already either lists "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" outright, or mention "East Sea" as a valid alternate name in the second line. And I quote from the Wikipedia article itself: "In 1974, IHO released technical resolution A.4.2.6 independently of this dispute. This resolution is frequently referred to, although it only gives general guidance. It endorses the principle that when the sharing countries of a geographical feature do not agree on a common name, the different names should be recognized simultaneously." I do not think that principle has been changed yet. And since the international controversy (not just Wikipedia controversy) is still on-going, Wikipedia should respect this international policy. novakyu (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't use sockpuppetry

I don't think the name would be likely changed to East sea or others but this poll is very disappointing. MilesAgain, and Solumeiras, these two people turn out to be a sock of somebody. What good is awarded for them with the sockpuppetry? This is just disgraceful.

I'm also disappointed at Korean editors. Some of them tried to change the title to East Sea but haven't appeared to discuss the matter yet. Is the opportunity what they always want to change for claim NPOV in comparison to Dokdo? People take a responsibility for what they want to change something new. --Appletrees (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21

• http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1201489641/
• http://society6.2ch.net/korea/
• Google translation for readers with no Japanese language knowledge.

So, it is the time for meatpuppets via Japanese bulletin board like 2channel to participate in this article after the detection of the wonderful sockpuppets? Users' rushing into this poll whose contributions are sporadic in these days are coming back along with new users. Have you guys ever thought that this meatpuppetry is too transparent? This poll is not even serious and was initially intended to discuss the inclusion of East Sea in the intro. Those users might be so proud of their conduct here (oh, really). This nationalistic probaganda is really funny. According to the 2ch thread, Wikipedia has been distorted by Chosenjin (huh, you guys may well know this racial slur is a big no no) And it says about the recent edit warring over inclusion or exclusion of two photos of Namdaemun in early 20th century into the whole existing articles in all Wikipedia after the fire incident on the gate.

朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21	Chosenjin's Wikipedia, fabricated articles
164 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/15(金) 00:49:20 ID:VVSknz6r 英語wikiの日本海でrenameするかどうかが争われています！ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename_the_Article ぜひ、ID登録（←反対）して、Oppose（反対）に投票を！ 朝鮮人にねつ造を許してはいけません！	164 : Hello, anonymous user, 2008-02-15, 00:49:20, Friday ID:VVSknz6r At Sea of Japan in English Wikipedia, a battle has been held for renaming the title! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename_the_Article Please register ID (to object it) and take a vote for Oppose! Don't allow Chosenjin to alter it!
158 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/13(水) 12:15:02 ID:4ttMRmlD 南大門の各国版で、李王朝時代・日本統治時代の写真「だけ」が 削除される自体が起こっていますwww 以下コピペ用。 <gallery> Image:Namdaemun in the Joseon Period.JPG Image:Nandaimon in the Japanese Period.JPG	Only the picture taken duiring Yi Dynasty (it is also a derogatory term to Koreans) and Japanese period has been deleted in the whole Wikipedia. The below is a copy of that.

To free from suspicion

Original text	Translated
5 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/01/28(月) 12:26:23 ID:mUh+sbCF § スレのローカルルール 1. 検索でこのスレの存在を知られることを防ぐため、 ユーザー名をスレに書くときはカナや当て字を使う。 2. 同じ理由で、記事の直ﾘﾝを貼るのは嫌がられます。 3.「〜して下さい」のお願いは×（英語版はそういうルールだから）。	Hint and recommendation 1. To avoid this thread from being discovered by search engines, 2. When you register an account, use Kana or transliterated name 3. With the same reason, using abbreviated Japanese character is conspicuous.
6 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/01/28(月) 12:35:55 ID:mUh+sbCF §おやくそく 1.複垢は避けて下さい。 WikipediaにはIPチェックで複垢を調査する仕掛け(Check user)があります。 複垢で自分に有利な編集を繰り返すと、Sock puppetryとしてお仕置きされます。 2.1と同様に、アカウントとIPユーザの併用は避けましょう。 やはり、Sock puppetryと見られます。 あと、Check User掛けられた時はちょっと不利になるかも？ 3.慣れてきたら、User Pageに何か書き込んでいきましょう。 書き方は他の利用者を参考に。自分の明るい分野や、目標なんかがいいかもしれません。 でも不特定多数が見ているネット空間なので、個人情報はだめ。 4.このスレにはこんな人もいるみたいです。 ｀､｀　　ｶﾀｶﾀｶﾀｶﾀ... ∧＿∧　ミ ＿＿ ＿_ ；< #｀Д´>つ|　|＼＼.| | （　つ　ノ　　|　|＿|≡| | 彡 でもまあ、いじるのはほどほどに。	1. Please don't edit it with more than one account Wikipedia has IP check system (Check user) to investigate it If you repeatedly use advantageous edit with double accounts, you would get a sanction for using sock puppetry. 2. Like 1, please avoid using account and ip at the same time, It can be considered Sock puppetry. If you were checked, it may be bad for you. 3. After getting familiar with Wikipedia, try to write something on your user page. It may be good to write your specialties, goals as referring to others page Don't write your personal information because many people may look at it.. 4. Wikipedia has people like this `,`ｶﾀｶﾀｶﾀｶﾀ... ∧＿∧　ミ ＿＿ ＿_ __ __ __ Mi ∧ ∧ ；< #｀Д´>つ|　|＼＼.| | ; <Д `# '> and | | \ \. | | （　つ　ノ　　|　|＿|≡| | (One Roh | | _ | ≡ | | 彡 But petting them moderately.

Support this articles

list	list
Note: ● indicates problematic articles ○ indicates articles with heated edit warrings 7 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/01/28(月) 12:36:23 ID:mUh+sbCF ウィキペディア（英語版）上の中朝韓の視点に偏った（あるいは虚偽の）記述が残る記事 - および頻繁な編集戦争(Edit Wars)下にある記事の一覧 ●は特に問題記述の多く残るもの、○は編集戦争の激しいもの。 （確認はしていないので、付け直してね § 一般]] ●反日感情：Anti-Japanese_sentiment ●韓国の反日感情 Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea 日本人 (日本民族)：Japanese_people ●日本の国粋主義：Japanese_nationalism ●日本のファシズム：Japanese_fascism ●日本の戦争犯罪：Japanese_war_crimes 日本の歴史教科書論争：Japanese_history_textbook_controversies 君が代：Kimi_ga_Yo 孫正義：Masayoshi_Son 島根県：Shimane_Prefecture 甲鉄艦（一般名詞・亀甲船関連）：Ironclad_warship 古墳時代：Kofun_period 法隆寺：Horyu-ji 西欧主義／趣味：Occidentalism 大西哲光：Norimitsu_Onishi 島津義弘：Shimazu_Yoshihiro 対馬海盆：Tsushima_Basin 高松塚古墳：Takamatsuzuka_Tomb 天皇：Emperor_of_Japan 昭和天皇：Hirohito 今上：Akihito 第二次世界大戦期関連 Japanese_military-political_doctrines_in_the_Showa_period Japanese_central_government_(WWII) List_of_Japanese_secret_agents_(1930s_to_World_War_Two) List_of_Japanese_supporters_of_the_WWII_period (日本：Japan ☆祝・お薦め記事に復帰）	8 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/01/28(月) 12:38:43 ID:mUh+sbCF § 韓国関係 ●朝鮮：Korea ●韓国：South_Korea 日韓関係：Category:Japanese-Korean_relations ●韓国はなぜ反日か：Origins_of_Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea 日韓両国間の論争：Japanese-Korean disputes 李承晩ライン：Syngman_Rhee_line ○日本海：Sea_of_Japan ○日本海名称論争：Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute ○竹島：Liancourt Rocks 朝鮮の歴史：History_of_Korea 高句麗：Goguryeo 百済：Baekje 新羅：Silla 文禄・慶長の役：Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592-1598) 露梁海戦：Battle_of_Noryang 鳴梁海戦：Battle_of_Myeongnyang 晋州城攻防戦：Siege_of_Jinju_(1592) 応永の外寇（李氏朝鮮による対馬侵攻）：Oei_Invasion 対馬：Tsushima_Island 安重根：An_Jung-geun ●○従軍慰安婦：Comfort_women 閔妃：Empress_Myeongseong 韓国併合：Korea_under_Japanese_rule 日韓併合条約：Japan-Korea_Annexation_Treaty 日朝関係史：Japanese-Korean_relations ●○ラスク書簡：Rusk_documents 勾玉：Magatama / Gogok(勾玉の韓国読み) 李氏朝鮮：Joseon_dynasty 李舜臣：Yi_Sun-sin 北関大捷碑：Bukgwan_Victory_Monument 在日コリアン：Zainichi_Korean
9 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/01/28(月) 12:49:58 ID:mUh+sbCF 朝鮮文化の一覧：Category:Korean_culture 朝鮮文化：Culture_of_Korea 朝鮮剣の一覧：Category:Korean_swords 朝鮮刀：Korean_swords 朝鮮芸術：Category:Korean_art 朝鮮武術：Category:Korean_martial_arts テコンド：Taekwondo, Category:Taekwondo クムド（朝鮮剣道）：Kumdo 朝鮮の飲料：Category:Korean_beverages 朝鮮茶道：Korean_tea_ceremony 朝鮮の国宝：Category:National_treasures_of_South Korea 金銅弥勒菩薩半跏像：Bangasayusang アルカイク・スマイル：Archaic_smile 百済の微笑み：Baekje_smile 仏教文化（全般）：Category:Buddhist art and culture	#日韓W杯名称問題：Football_World_Cup 2002_naming_controversy 先進国：Developed_country バンク： Voluntary Agency Network Korean ペペロ：Pepero 三種の神器：Japanese_imperial_regalia § 中国関係 (Chinese related articles) 日中関係：Foreign_relations_between_China_and_Japan 支那事変：Second_Sino-Japanese_War 日清戦争：First_Sino-Japanese_War ●○南京事件：Nanking_Massacre 尖閣諸島：Senkaku_Islands 沖ノ鳥島：Okinotorishima 上海事変：Battle_of_Shanghai 盧溝橋事件：Marco_Polo_Bridge_Incident 2005年の中国における反日活動：2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations

And at the 2channel, many Japanese editors frequently access IRC to discuss with Wikipedia, and have black lists on people who disagree on pro-Japanese side from English and Japanese Wikipedia, so I'm surely on that one along with the fabulous depiction of the mad doggy. They list some people's account and personal information for targeting them. What a beauty. --Appletrees (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, "ねつ造" = "捏造" = fabrication. Just a minor point. :) I, too, think meatpuppets are bad. Really bad. Good luck. Mulukhiyya (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that you're acting meatpuppetry. You come back Wikipedia in 2 month. You've edited less 100 times in total for 4 years. You're so funny to present the old link a millions ago. :D The meatpuppetry is the freshest ever known, so it should be on spotlight. :) --Appletrees (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees's translation has mistakes.

Original	Appletrees's translation	more accurate translation
§ スレのローカルルール 1. 検索でこのスレの存在を知られることを防ぐため、 ユーザー名をスレに書くときはカナや当て字を使う。 2. 同じ理由で、記事の直ﾘﾝを貼るのは嫌がられます。 3.「〜して下さい」のお願いは×（英語版はそういうルールだから）。	Hint and recommendation 1. To avoid this thread from being discovered by search engines, 2. When you register an account, use Kana or transliterated name 3. With the same reason, using abbreviated Japanese character is conspicuous.	The local rules of the topic. 1. To avoid the topic from being discovered by search engines, use Katakana or Ateji when putting the name (of wikipedian) on the topic. 2. With the same reason, to put full URL of Wikipedia articles on the topic is not welcomed. 3. Saying "please do so-and-so" is prohibited (because English Wikipedia is operated by such rules)

The translation mistakes give me doubt Appletrees mislead. --Nyanyan (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure there were translation mistakes, but I don't think that Appletrees is misleading people at all vis-a-vis the inappropriate, offensive, and hostile attitude of these 2ch/sockpuppet users. LordAmeth (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nyanyan, they appear extremely minor to me. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Korea naming

The first sentence of this page states: "The Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Japan, Korea and Russia and is referred to in Korea as the East Sea." followd by two sources that state South Korea, seeing that Korea and South Korea are not the same thing I will edit this to state "The Sea of Japan is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean, bordered by Japan, Korea and Russia and is referred to in South Korea as the East Sea."

If someone has a source that states that North Korea also referred to in as the East Sea please post and/or change. thanks. --SelfQ (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" and "Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones"

I am moving this discussion to Talk:Japanese-Korean disputes#"South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" and "Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones" where it belongs. 76.246.149.216 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The controversy of South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan and Poaching and ghost-fishing in Japanese EEZs and joint fishing zones of Japanese-Korean disputes has occurred. A Korean user Appletrees insists that "The Sea of Japan is not being ruled by Japan. Only Japan is making noise to the pollution of the Sea of Japan. Therefore, this problem is not "Discussion of Japan and Korea.". And, he deleted all these parts.[27] [28] [29] However, the Japanese loves Sea of Japan. Therefore, the Japanese is worrying about the pollution of the Sea of Japan. The Japanese and the South Korean are beginning the edit war. Can anyone mediate this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.168.215.11 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Japanese anonymous dion editor, If you want to request meditation, use your "official account" and request by yourself. Ah...Saintjust (talk · contribs) or Hermeneus (talk · contribs) also uses the big ISP. "The" Japanese? who? you? write your reason not bashing on me.--Appletrees (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The information you have been removing contains citations to reliable sources. Before anyone talks about mediation, you need to say why you think the sources are inappropriate if you believe they are. If you believe the sources are appropriate, then you need to say under what policy or guideline you are removing the material. If you have no reason based in the rules, then you should not remove the material. And, by the way, IP editors have the same rights as logged-in users except in obvious cases of abuse. Are you alleging abuse on the part of 210.168.215.11? If so, state your case. 76.246.149.216 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

East Sea (revisited)

By simply entitling this article as "Sea of Japan," you are doing a disservice to the 70 million inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula. The name "East Sea" has been in common usage for over 2000 years whereas the term "Sea of Japan" was first used (and rarely at first) in the late 19th century. It wasn't widely used until the 1929 of the IHO (International Hydrographic Organization) Convention. In 1929, Japan, as one of the axis powers, was engaged of an illegal and brutal occupation of the Korean peninsula. Because of Japan's illegal status as ruler of Korea at the time and the fact that Tokyo did not take into consideration the feelings of the Korean people, this name should now be fully abbrogated and the name "East Sea" be used on all international maps.

In Japan, there is a tradition, dating back hundreds of years, of calling the area "The Korean Sea." Again, "The Sea of Japan" didn't come into usage until the 19th century.

International tradition dictates that when the name of a particular body of water is in dispute between the countries whose shores are washed by that body of water, the name designated on international maps should reflect BOTH names. By NOT doing so, Wikipedia is INEXPLICABLY choosing sides in this matter.

Rand McNally and National Geographic now use both names! Google uses both names!

COME ON WIKIPEDIA!!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.199.184.117 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You're misinterpreting the maps and the international dispute. It's known as (the) Sea of Japan. The comment that it's called the East Sea in Korea (and, apparently, only in Korea) can be in the lead, but should not be in the title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon is not necessarily accused of being called 'nonsense' by you. That is your POV, Aruthur Rubin. Why is the sea being a subject to become international dispute? The article obviously favors only one side just like the title of Pinnacle Islands, and influential maps adjust the name of the sea to Sea of Japan (East Sea). --15:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)

"Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on a map is equivalent to what we have "Sea of Japan", with the lead stating "also known as East Sea". It has nothing to do with anyone believing the name is "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". There is some dispute as to whether UN committee documents actually call it "Sea of Japan" or note that it's usually called (the) "Sea of Japan", but there seems no support for the assertion the anon makes, which appears to be nonsense, and is definitely incorrect.

Aa for the history of the name, if accurate and sourced, the anon's comments should be in the article even if the modern consensus name is Sea of Japan. It appears, however, not to be in the appropriate article, Sea of Japan naming dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on a map is equivalent to what we have "Sea of Japan", with the lead stating "also known as East Sea".--> Wrong. That is certainly NOT equivalent to the maps and in the article, East Sea is addressed after the title respectively. If it is equivalent truly, the title should be the same as Sea of Japan (East Sea) just like the maps. Your comment is telling your POV even though the anon did not provide his/her citation. Before seeing his further arguement, don't defame the anon speaking as a nonsense. That shows your uncivil remark. You're not a representative of the whole wide world, and this article and the title is disputed, so it is worthwhile to include the claim if the anon brings a proper source. Remind that whether Liancourt Rocks is usually called in the real life? These titles are politically related matters, so simply favoring one side in Wikipedia is a violation on WP:NPOV and double standard. --Appletrees (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S You've participated in editing this article, but condoned or ignored really the nonsensical mass disruptions by Japanese 2channel. What is your definition of NONSENSE? --Appletrees (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I read the history, only the Korean organization has disrupted this article. The only source I can find cited for the international name is the UN geographic commission, which seems to have assumed the name is Sea of Japan while refusing to investigate.

And Sea of Japan (East Sea) fails to meet Wikipedia naming standards, even if it were a name in international use. It implies that it's the "Sea of Japan" also known as the "East Sea", and that there is more than one "Sea of Japan". The latter is false. As for Liancourt Rocks, it's also disrupted by both Japanese and Korean organizations. I don't like the name, but there's no single international name that could be selected, so we have to choose something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep speaking just one side and deny to admit the long-time disruption on the article by Japanese editors. Unlike Dokdo, the sea is not Japanese territory, and the current name has relatively newly established name contrary to the long history of Korean side. The name is disputed and Wikipedia should reflect the current event and status. The naming convention is a lame excuse to keep the current name. Any convention and policy of Wikipedia can be changed if editors think that it is inconvienient or irrational.

P.S You don't answer my question at all. The recent poll is "constructive way" for the article? That's why you were so quiet at the disruption. --Appletrees (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to be denying the real-world disruption of the discussion by Koreans. (It should also be pointed out that your pointing out the attempted disruption by ja.wikipedia editors has been pointed out as including mistranslations.) I see no basis for denying the interim UN commission report that the most common name is Sea of Japan until and unless they produce a final report as to the correct internationally recognized name.

Mapmakers are limited by space, so "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" might be appropriate on a map, even though it may not be appropriate in real life. According to the dispute article, Brittanica uses "Japan, Sea of" as the primary entry with a "redirect" from "East Sea". I see no reason, and have seen no reason presented, why we should be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to already forget what you wrote about your own statement. Your saying "Korean organization has disrupted the article" is equivalent with real life? If you imply that VANk is the real life disruption, you're totally saying nonsense or forget the definition of disruption. That is called "protest". I recommend you to also distinguish Japanese Wikipedia and Japanese editors here from 2channel. That is not attempted disruption defined by me, but confirmed by several admins here. You're denying the fact as well. Mapmakers are limited by space, that is your POV and mere assumption without confirmation. Britanica is not only notable encyclopedia REAL WORLD is changing and Wikipedia reports newest cases in the fastest speed than any other encyclopedia, however, sticking the one side is clearly unusual and weird per the history of Wikipedia. --Appletrees (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just offer some ancient names used in China when referring to this waters: East Sea, South Sea or mostly popularly Whale Sea. Chrisliu (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan

Appletrees is demanding to delete "South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" from "Japanese-Korean disputes". He explained, "The South Korean government has not been disputing the matter with Japanese government." [30] Therefore, "Envirommental destruction of the Sea of Japan by South Korea" is discussed on this page.

The part that he deleted is posted.

South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan

About 23,000 plastic containers having a capacity of about 20 liters, one third of them carry Hangul characters for "hazardous" or "oxidizing agent," while others carry chemical formulas for hydrogen peroxide solution and nitric acid, have washed ashore on the coast of Japan on the Sea of Japan by February, 2008. The Ministry of the Environment (Japan) asked the South Korean government to investigate the cause and to take preventive measures. The officials said it is possible that plastic containers left on the coast of South Korea have drifted to Japan since gim seaweed farmers use acidic liquids to disinfect nets and the previous drifts of plastic containers since late 1990's occurred during the winter.

Some part of waste dump areas in the Sea of Japan designated by the South Korean government overlaps with the exclusive economic zone of Japan. South Korea has dumped waste in these areas since 1993. The Japanese government has protested to Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF) of South Korea, but the response delayed until November 2007. South Korea designated two waste dump areas in Sea of Japan since 1988 while the parts were designated beyond the demarcation line between the continental shelves of South Korea and Japan and beyond the borderline of the EEZs. However, an official of MOMAF said, "We've banned waste dump in the Japanese-controlled areas since 1998, so our government will not have to take responsibility for it. But it's true that we've infringed Japanese jurisdiction, so we'll work out ways to redesignate waste dump areas." The area was designated as one of the most affected areas by human activities.