Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Moved article

I moved the name issue to Dispute over the name Sea of Japan --Nanshu 08:49 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Notice

The current naming of the body of water between Japan, Korea, and Russia is an open issue, according to a 1998 decision of the 7th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names and a 1974 International Hydrographic Organization resolution regarding the naming of disputed bodies of water [1]. According to UNCSGN and in accordance with the IHO resolution, the names "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" are to be used simultaneously. ("East Sea" is preferred by South Korea, while "East Sea of Korea" is preferred by North Korea.) When the issue is resolved, this article will be edited appropriately. Until then, downgrading the Korean names for the body of water violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For background on the dispute and a summary of the different points of view, see Dispute over the name Sea of Japan --Sewing 18:24, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Any sort of naming and labeling can be POV and I concur that calling what Japanese call Sea of Japan Sea of Japan. And of course naming the article East Sea is also POV. The current name violates NPOV policy but I don't see a neutral name. If there is one, we should adopt that one even that is uncommon. NPOV has higher priority than common name convention. -- Taku

I don't mind that the article's title is Sea of Japan. Sea of Japan/East Sea or East Sea/Sea of Japan would be awkward, and most people do refer to it as the Sea of Japan. I just think that within the body of the article, both names ("Sea of Japan" and "East Sea") should get equal mention, for the reasons I pointed out above. Actually, I wonder what the Russians think about this whole debate? After all, their country also borders on the sea! --Sewing 23:56, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Calling the "East Sea/Sea of Japan" just "Sea of Japan" goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy as Sewing has said because the the international body has ordered all to name the sea of water by both names. --daniel 21:11, 11 July 2005 (AEST)

That is flat out wrong. The relevant policy here is our naming conventions, which clearly state that we need to use the most common form already used in English. --mav 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I have suggested a naming convention for this water here: Talk:Dispute_over_the_name_Sea_of_Japan#Naming_Convention. I hope we can turn something like that into a proper convention. Looking forward to your comments there. --Kokiri 00:54, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Current Map

The current map on the main article is an old map of the Korean peninsula and its surroundings. In this version of the map, the coast facing "East Sea" is labeled "Sea of Korea." BIG DEAL. There are old maps that say Sea of Korea, East Sea. Let's not play politics (play politics here instead) and get a real map that shows the whole sea, not just the 1% shown in the current map. Then people can get a better idea of what is in the vicinity of the sea. --69.212.98.139 16:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted a highly POV edit. Kokiri 07:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good! silsor 09:21, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dok-do(Takeshima)

Main article requires small edit to show truth clearly. Liancourt Rocks are not mutually claimed by S. Korea and Japan. First, the term "Liancourt Rock" is intensionally spreaded over the world by Japanese government to dilute the focus of dispution surrounding Dok-do or Takeshima. The word "Liancourt Rocks" is not a neutral term. Second, Dok-do(Takeshima) is legally occupied by S. Korea and claimed by Japan. It is not a mutually claimed, which could give unfair impression to readers. Because the island is being occupied by S. Korea, I write Dok-do(Korean) first followed by Japanese name in parenthesis.

Yet another push for a naming convention

If you're interested in debating how the Sea of Japan should be referred to in Korean contexts, please visit Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Disputed names. Hopefully this discussion will eventually lead to a vote. At that time, notices will be posted here and on other related pages.

Hope to see you there! -- Visviva 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names

Thank you. Masterhatch 8 July 2005

Invasion of Takeshima

Invasion of Takeshima by Koreans is a big international problem. It could be the first case of Japanese self defence of its territories.

Cut from intro

or Japan Sea in most countries and the United Nations and in academic fields, known as the East Sea in South Korea, the East Sea of Korea in North Korea, and the Japan Sea in China, is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean

The above smacks of attempt to settle the controversy by having Wikipedia endorse a particular POV (q.v.) rather than describing the dispute.

Tsushima Strait

I have fixed the information on the Tsushima Strait in the text, but cannot fix the map easily. The map implies what was actually written in the text before; but which is actually not the case. The Korea Strait can be split into two channels: the eastern and western channel. The eastern channel is often referred to as the Tsushima Strait, but the Tsushima Strait is really one part of the Korea Strait. The map currently implies these are two different Straits. Reference: Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9046066 makes it very clear; also http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/k/k0103200.html or http://www.internalwaveatlas.com/Atlas2_PDF/IWAtlas2_Pg345_SeaofJapan.pdf . Kokiri 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)

My Edit (Naming)

I have changed a few things in the naming section, hopefully to make it more balanced. A few changes: I removed the brackets because afaik the dispute only involves Korea and Japan. I have changed Japanese Occupation into a time reference. I have removed the claim that the South Korean government wants Sea of Korea or Sea of Corea, since afaik this is not true. Their publications all use East Sea. I have also removed POV articles as references. Removed the information that four countries border the sea, since this is irrelevant to the naming. Otoh, I have added a few sentence on the fact that the name wasn't standardized for a long time, including the 1919 date. These added paragraphs are copied and modified from the dispute article (which is a disgrace). Kokiri 29 June 2005 09:09 (UTC)

You did a good job Kokiri. I like the way it reads now. Masterhatch

appears increasingly

Kokiri, I had originally changed that wording because the wording you used makes it sound like Sea of Japan was not the most common name before 1919. The wording sounded POV. Yes, Sea of Japan did appear increasingly, but it was always the most common name in English. That is an important point to avoid confusion. Masterhatch 14 July 2005

I just changed it so that it is now only facts with no POV. Masterhatch 14 July 2005

Cheers, I didn't mean to imply that Sea of Japan wasn't common before; it only got even more common. I'm happy the way you solved it. Kokiri 17:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming section

I propose the whole sentences in the section be deleted and point the reader to Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan because whole sentences are merely a duplicate of that article. What do you think? --Tkh 17:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This section could be shortened and then point the reader to the dispute page. But i feel that the dispute does need to be summarised on this page. Yes, the summary is a little long as it does duplicate information. Masterhatch 7 August 2005

If no one objects, within the next few days, I will shorten the "Naming" section as it is just a duplicate of much of the info found on the Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan page. Masterhatch 14 August 2005

The Decision by the National Geographic

In December 2004, the National Geographic agreed with South Korea on the official name of the water, East Sea. The Japanese government is protesting against the decision. It is the duty of Wikipedia to serve its purpose of providing the correct information; therefore, the name of the article, Sea of Japan, should now be changed to East Sea.

Give us link to the source here. --Ypacaraí 00:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Even if the claim was true at that time, it is outdated and proved that Korean claim is false and groundless. Look at [2] and [3]. --Tkh 04:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't aware this was nationalgeographicpedia.org. --Golbez 04:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

the "Sea of Japan" article is NOT the dispute article

I reverted it back to a counterbalance. I didn't just delete one side.

The introduction mentions the dispute:

• There is a long-running controversy between Korea and Japan over what this sea should be called in English.

It is followed by the Japanese claim:

• Japan insists that it is called Sea of Japan, which has been the international de facto standard since the 19th century.

That is followed up the Korean claim and the reason why they are disputing the name:

• However, the governments of North and South Korea challenge this name, contending it is a symbol of Japan's imperialistic past. The South Korean government wants the name East Sea to be used, while the North Korean government prefers East Sea of Korea.

That is then followed by the Japanese counter to the Korean claim that the name was a result of Japan's imperialistic past:

• In July 2005, the Japanese government published a report on its investigation that shows the name "Sea of Japan" is unrelated to imperialism and had been most widely used by the beginning of the 19th century.

Then we have the other names and the standardisation:

• Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various different names including Sea of Korea, Sea of Corea, Japanese Sea, Oriental Sea, East Sea, Sea of Japan, and East Sea of Korea. The name Sea of Japan was standardized in 1919 by the International Hydrographic Bureau.

Finally we have a mentioning of the Korean efforts to have the name changed:

• The South Korean government and media use East Sea consistently in their publications. Since the 1990s, South Korea has increased their campaign efforts to change the sea's official international name. Neither the UN (UNCSGN) nor the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) have accepted their claims.

The way i see it, it is currently counter balanced. We have the Korean's claim that it was a result of Japanese imperialistic past and we have the counter argument. Plain and simle. Everything else can be left for the dispute page. How did my edit make it POV? My edit put it back to NPOV. Your edit puts it POV for Korea. This page isn't meant for proving one side or the other. Your edit tells how the Koreans claim it is a result of the imperialisitic past, the japanese counter agrument, and then another Korean counter argument. Those counter arguments are not meant for this page. That is why we have the dispute page.

In my opinion, I would like to see the naming section shortened to the point that it only mentions the fact that there is a dispute (no arguments or counter arguments), a list of the other names, and finally the offical standarisation. What else is needed for this page that isn't already said on the main dispute page? Masterhatch 1 September 2005

I just saw the edit that removed all the arguments and left only the fact that there is a dispute and the list of names. I really like it. The only thing missing is the official naming by the IHB in 1919. Masterhatch 1 September 2005

chinese name in infobox

just wondering, why is the chinese name in the infobox? china doesn't border the sea. Appleby 08:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to Appleby deleting the Chinese name for 3 reasons:

1) While China is not bordering the Sea of Japan (East Sea), it is a major country in the vicinity. China shows up prominently in the map of the sea, above the infobox.

2) Part of the name dispute involves the use of Korean Hanzi and Japanese Hanzi. Since we know that all Hanzi are derived from the Chinese Hanzi, I believe it is imperative to display the Chinese name in Chinese Hanzi.

3) Appleby has not established a consensus to delete this material.

--Endroit 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

i appreciate your response, but i think you may have misunderstood the edit

1. major countries in the vicinity do not get their local language names in the infobox of geographic features. see North Sea Arctic Ocean etc etc. that's not why we have the infobox. in fact, after seeing other wikipedia articles, it's clear we don't even need the russian name, or even japanese or korean local names. even the infobox itself is not necessary or standard, the only reason it is there is to present the disputed international names in a neater format, i guess. [edit: wait, the international names are not in the infobox. now i really don't know why we have the infobox here at all, although it may be marginally relevant to the dispute page Appleby 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)] we only need a brief reference to the parties disputing the international name.

2.a. this is not the dispute page. this is the page about the geographic feature.

b. china's name for the sea is not the same as japanese hanzi or korean hanja, which are already in the infobox.

c. in the dispute, chinese characters are a very minor part, if any. actually, in the entire dispute article, there is no mention of china's name for it, in english or chinese characters.

3. i did ask for opinions, & although i could have waited longer, we know this is a closely watched page with quick responses for anything controversial. given that nearby countries don't get their local names in infoboxes, & that the chinese name is not a part of the dispute, i don't see how this could be controversial, but of course it'd be better to have more input. maybe i missed something? Appleby 17:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason for the Chinese name being there. Mark

In that case, you have to delete the entire infobox, except for the English name. Korean Hanzi, Japanese Hanzi, and Chinese Hanzi are all important aspects of the name dispute and must either be displayed together or omitted altogether.--Endroit 17:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

like i said, i don't have a problem with deleting the entire infobox. but to clarify, chinese hanzi are not involved in the dispute at all & are not mentioned in the entire dispute article. i didn't delete korean or japanese hanzi, so i don't understand why you got so excited. Appleby 18:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see below.--Endroit 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox moved to the Dispute Page

Infobox with the various country names was moved to the Dispute Page. Please continue discussion there.--Endroit 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox moved back here from the Dispute Page

I believe Kusunose, Masterhatch, and myself (Endroit) have clarified the intent of the Infobox here. See discussion in the Sea of Japan naming dispute page there.

There are 3 changes from before: 1. The Chinese name was omitted (while the Russian name was included). 2. "Hanguk-hae" (한국해 / 韓國海) portion was deleted from the South Korean name. 3. Link to "Hepburn romanization" was corrected.--Endroit 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

map

while people are paying attention, i have couple questions about the map. korea strait is the name of the entire strait between korea & japan, not just one of the channels (see Korea Strait & encyclopedia britannica). & also, tsushima basin seems to be more commonly referred to as ulleung basin. [4] [5] [6] as well as by google search. anyone wanna update the map? Appleby 19:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

When i created the map, I used Sea of Japan (East Sea) as the name of the sea. Another user changed the name on the image on the commons. I just rolled it back, so the image should be fine now. When i created the image, the basin was listed in the article as tsushima basin, hence i used this name. Now only ulleung is listed in the article. I think both names should be in the article, as the english language google count is only 669:402 for ulleung. I can update the map - as soon as I get to my computer again, probably next weekend. Finally, the straits: This was my mistake, I should update this, too. Not sure how exactly to do the layout so that it is both clear and also readable -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 23:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems Kokiri had talked about "Korea Strait" in the map, back in June. If you can, I think "Korea Strait" should be in larger text (and a little lower if possible). And "Tsushima Strait" should be left as is.

About the other features in the map, I'm all for having multiple names in the map, to clarify things. Ideally, any secondary name should be in parenthesis (and in smaller text if possible). Thanks for your great work!

Please note: At around August, there was some voting administered by Kokiri, Masterhatch, etc. regarding such guidelines. Please ask for their opinions also, when making the changes. I'm not sure if this voting applies to maps or not, but for the article, the secondary name must appear in parenthesis exactly once, upon first mention in the article. Assuming that "Ulleung Basin" is more popular, I believe the article should be changed to "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" for the first occurence only. --Endroit 02:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Appleby has deleted the map altogether, without reaching consensus! Chris 73's map does NOT deserve to be deleted (although it needs to be changed). Please revert to Chris 73's most recent version. --Endroit 17:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have included a temporary map while Chris 73 works on his final version.--Endroit 07:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the image. It now says Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin), and in smaller letters Tsushima Strait and Western Channel, with Korea Strait more in the center. The image is on the article now, hope everybody is happy with it. Let me know if i should delete Image:Temp Sea of Japan.jpg. Also, i uploaded the OpenOffice.Org Source file Image:Sea of Japan Map.sxd if you want to edit it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73, I don't think we need "Western Channel" on the map. Please see discussion below.

Please wait for consensus to be built. If "Western Channel" should be removed from the map, please make "Korea Strait" bigger, and return "Tsushima Strait" to its original size. Sorry for the trouble.

Or... if you tell me which tools (editors, etc.) to use, I can modify the file Sea_of_Japan_Map.sxd for you. Thanks. --Endroit 16:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I used OpenOffice.Org. It's free (open source) and about as powerful as Microsoft Office. And, best of all, it has a very good vector graphics editing program "Draw" which i used to create the image. After editing, I just copied the contents to a picture program (IrfanView, also free) and saved as a PNG. Let me know if you need my help. Please feel free to overwrite my images, we do not need a copy of the map for every naming version. About the channel names: I am not terribly familiar with the area, and merely used the western channel because it was mentioned in the text of the article as being on the other side of Tsushima -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow!, sounds like fun. I'll install those 2 programs in a few days. I'll let you know if I need your help. Thanks Chris 73!--Endroit 09:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The western channel of Korea Strait

The western channel of Korea Strait has no name in English. We cannot call it "the Western Channel", although we can call it "the western channel of Korea Strait" (with small letters). In English, only "Korea Strait" and "Tsushima Strait" have names. Please see articles (& discussions) on Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait also.

It may be OK to have "Western Channel" on a "Korea Strait" map because the context would be clear; but not on any "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" map. "Western Channel" is NOT the official name and so would be an ambiguous name on this map. Besides, how many other maps can you find that specifically mention "Western Channel" like this?

Please build consensus here. If there is no discussion, "Western Channel" shall be deleted from the map. --Endroit 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

as seen in [7], in english, korea strait is the name of the entire strait, & tsushima strait & western channel are subdivisions of korea strait. logically, either both subdivisions should be omitted for scale & layout reasons, or both should be included. i would opt for the former personally, but it doesn't make any sense to include one but not the other label of the same detail level. Appleby 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Strait is very well documented, and even has a Wikipedia article of its own. Also, the Wikipedia article for Tsushima Strait has substantially more material than the article for Korea Strait! "The western channel of Korea Strait" does NOT have any significant references in English literary material, even in Britannica. The inbalance is supported by most English publications. Wikipedia has no reason to be different. We will be merely following the norm when showing Tsushima Strait as part of Korea Strait, while omitting the western channel altogether.--Endroit 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Britannica seems to have an entry for Tsushima Strait as the following link shows a clickable text for Tsushima Strait: [8]. You just have to pay money to Britannica to view it. "The western channel of Korea Strait" does NOT have a separate entry in the Britannica.--Endroit 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Appleby... In 2 of the other links you've submitted before [9] [10], Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait are ALWAYS mentioned together as "Korea/Tsushima Strait" or "Tsushima/Korea Strait". Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait are given EQUAL mention while the western channel (of Korea Strait) is totally omitted. In general, this seems to be the overwhelming trend in English publications. You have, in fact, submitted material that prove the significance of the Tsushima Strait. But you have not yet submitted material which prove the significance of the western channel (beyond any basic mention in the article that it is the western channel of the Korea Strait).--Endroit 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

i linked to those three because they were pretty much the only scholarly references to the southwest basin of the sea, & thus are not the best examples for other purposes. do you think they did that because in those cases, they were actually referring to the tsushima strait part of the korea strait, the latter being the more recognized name of the area? did you notice the links also say east sea(sea of japan) or japan sea/east sea, not japan sea (east sea)? will you change the east sea label, too?

i believe the map should be consistent in the level of detail it shows. please do not delete "western channel" unless you also delete "tsushima strait." thanks. Appleby 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, as a Wikipedian, you should know that once you submit material, you cannot take it back... It will remain there forever, even after we all die! Anyways the material you submitted contradicts yourself, so you should be more careful when you submit material in the future.

Also, I will not change my position regarding the deletion of "western channel", even if it means I also delete "Tsushima Strait" as well to reach consensus. (It will depend on what other people say here also.) The "western channel" is irrelevant in the article about Sea of Japan (East Sea) and shouldn't be mentioned, even in the article.--Endroit 17:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Tsushima Strait from this article

"Tsushima Strait" WILL BE DELETED from this article, as well as from the main map.

Relating to the above discussion "The western channel of Korea Strait", Appleby suggests that we also delete "Tsushima Strait" from the main map, when we delete "western channel." The premise for this action is the official position of the English Wikipedia so far, which is that "Tsushima Strait" is merely the eastern channel of "Korea Strait".

If, however, "Tsushima Strait" can be established as an alternate name for the entire "Korea Strait", we may not have to delete it. But you have to show the official position of the Japanese government regarding the English name for "Korea Strait," with proper citations. Then you must reach consensus here. (Also, please provide comment in the above discussion regarding "western channel", in tandem.)

If there is no further discussion here, "Tsushima Strait" shall be deleted from the map, as well as from the article.--Endroit 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object the deletion of Tsushima Strait from the article. This is a valid piece of information, and we even have a separate article for the strait. I would also prefer to keep the "western channel", as it is clear from the context and only a minor mentioning in the text itself. On the map, western channel can be removed, but I would also keep Tsushima Strait on the map -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

keep tsushima strait and western channel on the map & article, i don't understand the fuss endroit is making over this issue. western channel is the name of the other side at the same level of detail, according to encyclopedia britanna, so why not keep both? if you delete one, you should delete both, for consistency, but why delete either? things are fine as chris left them. Appleby 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we already have consensus that "Tsushima Strait" and "western channel" have to be considered separately.... still waiting for others to respond. Appleby, I suggest you go back to the above discussion in showing the significance of the "western strait" so that it won't be deleted from the map.--Endroit 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

i don't think we have consensus, you have ONE person who prefers to keep "western channel" although it can be removed from the map. it doesn't make sense to delete one of two names of the same detail level, when chris has already fit the names onto the map. what is the point you're trying to make???

for western channel, i gave you encyclopedia britannica, also see cia world facbook [11], & [12] [13] Appleby 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Appleby on this. Leave both names in. It doesn't hurt anything to have the extra info as it is definately not wrong per se. Masterhatch 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see anything wrong with Western Channel. By itself, it is not clear, but in the context of the article it is pretty clear which Western channel is referred to. For another example, see Great Lakes (disambiguation) -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

east sea disambiguation

i just noticed that "east sea" goes to a disambiguation, even though the english "east sea" refers to the sea of japan. encarta [14], britannica [15], american heritage [16]. unless anyone can find better authoritative sources for the english "east sea" referring to any sea other than this one, i don't understand why someone typing "east sea" in english in the english wikipedia would be referring to german language or chinese language placenames.

In the Bible, the Dead Sea is sometimes referred as the East Sea　[17]. To Christians this is very much authorative I think ;) --Kusunose 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't think we need a disambiguation page at all, since there is no ambiguity in english, & we don't normally disambiguate across non-english languages. & i'm not sure some of the content is accurate. but for now, i linked to the disambiguation page from this article. Appleby 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page is informative. As to content's accuracy, each of Sea of Japan, Baltic Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea mention East Sea (or Sea East). Tokai region does't; however as a native speaker of Japanese, I can assure you that literal translation of Tōkai is 'east sea'. As to the link to the disambiguation page, it is better to use {{redirect|East Sea}}, which expands to

"East Sea" redirects here. For other uses, see East Sea (disambiguation).

We definitely need to revamp the East Sea disambiguation page. Please consider including ADDITIONAL material from Eastern Sea (another disambiguation page), Dead Sea, and Mare Orientale. Another possibility would be to merge East Sea disambiguation page with Eastern Sea. Please consult Wikipedia:Requested moves if we run into problems.--Endroit 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

endroit, you're an equal member of wikipedia, you don't need to always give directions to others or defer every move to full debate. if you have the sources, everyone is encouraged to be bold here :-). discussion is necessary when there actually is a dispute, when there are no convincing citations or wikipedia policies that answers a question, but please feel free to make the changes yourself if you find other reputable publications or analogous wikipedia pages disambiguating. if you're actually proposing a merger, it would be helpful if research other equivalent wikipedia disambiguation situations first. north/northern, south/southern, west/western seas are all streated separately, so why would east/eastern be treated together? Appleby 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now we have a discussion going on, and that's a healthy thing. I am saying that "East Sea" and "Eastern Sea" ALL refer to translations from another language, including Donghae from Korean. I understand that the term "East Sea" in English was invented by the South Korean government at around 1991 as an alternate name for "Sea of Japan" (citation in Korean). In the English language, ALL uses of "East Sea" would usually have been translated into "Eastern Sea." However, ever since the VANK and the South Korean government pushed for "East Sea" (in their cause), there is some confusion among English language speakers between "East Sea" and "Eastern Sea", for OTHER translations as well. All I am interested in doing here is expanding the East Sea and/or Eastern Sea disambiguation pages; not necessarily merging them. If there are no objections, I will update those pages eventually. Please note that I'm not interested in moving pages back and forth at all, since we can let the admins worry about that.--Endroit 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Holy Bible, look up Ezekiel 47:18. Depending on the translation, Dead Sea is called East Sea or Eastern Sea [18] [19]. This is the last call. If nobody objects within the next 24 hours, I will add Dead Sea to both the East Sea and Eastern Sea disambiguation pages.--Endroit 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't object per se, but i would think you should decide based on 1. what other reputable english publications have done for this disambiguation, & 2. Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? Disambiguation pages are not search indices; do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)." Appleby 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support & concerns. Here are the answers to Appleby's 2 questions....

Response to Appleby Question #1: There are no "disambiguation" pages in other online encyclopedias. However, there are "search result" pages for "East Sea (w/ Dead Sea)" as follows:

1. Encyclopedia.com
2. Britannica.com
3. Bartleby.com (Columbia Encyclopedia)
4. 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
5. WebBible Encyclopedia
6. Dictionary.com

Response to Appleby Question #2: When reading the Holy Bible, if someone searches Wikipedia for East Sea, and then gets redirected to Sea of Japan instead of Dead Sea with no further disambiguation, I think it could cause a considerable amount of confusion. A simple disambiguation info including the Dead Sea would be helpful.--Endroit 08:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

every other encyclopedia does have "disambiguation" process identitical in purpose & function to wikipedia's disambiguation page. they do it with "see article" immediately after the entry. search for words, especially unconnected "east" and "sea" as you did for britannica, is meaningless. disambiguation pages are not search indices. for people looking for "East Sea", no other general encyclopedia directs readers to anything other than "Sea of Japan", because independent teams of professional editors have considered what people are looking for when they look up "East Sea", & they all decided "Sea of Japan" and no other. see my links at the top of this subsection. (btw, please do not list duplicate results under different portal names. please check carefully.) Appleby 14:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Appleby, I don't understand what you want. If you believe there are any disambiguation pages for all 6 websites that I've given (for any other article besides Sea of Japan), please cite them. I don't think they have any, because they don't seem to follow any disambiguation process similar to Wikipedia. Please explain and show some examples where such disambiguation page exists, and how they are similar to Wikipedia's.--Endroit 15:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

you're right, general encyclopedias don't disambiguate "east sea" because they all decided it was not ambiguous, that people looking for "east sea" were just referred to the sea of japan.Appleby 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Following the example of Britannica.com is like comparing apples with oranges (they're different). We should just stick to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy as best as we can. That's because the general encyclopedias I cited seem to depend mostly on search results, and occasionally on redirect pages; but NOT disambiguation pages.--Endroit 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

& that wikipedia policy is "Disambiguation pages are not search indices"; if general readers looking for "east sea" are actually looking for the baltic sea or dead sea, wouldn't that be reflected in other general encyclopedias or google results? i was finding it hard to get excited about this technicality, but it bothered me that you're using searches of "east" and "sea" unconnected, & duplicate sources (1 & 3) & obscure dictionaries, when i cited britannica, encarta, & american heritiage dictionary. again, in the end, i don't really care about your adding one more to the disambiguation page, but please be more careful in your arguments. thanks. Appleby 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask other people to comment here as well, please? Endroit-POV (The Bible-POV) has deadlocked with Appleby-POV (Korean-POV). I am trying to add Dead Sea to the East Sea (disambiguation) and the Eastern Sea disambiguation pages, as per Ezekiel 47:18 in the Holy Bible (King James Version and others), plus a few other references I provided above. Is it OK to add Dead Sea?--Endroit 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

as i repeatedly said, i really don't care enough to oppose, so go ahead. my quibble was about your rationale & problematic citations. Appleby 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

January 2006

nlu, please note my above citations to how reputable publications handle "east sea." this is not a multilingual translation dictionary, nor a search index, nor should rare, obscure alternative meaning result in a disambiguation page when one meaning is dominant in english. see Wikipedia:DisambiguationAppleby 06:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reading the discussion above as having no consensus that East Sea should redirect to Sea of Japan -- but User:Appleby is claiming that the above discussion supports his view that East Sea should redirect here rather than to East Sea (disambiguation) (that there is "no objection" to it). I think further discussion is needed. Thoughts? (I certainly object; East China Sea is never referred to as anything but "East Sea" in China and Taiwan, and therefore in my opinion East Sea needs to be ambiguated.) --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe East Sea should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation) also. There was no consensus when the controversial moves were done unilaterally.--Endroit 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at these search results: [20] and [21]; certainly these search results (in English) supports the idea that East China Sea is known as "East Sea" in English when you discuss it in the Chinese parts of the world. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

even if there are rare exceptions (in proportion to all english usage, not limited to chinese usage in english), unless the alternative use is a significant minority, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page." also "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)."

"When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well-known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top."

can you provide cites to reputable english publications that use "east sea" to mean anything other than sea of japan?

See alsoWikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)Appleby 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But there is risk of confusion. Talk to an English-speaking person in a Chinese part of the world and try to bring up "East Sea"; nobody will assume that you're talking about the sea between Korea and Japan; everyone will assume that you are talking about East China Sea. English Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia just for the United States or the United Kingdom; it's a reference source for the world in the English language. You're minimizing a likelihood of confusion that plainly exists. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search on Google News. Are Thanh Nien Daily and Nhan Dan sufficiently reputable for you? (See [22].) --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm relying on: encarta [23], britannica [24], american heritage [25]. i'll RfC. Appleby 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, dig a little deeper and you get even more ambiguity among "reputable sources." TamilNet of Sri Lanka refers to East Sea as apparently the part of the Indian Ocean that's directly east of Sri Lanka. [26]. And while the Houston Chronicle was not itself using it in that manner, it quoted a German author referring to (in English) the Baltic Sea as East Sea. [27] --Nlu (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, even the Holy Bible (Ezekiel 47:18) is not good enough for Appleby. (See how Appleby mocked my citations further above).--Endroit 06:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

nlu, i think the relevant search is [28], & the wikipedia policy cited above. there is already a disambiguation comment at the top of the article, so that the small percentage of searchers can be informed of other uses. surely there is no doubt the vast, dominant majority of english searches for "east sea" refer to the "sea of japan"

endroit, what do you mean when you say on the edit comment line that i moved "when no one was watching"? isn't that your signature on the discussion above? you did not object to the redirection, you only suggested revamping the disambiguation page. Appleby 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Anvil - the rendering of the Hebrew word , "beaten," found only in Isa. 41:7."
• "Asia - is used to denote Proconsular Asia, a Roman province which embraced the western parts of Asia Minor, and of which Ephesus was the capital, in Acts 2:9; 6:9; 16:6; 19:10,22; 20:4, 16, 18" [29].

but Anvil and Asia don't go to disambiguation pages. Appleby 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of countries where you speak to English speakers and they'd think that you're referring to the above meanings of Anvil or Asia when you mention the word in isolation? Are you meaning to suggest that if you talk to a Sri Lankan (whose country does use English as its official language) about "East Sea" without qualifying it that he/she would immediately think of the sea between Korea and Japan? --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

my bible examples were responses to endroit's position that an obscure bible reference by itself deserves a wikipedia disambiguation.

in response to your points, i cited the top two english encyclopedias & the most reputable english dictionary, and google search [30], which shows that the vast majority of mentions of "east sea" refers to the sea of japan, & the wikipedia policies

• "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page."
• "Disambiguation pages are not search indices." &
• "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well-known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top."

there is already a disambiguation link at the top of this article. Appleby 07:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And? My point is that there is risk of confusion. Unless you disprove that, the policy that you quote and quote and quote doesn't apply. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well-known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." there is already a disambiguation link at the top of this article. Appleby 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote you used here doesn't have anything to do with redirects; it deals with article titles. (In other words, it would only apply if you're talking about the main article being named East Sea; in this case, the main article is named Sea of Japan; there is no "main article" named East Sea.) Plus, that's even assuming that the "primary meaning" that you're asserting is "well-known," which is hardly proven. --Nlu (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

that policy is exactly about disambiguation. the primary meaning of east sea is well known (see britannica, encarta, am heritage, google). thus "east sea" should go the main article about the sea between korea & japan. as a completely separate issue from disambiguation, this sea happens to be involved in a naming dispute, resulting in the article title being "sea of japan," but referring to the same topic as the primary meaning of "east sea." thus, the topic (sea between korea & japan) should be the main article for the primary meaning (the most reputable publications & google popularity). Appleby 07:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We can keep arguing this back and forth; what it comes down to is: you haven't refuted my assertion that there is possibility of confusion, and more fundamentally, there is no consensus that the move you made should be carried out. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Let's see what others have to say on this issue. --Nlu (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

even if there is a possiblity of confusion, when the primary meaning is clear, the main topic is the article, with a link at top to disambiguation. if there were no risk of confusion, we wouldn't have that link to the disambiguation. either way, the primary meaning is this article. there is no consensus because not many people care (there was no consensus to disambiguate in the first place), but that doesn't mean you can't edit wikipedia until you have 20 people agreeing with you, especially if you have the most reputable sources. yes, let's see what unbiased wikipedians say.Appleby 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are Vietnamese uses of "East Sea" [31]. They DO use this English term differently from Koreans, and Google hits only prove that the Vietnamese presence on the Net is not so great. 219.98.32.175 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

As a general principal, I would say that all the above confusion about the therm 'East Sea' would be evidence enough to make it a redirect to the disambiguation page. Robdurbar 09:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

this page had a link at the top to the "east sea (disambiguation)" page, before nlu just edited it out. according to wikipedia policy, if the primary meaning of "east sea" is clear (as shown by major reference works & google, even if there are other less common uses), the term "east sea" should go to that primary meaning (this article) with a link to disambiguation at the top of the article (the way it was before nlu's edit).

• CD redirects to Compact disc (the primary, not exclusive, meaning), with a link at the top of the article for other uses of "CD"
• Chicago redirects to Chicago, Illinois, with a link at the top for other uses of "Chicago"
• East Sea should redirect here (the primary meaning [32] [33] [34] [35]) with a link at the top of the article to other uses of "East Sea." Appleby 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that East Sea is the same as the Sea of Japan is Appleby's POV, and concluding that Appleby's POV is the ONLY POV goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Besides, Appleby's assertion is at odds with the Wikipedia article Sea of Japan naming dispute. There is a dispute between Japan and Korea involving the name East Sea. Wikipedia is NOT the VANK-pedia nor the Appleby-pedia. There's no reason for Wikipedia to rubberstamp (acknowledge) any VANK POV or Appleby POV. That's more reason for East Sea to be disambiguated. There's so much confusion out there because of all this commotion, and so East Sea must be disambiguated.

Please note that the name East Sea (in English) that Appleby refers to was invented by the South Korean government in 1991. (Here's the citation in Korean). That means, before 1991, Appleby's statement is completely false. Take a look at the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, there's no mention of the "Sea of Japan" in a search for "East Sea".--Endroit 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

welcome to 2006. & please explain your edit summary that i redirected "when nobody was looking" & that you object, when you did not object to the redirection (you only suggested revamping the disambiguation page) as a participant in the discussion at the time, above. Appleby 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Appleby's numerous unilateral moves were done on Dec. 18 prior to any discussion, and even before I entered discussion on Dec. 18. And it is wrong for anybody to assume that I didn't object in the first place. What was there to discuss if Appleby never gave me a chance to voice my opinion before his controversial edits?

I particularly object to Appleby attempting to pass off as if I had agreed with him, and as if he had consensus when in reality he didn't.

Also, I did give a hint on Dec. 18 that I will leave it up to the admins to fix all this mess created by Appleby (moving pages back and forth). As it stands now, there are redirects going all over the place, and we need an admin's intervention to fix it.

I was waiting all this time for an admin to see what Appleby did, and I'm surprised it took so long. Perhaps everybody was on vacation since Dec. 18. I hereby request any admin to check carefully the edits done by Appleby on Dec. 18, 2005, the timing, and whether he had any consensus at all.--Endroit 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

East Sea diambiguation page

I think the differneces between Usage of name of East Sea along with Sea of Japan and Chinese and Vietnamese usage of the term "East Sea" for South China Sea and East China Sea is that "East Sea (Sea of Japan) receives international recognition, but the other two terms don't. Right now, as many people know, there is a dispute over naming of Sea of Japan/East Sea, and many interntationally recognized publications use both terms to name the region. That's why in most publications, Sea of Japan is termed as Sea of Japan (East Sea), Sea of Japan/East Sea. (in Some cases only one term is used, example: google earth uses the term East Sea).

The usage of the term "East Sea" for East China Sea and South China Sea is strictly refined to local use (I don't think the Chinese people have much problem with that, as East Sea and East China Sea is very similar), and the name "East Sea" for "South China Sea" is not recognized at all by international publications and is strictly local and is only used by Vietnamese government/authorities (you don't find South China Sea/East Sea, South China Sea (East Sea) in ANY of internationally recognized and reputable publications. A Search done on "east sea" on google finds the first 100 searches strictly pertains to "East Sea (Sea of Japan)".

The other definitions for East Sea, including the biblical definition and local terms for East China Sea and South China Sea is very rarely used. Since the most populous definition for "East Sea" pertains to "Sea of Japan", East Sea should work like CD disambiguation page, where CD redirects to Compact Disc article but has a subtitle on the top that that links to the CD (disambiguation) page. CD has multiple meanings (around 30), but a search done on CD directs to the most common usage. Since "East Sea (meaning Sea of Japan)" is the most common usage for the name "East Sea", East Sea should redirect to "Sea oF Japan". Deiaemeth 11:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My response is: do a search on Google News instead. A lot of non-governmental sources use "East Sea" to refer to East China Sea and South China Sea. --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Google Search, is this what you're talking about? Most of the links discuss the naming controversy between Sea of Japan & East Sea, and may even have Sea of Japan (East Sea) written somewhere, but they never support the position that East Sea only means Sea of Japan. If that's the case, linking to Sea of Japan naming dispute is more appropriate than Sea of Japan according to Google Search, which I oppose also. Look carefully at the contents of the search results, please.

In terms of international acceptance, the governments of the United States, China, Vietnam, and Japan all reject this usage (either implicitly or explicitly). (These are merely the ones I verified, and there may be others).

• The United States government explicitly discourages using East Sea or Sea of Japan (East Sea) to mean Sea of Japan as explained here in the bottom.
• China operates the East Sea Fleet (of their navy), with headquarters at Ningbo (near Shanghai) in the East China Sea as described here. Hence the Chinese government implicitly reject using East Sea to mean Sea of Japan in the English language.
• Vietnam will host the next APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) conference. In the Official Website of APEC 2006 in Vietnam, they describe the South China Sea as East Sea as shown here. Hence the Vietnamese government implicitly reject using East Sea to mean Sea of Japan in the English language.
• Japan explicitly discourages using East Sea or Sea of Japan (East Sea) to mean Sea of Japan as elaborately shown here.

In terms of the Baltic Sea, East Sea was used to mean Baltic Sea in English long before anybody cares to remember, as shown in this map.

In terms of The Bible, the King James Bible is an English Bible originally written in 1611. The Biblical passages Ezekiel 47:18 and Joel 2:20 use East Sea to mean Dead Sea. Other Bibles (written in English) use either East Sea or Eastern Sea for the same passages. The WebBible Encyclopedia entry for East Sea says that East Sea means Dead Sea.

Needless to say, East Sea needs to redirect to East Sea (disambiguation).--Endroit 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to strongly agree with Endroit on this. There are just too many other notable uses of "East Sea" to not have a disambig page. Masterhatch 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The PRIMARY MEANING is the issue. You can find hundreds of examples of CD referring to something other then compact discs, or CHICAGO referring to the movie or musical or a different city with the same name, but the PRIMARY MEANING is clear, and should go to the primary article. You find the PRIMARY MEANING by using the English Google or other general search engine, or general encyclopedias and dictionaries, not by finding individual examples of exceptions.

I've never stated East Sea ONLY means SEA OF JAPAN. You seem to have misunderstood me. I understand what you're saying, and East Sea could have variety of other meanings. But "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" is the most common usage for the name, and should be redirected to "Sea of Japan". Like Stanford; there is about 10 usages for the name "Stanford", but search done on Stanford will direct to Stanford University. There are other usages of the name, including about 6 towns named Stanford, Stanford Shopping Center, and people named Stanford, but it redirects to the most well-known article. Baltic Sea was known as "East Sea".

As for the Chinese "East Sea Fleet",

The PLAN is divided into thee fleets: North Sea Fleet, East Sea Fleet, and South Sea Fleet. The North Sea Fleet, with headquarters at Qingdao, has responsibility for the Yellow Sea area. The East Sea Fleet, with headquarters at Ningbo (near Shanghai), has responsibility for the East China Sea area. The South Sea Fleet, with headquarters at Zhanjiang (near Hong Kong), has responsibility for the politically sensitive South China Sea.

There is no implicit suggestions that PRC disagrees with RoK on East Sea naming dispute. Note that China refers to "Yellow Sea" as "North Sea", Should we then create a disambiguation page for North Sea? North Sea is the internationally recognized name for Sea located between Denmark and Norway. There are other usages for the name, but it directs to the most commonly used usage for the name. I said "international publications" nowadays commonly use the name "east sea" with "sea of Japan" (Google Earth, National Geographic, American heritage dictionary, MSN Encarta, etc.) As for Vietnam, unfortunately, Vietnamese naming for "East Sea" receives no international recognition, as no known international publictions refer to "South China Sea" as "East Sea". Only Vietnamese gov't sites refer to South China Sea as East Sea. The gov't of U.S, Japan, and Vietnam may reject using "east sea" for "sea of japan", but the fact remains, the name "east sea" receives most internationl recognition from reputable and well-known international publications. The usage of "East Sea" for "Dead Sea" is rare. I've never said the name isn't USED for Dead Sea, just that it is very uncommon to refer to "Dead Sea" as "East Sea". The Holy Bible may refer to it as "East Sea" (twice), but as seen here [[36]], the Dead Sea is primarily referred in the Holy Bible as "Salt Sea" or "Sea of Arabah". [37] [38]

Therefore, it is needless to say "east sea" should redirect to "sea of japan", but like CD or Stanford, it should also present a wikilink to East Sea (disambiguation) page. Deiaemeth 20:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, Chinese and Taiwanese English language sources generally equate "East Sea" with "East China Sea" -- and I can guarantee that if you talk with any English speaker in the Chinese-speaking parts of the world, they would not think of the Sea of Japan when you mention "East Sea"; the immediate assumption will be a reference to East China Sea.

The example of North Sea is inapposite; there is no country that officially or, in common usage, refers to another sea as the North Sea -- not even China. (The one example you mentioned above was clearly to create a parallelism -- a key for Chinese naming conventions, with East Sea and South Sea fleets.) (Compare http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/東海 with http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/北海, for example -- and note that the Chinese wikipedia assumes East Sea to refer to East China Sea.) There is no analogous situation with North Sea; as I've pointed out previously, you do a search for "East Sea" in Google News and you come up with all kinds of references to different seas; that's not the case with North Sea. (Compare http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22North+Sea%22&btnG=Search+News with http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22East+Sea%22&btnG=Search+News.) Being Korea-centric (quite literally, in this case) is also, in my opinion, violative of NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And a reason why this is not analogous to Stanford: there's probably a (much) larger population in the world who will associate "East Sea" with "East China Sea" than with "Sea of Japan". That's clearly not true of "Stanford". --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

More people in the world who associate East Sea with East China Sea? that only pertains to, as you've pointed out, if you talk to Chinese & Taiwanese people - THEY ARE LOCALLY recognized. That's why i've pointed out NO international publications refer to East china sea and as East China Sea (East Sea( and vice versa. That is not true for East Sea. WHen you search fo "EAST Sea" in most dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc, it directs to Sea of Japan (East sea). East Sea is the most commonly used name for Sea of Japan for international publications (again, see Google earth, National Geographic, MSN Encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, Answers.com, L'Atlas -du mode diplomatique, USA Today, BBC News, Nautical Charts Catalogue France, Lycos, UN World Health Organization, etc. [39] ), not locally recognized like East China Sea or South China Sea. When news sources write articles, they tend to only use "Sea of Japan", in write-up because, they use the better recognized version of the name; however, as I've pointed out, Major news agencies like USA Today and BBC uses (East Sea) in most maps detailing Sea of Japan/East Sea. Also, When you type in "East Sea" on news sources, you don't sea South China Sea or East China Sea referred to as "East Sea" at all. Even when there is a map along with the article, you still won't find it labeled East China Sea (East Sea). You don't sea East China Sea and SOuth China Sea referred to as East Sea on any enclopedias as well. Deiaemeth 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you guys talking about your opinions and guesses on how many people use whatever in what ways? Just search for "East Sea" in the ENGLISH Google, and you can easily find the PRIMARY MEANING in English. Or look up "East Sea" in English encyclopedias and dictionaries to see what the PRIMARY MEANING is. Lots of English words are used in certain populations in certain ways, but that's not what this discussion should be about. It's the PRIMARY MEANING in English. Period. The other special uses properly belong on the disambiguation page, but the PRIMARY MEANING of the search term shoud direct the reader to the, you guessed it, PRIMARY MEANING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.187.166 (talk • contribs)

Bold assertions. Care to at least sign your comments? --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

America goes to a disambiguation page regardless of the "PRIMARY MEANING". Obviously, "PRIMARY MEANING" is NOT the issue at all here at Wikipedia. It's whether there is confusion or not. Read the Wikipedia policy regarding disambiguation. As there is confusion regarding this matter as shown above, East Sea must go to a disambiguation page according to Wikipedia policy.--Endroit 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Found another one...Riviera goes to a disambiguation page also, regardless of the "PRIMARY MEANING".--Endroit 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you say "primary meaning" or "most commonly used name" for America is ? United States of America? North America? South America? Well, in that case, all 3 are very well-known, well-used, and internationally standirized. Such is not a case in "East Sea" (Refer to my response to User:Nlu above - No International publictions use the term "East Sea" for East China Sea, and usage of East Sea to term Dead Sea is VERY RARE/Uncommon ) There is no "PRIMARY MEANING" Of America. There is United States of America, North America, and South America. Since they are all internationally recognized and standardized, there is no way of telling which is one is of most importance. Such is not a case in "east sea", seeing as how "east sea(sea of japan)" is used by most international publications (again, see Google earth, National Geographic, MSN Encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, Answers.com, L'Atlas -du mode diplomatique, USA Today, BBC News, Nautical Charts Catalogue France, Lycos, UN World Health Organization, etc. [40] ), whereas "East sea" for "south china sea" and "east china sea" is only used locally. And of course, "East Sea" for "Dead sea" is almost never used at all. You don't certainly see South China Sea (East Sea), East China Sea (East Sea), Dead Sea (East Sea) in any of international publictaions (and vice versa). Also, If you want pages where a search directs you to the most common usage of the name (primary meaning), as per Wikipedia policy, See FBI, family, China, rape, Japan, people, are, gay, Black, Green, Red, dog, Sex, human, sharp, IQ, jig, Musica, Harmony, family, eth, Cannon, dead, doom, death, life,fat, CD, Stanford, Harvard, Gun, UN, Flame, Korea, Iceland, pet, Atlantic, Belgium, mediation, lesbian, Rainbow, blizzard, federation, bile, Canada, Inn, Starcraft, horse, Manga, Asia, Africa, Europe, EU, Australia, Headgear, USB, Civilization, Leverage, Vandals, White, fate, dance, logic, gonzaga, war, fish, tail, music, Dara, Pennsylvania, Maris, Kali, Shiva, SAT, God, fly, bat, congo, South africa, Nelson, cube, viz, emperor, empire, etc. Note how common usage/primary meaning is used as first redirect? The only times when a search directs you to a disambiguated page is when the meanings are all of similar significance. FOr Examples, Fila directs to a disambiguation page because all 3 definitions for Fila is not greatly known and there necessarily isn't a "most common usage" or "primary meaning". Samething with PSP, NDS, Is, IB. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Since East Sea(Sea of Japan) is the most common used/internationally recognized name, it is needless to say East Sea should redirect to Sea of Japan. Deiaemeth 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be because the American Heritage Dictioinary and Encarta lists both meanings as definitions. But for East Sea, those two and other publications only list the Sea of Japan. Obviously a strong case for the ONLY significant meaning in English. You can argue that there are other occasional, exceptional uses of East Sea, but it's hard to see more than one PRIMARY MEANING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.187.166 (talk • contribs) .

The Chinese, South Korean and Vietnamese uses of "East Sea" are all equal in that none of them win international recognition. There are two organizations standardize international names for oceans and seas, namely the IHO (International Hydrographic Organization) and the UNCSGN (United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names). Neither approve South Korea's demand for the renaming and there seems to be no prospect for it. 218.221.107.176 03:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The UN Agenda for East Sea naming is still open, and as I've said, "East Sea(Sea of Japan)" is recognized by International publications (again, see Google earth, National Geographic, MSN Encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, Answers.com, L'Atlas -du mode diplomatique, USA Today, BBC News, Nautical Charts Catalogue France, Lycos, UN World Health Organization, etc - much more [41]). Wikipedia Naming Conventions state that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Seeing as how "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" is only usage for "East Sea" in well-known western and international publications, redirecting East Sea to Sea of Japan is correct.

Also, I've noticed you've made one contribute, to this article only. Sockpuppeting is against Wikipedia policies! Deiaemeth 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the organizations you mentioned are authorized to standardize geographic names, and the two real authorities do not approve South Korea's demand, as I've already said. This means that "East Sea" in South Korean context is still a local name for the sea internationally known as the Sea of Japan. South Korea has right to make a claim even if it is egoistic and disturbing international order. But whether it is recognized or not is another matter.
PS. read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry before slandering me. 218.221.151.7 08:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your POV claim asserts that South Korean view is egoistic and disturbing. Please maintain your neutrality; let's not turn this into a flame war By recognized, i meant most international publications now commonly use the name. See Wiki:naming convention:"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." - Emphasis on primary meaning and most common usage - what western publications refer to East China Sea and SOuth China Sea as East Sea? Also, the UN agendas are still open at the two real authorities. Deiaemeth 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, nobody said there wouldn't be no East Sea(disambiguation) page. A search done on East Sea will redirect to Sea of Japan (east sea), but there will be a wikilink thing on the top that can direct people to East Sea (disambiguation) , like the pages i listed above

Oh, I forgot to mention that the Chinese use is recognized by the IHO in a way while the South Korean one doesn't. Limits of Oceans and Seas by the IHO registers the East China Sea as "East China Sea (Tung Hai)" [42]. Surely the South Korean claim will cause confusion to sea navigation because it will make the neighboring seas share the same name in Chinese. That's why I said it is disturbing international order. 218.221.151.7 08:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As for primary meaning, it is meaningless to discuss which context (Chinese, South Korean or Vietnamese) is primary because the Sea of Japan is simply know as "Sea of Japan" in the West and "East Sea" is only a minor usage. 218.221.151.7 08:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(Tung Hai) is a Mandarin Pronounciation of the name "East Sea"- you may create an article for "tung hai" on english wikipedia, but fact remains, IHO did not approve China of the use of name "East Sea"[43] +

- There is a great amount of differnence between the two names. All western maps and publications don't refer to as East China Sea as East Sea. Ther certainly will not confuse between East Sea and East China Sea and East Sea (Sea of Japan). Deiaemeth 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the view that East Sea (Korean Meaning) belongs to the East_Sea_(disambiguation) page. Sea of Japan is a worldwide accepted name standardized by international authorities, and has been defacto for centries. On the other hand East Sea (Korean Meaning) is just a local name, although it may be famous only because of Korean political claims starting in the 1990s. The two are not of equal value. Nobu Sho 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

this has already been discussed to death in the archives. "east sea" is advocated by korea because it is one of the international names on old maps drawn by europeans. as the article says, before "sea of japan" became widely used as japan encroached on korea, europeans used a variety of names, including east sea, oriental sea, sea of korea, gulf of korea, sea of joseon, sea of japan, etc. korea proposes one of these western names as the neutral english name, "east" referring to the continent, just like North Sea.

sure, "east sea" is also the korean language name, just like "sea of japan" is the japanese native name, but it is not "merely translated" from the korean language, any more than "sea of japan" is merely translated from the japanese language. the korean proposal derives from the western usage of "east sea" and the current english "east sea" is recognized by reputable publications as an alternate name, in english.

finally, un & iho do not determine the validity of disputed names, & have no administrative or legal authority. they merely compile popularly used names, & have deferred to the two countries to settle the dispute. publishers & organizations that actually do the research into the merits & determine what the names should be, have concluded that "east sea" is a valid alternative english name. Appleby 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

International or Local?

It is true in the past many Europeans have used various names, but because at the present, only the Koreans claim renaming; therefore I would say it is only a local name. English or not, I guess whether something is an international or local name depends on who supports it, rather than who invented it.

The Present and Past

It seems there is a confusion about the present and the past. International or local, various names were used, but they are no match for the defacto for centuries and the present standardized words. It's like claiming someone has to be rich just because someone used to be, which is not a good reason. Also is it likely Sea of Japan became defacto under the Japanese isolation policy, nothing to do with encroaching on Korea.

Respecting International Agreements

What is the problem about compiling popularly used names? It's a good reason and challenging it means not respecting international agreements. Japan has a long coastline towards the Sea of Japan, that is a very good reason for what it should be called.

Lawmakers claim for Sea of Korea

An article saids that Korean lawmakers started effors to chage Sea of Japan to "Sea of Korea". (22 Jan 2006, Article in Korean) [44] What is the official position of the Korean government? Did they change their policy from "East Sea" to "Sea of Korea"? If so, that would make "East Sea" being less important than before, besides it will contradict what they have claimed in "East Sea". Now, I can date. Nobu Sho 20:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that is not the official position/policy of Korean Government and is a private group. The policies of Japanese_Society_for_History_Textbook_Reform does not necessarily reflect official Japanese gov't position and Ministry_of_Education,_Culture,_Sports,_Science_and_Technology, does it? Deiaemeth 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having a disambiguation page, mostly because "East Sea" doesn't mean anything to me, and hence could mean anything. It's not dominant enough here. Fagstein 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

this is not about whether to have a disambiguation page, but whether, since encyclopedias & google english search clearly indicates that "east sea" primarily means "sea of japan", to redirect "east sea" here & have a disambiguation link at the top of this article. see examples like CD & Chicago. Appleby 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant I prefer disambiguation to a redirect, since East Sea is not (in my opinion) universally common (and hence, means different things to different people). Fagstein 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your input. just wondering, did you rely on any sources other than [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] honestly, all i see above are examples of exceptional uses & anecdotal personal impressions. this is not directed at you fagstein, but i would just like to remind everyone that, what matters is not the number of wikipedians who feel a certain way, but citation to npov reputable sources. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community" see also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. every day that wikipedia's content is contradicted by reputable sources because of editors who have a political agenda, wikipedia becomes less of a credible encyclopedia. Appleby 06:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so, just because I don't agree with your Korea-centrism, I have a political agenda? --Nlu (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The East Sea info regarding Sea of Japan exists largely due to propaganda, as our VANK article suggests. These large propaganda outfits apply massive pressure, to force organisations into listing East Sea in their publications. Apparently, Appleby is trying to do the same thing to us by insisting on his POV unto other Wikipedia editors. This does not accurately reflect the true usage of the term East Sea in general, as the assessments are greatly exaggerated.--Endroit 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, claiming East Sea usage is Korean Propaganda is your POV. I mean "VANK also actively attemps to correct misconceived historical or cultural facts, from Korean aspect, on the Internet, by sending e-mails. Especially, VANK sends e-mails to webmasters who are in charge of websites that contain, in their opinion, distorted information about Korea." clearly states that VANK pushes for evil Korean propaganda on the net in an attempt to discredit every other nations in the world. Remember, Wikipedia is not Japan-pedia. Now, even if the name East Sea is an attempt at Evil Korean Propaganda, the fact of the matter is, most (if not all) reputable & creditable international publications refer Sea of Japan also as East Sea. It is not Appleby's POV, it is a FACT. Deiaemeth 06:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

& what makes you the judge of "true usage" in contradiction to the most reputable encyclopedias & dictionaries? i'm not complaining you don't agree with my opinion, i'm saying wikipedia is contradicted by the major authorities, & that's a loss for wikipedia's credibility. Appleby 06:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We, Wikipedians are the judge of this as we build our consensus.--Endroit 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

no, from the founder: [50]. Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community" see also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] determine "primary meaning" in an WP:NPOV manner. Appleby 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

These are merely Appleby-POV, Endroit-POV, Deiaemeth-POV, and Nlu-POV. The other editors will decide by consensus. And if you have a problem with that, I assume you'll have to complain to the admins and arbitrators later.--Endroit 06:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

from the above wikipedia policy: "For an experiment in democracy, visit Wikicities Democracy." like i said, i'm not here to make you my friend, i'm not here to promote a pov, i'm just saying wikipedia's not a credible encyclopedia if it's contradicted by reputable publications. yes, you have your pov & i have mine. but in the npov corner are [56] [57] [58] [59] [60].Appleby 07:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For the last time:

I think I've shown enough examples of "reputable publications" in English using "East Sea" to refer to East China Sea, South China Sea, Baltic Sea, and (as I just added) Bay of Bengal. Arguing that "East Sea" unambiguously refers to Sea of Japan is ethnocentrism at its worst. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

if it is ambiguous, we should have a disambiguation page, and we do. if it is ambiguous but has a primary meaning, it should redirect to the primary meaning, with a link at the top to the disambiguation page. that's what wikipedia does in other analogous cases. who's making the ethnocentric exception here? Appleby 08:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Google earth, National Geographic, MSN Encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, Answers.com, L'Atlas -du mode diplomatique, USA Today, BBC News, Nautical Charts Catalogue France, Lycos, UN World Health Organization, etc. [61] use the term "East Sea" exclusively for Sea of Japan/East Sea.

Clearly ethnocentrism at its worst. For all we know, there are board of shadowy Korean figures behind those internationally accredited publications, spreading evil Korean propaganda. So far, the only examples posted in this discussion board that refers "east Sea" and "South China Sea" as "east Sea" is the gov't of Vietnam page (no international publications/encyclopedias refer to South China Sea as "East Sea") and China's "East Sea Fleet" (Chinese "North Sea Fleet" refers to the fleet stationede in Yellow See, should we disambiguate the "North Sea" page then?), two references in Bible terming the Dead Sea as East Sea (But the Holy Bible termed the Dead Sea "Sea of Salt" or "Sea of Arabah" every single time! except.. those two times. No international publications refer to Dead Sea as "east Sea"), the most recent Bay of Bengal claim (again, I don't see any major news publications/encyclopedias/publications terming Bay of bangal (East Sea); it is strictly local usage and no "international" publications term it East Sea). As for Baltic Sea, i don't see much Baltic Sea (East Sea) getting used in any international publications/encyclopedias/news sources/maps, etc. No one here is denying that those bodies of water are also sometimes referred to as East Sea, but the point is, most international publications/news sources/encyclopedias/maps (again, see Google earth, National Geographic, MSN Encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, Answers.com, L'Atlas -du mode diplomatique, USA Today, BBC News, Nautical Charts Catalogue France, Lycos, UN World Health Organization, etc. [62] ) commonly refer to East Sea as Sea of Japan! . As per precedent set by such articles as FBI, family, China, rape, Japan, people, are, gay, Black, Green, Red, dog, Sex, human, sharp, IQ, jig, Musica, Harmony, family, eth, Cannon, dead, doom, death, life,fat, CD, Stanford, Harvard, Gun, UN, Flame, Korea, Iceland, pet, Atlantic, Belgium, mediation, lesbian, Rainbow, blizzard, federation, bile, Canada, Inn, Starcraft, horse, Manga, Asia, Africa, Europe, EU, Australia, Headgear, USB, Civilization, Leverage, Vandals, White, fate, dance, logic, gonzaga, war, fish, tail, music, Dara, Pennsylvania, Maris, Kali, Shiva, SAT, God, fly, bat, congo, South africa, Nelson, cube, viz, emperor, empire, search done on these terms will direct to the most common usage, but will have a wikilink back to the disambiguation page. No one here said "East Sea" EXCLUSIVELY refers to Sea of Japan/East Sea. The point being made was that East Sea is most COMMONLY reffered to as Sea of Japan. See the difference between those two? Deiaemeth 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This argument has clearly ceased to be useful. --Golbez 08:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's getting nowhere :p Deiaemeth 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there's such a debate, shouldn't we err on the side of the disambiguation page? Even some of these other encyclopedias quoted (since when does Wikipedia do what other encyclopedias do just because they do it?) note that there are other possible meanings for "East Sea". Fagstein 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation/Arbitration

I requested East Sea (disambiguation) to be protected while we pursue mediation/arbitration. A formal request has been made for mediation.--Endroit 19:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above-mentioned RfM (Request for Mediation): If you are not named in the section Involved parties, but strongly feel that you are involved in this issue, and wish to be involved in RfM as well, please add your username there and sign in the section Parties' agreement to mediate. (See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for details.)--Endroit 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) is not applicable to this article becase it is a guildline how to refer this article from various articles, not how to write this article. --Kusunose 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the post above for international usage and such. It's a long read though Deiaemeth 05:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification (just in case anybody was wondering): Whether to write "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" at the begining of this article, is not likely to be covered by the above Mediation. You are encouraged to discuss here separately what the consensus is regarding this matter, in light of the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) may already cover this. If you want to rebuild a new consensus (or clarify what the consensus is), you should discuss it here anyways. And please do not engage in Wikipedia:Edit war, and watch out not to break the WP:3RR rule. Deiaemeth, you broke the 3RR already, don't do it again.--Endroit 17:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

why not add to the fun & discuss this at the mediation? it's pretty much the same issue in a different form. for all those who seem to forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog of personal opinions or a popularity contest:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [63]
• Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, [64]; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [65]
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea [66] [67]; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of [68] [69]
• American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) [70]; East Sea: See Sea of Japan [71]
• National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [72]
• Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
• World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [73]
• Search engines, "East Sea" without Wikipedia: Google [74] Yahoo [75]
• Search engines, "East Sea" in English, without Wikipedia or partial names "South East Sea" and "North East Sea": Google [76] Yahoo [77]

Appleby 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, you are free to add anything to the agenda in the Additional issues to mediate section of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation), if you feel the need to do so.--Endroit 18:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

according to WP:MOS, alternative names of the title are to be in bold. Appleby 18:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Endroit. Why don't you take a look at this webpage? (concensus(X), consensus(O)) http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/concensus.html

That was quite irrelevant, but thanks anyway for the info -..-; Deiaemeth 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I must really like that word, but never realized that I had misspelled it. Thanks for correcting me.--Endroit 06:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)