Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Page no longer neutral

I would like to dispute the neutrality of this talk page of the dispute page of the naming of the Sea of Japan. I believe we should make a dispute page for the talk page. Bob ORLY (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Official international name

The current version of the article reads:

"Since the 1990s, South Korea has been making efforts to change the official international name referring to the sea."

What on Earth does "official international name" mean ? Shouldn't it be reworded to something along the lines of "to change international usage" or "to change the name by which the sea is referred to internationally" or "to promote a change of the name by which..." ? - Regards, Ev (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

New article

Sea of Japan has now been duplicated at East asia sea. Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And now redirected. Kablammo (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs an English map

There are two old maps provided, but neither are in English, and as far as the name that the English speaking word should use, an old English map would seem more relevant than anything else. 68.73.85.6 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on folks; even the Korean page on this dispute has a pic of a 19th century English map. How about someone steal that? 68.73.114.58 (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Sea?

Facing Earth clockwise from north, these are the four countries with borders on the sea and the one country that touches the tributary Duman river 19 km from the sea:

Country	Meaning	Roman Script	Typing	Han Script	Han Meaning
Russia	Japanese Sea	Yapónskoje móre	Япо́нское мо́ре	X	sun origin sea
Japan	Japan Sea	Nihonkai	にほんかい	日本海	sun origin sea
South Korea	East Sea	Donghae	동해	東海	east sea
North Korea	Korea East Sea	Joseon Donghae	조선동해	朝鮮東海	morning fresh east sea
PRC	Japan Sea	Rìběnhǎi	ㄖˋ ㄅㄣˇ???ˇ	日本海	sun origin sea

The east character and the morning character both use the sun character. Either way every name here refers at least obliquely to dawn. If the countries involved can't decide which old name to use, maybe a new name that encompasses the meaning of the old ones will do. As we already have a Yellow Sea, I see no problem with a dawn sea. Here are some loose translations of dawn:

Russian: рассвет (rassvét) Japanese: 夜明け (よあけ, yoake) Korean: 해돋이 (haedodi) Chinese: 天亮 (tiānliàng)

Hoping for peace, :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ingenious, but alas, fails WP:NEO. -Moritheil (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kusunose's contradictory rationale for the removal.

[1]

“ remove the map from the section; use of the Korean name in a Korean map is not relevant to the international naming dispute and its significance is not supported by any citations ”

The rationale for deletion is contradiction. The map is surely written in Hanja, and the Ricci's map that Kusunose tried to relocate to the main article is also written in Chinese character. He does not even provide any direct contents for the image, but said that the Sea of Japan is written in Chinese characters. So why your rationales are not consistent? The article deals with historical matters, so the Korean map should be included as an evidences. It seems obvious that the user's long-term habit is revived again.--Caspian blue^Gwansim? 01:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I said it is a Korean map and the image description page asserts it; the title of the map is 我國總圖 (General Map of Our Country) and its author is Korean King Jeongjo. As there is no dispute that Koreans have been using the term "East Sea" in Korea, there is no need to include the map as an evidence. I don't think I am inconsistent. I would have removed Ricci's map if it is a Japanese map. --Kusunose 07:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is your only POV. I have no reason to follow your so-called rule. The map is to illustrate how Koreans acknowledged the body of water as the name in the past, so it should be included as well. I reverted only twice, but you reverted 3 times, so remind WP:3RR. --Caspian blue^Gwansim? 14:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody denies the fact that Koreans called the body of water 'East Sea' in the past. The point is what the world except Korea and Japan called the body of water before 1900, isn't it? I think Kusunose's edit was rational and NPoV. Oda Mari (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a link to this map which appears on the Korean & Japanese pages? [2]

I just restored some corrected ENGLISH that was lost during the ridiculous edit warring over the map in question. If you guys are so focused on using WP as a place to fight your political battles that in the process you end up damaging WP into unreadability, you really have no business editing here. Here's the deal: how about all you partisans in this battle let us native ENGLISH speakers edit this ENGLISH wikipedia article, and in return we promise not come into ko.wp and jp.wp and fill it up with incomprehensible gibberish? Deal? 68.73.114.58 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Rule: Korea's 9/11

If you give a mouse a cookie, it will ask for a glass of milk. It seems that the Koreas are exploiting "old Japanese rule," like Rudy Giuliani was trying to exploit 9/11: It's getting old. Funny how the North is at odds with the South, but when it comes to Japan, they both shake hands and agree; Japan raped and pillaged us, and they haven't done enough to repay. When will it be enough? Do they seriously expect to wipe them from the map? Is Japan raping and pillaging NOW? Was it not enough they lost their navy, lost 66 cities, including Tokyo, in fire-bombs, not to mention suffered abject humiliation and defeat in the wake of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Just when will have they "attoned for their actions?"

Instead of fighting over whether or not the sea is theirs, shouldn't North and South Korea be trying to make their OWN ammends first? Don't Koreans want to be a single peninsula again? Seriously. Japanese rule is long gone. Maybe the Japanese need to remain regretful, but maybe Korea should get used to the fact that the war is over, get over it, and try to bridge more gaps with their neighbor. Seriously. "Japanese Colonial Rule" is getting old.Kogejoe (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This kind of vitriolic diatribe is unhelpful and off-topic for the discussion page of an encyclopedia. I strongly advise that you consider removing it. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember everyone, you're supposed to discuss the article, not the subject itself, unless it relates directly to how the article is written. If you think Korea is employing victimization with this issue and others as a means of trying to exert power over Japan, then go find a reliable source that says so then add it to the article or discuss it here on the talk page. But please don't use this page to give your own opinion on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move

One user seems to believe that he is entitled to move the page without consensus by virtue of the fact that (to quote) "I have said that the current title is non-neutral".

Given that the article starts by saying "There is a dispute over using the name "Sea of Japan" to refer to the sea bordered by Russia, Japan, North Korea, and South Korea. Although Sea of Japan, or equivalent translations, are commonly used in international productions, North and South Korea are proposing different names", it is difficult to see where the name "Sea of Japan naming dispute" is not neutral. The two Koreas are overtly trying to have the name changed from the current de facto international name. That is what the name "Sea of Japan naming dispute" suggests.

The new page title aspires to be neutral by implying that there is currently no accepted international name. This is not in accordance with the facts of the situation -- a de facto international name being challenged by advocates of a name change -- and thus actually favours the advocates of the name change. It is, in fact, quite non-neutral.

That is not to say that the Koreas do not have a case. But even if you regard the name change advocated by the Koreas as 100% justified, "Sea of Japan naming dispute" does not misrepresent the current situation. Not even Koreans would dispute that "Sea of Japan" is internationally current -- that is, of course, why they are trying to change it.

Bathrobe (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bathrobe. The article name should be moved back to "Sea of Japan naming dispute". Oda Mari (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That edit is pretty much the definition of contrary to consensus. I'd move it back, but I'm just a lowly IP, so I leave it up to one of you folks. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please come to consensus on the title. Once that is done I will unprotect the page so it can be moved to the decided title. This title warring on Japan/Korea-related articles is just plain absurd. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "Sea of Japan naming dispute" is a neutral title. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment. The current title is hardly distinguishable from other body of water between Korea and Japan, Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait. Though they are not in dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, the "Sea of Japan naming dispute" was very clear. This title is less so. I would like to see the page move reverted. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the comments here, I have moved the article back, but it is remaining move protected to stop further nonsense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx. Now how about removing "Dispute over the naming of the body of water between Japan and Korea" from the namespace instead of leaving it as a redirect? 68.73.114.58 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine having it as a redirect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps bearing "East Sea" etc.

The article should have at the least several pictures of maps showing the sea as either Sea of Korea or the East Sea. (129.59.249.104 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

Why? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for several maps stating that it is shown as East Sea. If we were to use a quick use of the "G-hits" Sea of Japan prevails and common usage on maps, including the UN show Sea of Japan as shown here http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/korean.pdf. Much Love, CorrectlyContentious 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectlyContentious (talk • contribs)

Why not? Shouldn't an article that talks about a dispute have contents related to it? Especially if it is a territorial dispute based on historical evidence & especially if most of the evidence put forth by both parties are maps.... I really don't get how people here expect to convince ppl to take stuffs out because it is not the predominant whatever. So, something doesn't show up on google; then we can't ever talk about it? Because it is not mainstream, we should take it out ? - even in an article that should present those things.... I've seen way too many disputes here settle like that & whenever the situation deteriorates in a way that the admins find agreeable, they don't object [ qui tacet consentit ! ] People of certain interest groups (be it nationality or personal whim) try to shape articles here by putting certain things in while taking certain things out & too often the excuse is that it is not mainstream (they're not mutually exclusive). I'll put it in for you. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

The content of the article is about the Sea of Japan and its disputed name. We have a large section regarding why Korea beleives it to be otherwise. I suppose a map showing Sea of Japan and a Map showing East Sea would have to be marked by a certain country or publisher. In this case i gave a link to the UN just to show an overall consensus that at the current moment its the Sea of Japan until disputes are resolved(the UN is more impartial than just 2 countries claims) Anyways I wasnt saying G-Hits is the way to go on this, i was just saying, the map is the same whatever way you look at it. Its just 3 Lines of text on the map which would differ(Qcurrent question mark). This is unfortunatly causing a dispute between two nations so thats why its a naming dispute over a most currently known sea named the Sea of Japan and thats why there is only at the moment, a need of one map to show current status. Thanks for the comments though Ferro, i do understand your points you have made, hope you can see my side also.CorrectlyContentious 15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to add, thats why we just have the question mark for the name now, to keep things neutral until it can be resolved. If you look in the history of the article someone tried to put forward your point with an edit if you want to check thanksCorrectlyContentious 15:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We can all agree that you don't make any sense. Adding historical maps is different from changing the standard Wikipedia location map, which (doesn't even indicate any consensus anyways) would be closest to what you said about "show an overall consensus." Where are you trying to go with "anyways.... i was just saying... map is the same whatever way you look at it..." ? ? ? You don't make any sense here either: 1) "It's a naming dispute between 2 countries" 2) "only 1 status needs to be shown" ??? 3) "we can't have any historical maps". This is a really hopeless case you're making here 1) if you can't explain how showing historical maps is same as changing the contemporary location map that indicates the current status of the dispute & 2) if you can't explain how an article that treats the dispute itself cannot have essential materials, such as examples of evidence used by both parties of the dispute concerned? Admin Nihonjoe, you have to agree. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Putting in one or two historical maps showing "East Sea" etc. would be good illustrative material for the article. I can't see that there would be anything wrong with it. Not, of course, a modern map created by a Wikipedian to show how cool it looks to mark the sea "East Sea", but a historical map that backs up the Korean argument. Not sure why this is contentious.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think those historical maps should be created by not Korean nor Japanese. As I wrote above, the point is what the world called the body of the water before 1900 and the domestic maps of Korea or Japan are irrelevant to the article. Oda Mari (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I said its a naming dispute of the Sea of Japan, with the origin of it being from Korea to call it the East Sea hence a dispute. Therefore at the moment it will be the Sea of Japan dispute. If you can find a map with East Sea showing Pre 1900 then go ahead and add it as it would be valueable, however we dont even have Sea of Japan as a map which is its current international name is my point. We need to keep it neutral, thats what the page is about, showing both sides. If you want to add a map, then id be happy that you put it into the relevant section. On the other hand, as i said, theres no map showing Sea of Japan on the article neither. Again there is a change of the article in its history where someone made a point like yourself and it was reverted by Caspian blue(check history). The consensus is that it IS the Sea of Japan currently, right? To tell me everything im saying is all wrong/pointless and then try to get an admin to back up your point that im wrong isnt productive. At least you read my comments Ferromagneticmonopole, thats all im asking of you.CorrectlyContentious 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this is ENGLISH WP, there should be at least one historical map in ENGLISH illustrating the name. I suggest someone grab this pic [3] of a map from 1815. 68.73.80.211 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, this Korean map [4] from 1531 would seem to add important content. 68.73.80.211 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not a very detailed map and it just shows Sea of Japan(which it currently is - see my posts above). Is there any older ones you can find from the UK? we already have the Ricci Map.--CorrectlyContentious 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the best solution to this problem would be to refer to this body of water as the East Sea in articles about Korean subjects, and Sea of Japan in articles about Japan. My source for this idea: Microsoft's maps service, bing maps. This is one of the best maps available on the internet. They use the name East Sea near Korea, and Sea of Japan (East Sea) near Japan and Russia. Please take a look at this map on bing maps[5]. This seems like a fair compromise to me. Mcettrick (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian point of view

If anyone knows what is the position of Russia on this issue? Russia also lies on this sea, so the change of name without its consent is rather impossible. Aotearoa (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Living right next to the Russian-speaking sphere of culture, I can say that they are not concerned by this somewhat unproductive issue at all. For example, Geophysics Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences calls it solely "японское море" <http://www.wdcb.rssi.ru/sep/lithosphere/Japan_Sea/japsea.ru.html>. They also seem to use the term японскaя котловинa(Japan Trench) --TokyoJapan (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200902/200902020037.html consensus in placing this in the article?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectlyContentious (talk • contribs) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean modify foreign maps with the whiteout in korea

Korean change the foreign maps written Sea of Japan to East sea in Korea. May I write this movement? http://news.mk.co.kr/newsRead.php?year=2009&no=364431--61.23.15.152 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a translation of the article? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.mk.co.kr%2FnewsRead.php%3Fyear%3D2009%26no%3D364431--&lp=ko_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Here is the translation of it. --61.23.15.152 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Traditional names from OUTSIDE of Korea or Japan

So what's the traditional name for this body, according to the

• Ainu (ie. Ezo was not part of Japan until recently, nor Karafuto)
• Mongolians (the Ghenghis Khan empire bordered this sea)
• Manchurians (Manchuria/Jurchen bordered this sea until recently)
• China (China bordered this sea several times in its history - and is the 500lbs gorilla when coming to terms with the history of the region)
• Russia (a recent arrival to the border of this sea)

?

76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to MOMAF

In order to verify the Korean position, the article links several times to sites at the Korean Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries wesbite. Unfortunately, the entire site (both the English and Korean versions) seems to be entirely gone. I can't get any useful pages out of the Wayback Machine, nor can I find any current link to this Ministry. The Wikipedia page on the Ministry (Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) doesn't help, and hasn't been updated by a human with actual info (as opposed to categorization, etc.) in about 2 years. Does anyone know if the Ministry still exists? Is it possible that the Cabinet was reorganized to eliminate, disperse, or rename this ministry? Those links seem pretty important, so it would be good if we could find whatever Korean cabinet is currently responsible for this issue to site them. Alternatively, if anyone knows of a reliable secondary source (preferably in English) that can site these claims, that would be an even better solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Japanese article, the ministry was abolished and absorbed to Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (red link) and Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in February 2008. Their English sites are http://english.mltm.go.kr/intro.do and http://english.mifaff.go.kr/main.tdf# and respectively. Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's page linked in the external link section is still alive so their claims may be sourced there. I don't know reliable secondary sources, sorry. --Kusunose 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

In 1995, South Korea deleted "Japan Sea" from its official nautical charts.[citation needed] Before then, South Korea's nautical charts showed both "Japan Sea" and "Tong Hae" (the then used romanization of "Donghae").

1. no citation
2. What is the name of official nautical charts?
3. "South Korea's nautical charts showed both "Japan Sea" and "Tong Hae"" >> show evidence. 660gd4qo (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The ref is found at here. See 1-(3). Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Japanese govt.s site claim. It was their claim. See, Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources660gd4qo (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

POV words

I point out several highly pov words. "established" ,"commonly use", "widely use", "used all over the world", "internationally established itself as a single name". First of all, Sea of Japan name currently used not "all" over the word. Both North and South Korea govt' are not using Sea of Japan name at least. so it is actually not "all" over the world. And some 3rd party foreign map using only "East Sea" name.[6] And, The name of Sea of Japan was not "established" in old Europe as Japan govt. claim.[7]

• Korean survey results (16C ~ 19C ancient Western maps)

Sea of Korea(Corea)/East(Eastern) Sea/Oriental Sea	440
Sea of Japan	122

Korean search results are based on ancient maps archived in British Library, Cambridge University Library, University of Southern California (USC) East Asian Map Collection, U.S. Library of Congress, National Library of Russia and French National Library

• Japanese survey results (16C ~ 19C ancient Western maps)

Sea of Korea(Corea)/East(Eastern) Sea/Oriental Sea	306
Sea of Japan	1399

Japanese search results are based on ancient maps archived in British Library, Cambridge University Library, French National Library and U.S. Library of Congress

Japan and Korea, two claims are differences. And even Japan govt. admitted that "East Sea / Sea of Korea" name used in ancientm western maps.(for example, even Japanese govt. source.[8][9] state that 20% of ancient Russia and Germany maps used exclusively "Sea of Korea" name. so it is hard to say sea of japan was "established" geographic name in old europe. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting points you raise. At first glance, it appears that we have 2 competing studies finding two different sets of results. A closer look, however, makes me seriously question the Korean survey. Now, no details are provided for how the Korean survey got its results, but there's a very glaring and obvious problem--how is it that the Korean survey looked at maps in more libraries/collections, and yet only used a total of about 1/3 of the maps that the Japanese study did? If they both studied exactly the same collections, we should expect them to have the same number of maps; if the Korean study looked at a larger number of collections, then we should expect the Korean study to have more maps overall, not 1/3 as many. Thus, I have to seriously question the results of the Korean survey. If we had more details about how the study is conducted, we could perhaps get some idea, but, unfortunately, no details are given on the Korean link.

As to the POV words...let me go take a look; I think you may be right on some but not necessarily all.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have "seriously question"? no matter what, It does not mean you can completely ignoring WP:RS sources. Also your POV is not backing up by any solid evidences. no original research please. "Korean sources are 100% false. Only Japanese sources are 100% true" No POV pushing please. It does not mean you have right to completely revert. You should not whole revert by part.660gd4qo (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)--this is in reference to the specific words you claim are POV above; I'll treat your other response in a minute:

Okay, let's look at them one by one:

1. "established": That's in the middle of a opinion expressed by Japan, and properly attritbuted to them. That's not Wikipedia saying that it was "established," that's Japan saying it was established. Per WP:NPOV, we are allowed to use NPOV words as long as we attribute them to a specific source and we follow the requirements of WP:DUE.
2. "commonly used": This isn't a POV, it's a statement of fact (commonly simply means more often than not). If it said "exclusively" or "nearly always" or something like that, it would be POV.
3. "widely used" is supposedly from a letter from the UN, which would mean it's just like "established" above. However, for some reason, that sentence isn't cited. As a stop-gap I marked it with a citation needed tag; if I have time I'll dig around the other cites and see if the info is there or elsewhere online. If we can't find it shortly, though, we should remove that whole sentence.
4. "used all over the world.": Sorry, I can't find this in the text; I tried some variations on the phrase, but nothing's showing up. If you could clarify where you see that, we can investigate. I do believe that it would be incorrect to use that phrase as you've written it, however, small variations could make it acceptable.
5. "internationally established itself as a single name": this is the "established" that I treated above.

Therefore, it appears to me that each of these phrases is appropriately used, although I can't find one of them, and one is part of a sentence that needs citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. if you think those words are not POV, then you should corrent some specific words, you should not whole revert by part.

And, please no original research, please.Wikipedia:No original research all of your statement are not backing up any WP:RS. only letter of UN? Please show letter of UN source.00:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we've actually got three different problems here, not really related. I'm going to make three new subheadings so that we can discuss them more easily.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not 3 different problems with you. I only say, why you deleteing whole content. If you want edit article like below, then do it. I did not protest it. I was not delete someone's edit like you.660gd4qo (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting by whole

660gd4qo complained in edit summaries that User:Oda Mari and myself reverting his whole information; he also complained about the same on my talk page. However, the basis of his complaint was two essays--Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and WP:FIXED. Those are what are called "essays," which simply means that they are the view of one or more Wikipedians. They do not express current policy or guidelines, and they don't reflect current consensus on how to edit articles. For that matter, they don't even apply here. No one is saying that we can't make changes to the article, we're merely asking that they be done in a different way. For controversial topics, it's usually far far better to discuss large changes first on the talk page before adding, except when the changes are small or to fix clear policy problems. Note that the top of this page states this explicitly. Otherwise, we end up in pointless edit wars.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

that article teaching wiki etiquette. It was not my essay. It came from wikipedia help page. at least it based on wikipedia. And, controversial topic does not mean it should whole revert by part.

Wikipedia:Reverting

Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. 660gd4qo (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are persisting in misunderstanding. We didn't revert the whole because we disagreed. We reverted it (or, at least I did, but I think Oda Mari, too), because we want to discuss it here on the talk page first. Why don't you make a new section (or two, or three, or however many it takes) and explain the additions you want to make. That's the best course forward. 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Same thing apply to you. I reverted it as you did. btw, I want to discuss it here on the talk page first. if you think content is wrong, then you should point out which. (Sure, no original research) 660gd4qo (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you understand how nearly impossible it will be to discuss those changes all at once? You just changed at least 13 paragraphs, by my quick count. Why do I now have the burden to go through each and every one of your additions, list them all out, make my specific arguments, etc.? I wouldn't have minded your bold addition of information to the article if you had at least done it one step at a time. But you've given us too much to wade through all at once. I'm not going to revert at the moment, because I don't want to be accused of edit warring. But don't you see how, by massive, sudden changes to the article, you've made discussion almost impossible? If we want to go quoting essays, I invoke WP:BRD, which says "make a bold change, if someone reverts that change, then it's up to the person who wants to make the change to bring the discussion to the talk page." I've seen WP:BRD used as a normal procedure far more often than WP:FIXED, which I've never seen before today. Basically, you're saying "I made a massive change, and my change gets to stay in there until everyone else now takes the effort to go through piece by piece and pick apart each addition." That's not collaborative. I'm asking you--please, self-revert. Please focus on one or two changes at a time. Please discuss those changes here on the talk page. Why do you believe that you get to make whatever changes you like, then place the burden on us to simultaneously analyze all of those changes? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not change someone'e edit. It was adding. You are not sure what is the controvercial topic is. If my edit is controvercial, then point specific parts(content itself). btw, We are still not discuss which content is dispute, till now. I want content discuss. If you think why my edit is wrong(all cites backed by WP:RS, no original research), then discuss topic only. Not whole delete by part. I know more wikipedia guideline than you. Please stop explain missused guideline. and we have not 3 problems. 660gd4qo (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

UN letter missing a citation

I agree this needs a citation, which is why I added the CN tag. It's possible it used to have a source, so history may help, or it's possible one of the nearby citations actually is the source for this, but it just isn't clearly marked. I will search when I can. Anyone, including yourself, is welcome to remove the sentence while we wait for the citation, although usually a day or two to find a citation for statements that aren't blatantly POV is usually okay. But, again, if anyone else wants to take it out, it is an acceptable choice per policy.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. UN letter did say so. Then it should described as "According to UN letter..."660gd4qo (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is duplicated. One is in the Sea of Japan naming dispute#Historical developments of the dispute section and the other one in the next section, "Current stance of the international organizations", and the second one has a citation. It links to this page. We need to clean up. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Korean vs. Japanese source for 13th through 19th century maps

Here, we have a case where two sources contradict each other. That certainly happens. We are allowed to evaluate the quality of the sources in that case. However, I agree that it would be wrong to outright choose one over the other without more details. However, both surveys are already discussed in the article. It states:

South Korea and Japan use selective samples of old European maps to support their respective claims. South Korea points to maps that show "Sea of Korea" or "East Sea", whereas Japan points to maps that show "Sea of Japan" to argue that the name was in use before the rise of Japanese imperialism. Many old maps are ambiguous and some do not even include Korea or Japan.[8][9]

Now, if we like, we can make this more specific, and delineate the points. We could change this to say something like:

"Both South Korea and Japan have conducted surveys of 13th through 19th century maps to support their position about the common historical name for this sea, with significantly differing results. A South Korean study found that 122 out of 662 maps in the period used "Sea of Japan"(+citation), while a Japanese study found that 1399 out of 1705 maps used "Sea of Japan".(+citation)."

How do other editors feel about specifying this sentence in this way, or something similar?Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Actually i don't care that part. But, you deleted many things by only your POV.[10] (No WP:RS sources) I point out why you deleting whole.660gd4qo (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see above--I'm not deleting for POV reasons. In any event, if you found my deletions offensive or incorrect, I apologize. The key now is to move forward. Please make a new section below, describe the changes you want to make, and we'll discuss them. If they are NPOV, improve the article, etc., then I'm sure we'll agree to make them. Okay? That way we don't have to fight any more about how/why the edits were done, and instead focus on making the best possible article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. actually we have not 3 different problems as you mentioned here. My edit is only improving and attaching.[11](no removing + adding + correct some POV-like words) I did not delete somebody's edit like you.660gd4qo (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see above, that's not "only improving and attaching"--that's a massive change to many different parts of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

controvercial topic does not mean it should whole revert by part. btw, I was add its article. I was not change someone'edit. It interfere no one. that is not massive change. There is no guildeline rule that "adding article is only at discuss page".660gd4qo (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected

In order to stop this pointless edit warring, this article has been protected. Please come to some sort of consensus and we can talk about making additional changes to the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph, Argument Section

While researching sources, I noticed that the fourth paragraph of the Argument section is an exact copy of part 2.b. of the MOFA pamphlet cited at the end of that paragraph. Now, we know for certain that, in general, U.S. government publications are in the public domain and thus exempt from copyright laws, but my understanding is that we are on less certain ground for foreign government publications. I've asked the protecting admin to review that section and, if he thinks there may be a potential COPYVIO problem, either delete that paragraph or add quotation marks.

Now, that being said, I have a second problem with the paragraph, and that with it's inclusion in this section at all. The problem is that it refers to "the survey...carried out by South Korea," but we've never before referred to such a survey. In fact, we talk about the surveys in the "Historical Reasons" section. So I propose that we take this paragraph out and move the citation to the next section, rewriting that whole section to give a clearer description of the "dueling survey" issue. This would be something akin to what I proposed above. I would be happy to write a proposal of what I mean, although I don't have time at the moment; I should be able to get to it either later tonight or some time tomorrow. So I'm asking two things:

1. Where do we want the information about the survey to go--in the introductory Argument section, or in the Historical section?
2. Do we want a full description of both surveys, or just a general mention that there is controversy between different surveys of historical maps?

Personally, my opinion is 1. Historical section (with maybe one sentence in beginning of Arugment section summarizing the issue), and 2. A full description of both, fully cited to both Japanese and Korean sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about "dueling survey" issue. Do it freely as you want. if you show outline at here, that is good.660gd4qo (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should correct exact copy of part 2.b. of the MOFA pamphlet cited.

"Historical developments of the dispute" this section was also exact copy from Japanese Coast Guard site. (lately, i changed it though) but, as i know, Govt. public site have not copyright. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the section in quotes for now. You can continue to discuss the changes and edits made by bother sides here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My advice is, we should keep 3 principles. NO POV pushing, NO original research, we should only edit this article by only WP:RS source. We should add both side contents fairly. We editors should not making which side claim is bad, which side claim is good. (eg. avoid conclusive expression, such as "established" word -"established name" is only Japanese mofa claim. btw, who decide it as "establish"? From God?-) And, I don't want engage edit war. I am a busy in real life.660gd4qo (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment is extremely unhelpful. No one is pushing a POV. No one is saying to only take the MOFA claim (I suggested that earlier, but I will be clear--I do not consider that the best option). This is exactly one of the problems I was worried about earlier--I am now raising a specific question about a specific section of your very large addition, and pointing out that it has a clear problem (information is duplicated in two different parts of the text in a very confusing way). I am asking, very simply, where we want to put that information, and if we want the surveys to be discussed in significant detail, or just a quick overview. I'll open up a new section in a few hours (busy now) to discuss "established," since it seems to bother you so much. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, My above comment is not clear to you. The point is, I want neutral point edit. if you take stance that just attack all of my edit. that is extremely unhelpful. We says it is "POV pushing". Listen, I was not attacking anybody's edit. and, Above comment is not for you. I was not mentioned you. I mentioned to all of editors at this topic. btw, your question is not helpful wikipedia. Editor's own "question" tend to original research. best way is, we should add both side contents fairly by WP:RS sources.660gd4qo (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And if "established" this word is only Japanese MOFA claim. Japanese mofa claims that Sea of Japan name was "established name by old western europe". However, Even Japanese MOFA state that almost 20% of ancient western maps used "Sea of Korea" name exclusively. And Who decide it? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you weren't accusing me of POV pushing. Now, can you answer my specific questions above? That section cannot stay as written--it doesn't make sense, and the information is duplicated in two points. Which section do you think it is better to discuss the surveys, and do you think it should be an in-depth discussion or a simple overview? That is not a POV question, it's not original research. It's asking how we want to represent the RS sources. I'm asking you (and other editors) to respond to this very specific question, about how to organize the information we have. Thank you for your assistance. (EC) I will address established in a separate section--this section is not for that issue. One issue per section, please, otherwise it's impossible to discuss anything.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I want dicuss specific. That's what i wanted. But, we editors should avoid refelect only one side POV. if two claims are conflicts, We should add article like "Japan govt. claims that... Korea claims that...." add both side claim fairly. avoid our subjective POV.

"It's asking how we want to represent the RS sources." >> read WP:RS. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, super, that's what I was asking. Of course, other people's opinions matter, too, but I was most concerned about yours since you added the info. For me, the easiest way to go forward is to give an example of what I mean; I'm going to make a draft in my sandbox; once I have it up I'll come here with the link. First, though, let me open a new section about established. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with using the word "claim" on both side in the entire article. It depends on the context. As for this edit, "protests" is appropriate because this is the reaction of the Japanese government to the Korean government's efforts. If South Korea had done nothing, there wouldn't have been the dispute. Beside, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms for said, it says "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question...". I think less is better to use the word "claim". As for the Word "admitted" used in the edit/addition above, I think it is also inappropriate. This is only the results of the survey. The word "admit" has a connotation of reluctance or unwillingness. The word should be replaced with more neutral word. Oda Mari (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I have made a sample proposal to handle the disparate survey results between South Korea and Japan. I basically moved all of the details about the surveys into the "Historical reasons" section, left a short general sentence in the lead of the Argument section, and included information on each of the surveys that I had information about. You can see the draft at User:Qwyrxian/Draft of Japan Sea naming dispute.

Now, there is a potential problem with this, with respect to WP:WEIGHT. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, Korea has conducted exactly one survey (which I detailed and cited). Japan, however, has conducted at least 6 distinct surveys, which I also detailed and cited. This makes the Japanese section much longer; however, I cannot combine the Japanese surveys into a single result, as 1) that would be WP:OR, and 2) the methodologies and/or categorization schemes don't seem to be identical, so it's not even possible to combine them. Similarly, none of the Japanese surveys seem to correlate particularly well with the Korean survey, so it's not like I can just pick a single Japanese survey, either. My feeling is that the only way to represent the Japanese side is to include all of them, but it still "feels" unbalanced to me. I welcome other editor's opinions.

Finally, please pay attention only to the bolded sections--that's the part I've worked on so far, and deals with just one part of the changes that 660gd4qo made. I think there are other problems with the rest of this section (pre-existing the current round of changes), as well as problems with changes 660gd4qo made to other sections, but, again, I think it's far easier to deal with one change at a time.

I think we should desribe it more briefly. Also, Article have WP:WEIGHT problem. It still "feels" unbalanced. korea claims is too short, japan claim is too long. I suggest that "Japan govt. claims that they surveyed xxxx, Korea govt. claims that they surveyed xxxx." simple and fairly.

Also, history secion is only mentiond ancient western map(which japan govt' favorite), However, it ignoring oldest east asia history also. which is the oldest sea name in east asia.[12][13] (As such, Japan’s use of the geographical name “Sea of Japan” has a shorter history than that of “East Sea” which has been in use for the past 2,000 years.[14] )It can desribe as Japanese govt' style, "Before xx centuly, ancient asian commonly used/Widely use/ name as xxx. xxx was eastablished name of east asia"

It is really silly claim that "Look, According to my survey, western europe map used sea of japan name more, so it is established." western europe = not whole world. 660gd4qo (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Japan govt. points out that "The ROK provides no evidence for the assertion that the name 'East Sea' has been used continuously for the past 2000 years. Even though the name 'East Sea' is in use today in the ROK, it is obvious that the name 'East Sea' is nothing but a local name used only in the ROK,and that the name Sea of Japan is the only name that has been in wide use internationally for a long period of time".[15] --Barakishidan (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@660gd4qo: We'll talk about the rest of the history section later (I also don't like it, primarily because I don't even understand half of it because the English is bad...but later, later...). As for the surveys, first I agree that it feels unbalanaced now; we do need to address, though, the fact that Japan had 6 distinct surveys of more than 3.5 times as many maps--to treat the Japanese and Korean surveys would be to give the Korean side undue weight, given how much smaller their survey was. How do you (and other editors) feel about this:

"The Japanese government conducted 6 surveys totaling over 3000 maps in Russian, British, French, and United States libraries, museums, universities, and collections, and found in each location studied that the name "Sea of Japan" was vastly more common, and that in many cases "East Sea" was not used at all.(+3 citations). The South Korean government conducted a separate study of almost 800 maps in similar places and found that significantly more maps used "East Sea", "Korean Sea", or "Oriental Sea" than used "Sea of Japan".(+1 citation)."

Lastly, your issue about Europe not equaling the whole world is you attempting to interpret these results (OR), not an NPOV report of the results. I could certainly argue the issue , but that has nothing to do with us writing the article, so it's not appropriate to discuss here.

@Barakishidan--I can't tell if that's something you're recommending adding to the article or not, but could you start a new section on this talk page to discuss it, as it seems to be unrelated to the issue of how to present the surveys? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@660gd4qo:
1)Unbalanced? No, I don't think so. "Korean claims too short"? It is because the lack of information or RS. That is not our responsibility and has nothing to do with the past edits. In other words, WP editors have not excluded Korean claims. It should not be allowed to remove the reliably sourced information on Japanese claims just because the lack of reliably sourced Korean claims.
2)It seems to me you don't understand the essence or the nature of this dispute and you do not know the difference between "local names" and "international names". What do you think of the essence of the dispute? What is the difference between "local names" and "international names"? Please answer my two questions, 660gd4qo. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

who decide it as international name? ancient western maps are not international name. who decide it as international name? And, you confusing word, Japan-Korea relation is also "international" relation. Local? When Japan was local of Korea? 660gd4qo (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you don't understand the meaning of the word "local" or "local name". That was why you were not able to answer my questions, wasn't that? Korea calls the sea between the Korean Peninsula and the mainland China "West Sea". That is a (Korean) local name. But the international name of the sea is Yellow Sea. The international name of the sea Korea calls "South Sea" and China calls "East Sea" is East China Sea. Both "South Sea" and "East Sea" are local names. Hope you understand the difference. Oda Mari (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "Established"

660gd4qo has expressed concerns with the use of the word "established" in this article, arguing that it is a POV term and reflects only one side of the debate. While I concur that, if used in Wikipedia's voice, "established" would be POV, that is not how the word is used in the article. In the article, the word is used in exactly two places. The second is in the title of a video clip produced by MOFA, we, of course, cannot change that title. The only other use occurs in the following section, from the Third paragraph of the Argument section.

"Japan claims that the name "Sea of Japan" had internationally established itself as a name by the early 19th century during a period in which Japan was under the isolation policy (Sakoku).[8][9] Accordingly, they state, Japan could at that time have had no influence on the international community in regards to the naming of the sea.[10] At the same time, however Japan admitted that a number of ancient western maps used exclusively "Sea of Korea" name.[11][12]"

To me, this use of the word 'establish' is exactly correct, per WP:NPOV. Specifically, the section WP:ASF states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is exactly Japan's position that the name "Sea of Japan" was established internationally (not 100%, but usually). This is not Wikipedia's opinion--it is Japan's position. Source [11] (which is [16]), states that "Furthermore, when the name "Japan Sea" was establishing its position of a sole appellation in Europe, Japan was closing its door to foreign countries under the isolation policy of the Shogunate Government, which prohibited any exchange of culture, commerce, and so on, with foreign countries except China and the Netherlands in limited places. This policy lasted until 1854. This means that Japan could not give the international community any influence to establish the name "Japan Sea" as an international sole name for the water area." Here we can see that the exact same word is used. Therefore, we are correct in using that word in this section, as we are asserting that it is Japan's position that the name is established, not that it is a historical fact that it was established.

However, 660gd4qo has caused me to realize that the sourcing is not very clear. In fact, I don't think that [8] or [9] should be used as sources at all--they are graphs pulled out of context from other sources. Those graphs are already embedded in several of our other sources, and so should not be included here without context. Thus, my proposal:

I don't think the words "established" and "commonly used" are PoV. 660gd4qo has to see this and remember this is English Wikipedia. The words are used by the Japanese government. It is not our job to decide whether the words are correctly/appropriately used or not. Because of the 20% of Russian and German library's maps describes 'Sea of Korea', it is hard to say the sea of Japan is the established name? That is 660gd4qo's interpretation, opinion and her/his PoV. We should convey exactly what the source says. What 660gd4qo wants to do is modifying the word the source uses and pushing on her/his PoV. These words should stay in the article. Oda Mari (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely concur. We most certainly are not allowed to change a sources claim--Japan, in that document, is very clear to claim that it believes that, by the 19th century, the name Sea of Japan had become the international standard, based on its survey results. Obviously, none of us were there, so we can't say for sure. But Japan is sure, based on its research (and other things). Thus, we are perfectly correct to say that Japan claims (or "says" or "argues" whatever), because that is an undeniable fact. If 660gf4qo disagrees, I humbly ask that they reread WP:ASF, a part of WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

it's asserting opinions. and I don't see anything to show that their opinion is notable enough (WP:DUE) to be included here660gd4qo (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, because this is going to sound harsh, but that statement is absolutely ridiculous. This article is about the fact that the government of Japan and the government of Korea disagree about how to name a body of water. It's 100% absurd to claim that the opinion of the Japanese government or the Korean government are not notable. Whose opinion belongs here, then? This is an article about the debate itself. This is not an argument about what the name should be--it's Wikipedia reporting on what the argument is. By definition it has to include the opinions of both sides. If we didn't, the whole article would be: "There's this body of water between Japan and Korea. Japan says it should be called the Sea of Japan, South Korea says it should be called East Sea; both sides have different reasons; at the moment, the most common international standard is Sea of Japan, although some places use both names." I humbly request that you step back and think about what you're saying. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

We remove sources [8] and [9] entirely from the article. Where necessary, we replace them with the references to the documents that contain these graphs, or to other sources that offer the same relevant information. For example, in the above paragraph, we replace [8] and [9] after the first sentence with [17]. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree removing source. It still unclear that who decide it as "established". It should desrbie as "According to Japan govt. Sea of Japan phamplat, Japan govt. claims that it was established name, but korea reject its claim" 660gd4qo (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the official position of the Japanese government that the name was established internationally by the early 19th century, which is why the claim of "established" is directly attributed to Japan, and not stated as a fact. However, we could probably be a little more precise about the claim, by adding the phrase "According the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, the Japanese government claims that the name "Sea of Japan" had internationally established itself as a name by the early 19th century during a period in which Japan was under the isolation policy...." (bolding here just to emphasize my suggestion, not to be included in actual article.

However, We will most certainly not add the refutation by Korea there. Korean claims are handled in a separate paragraph, and have their own citations. Otherwise, every single sentence on this whole page would read "According to Japan XYZ, however, Korea refutes that. Korea, on the other hand, claims ABC, which is refuted by Japan." That's simply bad writing. Let the two sides present their points, connecting the various ideas as appropriate (without violating WP:SYN), but we don't want a back-and-forth, tit-for-tat like this was a threaded message board. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ok. not bad idea. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

More thoughts on the Historical Reasons Section

I recommend that we remove the entire first paragraph about ancient Chinese maps. It has no bearing on the naming dispute, since none of the disputed name were used (and thus it provides no evidence either way).

Next, I propose the removal of this paragraph:

The ancient map where the waters were first mentioned as the Sea of Japan was the world map drawn by Italian missionary Matteo Ricci in China (1602). This map was brought to Europe and Japan, but the geographic name of the Sea of Japan was not spread there. No Japanese record published up to the late-18th century indicated the use of the name “Sea of Japan.” Rather, Japan perceived the seas as the Sea of Korea, not the Sea of Japan, and used the former name in its ancient maps.[22]

First, it's a copyright violation--it's an exact copy of the citation. Second, even if we rephrased it, we'd have to put it in attributive form, as it's asserting opinions. The only part I would keep in Wikipedia's voice is, "The first map to use the name Sea of Japan was drawn by Italian Matteo Ricci in 1602." The rest is the opinion of the NAHF, and I don't see anything to show that their opinion is notable enough (WP:DUE) to be included here. The NAHF is clearly a partisan source; we can still use it (and, in fact, I think we should to site the study by the Korean government), but their opinions have no particularly strong power over the opinions of any other random group.

However, I admit that I could be wrong about this. If other people disagree and think the NAHF's opinion is notable, I would put (in a separate paragraph, not connected to the Ricci map), the sentence, "The Northeast Asian History Foundation, a Korean advocacy and research group, claims that Japanese maps did no begin using the name Sea of Japan until the late-18th century and that Japan at that time thought of the sea as the See of Korea."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. IMHO, how the two countries thought of the sea has nothing to do with the matter. The point is how the world thought of the sea. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The world is not just old western europe map.660gd4qo (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1. If it have copyvio problem, it should change some word for avoid copyvio.
2. Entire article, "especially western europen was used sae of japan name" this kind of description is full Japanese govt. POV.[18] I don't see anything to show that their opinion is notable enough (WP:DUE) to be included here.
3. No Japanese record published up to the late-18th century indicated the use of the name “Sea of Japan. Japan perceived the seas as the Sea of Korea, not the Sea of Japan, and used the former name in its ancient maps.” >> this is not "opinion". descripntion is true and not disputed fact. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical developments of the dispute was copivio

Several days ago version, The entire " Historical developments of the dispute" section was exact copyvio of Japanese govt. site. [19]

First, it's a copyright violation--it's an almost copy of the Japanese govt. site. Second, entire section have POV problem 3rd, Article have WP:WEIGHT problem.660gd4qo (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, only 1 paragraph was a copy vio, and it was the paragraph you added. Second, I think you put the wrong link there, because the link you put is a chart, obviously nothing at all like what we have in the article.

On the POV issue, can you be more specific? Can you point to something specifically that is not balanced? Yes, some parts represent Japanese POV, but I think that when we do so we attribute the opinion to Japan. Similarly, we also give the Korean POV, and attribute that opinion. That's the way that articles about contentious subjects are balanced--by giving weight equal in the article to the weight the various sides have in the real world. In this article, we try to represent the Korean and Japanese POV equally, and we have to always attribute each opinion to it's proper source.

On the WEIGHT problem, can you please show a specific way in which the section is improperly weighted? Looking at the historical section now, here's the paragraph breakdown:

1. Ancient Chinese POV (I've recommended pulling this out, because it supports neither side, and has no real bearing on the dispute, either way)
2. Both sides are represented, each with one sentence; the plan is to replace this with a more detailed set of info about the surveys, but it will still be one sentence per side.
3. Both sides are represented, with half a sentence, plus one sentence summarizing the issue
4. Both sides get one sentence.
5. Korean perspective
6. Korean perspective

So, if you're saying that the section is weighted unfairly towards Korea's POV, then I guess you're right, although I don't think WP:WEIGHT requires us to have perfect parity, so I don't think it's a problem if the Korean perspective is slightly overbalanced here. In any event, I'm thinking that the last paragraph needs to be modified anyway, because it's grammatically questionable and the meaning isn't really clear in English. I want to get consensus on the changes proposed so far, though, because I think we have to move step by step.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag team & POV Pushing

First of all, sorry, my agrresive words. I apology this. However, i want say this. currently, 3 editors discussed at here.(Barakishidan, Qwyrxian, Oda Mari) But, 3 editors are Japanese or japanese residents. I am not attacking their nationality. This is not personal attack. (i don't want it) However, problem is, they have one side Japanese POV. I just point out (possible) Wikipedia:Tag team problem at here. 3:1 are unfair discussion. this is certainly not going to NPOV.660gd4qo (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC

You are badly misunderstanding policy. Tag-team is when a group of editors work together, intentionally, to push a certain way of doing an article. But none of us are "working together." I have never once spoken to Barakishidan. I spoke to Oda Mari once, in an effort to figure out how to handle what I saw as a person violating standard editing procedures. I have never planned any way of editing this article with them or anyone else.

I don't even understand how you think articles are supposed to be edited. Do we have to wait until you get 2 more editors from Korea? Do we have to let you push your POV on the article? Isn't it always the case that articles are edited by multiple people, and, almost always, there is an imbalance in the number of people on different sides?

Finally, I take extreme exception to your claim that I'm editing in a POV fashion. Can you show any place, outside of the one mistake I made above, and retracted (about preferring the Japanese study to the Korean one) where I'm pushing a POV? Everything in my modified version has been completely based on sources, and properly attributed all claims to the appropriate source. You need to read WP:BATTLE, because you're the one who walked in here and treated this article like a battleground. You're the one who walked in here, made large, sweeping changes, and the refused to start a discussion on your recommended improvements. Now, we are working on improving the article. This more I look at the article, the more I think it needs significant work, because it covers a lot of things it doesn't need to, it doesn't stay as close to its sources as it should, and it even uses some questionable sources (on both sides). So, I'm at least a little grateful that you came and made the changes it did, because it forced me to start working hard on this article. But you have no evidence, other than my one retracted mistake made in haste, that I am pushing a POV.

Seriously, I know I'm repeating myself, but how do you think we're supposed to edit articles on contentious subjects? Everybody has an opinion. Thus, we are required to focus on what the sources say. That's what I'm doing. The draft in my userspace (User:Qwyrxian/Draft of Japan Sea naming dispute) is 100% source based. It's not pushing a POV to include more surveys from the Japanese--it's just a fact that the Japanese have done more surveys. However, I accept that it looks unfairly weighted, so I offered a compromise above, collapsing all of the Japanese surveys into a single summarized sentence. I do not appreciate being accused of POV pushing when I am doing no such thing.

Please do not accuse editors at this article of policy violations any more. Please focus on discussing the edits themselves. We will work towards a consensus. That consensus may or may not match exactly what you want the article to say--I know for certain it isn't going to match exactly what I think it should say. I accept that--can you? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

660gd4qo, if you have complaints about the recent talk, you can request for comment at here. Precisely, it would be here, I should say. Or you can choose any from here. Oda Mari (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Major article rewrite

So, while working on the changes that had recently been made, edited warred over, and gotten the page protected, I decided to look more closely at this article. I had wanted to focus primarily on the newest changes, but found that I couldn't work on those without also addressing nearby material, and the more and more I did that, the more I found I had to alter. As currently written, the article repeats the same information in multiple places, has a lot of questionable and duplicated sources, and in several places fails WP:HOWEVER. It's pretty clear to me that, over time, people kept adding more and more sources, in essence with each side trying to "win" by having more statements and more sources (much as the two sides have done in real life). So I'm trying to work on a full rewrite, preserving as much as possible while still fixing the previously mentioned problems. Producing a full working draft will take me anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, depending on real life. As I come upon issues, I'll bring them here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

My first issue is that quite a number of the sources in this article fail WP:RS. Many of them are sourced to random online "groups" which are both clearly partisan and have no claim to reliability. Others are documents with no context--just a paper making claims without even indicating the paper has ever been published anywhere. A number are dead links, which, while not specifically barring the source from being used, does mean it would be better to use another source where possible. This article should rely only on government documents, academic journals, reliable newspapers/magazines, and maybe some think tanks if we can show that they're reliable. I'm going to list the sources that I think need to come out of the article in order to be compliant with WP:RS; if anyone thinks I'm wrong, please explain why that individual source meets the requirements set out in WP:RS:

• Source 8: [20]. This is a graph pulled out of another document (I think one of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs pamphlet). A graph taken out of context is not a reliable source, and the sentence it supports requires OR to make the connection between the graph and the statement. If the statement remains, it should be sourced to the full document, which provides the necessary context and interpretation.
• Source 9: [21]. Same as above--a graph out of context.
• Source 19: [22]. This is a pdf of a paper written by a Professor at Seoul University. The paper itself does not indicate its source, but looking at the website it's housed on, it's from a set of Seminars given by the International Seminar on Sea Names. I'm quite unclear about the quality of this source. If this is a legitimate, academic conference, that requires papers to be judged by neutral referees prior to presentation, then it can be cited as a reliable source (we'll want to use a fuller citation template so that it's clear that this is a legitimate paper, not just a random photocopy). However, it is not clear to me that this is an accurate representation of the source. 3 of the supporters for the "seminar" are the Korean government, and another one is a partisan Korean think tank. This makes me wonder if this is really a neutral academic source, or if it's just a partisan source. Right now I really don't know, so I'll take comments here, and I'm also going to ask for wider comments at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
• Source 30: [23] This is another paper from the International Seminar on Sea Names, so same issues. I tried looking for a replacement source just in case, and can't find one--it's tough to find sources for 1883 treaties which weren't originally in English...
• Source 31: [24]. Deadlink, but the title of the site makes it obvious this isn't even a bit reliable--it's a Korean site, self-published I believe, designed to argue about the proper ownership of the Dokdo/the Liancourt Rocks. If source 30 is fine, then we can just take this off and it's fine.
• Source 54: [25]. About.com is pretty much never a reliable source; much of the info is self-published, including this article. There is no indication of any fact checking by reliable editors, a requirement of WP:RS.

After further investigation, I see that in this particular case, the source is reliable under the rules for WP:SPS--this is a letter by an employee of About.com talking about About.com policy itself. As such, the source can be included.

• Source 61: [26]. Nothing indicates this is a reliable source. It's on a generic website (korea.net), and it has no author or publication information. Since this primarily reports on Korea's map survey results, though, I'm guessing that the information is already covered in a separate section
• Source 62: [27]. Dead link; 404 page is in Korean, so I'm not certain what it says. But it goes to the same site as 61, which makes me believe that it would be equally unreliable.

As I find more, I'll keep adding them to the list. Again, please, I need other people's comments if they think these sources should be kept (and by comments, I mean a clear explanation about why the sources actually do meet policy). Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Added another uncertain source (#19). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Added two more unreliable sources (#61 & 62). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC) And...2 more (#30 & #31) Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical Maps and Studies Section

My re-written version will remove this section. Everything relevant will be covered in the argument section. Right now, this section just duplicates info in the Historical Reasons section, although it duplicates only part of the info. Information should only be reported in one place in the article. The information makes more sense when put in the context of the argument section, plus it can be done more concisely there. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Major overhaul

Summary of the above history: Around the middle of August, an edit war erupted about some significant changes made by User: 660gd4qo. As a result of our inability to calm the war, User:Nihonjoe fully protected the indefinitely. At that point, discussion moved to the talk page, but proceeded slowly, and basically stopped about August 28 when 660gd4qo stopped editing Wikipedia altogether (I don't know if this is permanent or temporary). In the process of talking out the problem, I personally kept encountering more and more concerns that I had with the article--it was grammatically weak, many of the sources did not meet the reliable sources guidelines, information was needlessly duplicated, etc. As such, I began to make a new version in my article space. As of today, I have completed what I believe is a much better working draft of the article than is currently protected on the page, and now would like to invite commentary from any editors here. I will also later today notify Wikiproject Korea, Japan, and possibly some of the other projects at the top of the page.

The draft can be found at User:Qwyrxian/Draft of Japan Sea naming dispute. Here is an overview of the changes I have made:

• Removed non-reliable sources and dead links. As much as possible, I have tried to retain the same information at other sources. Some, but not all, of the sources I believed to be unreliable can be found in the above section. The main problem was that a number of the links were to blogs, organizations and foundations that were clearly non-neutral, or just non-existent. One thing I was happy to find was the new site for the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as all of those were deadlinks before.
• Added new sources to replace and or augment some of the other info. In particular, I found the proper UN sources for their section; it's a citation to primary documents, but I don't think we're going to find any accurate secondary documents on this. One problem for me is that 1) I read neither Korean nor Japanese, and 2) Japan news agencies (and I think Korean as well, although I'm less sure there) tend to not archive their material, pulling it off the web in as little as a few months.
• Removed duplicated information. For instance, in the live version of the article, there is a section in both the arguments and the end about "surveys." Such duplication is confusing and difficult to understand. The first section helps explain the dispute more clearly, so it was kept.
• "Converted the Historical Developments" and "Responses of Media" sections into prose, rather than the lists that they were before. The Historical development section (now called "Position of International Organizations") is still a bit too much like a list for my test, so suggestions there are especially welcome. It may, however, be necessary to keep it blocky and chunked like that for clarity.
• Cleaned up grammar and meaning throughout. Much of the article as it is now reads like a tit-for-tat, and I tried to avoid that when possible.
• Removed all of the external links. These links either duplicated references or failed WP:EL. I'd certainly be open to arguments about reintroducing non-duplicative links that meet policy.

Actually, to clarify that last point, I would be happy to hear any and all arguments about any of the changes made--about anything you think I shouldn't have taken out that I did, about additional information to add, even about simple mistakes. My goal is that after this has been discussed for a while, to have the page unprotected and that draft version moved to mainspace to replace what is there now (after changes by others, of course). Please, let's discuss this--the live article right now really fails our basic standards in many ways, and I'm hoping that my draft can be the starting point for that discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting. I'm very busy right now. Maybe I think I can post my comment and opinion on the weekend or next week. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No hurries, of course. It took me over a month to write, and this is obviously quite a contentious article, so I've no expectation that we'll see enough consensus to make the change in some rapid manner. I've just sent out a request to all of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of the page (some of whom are more closely connected to this topic than other). I'm hoping that at least a few previously uninvolved editors will come and take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I took the liberty of cleaning up a few spelling errors and the handling of Chinese characters, which should be given as a gloss after the English name. Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You did an excellent job boiling everything down to just what matters in the article. I adjusted the capitalization of one of the section headers, but outside of that the rewrite looks great. I support replacing the current article with it as it is very clear, neutral in explaining the position of both sides, and doesn't get into long presentations of every little tiny detail (which is completely unnecessary and off-putting to all but the most hardcore student of the subject). Thank you for your hard work on this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the lead section, I'd like to suggest two changes. Change "proper name" to "international name". Strait of Tartary is known and widely called as Mamiya kaikyo/strait in Japan. It's a Japanese local name and other countries do not say it's incorrect. Japan does not demand that Korea should call the sea "Sea of Japan" and think it's OK to call it "East Sea" in their country. Every countries can call places in their own local names. See Baltic Sea#Name in other languages. So "international name" would be more appropriate and correct. As for "...which is bordered by South Korea, North Korea, Japan and Russia...", name ordering of the countries should be alphabetical. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Oda Mari (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur on "international name"--that's a much cleaner point. For the order of names, I don't think the MOS literally applies here, as that page only mentions alphabetical names when list alternate names or in article titles, but the spirit does apply, so I'll change the order to alphabetical. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to unprotect and replace current article with draft

It's been about 2 weeks since I posted the link to the full draft here and notified all of the relevant Wikiprojects. At this point, I think I would like to request that the article be unprotected, and that I be allowed to copy and paste my draft version into the article. I don't think we need to do a history integration, since almost all of the edits are my own; however, I defer to Nihonjoe's expertise in the matter. In the last 2 weeks, I've seen no objections to the new version, as well as positive remarks. I asked Oda Mari on his talk page if xe wanted to comment on the rest of the draft. Xe indicated that xe does, but that xe's currently occupied with another article and won't likely comment in the near future. Of course, once/if my draft goes live and the page is unprotected, we'll certainly be able to continue improving it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen the draft... A couple of minor points: you have a fairly long lead paragraph - might be nice to split it into two? It also has Sea of Japan wikilinked twice? And in the Surveys of antiquarian maps section I wonder if a table or a series of bullets might do a more effective job of presenting the information? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm...right now the lead is 2 paragraphs, and the first one is only 4 sentences long, which doesn't seem very long to me. Is there some place you think it could be broken?
• I'll fix the double wikilinking.
• I don't believe that bullet points are ever good in an article when you can avoid them. I did consider a table, but the problem is that the various different surveys don't all measure the same terms--for example, sometimes Oriental Sea is counted in with East Sea, but sometimes they're separate. Since the surveys all measure such different things, I couldn't think of any way to arrange a table that would actually be helpful. I can't just choose one counting method or the other, because sometimes there isn't enough info in the sources to use any counting method other than the one they choose, and because the method of counting is itself POV, so choosing only one favors one side over the other. However, I'm open to doing that if someone can think of a way to format it that isn't POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe dropped down to semi-protection, so I have moved over the draft. I noticed that a few of the references aren't filled in after I copied it, so I'll correct that later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I must say that you have done an excellent job distilling the confusing mess that was here before. This article is actually useful, to-the-point, and presents the information in a neutral manner. Thank you for you hard work on this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! Of course, there's always work for improvement; I think I've still got one cite needed tag left to fill in (hmmm...maybe there's a site I can steal from a different article). I know hardly anything about the process, but if there's no edit-warring, I'll take a look and see if this does or can eventually qualify for a GA. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

English Title needed for Korean reference

I just filled in the citation details on a Korean news article [28]--currently citation #25, found in the Response of media and publishers section. I can't read Korean, so I don't know what part of that is the author's name. If someone who reads Korean could add the author's name and a translation of the title, it would be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See this translation. I hope it would help. Oda Mari (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A sentence in the lead

There is a sentence in the lead that Since the end of the Korean War, South Korea has been making efforts to change the international name of the sea to "East Sea", either instead of or concurrent with "Sea of Japan" with a RS [29]. The source says For instance, during the process of negotiations between Korea and Japan on the Fisheries Agreement in 1965, the two countries, unable to reach an agreement on the name of the sea area, agreed to maintain their respective names in each of their texts of the Agreement - that is, "East Sea" in the Korean version and "Sea of Japan" in the Japanese version. It contradicts the Japanese claim here. Japan says the dispute begun in 1992. Japanese source is also a RS. This is the Japanese version of the Fisheries Agreement in 1965 and the g-translation is here. No proper name of seas can be found in the treaty. The Korean source also says The private sector in Korea had also continuously endeavored to restore the name "East Sea" on world maps., but it is too vague to believe. The sentence should be removed from the lead and put it in a section below. Or create a new section called "Beginning". Oda Mari (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked around, and the Korean source doesn't really make sense. Wikisource has the agreement here, and it actually doesn't mention any sea by any name (now, this is assuming Wikisource is accurate, which I suppose it might not be). But since the sentence 1) contradicts the Japanese source; 2) I can't find any corroborating evidence for it, and 3) it's not really that important anyway, I'm just going to take out the whole sentence. However, if anyone finds a source that corraborates Korea's claim (including the primary 1965 document in Japanese and Korean, with the names), then we can re-add (probably in the body).Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard _Talk 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Finished Sven Manguard _Talk 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer 2: _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Good Article Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

---

Assessment 1 by Sven Manguard

Passes - Weakly (see criteria 4) and pending a Second Review by a GAN mentor

1. Passes: Meets the requirements, to the best of my assessment. Mentor, please double check 1b.

a. Yes on clear, yes on concise, yes on grammar, and yes on spelling.

b. I'm no expert on the MoS, so the Mentor is going to have to check this one, but I didn't see any issues with lead sections, layout, or words to watch, and fiction and list incorporation didn't seem relevant.

2. Passes: Meets the requirements. A few minor things detailed below, but not enough to trouble me

a. Yes. Note that there was one dead link in the article, at citation 27, but it is an utterly trivial one, so I'm not holding up the GA for it.

b. Barring my longstanding distrust with About.com (source 28) this meets the requirements admirably.

Comment: Just to clarify, I also wouldn't use About.com as a reference in general. In this case, though, it's only acting as as self-reference, a reference about About.com's practice itself, so I let it stay. If someone else were to argue that what About.com does isn't notable enough for this article, I'd probably be willing to let it go.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

c. No OR on the part of Wikipedia or it's editors.

3. Passes: Very clearly meets the requirements.

a. Yes, covers the main subject well.

b. I suppose this doesn't have unnecessary detail, although I personally didn't find the section "Other countries" that pertinent. That's just my opinion, though, and I can see a good argument being made that the information has it's place in the article.

4. Highly Questionable: Does it cover both sides? Yes. Does it avoid making judgement as to what is correct? Yes. However that being said, in the opening section, the position of Korea is given four times as much space as the position of Japan. In the following sections, 1.1 is Korea heavy, while 1.1.1 is Japan heavy, and the two balance out nicely. The other sections all seem to balance out nicely as well. Only the opening, arguably the most important part, is unbalanced.

Comment: I think I have addressed your concern on the lead based on the expansion I made per Ericleb01's request for expansion. Please let me know if it seems more balanced now. I agree that certain parts are imbalanced individually, but, as you point out, that is a consequence more of an imbalance in what info is available from each side, and that we need to just be NPOV, not necessarily equal.

Works for me. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Passes with reservations: No edit wars, no vandalism, but the page is semiprotected indefinitely. That means that it has been a target in the past and is likely to be one in the future. This in and of itself should not be a reason to block the GA, so since there is no current problem, I'll pass it on this section.

6. Passes: Well imaged, to the point where I can think of neither images in need of being added, nor images that should be removed. Well sourced and labeled.

a. All the images are commons images. All but one are clearly copyright expired, and the one that isn't copyright expired is a PD self release.

b. Yes, everything here is labeled properly.

Notes

• Because this was my first GAN, because of the disclosure below, and because of the issue in criteria 4, I have asked for a second review by a GAN mentor or experienced GAN contributor.
• Full disclosure: I became aware of this GAN via the WikiProject East Asia automatically generated notice board. This page is within the project's scope. I am closely associated with the project and may posses an unconscious bias towards passing this GAN as a result.

---

Assessment 2 by Ericleb01

Hello, I was asked by Sven to perform a second review of the article, primarily to review criteria 1. (b) and 4., it seems. Before reviewing, however, I noticed an issue with the main image, so just to be sure, I did a full review to make sure everything is good. My assessment has been completed below. Please reply under the issues so I may strike them off. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

   1. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   1. b) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below. I was hesitant about OR, but I was nice and passed it.

   2. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here; all major arguments were dealt with and did not go off-topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I was concerned, as Sven mentioned, seeing the amount of Japanese v. Korean arguments, but I personally think the United Nations section, portraying Japan as a bit of a bad guy (for lack of better words), balanced this out. This could also be a WP:WEIGHT problem; i.e., where the arguments for the Korean side simply are not available or are non-existent.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Was semi-protected in August, but since then, there have been no reverts, and major changes were by Qwyrxian.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

   6. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   7. Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   Passed after concerns were (quickly) addressed. Congrats!

Prose and MoS

• The first issue I noticed was a lack of consistency for quotation marks. Some names were between quotes, while others were not. No guideline has been put forward for disputed geographical names, but they should all be consistent.
  •  Done I chose to remove all of the quotation marks around the names except in the lead (since that's first explaining the issue), and twice where it was in a title/quotation.
• Serial commas should equally be consistent. (I've done this.)
• Numbers 1,000 and over should have a comma separating every three digits. (I've done this.)
• Spell out numbers ten and under. (I've done this.)
• For the length of the article, the lead should at least be expanded to summarize the types of arguments used.
  •  Done However, I haven't struck, because I have invited others to comment on my addition on the talk page, and proposed an alternative lead. If no changes are made by the time the edit is reviewed again, I have to guess that means implicit agreement (or lack of concern).
    • The additions are sufficient. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• '...out of 79 maps, nine had used the "Sea of Korea", two had used "Oriental Sea", 35 had used "Sea of Japan", and 79 were unmarked.' -> Out of 79 maps, 79 were unmarked?
  •  Done Fixed to 33 per the source.
• For the "Surveys of antiquarian maps", could statistics be placed from larger percentages to lower percentages? They seem to simply have been thrown in there at random (although any statistic with "Other" as a result should be placed last, which is what you seem to have done).
  •  Done Statistics are now in descending numerical order, with "Other" or "Unmarked" always appearing at the end.
    • Awesome; I wasn't sure if I worded that properly. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Commas shouldn't be inside quotation marks. Periods can be placed at the end (and inside) of a quotation if the source text includes it. (I've fixed this.)
• WP:OVERLINKing seems to be a problem in the "Arguments relating to ambiguity" section.
  •  DoneI have removed all of the links to countries and languages, keeping the links to the other seas and to the two organizations. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Potential sources of confusion include the Chinese local name..." -> This is just one big run-on sentence, and should be chopped into two bits.
  •  Done And while I was checking, I noticed that several of the details were not included in the source, so I cleaned those up as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• "...be determined through consultation. The North Korean representative expressed a willingness to engage in consultation..." -> A proper synonmym for consultation should be found to break up the repetition.
  •  Done ...by combining the two sentences together
• "It was recommended that the parties work together..." -> Who recommended this?
  •  Not done The source itself uses an impersonal passive ("It was suggested that the relevant parties consult with each other on this matter."). Any guess I could make would be OR, but leaving that sentence off leaves the paragraph quite unclear.
    • Hmm. On which page is the sourced recommendation? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • On page 22. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I attributed it to the conference. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Should "Seventh" in "Seventh UNCSGN" be capitalized? Because "eighth" in the later "eighth UNCSGN" is not. Other inconsistencies seem to appear.
  •  Done They should all be in caps, which I believe they are now.
• "On the map of Japan and other Asia maps..." and "...on the map of Korea" -> Are we still talking about the encyclopaedia?
  •  Done Yes, and I added a word to clarify that.

Sourcing

• There are multiple varieties of styles the author seems to have used for sourcing the claims in the article. These should be confined to one style. I recommend the {{Citation}} template to be used throughout. Many are missing titles, access dates, publisher info, and publishing dates. (NEW: Also missing page numbers in sources with multiple pages.)
  •  Done I have converted all of the references into a citation template (almost always {{Cite web}}). I have added all available info; note for instance, that most of the linked websites do not have publishing dates. I have added page numbers to the UNSCGN reports, as they are the most cumbersome to look through. However, I have not added page numbers for the rest, as using page numbers makes list defined references not work. In addition, most of the other documents are short, or are searchable, or do not have page numbers. If you have specific concerns on any of the others, and if adding page numbers will work within the context of LDR, let me know and I will add themQwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Page numbers where they aren't indicated is not a problem. Access dates are good. Titles are fine. Publisher info as well. However, dates are always available. Most web pages have a copyright disclaimer at the bottom with a year on it. This is sufficient. I also found a date on a PDF ref that you seem to have missed. You seem to be busy right now, so I'll try to get some of them done, but I encourage you to try and find dates for the ones that are left. Even an estimation based on the information written in the source is fine. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help on those; I'll go look for more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) No need, it's all done. It was fun, actually. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Question: You're adding links to the publishers; is that a recommended practice? And doesn't it violate WP:OVERLINK to do it to more than the first one? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • In the references it's recommended. People looking at the sources aren't going to look through the article to find that one blue link, so if the publisher has an article, it's good practice to just link them all. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ref #11 should link directly to the referenced video. People should not have to watch all three to find the information. The time where the info begins and ends would be appreciated as well.
  •  Done Rather than mark the video reference that way, I switched to a text reference, which avoids access issues and allows for more ease in searching.
• Ref #14, #27 are dead.
  •  Done I replaced ref 14 with a new ref (from Japan Coast Guard) with the same info. On 27, it looks like the American Heritage Dictionary is no longer online, so I can't verify that statement, and thus I removed it. Anyone with print copies of AHD or any other relevant encyclopedias/dictionaries is more than welcome to add offline examples here.
• Ref #22 doesn't source what the text says. It's just a map.
  •  Done Fixed and expanded with detailed info from NGS Manual of Style.
• Ref #24 and #31 should specify that the source is Korean.
  •  Done (24 = Korean, 31 = Japanese)
• I take issue with ref #15, which is a primary source, but this is a GA review, so I'll let it go.
  • It is a primary source, but since the statement pulled from it is wholly factual, with no interpretation, I think that it is acceptable under WP:PRIMARY.
    • To be honest, I'm not very familiar with the guideline, but as I said, it's not an issue.
• "Additionally, the Timor Sea is called Laut Timor in Indonesian, basically meaning the East Sea, as Timor is a variation on the word for East, Timur." -> This claim is not sourced by the reference and is original research.
  • Good catch. I vaguely recall the Timor sentence being added, and we probably just AGF'd at the time; when I rewrote the section I somehow thought it was incorporated into the Basic Position article. As I cannot find a reference for that claim that connects it to the Sea of Japan, I've removed it per WP:NOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

• The main image is great, but its description does not indicate where the source map is from. This brings up copyright concerns, and should be cleared before being placed in PD.
  • Comment: Apologies, because I don't work much with images. I don't understand the concern; the creator claims it's an original work. Even if it is based on an underlying map created by someone else, I thought that the very substantial change in adding graphical elements makes the original map no longer relevant. But, again, I don't really understand image copyright issues. In addition, that user no longer appears to be active on Commons.
    •  Done Got it. Using a free add on for Firefox (TinEye) I traced the original map to this commons image. Adding licensing information now, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• File:Gando1.jpg - Originality of expression is not applicable here, unlike what the image states. So the tag needs to be replaced. We also need a source for the image and its creation, as the one provided is dead.
  •  Done I think--I changed to {{PD-old}}, as it was compiled in 1753, so I think this is the correct template. I have changed the source to the New York Public Library Digital Gallery.
    • Here's the problem: if you look closely, it's not the same map. Both are by the same author, however, so I looked for the original source from the description and found that the long sentence in quotation marks (on the image description page) is actually the title of the book. And while the original publishing of the book was in 1753, Barnes and Nobles recently published a second edition in the 1960's, making it ineligible for the public domain. So we can't use that image. Give me a second and I'll get you a solution. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, nope. The source you cited, with the second map, is in the same book. So neither of them can be used. Feel free to use another one of the images you had in the original gallery. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This one, for example, is by the same author, but seems to be in the PD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I've stripped out Gando, replacing it with another of the images. I still don't understand how a new publisher can somehow "copyright" a 250 year old image, but, who knows. Since that Gando picture wasn't somehow so much better than the others, switching seems like the best option to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't know the specifics, but I do know that the image was in that book, and Barnes & Nobles owns the copyright to the material in that book unless they explicitly mention that the map is in the PD (they might have bought the rights to it from whomever). And until we confirm that sort of thing, we can't use it, unfortunately. It's so unnecessarily complicated... Anyway, the new image passes, so I can strike that off. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• File:Gando1.jpg and File:Corea and Japan Map in 1815.jpg should be uploaded to Commons if they are in the free repository. Not necessary for GAN though.
  • Comment:I will do so after this the GAN is complete, as I've only done that once before and I'd rather be sure and get it right than rush now.
    • As long as you are aware. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• The images in the gallery should either be removed or integrated beside the prose.
  • Comment': I removed the gallery and integrated 2 into the text. However, you can see below that I opened up a new discussion about this, as graphical layout is not my strong suit and I welcome others opinions on the best way to integrate those (or, possibly, bring back the gallery). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll handle that right now while you get the above image sorted out. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've replied to your note on the talk page. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Final notes

I'm very close to failing this nomination, as the article should have been passed through a peer review before coming here. This saves us editors a lot of trouble. Regardless, I'm giving the nominator seven days to address the aforementioned issues. If the issues are not corrected before then, the article will be failed accordingly (unless Sven or I have reasons not to do so). Please reply under issues when completed so that they can be struck off. This is a decent article, but right now, it's not a "good article". Good luck! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your comments. I apologize first on the final point; this is my first GAN, and I did't see anywhere on the GAN page that doing a PR first is standard practice. I will happily do so in the future. Perhaps it might help to have such a recommendation on either WP:GAN or WP:GA??

Regarding your concenrs, I will look at and attempt to address every issue listed above. I will keep you updated, and, if for some reason, believe that I cannot meet the requirements, withdraw the nomination. Again, thank you both for your feedback. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, peer reviews aren't exactly "standard practice", but it's definitely a recommended route. It helps to eliminate the GA backlog, especially with articles clearly not ready for GA (some articles are simply quick-failed for having too many issues). Also, I do not know why I said that I was close to failing the nomination, as most of the issues are correctable, but the references were a major problem, and was one of my primary concerns.

Personally, I don't see why everyone does not go to peer review first. They give great advice for your article, and there is no pressure on you at all. Then you can go straight to GAN and, normally, you pass with flying colours. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to give a second opinion here, but I will defer to User:Ericleb01. I'll keep an eye on this and see if I can't offer some suggestions or improve the article. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about that. I asked both of you to do reviews, thinking that if I did, there was a 50/50 shot of one of the two of you doing it. It seems thought that GAN mentors are much more reliable than other groups I've dealt with, so in the future I will just ask whichever one of you has had the most recent account activity, and wait a day or two before asking a second person. Thanks for the strong show of force you two, Sven Manguard _Talk 06:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize, I'm sure it would have been fine if I got here first. :) Protonk (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm sure the outcome would have remained relatively the same regardless of whom took the second opinion (although I may have been a little too stern here, reading back). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Complete? Maybe

I see from one edit summary that Ericleb01 is off for the night. I think we may have covered everything above, but I want to take another look. Since Eric kindly offered an extension in an earlier edit summary, I think I want to let this sit for awhile--I'm afraid if I look at it now I will miss things. If I leave it sit at least until tonight, or possibly until tomorrow, then I should have fresh eyes that will assess the issues more carefully. I do want to thank both reviewers for not just reviewing and walking away, but both actively helping to improve the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I looked over the article again, along with the comments above, this morning. While I may well still have missed something, and, of course, the article can always be improved, I think I have met all of the requests. Do the reviewers agree, or have any additional things they'd like tackled? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My concerns have been met, however I am by no means the expert at GAN. I defer to EricLeb01 on this. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not available until now (and even now, I could be sleeping, but I really didn't want to leave this for another night). I've passed it after you addressed that final concern. Great work; that was quite a dash you did there and it certainly increased the article's quality for the better. You can rest assured that your troubles won't go unnoticed. Congrats. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA PR?

You are quite correct about GA's not requiring a PR. The GA process is "lightweight". Indeed, where does this "should've" come from? If there is no guideline for such a PR, then move forward with the GA assessment!--S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say PRs were necessary? It's definitely a suggested route, as I mentioned above. And GANs are not lightweight. GAs are articles which stand out from the rest, but do not need extreme care with details and prose. Also, the sources do not need to be high-grade, but they still must be reliable, and the images must not break any copyright rules. You have to remember that the class under GA is B, and that is for articles which are extensive but sometimes lacking in terms of sources and style. You have to keep the bar up here. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'm very close to failing this nomination, as the article should have been passed through a peer review before coming here." I don't see any guidance that suggests PR. On the contrary, "The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight." WP:RGA In any event, I AFG your comments, and seek simply to encourage the GA process in this article. --S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead expansion--soliciting opinions

Per the request in the GAR, I have expanded the lead to include a summary of the arguments used. While it would be ideal to give the two sides an equal number of words, I can't figure out how to do that, given that South Korea's position basically requires two steps to explain. It may be, though, that I'm just overcompensating for my own biases on the topic (that is, I generally support the Japanese argument in real life, so I always try to work extra hard to ensure I'm not under-representing the Korean position). I invite other editors to trim that part if they can find a way to express the Korean position in less words. One alternative is to change the ordering, as follows.

"Many of the arguments revolve whether the name Sea of Japan became the common international name prior to or during the Japanese occupation of Korea. Korea argues that the name became the de facto standard during during the occupation when it had little wolrd influence. Japan argues that the name has been commonly used since at least the beginning of the 19th century, long before the occupation." (and then continuing on with the geography and ambiguity part)

Something about this ordering seems odd to me, but if other editors prefer it I wouldn't object. Of course, other editors are welcome to suggest other "solutions" as well, or to just express that the current wording is okay. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You could add another sentence about Japanese arguments, maybe about the argument of unsuitability of the name? This should balance out the two countries as well as not reduce an already short lede. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this since you replied...and I personally can't think of another sentence to add. I don't want to add a response to "East Sea is a bad name because..." because that pushes the lead, I think, into WP:HOWEVER territory. I'm comfortable with the lead as it is now, but, of course, others are welcome to try improvements. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Images/Gallery

I have removed the gallery at the request of the GA reviewer. I have, somewhat arbitrarily, chosen to move two of the images up into the antiquarian map section. I chose what seemed like the best arrangement to me, although I am definitely not the expert on page layout. Here are the images tha I removed:

File:mea_du_japon1704.jpg|"L’Asie" drawn by J.B. Nolin, Paris (1690). The central part of the sea is described as Mer du Japon (Sea of Japan). File:Delisle - Carte d'Asie (Compagnieland).jpg|A 1723 French map describing the sea as Mer de Corée (Sea of Korea). File:Yeojido.jpg|A map of Korea drawn in late 18th century. The sea is described as "East sea". File:Corea_and_Japan_Map in 1815.jpg|"Corea and Japan" drawn by J. Thomson, Edinburgh (1815). The sea is described as "Sea of Japan".

So, a few questions for everyone:

1. Should the gallery be removed? WP:Galleries, a section of the Image-use policy, states that embedded pictures are better than galleries, but that galleries may be appropriate in some articles. I'm fairly ambivalent on this issue. Obviously, we could have hundreds of pictures in this gallery, and we don't want that. When I did my big revision, I cut it down to 6--3 showing Sea of Japan, and 3 showing East Sea or Sea of Korea. I specifically chose maps from different countries. I can see an argument that says that having more maps (the gallery of 6) helps readers see a variety of historical pictures, showing how the issue is complicated. I can also see the argument that the pictures really aren't necessary, and that including them at all simply invites the gallery to grow indefinitely, particularly from POV pushers.
2. If the elimination of the gallery is correct, are the two maps I chose the best examples (one of each)? Or would others prefer different ones of those six (or even from other maps we didn't have prior to this point)?
3. If we are eliminating the gallery, whatever maps we choose, is this the best layout? I experimented with stacked images as well, and personally didn't like it as much, but, again, I'm far more interested in the words than the pictures, so maybe I was biased to keeping the images small.

Comments or thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the images in a stack for now. I think you can place two images of "Sea of Japan" and two of "East Sea" in the current format. Although "Gando" will have to go as mentioned in the GAN. So I think you have five left to choose from. Your call on that. I personally don't think that a plethora of images will enhance the quality of the article or its comprehension, but in this case a few images definitely do, as you pointed out. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we could fit up to 4, but the ones past 2 blend into sections that they don't make sense in (to me). I've swapped out Gando for one of the others per above. I'm reasonably happy with the way the images are now, but would love for more "visual" people to comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself a visual person, so I'll weigh in. I dislike that the main image, the map, got shrunk, but I can live with that. As for the gallery, I don't see why placing the other four at the bottom would cause in issue. That being said, I'm not a policy wonk. Finally, the images that were selected seem very closely cropped. While I can understand the reasoning behind that, and have no real issue with keeping the images as is, I would think that the gallery at the end would help to balance out the tight crops with more region complete perspectives.

In short, I'd love to see the main image larger, but can live without that, and I think that a four image gallery at the bottom would be lovely. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The main image can be enlarged if the willingness is there, but I was just testing that out. I do agree that the main image should be larger; however, my problem is the fact that the warning templates at the top are bumping it down, and without them it would look so much more natural. But of course, they can't go as they are primordial warnings. And on my display (1980x1080) it crosses over from the lead into the text.

In other words, you guys can do what you want with them, honestly, but I'll shout-out if large displays like mine portray it awkwardly. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed text about 2000 year use of ROK

Okay, first, we cannot directly copy what is on other sites--that's either plagiarism and or copyright violations or both, depending on whether or not the original is copyrighted. At a minimum, we need to rewrite the info in our own words. Additionally, we need to be very careful that contentious claims are put directly into the mouth of the original writer. User:Barakishidan's text made it sound like it was obvious (to Wikipedia, to us) that the name is only a new local name. So, at a minimum, that whole paragraph needs to be rewritten and made more concise.

In any event, though, I still don't think we want to include the info. This whole page should not read "ROK says this, but Japan says that's wrong. Japan says this, but ROK says that's wrong." See WP:HOWEVER--it's just bad writing, and makes the argument impossible to follow for a reader. We want to lay out the fundamental basis for the claims, not list every single point. That would just return us to the hopeless morass the article was 6 months ago, with every point and counterpoint refuted three times, information repeated in multiple sections, etc.

At best, I could see adding one single sentence at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph in that section which says something like "The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the South Korea has not proved the accuracy of the age of the name." But to me, even that isn't worthwhile--they do have evidence that the name is at least 900 years old (History of the Three Kingdoms), so why make a big deal about the 2000 year figure? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of alternative names sentence

I re-removed the sentence about alternative names based on the paper by CHOO Sungjae from Kyung Hee University. User:Srich32977 had re-added it because xe said that the University looks legitimate. I certainly believe that it is a legitimate university, and further believe that the Choo is a professor there. However, the source provided does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources set out in WP:RS. I had been discussing this with the person who added it on xyr talkpage: User Talk:Ec.Domnowall. The problem is that the paper does not appear to have been published anywhere, meaning that it has never gone through any sort of peer review or other editorial process. In order for something to be a reliable source, we have to have strong reason to believe that it contains accurate information, something which is usually evidenced by a review/editorial process. Professors can and do (just like any other person) write papers all the time and post them online or give them as informal talks. That, however, doesn't verify that the information is accurate. In other words, a reliable source is defined not so much by who wrote it (although that can factor in) as by the process used to publish that information. Now, if it turns out that that paper was, in fact, published in a reliable, refereed journal, then we can certainly re-add it. If not, the only way it could really go in is if we could verify that Choo meets the special exception on self-published sources reserved for experts in the field. That is, if we had some strong evidence that Choo is an expert in Korean politics, or on East Asian international relations, or some other idea, then we could include it even though it hasn't been vetted. However, one rule for being an "expert" (as detailed in WP:RS) is that the person will inevitably have a Wikipage on them and be widely known in the field as an expert, so I don't think Choo qualifies. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese, Manchurian, Mongolian

There should be information about the other names for this sea, since China, Manchuria, and Mongolia all at one time bordered this sea. Particularly Ancient China, since it's the great power of antiquity for the region. Also, what the Ainu name is, since that would be different from Japanese. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what those names are, and have reliable sources that include them? I'm not really sure, though, that that information belongs in this article, unless one or more of those groups is actually disputing the current name. That info, actually, might go better in a history section on Sea of Japan. But, the first step would be to get the sources that show those names. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan East Sea naming convention

I am reviving a discussion on the naming usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. Chunbum Park (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian position?

Does Russia have a position in this dispute? If so, what is it? Please add! -- 77.7.165.35 (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Russia says nothing particular on the dispute, just using Японское море, Japan Sea in Russian. It was not Japan who began to call the body of water the Sea of Japan or Japan Sea. An admiral of the Russian Imperial Navy, Adam Johann von Krusenstern called it Japan Sea in 1812 and I hear the name spread widely in Europe through his map. [30] Oda Mari (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

From Google Chrome translation of the Russian article ru:Японское море, I found two sources for the Russian name.

• ATLAS OF OCEANOGRAPHY Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk and Sea of Japan (Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)
• Seas of the USSR: A. D. Dobrovolsky, BS Zalogin. Univ. Press, 1982.

Please add these somewhere. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I just reverted Shinkansen Fan's addition of a bunch of pictures. My edit summary was incorrect (the article doesn't currently have too many pictures, that was me confusing this with a different article). But we do still need to be careful about WP:NPOV. We can't just add a bunch of pictures with the "Sea of Japan" name, as that gives too much weight to the Japanese POV. So, we can probably handled another picture or two, but we need to be careful about balance. Anyone who has an opinion about which/how many pics to use, please post here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I'd say it could use *one* more image which labels it East Sea and, unless there's anything fabulous out there, that should be enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I discussed this a bit on Shinkansen Fan's talk page. One point I made there is that I could live with more pictures that use "Sea of Japan" only if they're from relevant other countries (like, say, if there were a Chinese or Russian map, two other "involved" countries). Right now the maps are at 1 Sea of Korea, 1 Sea of Japan. We don't need to be perfectly even, since, of course, this debate isn't actually even in the real world (there's an international preference, although not an overwhelming one, for Sea of Japan). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. The majority opinion and the minority opinion should not be equally treated in the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And that's fine. However, Korea's stance is, while a minority, not an absolute one, given that, as the article points out, a number of publishers use both names. So I have no problem with there being more maps containing "Sea of Japan". For instance, I think that adding the Ricci map would be fine, since it is the oldest one in existence. I'd have to check the GA proposal history, but I feel like it may have originally been taken out because of licensing issues, which may have been solved.

I think one thing that got lost here, too, is that 2 of the maps that Shinkansen Fan added actually have nothing (in my opinion) to do with this page at all. One map was of the Baltic Sea, showing that "The Baltic Sea is called Östersjön (East Sea) in Swedish." The other was of Toukkaido, I think related to the point that Toukai is a confusing name in Japanese (which I find irrelevant, also, as the question about what is confusing in Japanese isn't part of anyone's argument, even Japan's--this is about the English name being ambiguous). Do others concur with me that both of those pictures should stay out? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that Tokai in Japanese is not relevant. There's no universally accepted definition of ambiguous "East Sea," which is incompatible with the Chinese, Vietnamese, or Japanese usage. This is an argument against using this name as the international standard.

Korea argues that "East" is east of the "Asian" continent, but it is not applicable to China and Russia. For those in northeast China, it's southeast. For others in central and south China, it's northeast. For the Russians, "East Sea" would be the Sea of Okhotsk or the Bering Sea. Geographically, this is not "Asian" POV but Korean.

I'd like to include the following maps.

• Ricci's map
• 1723 French map: Sea of Korea
• 1792 Japanese map: Inland Sea of Japan and East Sea of Japan (Pacific)
• 1810 British map: Sea of Japan
• Korean map in a Japanese restaurant in Seoul ("Sea of Japan" is crossed out and replaced by "East Sea")
• Chinese map

We could add maps of East Sea or Sea of Korea if there are more.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's too many, and not just for NPOV reasons, but because the map section only covers about 6 paragraphs and 1/3 of the article, and there simply isn't space for that many pictures. If I were choosing from those, I'd choose the 2 currently in the article (1723 French and 1792 Japanese), plus the Ricci and a Chinese map (although, not the Chinese map you added before, since that map was created by the US government, so it doesn't imply anything at all about China's position on the name). The Korean map is means nothing, given the circumstances you describe, and an old British map is excessive.

Part of what I'm trying to avoid here is the state the article was in before I did my major overhaul. For example, see [31], at which point the article contained 8 maps; basically, both "sides" just kept adding more maps to "prove" their point. Ugh. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the point of the dispute is what the world except Japan and Korea called the body of water before 1900. So I think neither Japanese nor Korean maps are important. Qwyrxian, I agree with you. The Ricci map is a must for the article. You wrote "...given that, as the article points out, a number of publishers use both names. ", it was because Koreans like VANK have been campaigning against the Sea of Japan and the dual name description is results of Koreans' effort. Please watch this. Having read Shinkansen Fan's comment, I found a contradiction in Korea's claim. The article says 'Korea argues that "East" is east of the "Asian" continent...'. But they call Yellow Sea West Sea. If East is east of the "Asian" continent. West should be west of the Asian continent, somewhere in Turkey. Though it's off-topic, I think when the dispute began should be clarified/included in the lead. Oda Mari (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no arguments from me that the Korean "East of Asia" claim makes no sense. However, we can't ourselves point that out--only a reliable source could do that. It is accurate to state "Korea claims that East is correct because..." since that is, in fact, what Korea claims. Do you by any chance know of an RS which makes that argument?

And yes, the use of dual names is due to Korean campaigning. That doesn't change the actual use of dual names, which is what we're reporting on here. Nor does it change the fact that actual usage is what we need to consider as we weigh WP:DUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the Chinese map that I posted. Chinese Wikipedians use it on their wiki pages. The Chinese article of zh:日本海 says that they use the Sea of Japan in China. They need to avoid confusion with the East China Sea. I add the Russian name and the Japanese usage of East Sea. "... the name Sea of Japan was not widely used, even in Japan, as late as the mid 19th century." I find this statement highly dubious and I think there are maps to refute this claim. If someone knows any, please add. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the Chinese map is original research. You're combining information from a variety of sources and presenting it as a single, integrated idea, which is synthesis. Please remove it until you can get consensus to use it. The others are fine for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. decision generates complains in South Korea

I'd like if some confirmed-account user could update the article, since in August 8th Yonhap News published a decision by the U.S. maritime-boundary agency to permanently call the body of water "Japan Sea". According to Yonhap News, this generated an informal protest by the South Korean government. In August 9th, the U.S. confirmed the decision despite the protest.

August 8th news link: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2011/08/08/0200000000AEN20110808004200315.HTML

August 9th news link: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2011/08/09/0200000000AEN20110809006900315.HTML

201.36.232.9 (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed this before, then forgot about it. I'm trying to decide if what don't seem to be very big protests meet WP:DUE. I mean, to me, the stance from the US is relevant (and has already been added after the official announcement), but the articles don't really explain any major significance to the protest. Is there still ongoing upset in Korea about the announcement? If so, then it might warrant inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Balance

We need to be extremely careful to not include too much on either side in this position. We need to accurately represent all facts, and that does not require "balance", but from statements that are only sourced to the mouthpieces of one POV or other, we cannot be too strong on one side. I'm going to have to ask Shinkansen to justify why those 2 particular points, taken from the Japanese government's websites, are so critical that they don't damage WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with presenting Korean arguments here, although I do think theirs don't really make sense. Why do you think these points should not be written?

Geography

• The area of the East Sea is unclear. It includes parts of the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea as defined by IHO. That's not good for sailors.
• The East Sea means the sea east of Korea, not Eurasia. Otherwise they wouldn't use the names West Sea and South Sea in their country.
• If they are talking about Eurasia, shouldn't we care the positions of Russia and China?
• They think "Japan" in the name is inappropriate, but "China" in the East China Sea is not. Why?

Territorial claim

• North Korea says that calling the East Sea of Joseon Sea of Japan is the first step to acknowledge Japan's territorial claim or even a "second invasion of Korea" by Japan. Huh?
• Unfortunately, the South Korean government and media essentially say the same.

The only possible reason they demand a name change so fiercely is the territorial issue.

Although nothing is written now, there have been several incidents. For instance, J.Crew tried to sell T-shirts for tsunami relief. However, just because the name Sea of Japan was printed on them, the South Koreans e-mail bombed the company to stop the sales, in the midst of Japan's national crisis. Then the designer was forced to issue an apology and release the T-shirts without the name. Should we really take such people's arguments seriously? This "dispute" is damaging their image in Japan.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to try and protect of destroy the images of companies/people/etc. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. There is a dispute about the name of that sea, and this is notable. Does this mean the arguments of one, both, or neither parties are correct or right? No, but we also don't say they're wrong. Before even discussing your proposed additions (which aren't that clear), you'd need to have a source to back up your point. CMD (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Shikansen Fan's most recent additions to the article, xe has a source for at least part of the above; but the problem is that the source is the "Basic Position", which is a Japanese government website devoted to expressing Japan's official stance on the naming dispute. Now, we've cited that source a number of times already in the article, as we should, since this is the article who's job is to explain the dispute. But that does not mean that we should copy in every single article that the Japanese government does now or has ever made about the name of this Sea. Our job is to list the most salient positions in the debate, not to sway readers to one side or the other. I feel that making additions like Shinkansen Fan has tried will lead to an escalating war, like this article had over a year ago, where it was basically just a free-for-all for partisans on both sides to stuff in every single point, every single map, every opinion article written in a newspaper somewhere. And that's a bad thing, per WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A Third party's opinion

There is a quite rare third party's opinion on this dispute. A Korean publisher The Korea Times published generously an opinion by UK based reporter which is not comfortable to a Korean claim. I am not sure how this opinion is reflected to this article.

• Andrew Salmon (April 30, 2012). "No sea change for East Sea". The Korea Times.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed rare. I think the author makes a compelling argument from a non-South Korean and a non-Japanese standpoint. Still, most Japanese readers would agree with his opinion. Although the North Korean stance is more extremist, they don't seem to do a massive Internet campaign against the current name. Perhaps they have more pressing issues in their country. Don't people have more serious national issues in South Korea? Their netizens have recently downed the White House website in a protest to the name.

• They regard the international naming convention as an "error" that must be corrected.
• UK and other countries support the current name for practical reasons. Just imagine new problems that this name change would cause.
• They face the serious problem that is North Korea. In fact, their government says that a military intelligence pact with Japan is needed. Not a good time to argue over the name of the high seas.
• Russia's stance should not be ignored.

If you think my argument above is one-sided, please add this article to the text. The Korea Times is credible and his article is NPOV.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)