Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Tsushima Island. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lee Hyun-bok

Isn't he a professor of lingustics at Seoul National University? Is there another Lee Hyun-bok who is a historian?--Dwy 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Island for User:Dwy

Apparently, I notice strange behaviour and sensitivity on some topics among you Japanese users, (but never mind, I don't want to elaborate, small matter)...

I realised that you have removed the 対馬島 from the article. Previously, you noticed the edit that I have added "Tsushima Island (対馬島), better known as Tsushima (対馬島)...".

I added 対馬島 is merely to rhyme with the english equivalent of Tsushima Island, and I know that the Japanese government and people simply call Tsushima rather than Tsushima Island, in which if I'm not mistaken, is the official name which Japan itself uses for adminstrative purposes. Had I denied this fact (which is totally absurd to do so), I wouldn't even added "better known as Tsushima". The main purpose of my edit is to reinforce facts, that's all, not to spur controversies.

If any of you have strong objections otherwise, please state so in my talk page. I would very much like to hear about it, the sooner the better. Cheers! Mr Tan 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that 対馬島 rhymes with “Tsushima Island” since 対馬 (pronounced “tsushima”, and sometimes written as 津島 in the past) already contains an element meaning island (shima). Adding 島(shima) to 対馬(tsushima) is simply redundant.

IMHO, the Japanese word with equivalent meaning to “Tsushima Island” is 対馬. Native speakers of Japanese seldom call the island 対馬島, and that is why I removed it form the article. In any case, it is definitely inappropriate to mention it in such a prominent place as in Mr Tan's edit.--Dwy 16:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's come down to the basics. You said that Tsushima means 対馬島. So is Tsushima island. But does the English equivalent Tsushima Island simply means 対馬 in Japanese?

対馬島 in Japanese means Tsu Shima, or Tsu Island, if I'm not mistaken. And so is Tsushima Island, which is the English social equivalent of 対馬島. I believe that 対馬 alone does not mean Tsushima Island in English. It only means Tsu, or Tsushima, as many westerners know. Also, according to some discussions from Tsushima's archives, the Japanese government officialy states 対馬島 as its name. Am I wrong? (Please give sources, if possible, in Japanese/English). To me, I feel that we have to make the position of 対馬島 and 対馬 very clear to readers.

And that is why I added an edit "better known as Tsushima (対馬)". To compromise the English word "Island", also known in Japanese as "島", I did the previous edit. However, I am certain that 対馬 alone does not mean Tsushima Island. Without the word 島 will not fit the English term Tsushima Island.

Thus I would like you to reinstate my edit or suggest a better alternative if you disagree otherwise. However, the English term "Tsushima Island" must not be unaccounted for. If you or any other people have any other objections, please state so.

Any by the way, please leave a message to inform your reply the next time. I don't like to get such lax discipline on information and communications on wikipedia. I greatly appreciate that. Sayonara. Mr Tan 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken, Mr Tan. 対馬(pronounced tsushima) does mean Tsushima Island. You can see it in any Japanese dictionary. (対馬 may also mean old province of Tsushima or Tsushima City, if you are interested to know.)

On the other hand, 対馬島(pronounced tsushima-jima) is not a common Japanese word. It sounds weird to most Japanese because “shima”+”jima” is a redundant repetition of the same meaning.

I am aware that in a website called “Nagasaki Prefecture Official Home Page”, 対馬島 is used to refer to the main island of Tsushima while 対馬 is used to refer to the whole of Tsushima Island including the adjacent islets. There may be other instances of this usage, but I do not expect them to be many. In addition, it is not an established convention to use 対馬島 to refer to the main island. Some may use 対馬島, but others use 対馬本島, and still others use 対馬 regardless of whether the adjacent islets are included or not.

In conclusion, 対馬島 is not a common Japanese word for Tsushima Island. I do not think it worth mentioning in the artile.

By the way, I have no intention to alert you about my reply as you asked me to do. It is a waste of my time as well as wikipedia’s resources. If you want to check new posts in the discussions you are involved in, watchlist is there to help you. You said something about discipline, but asking for someone else’s favour when you can achieve the same purpose by taking a bit of trouble yourself is definitely not my idea of discipline.--Dwy 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't exactly make out what you mean by comparing the two messages you left. You said 対馬 is pronounced Tsushima, and the "shima" means island, but I can't see the word island there. Having 対馬島 is Tsushima-jima is "repition of the same meaning from the consonants shima and jima?" You said that 対馬 is Tsushima and not Tsu, then where is the "shima"? Island? Or the horse (馬)? I'm afraid that you might have got these two explanations entangled together and I can't comprehend fully on this point.

Anyway, if the Japanese government officially use 対馬島 as Tsushima's official name, it is advised to be shown. The Japanese version of this article explains the stand of 対馬島, so it would be good to do so in here as well, and as you said on the official Nagasaki prefecture website.

Still, I can only agree with your idea to some extent, as you have said that the meaning of Tsushima Island equates with 対馬 in some way. But I believe that only equates with the common usage of (Tsushima) in both languages. The meanings are there, yes, but if I'm not mistaken, there is a lack of word equation.

In reply to what you said just now, I am wasting my time for you in the first place. You were the one who made this ammendment, and I have every right to find out and know the cause for your edit, because you did not make your position clear here in the talk page, and I happen to disagree. There is no law that I can't find out the reason of a certain edit which I disagree (initially).

Had I knew that you feel that it is a sheer waste of time just to make this clarification, I feel that I truly regret that I should have edited as I please without asking for your opinions in the first place. C'mon, let's consider the interests of each other. Mr Tan 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The official policy of Wikipedia says any edit lacking a source may be removed. It seems that I only had to say this. However, I did give you explanation for my edit (since I was not really familiar with the rules). Subsequent discussions here have revealed that your edit was based on a misunderstanding that 対馬 does not mean Tsushima Island. I think this is just sufficient. If you can’t exactly make out my messages, that is because you do not know enough about Japanese language. I am sorry, but I am not in a position to give you a Japanese lesson here.--Dwy 04:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh (I am quite confused now) let's leave it as it is for now. If you wish to, it would be better if you can help me to clarify my confusions. Thank you. Mr Tan 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of previous arguement

Thinking about it, I am sure that the exact English-Japanese translation of Tsushima is 対馬, while Tsushima Island is 対馬島. Check the Korean wikipedia disambiguation page [1] -- Tsushima or [2] on Japanese-English cross referencing on 対馬 and 対馬島. I have counterchecked on altavista that 対馬 translates to Tsushima, and 対馬島 translates to Tsushima island.

Although I do not deny that 対馬 is the most commonly used name as Dwy had said, however, that my English-Japanese dictionary said that "Tsushima" is 対馬, while Island is 島. So, since this article's name is Tsushima Island, 対馬島 should be bracketed right next to the introductionary phrase, with an explanation previously suggested --"...better known as Tsushima (対馬)" in correspondance to common reference of Tsushima only in Japanese language usage. Opinions or objections? Mr Tan 07:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A Japanese dictionary, the Shogakukan Daijisen (大辞泉) should clarify which is proper in Japanese. 対馬 (pronounced "tsushima") has a dictionary entry as follows: http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/bin/dsearch?index=12394100&p=%C2%D0%C7%CF&dname=0na&dtype=0&stype=0&pagenum=1

"Definition 2" from the above link states: that 対馬 (pronounced "tsushima") is an island situated between Kyushu and the Korean peninsula. Since there are no dictionary entries for 対馬島 (pronounced "tsushima jima"), 対馬 must be more correct in Japanese, and 対馬島 is secondary. The dictionary also states that 津島 (pronounced "tsushima") is an old form of 対馬.--Endroit 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Practically true. However, I am afraid that you still do not quite get what I mean: My focus is on the exact and direct reference to the meanings of the two words Tsushima. Yes, Tsushima is more popularly used among Japanese, but my intention here is to ractify that the introduction of this article that Tsushima Island means 対馬島, while Tsushima means 対馬. So, I would suggest that the best thing to do is to follow my proposed introduction: This introduction is rather confusing on the word island 島.

The dictionary usually mentions the more popular names and left out the less popular ones. Let me ask you: Take Awaji island for example and take that it is popularly known as Awaji rather than Awaji island. If the article is Awaji island and you just state that the Japanese equivalent is 淡路 without the 島, won't that be rather twisted in meaning?

I feel that the same should apply to this article, but since it is better known as Tsushima (without the Island), the phrase "better known as Tsushima (対馬)..." What do you think? Mr Tan 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Shogakukan Daijisen (大辞泉) dictionary has an entry for 淡路島 (pronounced "awaji shima") for Awaji island, but does NOT have an entry for 対馬島 (pronounced "tsushima jima"). It has an entry for 対馬 (pronounced "tsushima") for Tsushima island however. Mr. Tan is in fact suggesting to ignore the more correct Japanese usage, suggested by this dictionary. Everybody is encouraged to look up this free online dictionary at http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/ for correct Japanese usage of words.--Endroit 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am utterly shocked that Endroit has misunderstood that I deny that 対馬 is the correct usage.

My motive is to sort out between the English-Japanese correspondance of Tsushima Island, 対馬島 and Tsushima 対馬. And that is what my proposed edit suggests. Does it show my denial that [3] I proposed to reinstate the sentence "better known as Tsushima (対馬)..."? I am only trying to relate the exact correspondance of Tsushima Island and Tsushima to its Japanese equivalents. My proposal certainly does stress on the popular usage of Tsushima (対馬). However, since this article was voted to be Tsushima Island, the introuduction naturally states "Tsushima Island (対馬), is an island situated...", a phrase must be stated that Tsushima is more popularly known. The current phrase certainly shows a strong irony between the English and Japanese meanings of Tsushima (Island). Or this will confuse others.

I don't know what to say if people still cannot get what I say or are so persistent. Wikipedia is not mine. I have better things to do instead. Mr Tan 12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

211.48.125.102 's comment

"Tsushima, traditionally known in Korea by its Korean equivalent Daemado or Taemado (Hangul: 대마도, Hanja: 對馬島), is now officially referenced by the South Korean government by its Korean phonetic transliteration, Ssuesima (쓰시마)." The part of this article should be changed to as: "Daemado,대마도 in Korean and 對馬島 in chinese characters, is now being called by Japanese government as 'Tsushima', phonetic transliteration of Chinese characters into Roman characters. Territorial controversy over this island by Korean and Japanese is not settled yet." (refer to: http://kin.naver.com/db/detail.php?d1id=11&dir_id=110101&eid=UB58vqUM+PrS9v09RPZjyV2VL/M7aqAU

and http://kin.naver.com/db/detail.php?d1id=6&dir_id=612&eid=8sN58W7+CNXtcV8baYKo32VWPDAKD06C)

moved it from the ~~talk~~ article page. Deiaemeth 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed your comment there, Deiaemeth, hope you don't mind. :) And 211.48.125.102, the Japanese pronunciation Tsushima is decidedly not the "phonetic transliteration of Chinese characters into Roman characters." Anybody have any idea where this confusion might have come from? Puzzled, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 02:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand what does he mean by decidely not, but on the Chinese characters in Korean and Japanese, perhaps you can look up on Hanja and Kanji. Small matter, this IP might even be a vandal, I don't know. Mr Tan 04:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has asked you to make an edit on a subject that you can't understand. I realy wonder why you are doing this.--Dwy 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable published sources on history

As for the sources on history, the guidelines say that “To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents.” (See WP:RS#History) Newspaper articles fail to meet this criterion. Besides, the newspaper article Mr Tan provided does not contain any information to verify the alleged fact that “the Koreans periodically considered Tsushima to be Korean territory.--Dwy 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

my understanding of the inviolable policy WP:V is that we're not supposed to be doing the research ourselves, but citing to reliable, widely accepted reference works that are based on primary documents. that would include reputable newspapers and encyclopedias. Appleby 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a guidline specifically dealing with encyclopedias, which says:

There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.

As for newspapers, they normally report information from reputable sources of history books, which are in itself secondary sources. Newspaper articles are, therefore, not "works that are based on primary documents.” Well, this is my understanding. Appleby's understanding is apparantly different. Maybe we have to hear other people’s opinions.--Dwy 16:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Appleby, are you so innocent to believe on newspapers? Are you going to believe newspapers in Japan? or in China? or in North Korea? Daiaemeth wrote in Mr Tan's Talk: "I understand that this problem may raise some dispute between Korean and Japanese editors in Wikipedia, so this matter should be treated with prudence =). Sources can probably be found, and they should not pose TOO much problem even if they are in Korean, provided that it's not original research (an official gov't response would be okay I guess, or articles from English Korean newspapers like Korean Herald or English Chosun Ilbo should be okay too)." You Koreans are soooo neutral, I admire. Isorhiza 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Parangdo?

Part of the article states that the 'Partiotic Old Men's Association' wrote a letter voicing claims to Dokdo, Tsushima, Ulleungdo, and Parangdo. All of the references I've looked up state that Parangdo is a non-existant or imaginary island, and yet there is no explanation of this in the article, which might be slightly confusing. Wouldn't it be useful to either omit mention of 'Parangdo', or else to specify that although the letter mentions 'Parangdo', it doesn't exist? --Zonath 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Temp subpage?

I note there's a temp draft page at Tsushima Islands/temp. If this is no longer needed - it looks like it's six months old - it might be worth marking it for deletion... Shimgray | talk | 08:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Tsushima City?

For the following reasons.

Tsushima City covers the whole island.
Similar infos are posted on both articles. It would be understandable if Economy, culture, etc. would be on Tsushima City while geography, climate, etc. on Tsushima Island, but there is no boundary made to clarify the different purposes assigned to each article.
Concentration & efforts put on the two articles are divided. There might be good sources on one article & some on the other. It hurts productivity. (Wikimachine 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

TfD nomination of Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So Sadamori

Ypacaraí has deleted that sentence , i wrote on January 31st: So Sadamori surrendered to Joseon Kingdom, on September 29, 1419 and Tsushima became a Korean tributary island. considering that such surrrender doesn't appear in Japanese and Korean history books. I don't agree with Ypacaraí because when we look at the picture and the follwing link, we can clearly see that Japanese peoples were kneeling down to General Yi Jong Mu and his officers.

General Yi Jong Mu
On the following Link [4] : They wrote : "The war that ensued cost more than 3,800 lives on the both parties, and ended with the surrender of the Tsushima lord on Sept. 29."

We need to have a NPOV. Regards. Whlee 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about kanji

An earlier poster stated that 対馬島 means Tsu island and "I believe that 対馬 alone does not mean Tsushima Island in English. It only means Tsu, or Tsushima, as many westerners know." The kanji is acually broken up in tsushi(対)-ma(馬)-jima(島).

Furthermore, the statement "I do not agree that 対馬島 rhymes with “Tsushima Island” since 対馬 (pronounced “tsushima”, and sometimes written as 津島 in the past) already contains an element meaning island (shima). Adding 島(shima) to 対馬(tsushima) is simply redundant" is not an accurate statement. Japanese names and words often have similar readings, but the kanji and, therefore, meanings can be vastly different. In this case, the shima in Tsushima does not mean island, but rather is composed of part of the reading for 対 and the reading for 馬. Tsushima literally means "opposing horse" rather than "tsu island" and is used as a name without any connotation to the fact that it is an island.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.124.42 (talk • contribs)

You should consult a Japanese dictionary. According to major Japanese dictionaries, 対馬 (Tsushima) is the correct word for the island, not 対馬島 (Tsushimajima). See this dictionary entry. Historically, 津島 (Tsushima) has also been used in the past, although no longer used.--Endroit 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's really interesting. Clears up a lot of my confusion in trying to learn placenames. Cheers. LordAmeth 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To Endroit: I wasn't trying to say one way was right or one way was wrong. I was simply stating that some of the arguments people have been posting were based on slight misunderstandings of the nature of Japanese language: as I wrote before, it technically is not redundant to use Tsushimajima based on the way it was written(対馬) in the post I objected to. And, by the way, sometimes you have to be careful about dictionaries. Are you saying that because Hawaii is described as the name of a group of islands in an English dictionary you cannot say Hawaiian islands?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.24.215 (talk • contribs)

As the person who made the statement in question, I am reluctant to say it was based on “misunderstandings.” In any case, as User:75.62.124.42 says "the kanji and, therefore, meanings," he/she seems to believe that in all Japanese words, kanji must represents its meanings. This is, however, probably not the case with "対馬."

The island seems to have been called Tsushima for as long as anyone can remember (you may recall that one of the eight islands that the the Sinto deities Izanagi and Izanami created to from the original Japan was recorded as Tsushima.) On the other hand, common use of kanji in Japan only started in the fifth or sixth century. It is most likely that Tsushima is a native Japanese word, whose origin has nothing to do with kanji.

Nobody really know how (or on what basis) “対馬” was attributed to “tsushima” (or at least, I have never seen an authoritative source making definitive statement on this subject.) However, as a native Japanese, I can honestly say that most Japanese beleive the kanji 対馬 was used for its sound rather than its meaning. Those who would like to think otherwise will inevitably stumble on the same question that Mr Tan asked, "where is the horse (馬)？", and you can never find a sensible answer, can you? --Dwy 08:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that 対馬島 (Tsushimajima) is wrong. However, it is rarely used in Japanese, discouraged (in Japanese), and unencyclopedic.--Endroit 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me clarify my position. I know people who live on Tsushima and I have rarely heard any one call it Tsushim-jima. In fact, I don't believe I have ever heard that term used. As you say, the name most likely originated from the Japanese word and later assigned a kanji. And again as you say, in the creation stories found in texts such as the Kojiki, the island of tsu was created by the deities.

What my original point was trying to get at is that - and something that I might not explained clearly - is that when the poster said, "I believe that 対馬 alone does not mean Tsushima Island in English. It only means Tsu, or Tsushima, as many westerners know" you cannot necessarily separate Tsu from shima and say that that name of the island is Tsu. For example, translating place names from Japanese into English you cannot refer to Aomori as Ao forest or Yokohama as Yoko beach. Japanese names, whether they contain a description of a geographical trait or not, cannot be torn apart because of that fact. Tsushima happens to be the name of an island and was, at one point, broken up into the compounds tsu-shima, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a name of a place. Thus, in English, it should either be referred to as Tsushima or Tsushima Island not Tsu Island.

In my response to the kanji, it seemed as if some people were assuming that the kanji, in its current day form, breaks into tsu and shima. It is a common mistake I hear people make, that may have been true at one point, but no longer holds true. I was simply trying to help clarify this and it seemed to help LordAmeth a little bit.

Genetic argument

Anybody care to reword the Genetic argument? Surely they're not suggesting that the island is inhabited by Hepatitis B viruses from Korea? --91.15.109.55 (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty claims by South Korea

Daemado and Dokto ( Island) are Korean territory its a fact based on history. Unlike Japanese Right Wing Nationalist. Korean history is based on facts. We do not change history like Japan, We do not brainwash children with ( Right Wing Nationalist) like Japan, We do admit historical problems if it has existed, ( Unlike Right Wing Japanese Nationalist), Korean history fact and figures is based on " Historical facts", Unlike ( Japan Right Wing Nationalist) Japan history is based on " Nationalism" unlike Korean history. Japanese history do not have fact and figures correct. Korean history we do not change " facts and figures" like Japanese history. You have to admit " Japanese Right Wing Nationalist groups" influenced and changed Japan history more then 20 times. Japan history is very inaccurate whereas Korean history probably have correct facts then Japan history. ( Daemado and Dokdo (islet) belonged to Korea). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreajapanhistory (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that your posting doesn't contain any hard facts? --91.15.109.55 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Koreans can claim that " Daemado" did belonged to Korea. In Korean history it was stated in Shilla Kingdom, Kaya Kingdom, Koryo Dynasty, Chosun Dynasty that "Daemado" sovereignty was under Korean control. Its historically proven fact. Its nothing to do with Korean nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.51 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with Korean nationalism, as nationalism determines which documents one puts their faith in. The notion that "Daemado" belonged to Korea may be "historically proven fact" according to certain Korean documents, but the idea that it was not is just as solidly historically proven by Japanese documents. If one chooses to believe one set of documents while ignoring the others, that's a function of nationalism. LordAmeth (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Korea government does not do a sovereignty demand in the Japanese Government. The Korea government does not protest it. There is not the issue of sovereign power of Tsushima. Therefore, this item deletes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.192.198.142 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

現在韓国政府は対馬の領有を主張していない。また日本に対し公式にその主張を要求していない。日韓の外交問題にもなっていない。従ってこの項目は不適切であり削除する。また韓国の1自治体（馬山市議会）の条例も、韓国外務省はそれを批判しており撤回を要請している。日本政府が抗議しないのは「領土問題は存在しない」立場からであり、黙認したかの記述は曲解である。

현재 한국 정부는 대마도의 영유를 주장하지 않았다. 또 일본에 대해 공식으로 그 주장을 요구하고 있지 않다. 일한의 외교 문제로도 되지 않았다. 따라서 이 항목은 부적절하고 삭제한다.

Are these translations? We're not talking about sovereignty demand - just a dispute. And we're not talking about sovereign power etc. ??? I can't understand your English. (Wikimachine 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

今後、永遠に削除し続けるからな。覚悟しとけよ！チョンｗｗ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.197.126.240 (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It may perhaps be a dormant dispute, but not as much as others.--Kingj123 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it important to put the city of Masan's claims to Tsushima in the context of the territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan regarding Dokdo/Takeshima? If anything, the Korean claims to Tsushima appear to have been a knee jerk, and perhaps retaliatory reaction, to Japan's continued claims on the Liancourt Rocks.

Korean naming conventions

User:Kamosuke recently removed this section, stating in the edit summary, (To Korean.　Explain the reason to add "Korean Naming Conventions".) Aside from the off-putting bias, I surmise that his/her objection might have partly been to how this appears at the top of the page. After looking over the flow of the whole article, I deemed it more appropriate as a subsection of History, following on Controversial territorial claims, as the content of Korean naming conventions suggests a possible cooling of the (at least official) rhetoric associated with these claims. If anyone feels otherwise, please bring it up here. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what they are up to, but I suggest that users from Japan certainly does have a rather fanatical point of anti-Korean view attributed to the Dokdo dispute. For me is neutral, I find no harm in letting people know Tsushima's Korean name as it was widely known among Koreans, and it should be at least highlighted. This edit is to stress cultural background, rather than political reasons. Also, check the Korean-Japanese disputes. Tsushima is highlighted in its disputes: having the Korean name at the bottom seems to belittle its heritage with Korean influences on Tsushima since the past.

Anyway, I have enough of arguements, look at some of the articles on Islands of Kuril Islands and you can see that the Russian and Japanese names are side by side. Fanatics are all over the world, lest in this highly populated wikipedia. And this is where the racial point of view possibly enters. For me, I'm neutral, for I am neither Korean or Japanese. I just find nothing wrong with the Korean naming conventions; but I think that etymology is a better name. Mr Tan 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There were actually lengthy discussions as to how the Korean name should and should not be presented in the article (you can see them in the archive). And it appears to me that a consensus was formed (albeit excluding Mr Tan) that it is not necessary or appropriate to mention the Korean name except where it is relevant in conjunction with other topics, such as history, etc. Since Mr Tan was deeply involved in these earlier discussions, it is rather strange for him to say “I don't know what they are up to.”--Dwy 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to having the Korean names there, since there is at least some reason for it. The reason I moved them from the introductory paragraph to their own section was because I didn't think an in-depth discussion of which name is in more common usage in Korea really merited mention in the summary paragraph for the entire article. I would think that, like in most of the other articles that use names from multiple nations, a simple mention of the Korean name (the native Korean name rather than the Japanese->Korean transliteration) would suffice, and that the more in-depth discussion could either be merged into the Korean dispute section or else left as-is. --Zonath 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the section be better be changed to etymology; the Japanese names for Tsushima-jima and Tsushima needs to be addressed. This is seen in the Japanese version of this article. Many users oppose to my ideas of "better known as" Tsushima idea, so I think that this issue must be addressed in an different orientation, so the Japanese etymology can be clarified. Mr Tan 13:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tan: For every edit you make, you need reliable published sources. It was not appropriate that you made the “known as Tsushima-jima” edit, relying on the machine translation of altavista and information in Korean Wikipedia. Since you are apparently applying rather relaxed criteria as to the choice of sources, I am interested to know how you can verify the information in the Korean naming conventions section. I hope you have more reliable sources in this case.--Dwy 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First let me reiterate that in Japanese, 対馬島 (Tsushima-jima) and 津島 (Tsushima) are merely alternate forms of 対馬 (Tsushima). They all mean "Tsushima Island" in English.

But I went ahead and searched Yahoo Korea's dictionary http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/ for 대마도 and the following was the result: http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/search/all/search.html?prop=all&p=%B4%EB%B8%B6%B5%B5&x=21&y=8

Two of these entries are related to Tsushima....

대마도 (對馬島) or Daemado (this is based on the Korean pronounciation of 對馬島)
쓰시마섬 (對馬島) or Ssuesima Seom (this is based on the Japanese pronounciation of 對馬島)

Mr Tan has a point there that the Japanese 対馬島 (Tsushima-jima) is the etymology source for both these Korean names, as the wiktionary shows 對馬島 to be an alternate form of 対馬島. Perhaps this information regarding etymology/naming would be informative in the article, but not at the top. I believe this material should be towards the middle or bottom of the article.--Endroit 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's worth noting that 津島 is apparently only an alternate in ancient sources, despite its more appropriate "spelling" (lit., straits island); modern 津島 is listed as a place name in western Aichi Prefecture, both here at Wikipedia and in Shogakukan's 1988 edition of its Kokugo Dai-Jiten. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

All these, should be stated in an collective section called etymology, together with the content of Korean Naming Conventions as the first section of the page, like Sikkim. What do you think?

Do not forget that the name is an important factor of anything, be it a place or a person. Anything without a name seems to be nothing. Mr Tan 02:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

English names are important in English Wikipedia, and native names (names in local language) are important, too. However, names in other languages are not relevant and worth mentioning in the article, unless the context requires it. In the case of this article in particular, mentioning Korean names can be POV as it may give an impression that Wikipedia supports the “controversial territorial claims” by some Koreans. I understand that this was the agreement in the earlier discussions (or, at least, more than one person argued this way and no one except Mr Tan objected.)--Dwy 23:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Names in other languages are sometimes adopted into the English usage. Try yahoo. You can see that some articles use "Daemado" in certain contexts on Tsushima, especially on relating Tsushima's affiliation to Korea. Tsushima is also an english name adopted from Japanese. Does that mean that names of non-english origin are not adapted into English usage? I'm just trying out to bring out this point. Furthermore, Daemado has been in use for century among Koreans, and what I'm doing is to refer how Koreans refer to Tsushima since the ancient times, as well as modern times. Tsushima is frequently visited by Korean envoys during the 17th and 18th century. Friendly cultural interaction between Korea and Japan is very strong in Tsushima.

I'm not going to just stop there. Tsushima has a rich etymology, in particular in its Japanese terms, on 津島, 対馬 and 対馬島, and it needs to be elaborated on how it is being used, and these content can come in together with the Korean naming conventions to unite and form the etymology section like in Sikkim.

Please don't misunderstand me that I'm trying to create political unhappiness, which I believe that many of you that my main aim is to do this. Being having a rich etymology, we must make it known to how Tsushima is being called in different ways. Take Sikkim for example. Even its Tibetan name is rarely used in its english context, there is an explanation on what pretext that particular name is used, together with Sikkim. And addressing how various names of one specific topic is very important. It has nothing necessarily to do with political conflict like the Liancourt Rocks, but rather, for cultural and wikipedian adminstrative purposes. The article Korean-Japanese disputes highlighted the former disputes on Tsushima, so if one finds the name "Daemado" there and either not explained or explained in a hidden location", it would be rather misleading to some. But for this defence of adminstrative usage, being of political origin, I wouldn't like to harp on it any further in order to prevent any hurting of relations between Koreans and Japanese. South Korea, officially recognising Tsushima and part of Japan today, means that all its past disputes are merely part of history, which is secondary to the splendous cultural diversity and politics in Tsushima. If anybody still vehemently insists that the how the Koreans refer Tsushima from the ancient times to present day is not supposed to be stated, by all means remove it, for I do not have the time and energy to engage in meaningless edit removals and wars. However, be forewarned that this either shows the political extremism of one person, stupidity or a mysterious and shrewd person with queer reasons. As I have said, wikipedia is full of people with funny politcal outlooks. You can stop a person for once but not for a lifetime. As for me, I have stated my stand on why I added the Korean naming conventions. There is nothing for me to elaborate further on anymore. No intrusive politics, but politically-related topics to do with cultural harmony, and strong historical interaction which bonds Korea and Japan.

I have my exams right now, and the same might apply to others. Let's don't spoil the friendly mood here without good cause, and I absolutely find nothing wrong right now. Cheers. Mr Tan 07:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how it is too useful to have the Korean name outside of the part about the Korean (really, Masan city) claim to the islands, much like it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to put a Chinese name (and a long discussion of it) in the first part of an article about a Mongolian territory. As it is, the article seems to almost overemphasize the Korean influences on the islands - almost every paragraph makes some mention of Korea, especially in the demographics and history sections. Considering the placement of the islands between the two countries, a certain amount of intermingling of cultures and history is almost inevitable, but from reading this article, one might get the impression that the local culture of the islands is almost completely derivative of Korea, which is simply not true.

As for having an 'etymology' section up top... Sure, I would support that, but only if you also include the Mongolian and Russian names of the island in the section, as well. After all, it is useful to know how Tsushima is called in different ways, and both Mongolia and Russia have historical ties to the islands. --Zonath 17:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Korean naming conventions section for two reasons:

It is not in line with the earlier consensus (See archived discussions) to discuss the Korean names under the title “Korean naming conventions”. If the information is necessary, it should probably be merged into the "Controversial territorial claims" section.
The section lacked sources. Sources are required, for example, to verify the following:

Tsushima island is (was) traditionally known as Daemado (rather than as Ssuesima.)
It is now officially referenced by the South Korean government as Ssuesima (“now” implies that it was not before. When did it begin to do that?)
Many Koreans, especially ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima as Daemado. (Is it not the other way around, or is it not that the ultranationalists began to use the word Daemado while others continue to call it Ssuesima?)

I will have no objection to anyone adding information on Korean names in the relevant context in "Controversial territorial claims" or other appropriate section, provided he/she has reliable sources to verify the information.--Dwy 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

See current discussion, not the archived one - I wouldn't say the general consensus is established towards deleting the names. Also, the term "Daemado" is not used by "ultranationalists" as you claim - press and people refer to the islands as both Tsushima and Daemado quite liberally. There aren't much claim attachment to it. Many old Korean people also refer to Tokyo as Donggyeong and Beijing as Bukgyeong, which are Korean romanizations. But that does not mean there are "controversial territorial claims" attached to these cities. Deiaemeth 19:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the earlier consensus, I would rather say it is Mr Tan who must wait for a new consensus before he can add the section. Besides, the section lacks sources so I am allowed to remove it anyway.

Also, please note that I did not claim that ultranationalists began to use the word Daemado. I just pointed out that there were such a possibility and you must have sources to verify the facts. --Dwy 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been in there for a while, so I would rather say it is you who should wait for a consensus before deleting the section. Well, the only source the section would need is that Korean government now officially calls the island "Tsushima", which can be easily attained. Deiaemeth 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be kidding! It had been there for just about ten days -- not long enough to invalidate the earlier consensus.

And I do not agree that the only source the section would need is that Korean government now officially calls the island "Tsushima." You must have sources for every peice of information your statements would give, suggest or imply. Otherwise, you will have to revise your statements, if not rescind them. --Dwy 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the two sources that Mr Tan provided for the section seems to be a Korean Yahoo encyclopedia article on a place called Taejongdae, in which only mention of Tsushima is that you can see it from Taejongdae on a clear day. I suspect there was some mistake when Mr Tan made the link. The other source given by Mr Tan appears to be a news release on the Korean Government Employees’ Union’s website, reporting that Ulsan municipal assembly adopted a resolution calling for the return of Tsushima to Korea. In this document, I cannot find any information on Korean naming conventions except that the municipal assembly used the word쓰시마. I have already pointed out what information need to be verified (see my post above at 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)), and the sources given by Mr. Tan are far from sufficient.--Dwy 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To Deiaemeth: I note that you are of the opinion that “the term 'Daemado' is not used by 'ultranationalists' as you claim - press and people refer to the islands as both Tsushima and Daemado quite liberally.” If you really believe so, don’t you have anything to say about the passage “many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its traditional Korean equivalent rather than its Korean transliteration of the Japanese name, Tsushima”? I just want the accurate information. I don’t think there is any reason for you to fight me.--Dwy 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with adding the section. There is no harm for Japan by adding this section. As a Japanese, I don't feel any halm from this. I don't believe Mr. Tan is neutral from his/her other contributions but there is no worth to discuss whether he/she is neutral or not. 対馬 is official spelling in Japan and it is truth that Korean people call that island as "Daemado" 對馬島. 對馬 and 対馬 is same character. I don't know which is the first, but at least this is fact and worth citing and may be interesting for English speaking world. --Isorhiza 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of southern part of korean peninsula has intense influence of Japanese culture. Almost all of the peninsula was under Japanese rule. Please put Japanese naming on articles about those areas and cities before put back Korean naming into this article. --Ypacaraí 00:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? You can add for example Shioura to Ulsan, Keijou to Seoul, Meiji-cho to Myeong-Dong, etc. --Isorhiza 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary.

Korean naming should be return considering Dokdo have Japanese name when Dokdo is clearly under Korean administration.--Korsentry 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Page 5

This article reads like a Korean interpretation of Tsushima Island's history and a list of weak Korean claims on the island. I really doubt the history section needs so many minor Korean facts in there alluding to a Korean claim on it. There's got to be more Japanese things added to the article because Tsushima Island obviously has a longer and deeper Japanese connection than a Korean one.--Sir Edgar 08:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have improved much in the intervening years. This article is a complete mess. 60.39.29.234 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)DK

Reply to naming conventions

Ypacarai has asked why if Tsushima has the Korean naming conventions then areas of the Southern part of the Korean peninsula which received Japanese influence in turn did not have Japanese names applied. There is Japanese influence, evidenced from traders and wako which visited the Southern Korean coast particularly during the Chosen dynasty, but the Korean territory which received the strongest influence among these is ‘’’Jeju Island’’’. The history article did cite ‘’’Saishu’’’, the Japanese equivalent. Jeju had the strongest Japanese influence among all other Korean lands because of direct geographical proximity (unlike Pusan which had a Korean-influenced Tsushima). What’s more (not counting the Japanese rule which lasted from 1910-1945, which Korea was regarded as one separate entity as Chosen), Jeju had in the past, as Tamna, had equally friendly diplomatic relations with Japan and Korea. The case is similar in Tsushima. Tsushima had been ruled by Korea too, but the Japanese had been ruling Tsushima all along too. Several 1950-written US document with cited sources suggested varying degrees of control between Korea and Japan over a long stretch period of time before pre-modern times when the Japanese exerted complete political administration on Tsushima. [5] From these facts, we can deduce that Korean influence on Tsushima is stronger than that of Jeju, the Korean island comparable in size and population to Tsushima which received the strongest Japanese influence. Answering Ypacarai’s question, it is reasonable to explain the Korean naming conventions which had been in use since the ancient times by Tsushima’s very close neighbour. All wikipedias follow the policy of neutrality. Suggesting its linguistic background does not back one’s viewpoint, be it Korean or Japanese.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsushima_Island&diff=60092459&oldid=60015610] Take the Korean-language article of Tokyo. [6] I don’t see in anywhere where the Sino-Korean rendering of Tokyo—Donggyeong is mentioned. The Hangul rendering of Tokyo is maintained throughout the article. Look at the Korean-language article of Tsushima [7]. The traditional Hangul rendering of Tsushima (대마도) is mentioned, used for centuries by the neighbouring Koreans who have cultural and political influence over Tsushima as well. As mentioned earlier, in the Korean wikipedia, Donggyeong is not mentioned in Tokyo, Si-guk (Han character rendering of Shikoku) not used and mentioned in Shikoku [8] and so on. The question is, why Tsushima? Our point here is foreseen by Deiaemeth, Appleby, Zonath and Isorhiza, from the behaviour of this article’s edit history, consider the very significant Korean cultural and political influence on Tsushima---it would be bad to deny that.

In the English context, Daemado is sometimes used as an English word in several contexts. [9] Note in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), a wikipedia guideline, it states that “The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known.” Historians from all over the world acknowledged the Koreans have been using this name in the traditional context and these have been mentioned in several English contexts. The name Daemado has been in used for centuries by the neighbouring Koreans and this has been mentioned in the English context in the Romanized form Daemado, as an English word. The same goes for any word of non-English origin used in English contexts, that is of course, in its romanized form.

Also, consider local administrative reasons. The article Korean-Japanese disputes made the mention of Daemado in a high place. Wikipedians who surfed this page after that page would seem puzzled and confused without any mention of Daemado in a significant place, as required by in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) mentioned earlier. The Japanese island of Hokkaido states the Ainu naming conventions (in its romanised form)-Mosir without any dispute.

In actual fact, the Korean naming conventions tend to stress more on how the Koreans addressed the islands name. It is about the historical process---go and access yahoo korea and search using the Hangul rendering of Daemado and the Korean transliteration of Tsushima (Sseusema Seom) in Hangul.

Still, I must reiterate that Wikipedia:Naming conflict tells us that “Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.”. As wikipedians, we must be ‘’’objective’’’ and not prescriptive. If Ypacarai are stressing that this section is of trival importance, I would suggest referring to Wikipedia:Importance, which stated “If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: 1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance….” Also, Wikipedia:Notability stated that non-notable articles should be deleted. If Ypacarai is focusing on notability of Daemado, yahoo Korea stated thousands of these articles. I can vouch that it is a very notable fact from the high number of these sites stating "Daemado".

Certainly, I don’t really see the point of Ypacarai’s stance, which is supported by Kamosuke and Dwy. Thus, it would be rather hard for me to accept that Ypacarai claimed that there is no need for the Korean naming conventions, citing the lack of Japanese naming conventions in wikipedia’s articles of Japanese-influenced territory in Korea. Jeju is the Korean territory with the strongest Japanese influence, and Ypacarai missed that point. However, above that, over the many days, I can’t really figure out why Ypacarai insisted that there is no need for the Korean naming conventions. If it’s for political/sentimental cause, the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer opposes this. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is certainly all wikipedians have to follow.

Personally, I do agree that this section is much more suitable for an etymology section, which I hope to edit soon on the origins of the name "Tsushima" and so on. I would hereby Ypacarai read these over carefully and think carefully about my points and I certainly do look forward to his comments and explanations soon. Mr Tan 08:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If any debaters find this letter too tedious to be read, perhaps my opinion can be summed up by Geri Layard's opinion of the Korean's view in retrospect to Tsushima[10]. Thanks. Mr Tan 14:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan, your message is unnecessary long and pointless. Stop gathering unsignificant cases around the world and please explain why this article need Korean name and why locations in the peninsula don't. --Ypacaraí 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're not going to take the time to read the answer, then why are you asking the question in the first place? Mr. Tan's message above contains a very good, well-reasoned answer to your question, not 'unsignificant cases around the world'. --Zonath 09:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ypacarai, there is a reason and motive to every word I say. If you think over carefully you will get my point. And also, it is not for you and all wikipedians to dismiss the policies and guidelines as useless, of which my previous message contains a significant amount of these explanations. Analysis and discussion perhaps. But policies and guidelines are for all wikipedians to follow. So please run through this Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines before reconsidering your answer.

My previous message--talking about the Jeju-do article itself answers your question. Please be aware that all my points are interconnected by nature.

As I have said in my previous message, one point I have cited is cultural reasons. Jeju island is indeed Korean territory and has received significant Japanese cultural influence alongside. I would like to ask you a question: Look for "Saishu" in the Jeju-do article. Do you think it is irrelavant or not? If yes/no, please explain. And also, how do you define the word "unnecessary" in the context of wikipedia? I must confess that I can't exactly understand what you meant. If your definition of "unnecessary" actually means irrelavant, please state otherwise. Ambiguity is one of the most threatening hinderances to discussions. Before answeing these questions I would suggest you to read the policy section--the third line of Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you think it is irrelavant please explain too. It is rather hard to just accept one's yes or no without sufficient explanations. Mr Tan 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, if you think it is a waste of time, it is more of a waste of my time negotiating with you. I, Zonath and Appleby are doing this to find out your reasons of removing the Korean naming conventions which we opposed to your edit. Is it so difficult just to give your reasons and analysis to us to why you removed it? We are discussing this topic with you to asscess your point of view on why you do not think it is relavant/necessary. We are doing it because we consider your interest too. Whether it is productive or not, you should not just leave such short comments blatantly without answering my question, and that tantamounts to you not being willing to negotiate at all. In fact, the previous message one of the several steps to analyse our differences. If you are not willing to talk we could always revert back to the edition we wanted it to be without further ado.

Furthermore, you have already violated the third policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". Wikipedians violating wikipedia's laws, is an offence, and disciplinary action can be taken against you, just like a thief who has stolen something from a provision shop and be prosectuted in court. I am sure that a vetran wikipedian like you is familiar enough with the consequences of defiance against wikipedia's laws.

I, Appleby and Zonath are always ready to negotiate with you, if you want to. You can either choose the easy way by continuing the negotiations to eventually reach a common point between we two parties in a diplomatic manner before deciding what to do or take the hard way by ignoring my discussion as crap, engage in a revert war and eventually be sent for disciplinary accord. It's all up to you to choose. For me, I'm ready at all costs, however far it might go. Mr Tan 05:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you might be misinterpreting that part of WP:V just a bit. Basically, that clause of the policy just states that it's generally OK to remove information that doesn't have good sources -- the burden of proof lies on the one who wants to include the information in the first place. This behavior might be said to fit a bit better with 'blanking' under WP:VAND, assuming of course that the removed information was sufficiently verifiable.

Personally, I don't think it's time to be pulling out Wiki policies and bludgeoning each other with them quite yet. I suggest we give Ypacarai a reasonable amount of time to rebut your arguments, after which we go ahead and re-add the deleted information and see where things go from there. I'd suggest pulling a neutral third party into this at this point, but I don't really see what they could do if one side simply won't talk to the other. --Zonath 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy & paste anyone's comment from his talk page Mr Tan. And anyone who read discussion(?) between Mr Tan and me in my subpage may understand why I don't want to discuss with him. --Ypacaraí 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not concerned with the past. Now it is me who want to discuss with Ypacarai, so don't deviate away to other matters to blow up matters. Is it such a difficult act just to give reasons and convince us why he does such an edit? If Ypacarai refuses to engage in discussions, we have no choice, but to take the hard line, Zonath. As you can see, I have given him the chance to explain himself, but he is too stubborn to do so. The discussion cannot continue if he don't add on from the starting point. From the start he has thrown in a hostile comment has been always doing so from the start of this topic. He didn't even want to talk about it.

Indeed, he has violated certain policies and guidelines on wikipedia, as highlighted by me and Zonath. I believe that all of you know the dire consequences of defiance against policies and guidelines on wikipedia. That is why I am here, to resolve matter peacefully and ask for his reasons first. If he continues to argue at this rate without entering the negotiation table at all we would have to take actions on the hard line. The past is in material and are two seperate issues. I was too naive, yes, and argued without sufficient basis. I reverted the edits without cause. I never do such a thing at the present moment. I am no longer an irrational as before. However, I can do that, if you continue to keep mum about this matter. Solve it once an for all, as I propose and prefer, or engage in an eternal edit war, which I believe that both of us hate to do so.

It's your choice, Ypacarai. Don't say that I am not willing to be nice and friendly with you and resolve matters peacefully through convincing and analysing on our differences. Mr Tan 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My only recommendation on this matter then is that you might want to consider using Wikipedia:Third_opinion to resolve this, seeing how you both appear to have come to an impasse. You may also consider using one of the other techniques listed in Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. Other than that, I don't have a whole lot to say on this particular subject. --Zonath 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have thought about that, but third opinion comes in only when after a discussion reaches to a stage where both parties could go nowhere. In the first place, Ypacarai is not even willing to discuss. The third opinion suggestion by you is therefore not applicable to you by the current situation unless he is willing to start negotiations.

I will give Ypacarai a few days to think. If he continues to ignore my goodwill efforts to discuss the matter with him and find out his stance of removing the section and analysing a solution to resolve our differences, I will have no choice but to revert to our choice. That, however, will not really solve the situation. Ypacarai can come back and revert back what he wanted. Further on, worse will come. Either way, we will have to be prepared. Mr Tan 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Korean naming conventions" belong here. Current tendency to use phonetic transcription over the use of native pronunciation of Chinese characters in Japanese and Korean for other's proper names is not unique to Tsushima. It is better to be explained in more suitable language related articles. As for Daemado, its use seems not common (number of Google search result for Daemado, limited to English, exlcluding wikipedia, is about 161 pages[11]) so I think it is suffice to mention it it the relevant part of the article ("Sovereignty claims by South Korea" seciton). --Kusunose 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kusunose, and to everybody who wish to give their view to this discussion, I think the first thing that all of you should do is to read the very first paragraph in detail before giving your inputs.

As I have said, the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) strongly suggested that all alternative names used in the English context, should be included in the first paragraph. Guidelines, accoding to Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines, suggested that we could modify a little in accordance to the necessary situation, but not too much. Their purpose of asking all names used in the English context, which we are focusing on as an English wikipedia, means that all alternative names used in English, be it of whatever origin, be stated in a notable place. Their preference of the first paragraph means that all alternative names after the main name should be included in a notable spot, lest a country like Korea which has also contributed significantly to Tsushima. Being the English wikipedia, the question of putting their origin in the spotlight of the content is thus secondary in nature, especially when it is of non-English origin. The prime concern is to state it in a notable place, preferably (such as) the first paragraph of the article.

I have also asked the problem of acsesibility. The article Korean-Japanese disputes stated the name "Daemado" in a high place. How are knowledge-seekers to find about "Daemado" if he wants to find it? Can you find another article more suitable than this to talk about the Korean part of Tsushima? It would be law-violating to remove relavant information. To your suggestion, perhaps you can take a look at Sakhalin and Hokkaido on where the name alternatives are being laid out clearly on the article, be it of the language of the ruling country or not. The alternative names should be included, as stated in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) in its romanised form.

Last but not least I have yet to receive a direct answer from Ypacarai on whether he agrees to continue direct negotiations. I don't think it is too hard to ask for reasons from him personally on why he removed the naming conventions. Mr Tan 12:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does not say "all alternative names used in the English context should be included in the first paragraph" as you say. It says "[t]he body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known". As I have stated above, "Daemado" is not common. I have read archived discussion; you were the only person insisting the inclusion of the Korean name in the lead section and not only Ypacarai but other editors (Mel Etitis, FrankB, Kokiri, Hermeneus and James Bell) opposed. I don't think the situation has changed since then. --Kusunose 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Jeju mentions Saishu towards the middle. Busan does NOT mention Fusan at all. Seoul mentions Keijō towards the middle. Pyongyang does NOT mention Heijō at all. Taipei mentions Taihoku towards the middle. Changchun mentions Shinkyō towards the middle. Ajaccio does NOT mention the alternate Italian name Aiaccio. Palermo mentions the Greek name Panormus towards the middle. Heraklion mentions the Arabic name El Khandak towards the middle. Just look at some of these other examples, to see how it is actually done in Wikipedia. This probably means that there's no requirement to list the Korean name for Tsushima. However, if any Korean name is listed, it probably belongs towards the middle or the bottom.--Endroit 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At that time, the arguement was on the double language infobox. This is a different matter altogether. We are not only concentrating on the point you (Kusunose) stated. Also, being common on one significant place does not necessarily mean that it is insignificant in the total overall context. Are you trying to belittle that the Koreans have little or no influence on the historical, cultural and economical context of Tsushima?

Also, you seemed to ignored what the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) meant. In the first place I never stated that they stated that it is a must for all alternative names in the first paragraph. This, a guideline, being (stating preferably) means encouraging that users to include alternatives in the first paragraph. Thus it means that its significance should be highlighted.

I ask both of you. The Ainu alternative of Mosir has very little search results on its relatives. Does that mean that we should do the same, as with Daemado in Tsushima? Therefore I would suggest that you look up Wikipedia:Notability. Also, the deletion of information (substance) on the Korean naming conventions also opposes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:V for the removal of information. I strongly advise that you read and analyse these two policies/essays thoroughly before carrying on. And also, the main arguement is me wanting to find out his reasons of removing the Korean naming conventions section. I do not wish to blow up the matter in a way that you become the prime negotiator, because I believe that your part here is to give your Wikipedia:Third opinion. To me, finding out the reason from the actor/culprit is much better than from a meditator/supporter. I only have one thing to say to him if he has no intention of negotiating with me directly: A responsible person is somebody who has the courage to own up, settle and explain what he does. I am sure that being a cultured Japanese yourself you know this virtue. He's back, and I think that he is not willing to talk himself [12] and lock himself in his own world instead. In the first place, using a page such as "Fuss on Tsushima" as the name of his archive is a very provocative name, which is opposed in the "Examples" sub-section of the "judgemental tone" point of Wikipedia:Civility. Likewise, such uncivil people do not deserve to engage with frank and goodfaith discussions which the opposition is trying to bring him to. Thus if anyone is discussing explicitely on his own behalf I think it is pointless to do so.

Endroit, please read the section of "Korean naming conventions" and contrast it with the beginning of this section--the very first comment posted by me before you do any further comparisons. I have analysed the Jeju-Korean-Japanese and Tsushima-Japanese-Korean relations there. I am quite tired of explaning any further, I'm sorry. Mr Tan 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And you, Mr Tan, look at ALL the examples I gave above, not just Jeju. None of them have any "(foreign language) naming conventions" sections similar to the "Korean naming conventions" you were trying to add. What you were doing was perhaps unprecedented and unnecessary in Wikipedia, and that's perhaps why Ypacarai deleted that awkward section. Also, your interpretation regarding the importance of Daemado in English seems to be wrong; Daemado is NOT important in English. Your stated reasonings are nothing but hypotheses until you can apply it to the examples I gave you above. Before you insert the Korean names into this article, study those other examples I gave you, on how it is to be done.--Endroit 11:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan, the notability of Mosir in the Hokkaido article is established by the Ainu people article. The Ainu are also notable to "the Kuril Islands, much of Sakhalin, and the southernmost third of the Kamchatka peninsula."--Endroit 11:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true. The Chinese and Japanese alternatives are also included in the first paragraphs of the article. Likewise here, the Koreans have played a strong historical bond with Tsushima. It is not a matter like Taiwan whereby the Japanese ruled for about half-a-century, which is insignificant as compared to Koreans who had influenced politically, for centuries on end. All the less for Shuinkyo to Changchun, whereby there is only a very brief Japanese adminstration during WW2. Much earlier, I have stated the cultural and historical significance of Jeju and Tsushima between Korea and Japan. If you want the details, please read everything carefully at the first paragraph of the section. Apparently you don't or you would not be asking me this question. The first paragraph is the root of this discussion.

Thus it is a bit too much for people to belittle the Koreans who played a very significant role in the island's history to just ignore it in a corner, that's one, secondly, the current version of the location of Daemado is certainly not significant at all in anyway, as opposed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which (indirectly) asks for significance of alternatives.

I have noted that previously you gave your view on [13]. As you can see, we are rather more focused on adding material to elaborate the address mode of the Koreans to Tsushima over the years, rather than whether the alternatives should be in the first paragraph or whatsoever. We are also asking for the address mode, as suggested by you earlier which I had brought out. I think that it is a little too far, if the name "Daemado" is not highlighted in terms of significance here. I have also brought out the problem of Korean-Japanese disputes, there is one section on Tsushima's former disputes and it highlighted the Korean alternative at the header (note the significance) here. How are readers to find out what is exactly the true background of Daemado here--the alternative name (Korean) who have played such a significant role in the island's history and other social aspects as they read the article? The Korean influence elaborated and the significance highlighted certainly does not tally. I believe that you can read basic Chinese; the Japanese and Korean relation on Jeju and Tsushima is so close that it is like 唇亡齿寒.

The usage of Daemado is very significant in the Korean context. So, when the west came to the East, they generally have to adopt to the romanisation of the Asian languages in order to publish documents, etc on related topics. Likewise, when they wrote about Hokkaido and Sakhalin, they would often refer to these alternatives of other languages (which played a long significant historical role) and would also do the same in publications. Too bad if there are less books on the past then the near-present history (Historians in the world generally prefer modern history than to way back history due to convenience in research, other factors). This is why Daemado is less commonly voiced out in terms of repitiveness in all Korea/Japan-related books on Tsushima. But, when highlighting the name Daemado, they usually stressed it in such a way that the tone of the phrase is significant. One way to find out is by visiting and reading some of the Korea-based websites hyperlinked on this article and see how they stressed when you read it. In turn, these western history books obtain Korean and Japanese sources for their importance. When mentioning in the Korean context, they sometimes use Daemado, which is frequently mentioned in all related books around the world as the Koreans have played an intensive role on the social and historical factors on Tsushima. (it's a bit long, though, but read these very carefully and analyse).

Thus we are highlighting the significance of a name in the English context, not in the usage of the English language overall. This is exactly in the two alternatives I have highlighted here. Mr Tan 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Daemado (and other Korean names) doesn't become significant just because Korea invaded Tsushima over 500 years ago. Any such invasion has got to be within the last 200 years, as in the other examples of Wikipedia, for it to be significant in the naming. Also, there aren't a significant amout of Korean speaking residents in Tsushima in the last 200 years, as in other examples of Wikipedia, to claim significance. (Maybe this will change in the future.) Also the Japanese name is not derived from the Korean name, as in some of the other examples of Wikipedia. In any case, I'll perhaps believe you if you try to reciprocate adding Daemado to Tsushima, by adding Fusan to Busan. But really, look carefully at my other examples: they tend to put the foreign language names in the History section somehow, usually in one sentence. Obviously, I don't think you were justified by adding a whole paragraph / section; perhaps you should have made it shorter and simpler.--Endroit 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have bolded "Daemado" as other article Endroit provided do the same. I think this is sufficient. --Kusunose 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any policy supporting this first statement of yours? Please show if there is. On the name of "Korean" origin, perhaps you might want to read [14]. In the first place I never stringently asked for Daemado to be in the first paragraph but only standing out in the article in accordance to that guideline. The significance has been fufilled, but apparently both of you are not fully clear of my objective in this discussion. If both of your minds are too obscure, I suggest that you all take a breather and regain your senses, before coming back to the meditation table. Everybody, including me, does suffer such experiences.

I must point out, however. The standing out thing is nothing and can be solved even without removing the naming conventions by bolding Daemado. Before I continue, I must ask both of you to go back in time, and view the article of Tsushima Island around 15 June 2006 and see its substance in the Korean naming conventions. This, is the unexplained part of the discussion that I personally want answers from Ypacarai. It would be very kind of both of you if you all could persuade him to explain clearly why he think those content in the Korean naming conventions should be removed. I am not concentrating on the Daemado itself. Don't get this point amiss. Mr Tan 09:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added back the Hanja (Hanzi) & Hangul for Daemado. This should be more than sufficient.

Mr Tan, in your link, it says "Tsushima is Japanese, and has been Japanese since long before the year 240. The claim made by some Koreans that it once was Korean cannot find any validation even in Korean sources." In any case, those events happened more than 500 years ago, and so they're not so important.

In my other examples:

Heraklion (in the Greek island of Crete) was founded by Arab-speaking people in 824. The article mentions the Arab name خندق Ḫandaq towards the middle in the "History" section.
Palermo (in the Italian island of Sicily) was founded by Phonecians in 8th Century BC, and later became part of the Greek-speeking Eastern Roman Empire. The article mentions the Greek name Panormus towards the middle in the "History" section. The Phonecian name Zîz is not even bolded.
Ajaccio (in the French island of Corsica) was part of Genoa for hundreds of years. The article does not even mention the alternate Italian name Aiaccio.

Korean influence on Tsushima is obviously less significant than these other Wikipedia examples. So in the context of Wikipedia island articles, the Korean name perhaps belongs towards the middle or the bottom. I believe this is the consensus, as Kusunose suggested.

Also, if you have a personal problem with Ypacarai, please take it up with him directly or ask somebody else to intervene. Please don't ramble on about it here in this discussion.--Endroit 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, I believe that you have only read the message to a rudimentary extent. I am asking now why this part (bolded) Korean naming conventions is removed:

Tsushima, traditionally known in Korea by its Korean equivalent Daemado (= RR; MR: Taemato; Hangul: 대마도; Hanja: 對馬島), is now officially referenced by the South Korean government and most media by its international name's phonetic transcription Sseusima (쓰시마). However, many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its specifically Korean name rather than Sseusima.[13][14]

The first part has been settled--the significance of Daemado. So there is no need to highlight more examples and driving the same old point into my head anymore. In the first place I never explicitely wanted Daemado to be in the first paragraph even though the guideline above highlights it. I want the reason why Ypacarai removed the bolded section above on the June 2006 removal. That is what I am asking for, as I do not understand the purpose of removing the bolded info.

I would be very happy that if you could persuade Ypacarai to explain himself directly since he removed this paragraph. There is no personal problems between both of us. I have tried to persuade him to talk to me directly, but has been playing down my requests. Thus I would be very grateful if you could persuade him to explain himself -- or otherwise it would be harder to resolve this matter. Thanks. Mr Tan 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sseusima / Daemado naming issue appears to be a dispute within Korea only. Also, I disagree in labeling Daemado as the name used by ultranationalists. Both names are valid Korean names. In the context of this article, I'm pretty sure this local naming dispute is unimportant outside of Korea, hence certainly not important to Tsushima (although it is very interesting).

However, as in other examples of Wikipedia, I still think the names can be included in the "History" section. Perhaps we can delete the Hanja and Hangul links, and say:

Provoked by Shimane Prefecture's claim to Dokdo (also known as Takeshima by the Japanese), the Korean city of Masan declared June 19 "Daemado day" on March 18, 2005, claiming Tsushima — Daemado (대마도; 對馬島) or Sseusima (쓰시마) in Korean — as part of South Gyeongsang province in South Korea, but this was rejected by the Korean government.

Ypacarai and others are welcome to join discussions as well.--Endroit 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Endroit, but I'm through discussing this issue with him. it's endless. --Ypacaraí 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ypacarai, what are you going to say if the discussion can end smoothly, even without you? I am here, intending to settle our differences once and for all with you. I don't understand why you are so reluctant even to give your own explanation on removing the Korean naming conventions. Too bad, we can't stop yourself being stubborn, and I am determined to clarify every point why you should remove it. Even though Endroit is not you, I feel that he being a good and attentive analyser need not have such a wikipedian who holds himself aloof from others. If you are not even willing to discuss this issue at all, I have nothing more to say. However, it is my right to find out reasons. It is everybody's right and freedom. The same goes for the third opinioners.

As for Endroit, this is not a naming dispute bewteen Koreans on Tsushima, be it Daemado or the modern transliteration Sseusema. The South Korean government tend to use Sseusema, while the ordinary folks tend to use Daemado, as it was called since the ancient times. Ultranationalists tend to have a closer attachment to the name Daemado, and that is why I wrote in this manner. You might want to see more of it here: [15]. Your proposal certainly does not make a distinction between the 'traditional and modern way of style of address of Tsushima by the Koreans. You only distnicted by showing two different ways of calling witout the age.

Basically I think that Korea is a nation which has influenced the political climate of Tsushima even until today (to a small extent) should be noted, lest a country which has exerted a long-lasting influence on a foreign island as compared to other countries. As long as the content is not irrelavant, there is no law by which we should remove the content. Perhaps you might want to check out on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability (see the three policies). Mr Tan 03:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The minor details regarding the usage of foreign names (Sseusima & Daemado) in a foreign nation (Korea) is irrelevant to this article as I have already tried to explain. Both names are used in Korea, and that's all that matters. I do however think it is OK to mention both names briefly in the "History" section in the manner that I have suggested. I have already stated my reasons, as I'm sure many others already have. I have also shown examples from other articles in Wikipedia. I believe there is consensus against adding a whole paragraph or section, infobox, or description in the header regarding the Korean names for Tsushima Island. But there seems to be some precedence in briefly mentioning foreign language names in the "History" section in other Wikipedia articles. So do you agree with my ideas or not, Mr Tan?--Endroit 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan, can you please give us reliable sources to verify that Daemado is traditional and Sseusima is modern? We also need reputable sources for the assertion that Daemado (rather than Sseusima) is Korean equivalent of Tsushima, that Tsushima is officially referenced as Sseusima by Korean government, and that Daemado is specifically Korean (thus more Korean than Sseusima.) I have long challenged the verifiablity of your proposed edit, but you have never given us sufficient sources. --Dwy 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I have no objections to however you redesign the location of the facts, or whatsoever. But what I could not understand was the missing reason of Ypacarai deletion of the facts within the paragraph. Tentatively, I hope that you (Endroit) can give me sometime to reanalyse your message before I give you a definite reply, since I can't make out that you have explained why it is irrelavant.

However, one should not forget that the law comes before communal consensus. Unless there is no law, then consensus comes into the prime. Thus consensus is in a way compromising the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which all wikipedians should abide.

The significance thing on Daemado is solved, but my question mark remains on why the substance should be removed. On the sources, they can only be found in Korean. Deiaemeth, a native Korean speaker, has verified that the sources are appropriate[16] (check article's history too). However, I can look for more sources if you are still doubtful, although I think that it is a waste of my time doing time, I'm sorry to say, because you can't read Korean, according to what you personally confessed on your language capabilities you displayed on your user page. Mr Tan 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am still doubtful, and of course, a wikipedian, whether he/she is a native speaker or not, cannot be a reliable source for the purpose of WP:Verifiability.--Dwy 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, such sources are only avaliable in Korean. I have done a personal search using the keywords in Japanese, Chinese and English, but there are no such sources which you are requesting for in the three other languages. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more that I can do. The best thing is to read the sources which I have cited at the naming conventions (which have been removed) yourself, but I very much doubt you can understand Korean. (To endroit) I will notify you when I have made my decision on how to reply you soon. Thanks. Mr Tan 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Endroit: I am more inclined to be agreeable to your idea, but not totally. Firstly the word "...Daemado or Sseusema..." should not be used. There is a distniction. As I have explained, you should elaborate in terms of ages of these -- between the modern transliteration of Sseusema and the better known, centuries old Korean name of Daemado. I have also said that I grant you the autonomy to reallocate the facts in anyway you like without deleting any of them (the content of Korean naming conventions) before notifying and explaining.

Concerning the facts which you doubt its relavance, such as those ultranationalists on Daemado, you might want to verify by browsing through some of the English articles on The Korea Times and Chosun Ilbo, as well as the Marmot bolgspot [17], of which ultranationalists once put up a manner shouting "Daemado is ours! Thus their feelings towards using the name Daemado tantamounts to being more stronger than ordinary Koreans. Apparently you never heard ultranationalists shouting "Woori Sseuma!" or "Hanguk ui-Sseusema", but rather "Woori Daemado" or "Hanguk ui Daemado". Type out these two phrases (in Hangul) at yahoo Korea. I can vouch that the latter is being used (by ultranationalists). Thus their feelings towards using the name Daemado tantamounts to being more stronger than ordinary Koreans.

For Dwy, on the usage of the Sseusema by the Korean government, perhaps you might want to check out more of these links:[18][19] [20] [21] Mr Tan

This seems to be Original Research by Mr Tan. Mr Tan, read WP:NOR. Your interpretation of the meanings of Sseusima & Daemado are in violation of WP:NOR. Plus, you are giving a negative connotation in the description for Daemado, which may be in violation of WP:NPOV. And, as Kusunose and I have mentioned, you seem to be against consensus. Read WP:Consensus and learn to work with the other editors in this discussion.--Endroit 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can only be done when the Policies and guidelines and NPOV on editing are applied first. Have you read through the links I have provided? I am not making original reasearch, but rather I am bringing my citations foward, along with my analysis. I can't really make out where I have violated the NOR policy, and in fact, you are making allegations (or suspicions) without a proper ground. Please produce a solid proof and confirm 100% that I have violated the laws.

As long as I know, I am extracting my interpretation and explanation of my view based (and supported) by the links I have provided, not a new theory or hypothesis. And this is a discussion, not editing an article.

Wikipedia:Notability states that all verificable and relavant information (see the line " there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria") can be added into the article, and the policies of Wikipedia:V tells that the obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Thanks for highlighting that, and I will try to be as objective as possible. Howver, it is impossible for one be totally NPOV, especially when one gives his own views. I believe that this is applicable only when editing content, not on discussion. During discussion, there are occasions whereby all of us, regardless of our parties, should be NPOV and there are also times when we have to give our own views. For now, I am analysing the Korean way of refering to Tsushima with supportive references. For your information, it is only a tendency for ultranationalists to use Daenado than Sseusema as compared to ordinarly Korean folks, and I have explained clearly in the previous message.

So if you want to settle this case smoothly and quickly, which all of us want to, please follow up closely and try those links and search engines keywords when I make a request to prove my point. I am not imposing, but I am trying to let you understand my point in goodwill manner. So please read those disagreements carefully and give your analysis. I have already said that I am more towards agreeing than disagreeing, and I want analysed reasons of why my disagreements are objected. We are already not too far from the common ground, so please settle it once and for all by (both of us) analysing our differences right to the completely-shaved-clean stage. Thanks. Mr Tan 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I am bringing my citations foward, along with my analysis." Any new analysis of published statements that serves to advance a posistion is oringial research.

"...try those links and search engines keywords...and give your analysis" is also original research.--Dwy 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget that we are analysing towards a common ground, not editing an analysis of a topic on an article. I am proving my arguements with proper grounds, so please see Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:Citing sources. The links are meant for citing my point and the keywords which I have highlighted are meant for you to prove my point. I have given the appopriate directions to prove my point, and I can do nothing more if you are over persistent on not letting me prove my point. My aim is to ensure that all of us shall reach a common ground whereby we all agree willfully. If you anybody is unwilling to resolve such matters and continue to harp on these policies eternally, the discussion will not and will never end.

In that case I will have to do things in my own way if there is no way out. So I would request that everybody realign and concentrate themselves to the main discussion ground and not deviate off to harping on a very particular topic while we are analysing on the applicability of these statements/sources in correspodence to the article. Remember that I just want reasons and answers to enable my understanding why the point of South Korean government to Sseusema and ultranationalists to Daemado (the reference modes) are considered irrelavant. Let's settle these difference once and for all, swiftly, smoothly and diplomatically. Mr Tan 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Drawing my summary

Before I notify the involved users to restart the discussion, I must reiterate my stance in the discussion:

Firstly, my motive is to get reasons why the Korean naming conventions was removed. While the accompolice refused to talk, users stepped in to give their analysis, but whether they are supportive of Ypacarai I can't exactly make out. However, these users, especially Endroit, are certainly very helpful in analysing reasons to why the content of the section stated above should be retained or removed. While after several small misunderstandings have occured on the name Daemado itself, which I have never explictely asked for the term to be in the first paragraph even if the guideline I had noted earlier recommended. Furthermore, the section of Korean naming conventions is at the bottom, not top of page (please check article history).

However, my main intention is to find out the removal of the content highlighted below.

Tsushima, traditionally known in Korea by its Korean equivalent Daemado (= RR; MR: Taemato; Hangul: 대마도; Hanja: 對馬島), is now officially referenced by the South Korean government and most media by its international name's phonetic transcription Sseusima (쓰시마). However, many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its specifically Korean name rather than Sseusima.[13][14]

All I could say is that such misunderstandings could be resolved as soon as possible. If leaving the state like this such misunderstandings could not be resolved due to unresolved reasonings. However thorough the reasons needs to be resolved, it is better for both parties to get a solid understanding of the situation in order to solve the problem. We just can't stagnate as like (in Endroit's last message) to solely criticise my message being NPOV or whatsoever. Anyway, I have given my reasons, and there is nothing more to talk about on NPOVness from here. We got to move on to the mainstream discussion and not just stagnate like this. Otherwise stagnation would occur, and this would not end with a good note, which I believe anybody likes.

Mr Tan 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read the comments above. Mr Tan, your suggested wording is in violation of WP:NOR and against consensus.--Endroit 08:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please settle one thing at the time. In the first place, the application of the policies and guidelines are currently disputed.

Secondly, please zero in to the phrase of the NOR policy which you claimed that I have violated. I must reiterate, however, that I am discussing the verifiability of the content of the Korean naming conventions. To the best of my knowledge this policy is applicable specifically when we edit articles, and the meaning of NOR is when you are making first-hand research, for example you went to a country yourself and edited a wikipedia article based on your own account. Furthermore, I am explaining the verifiability of the removed content in my own opinion, which I have defended by Citing my sources to support my opinion, to be precise.

If you find this point very crucial, please zero in to the phrase which you think I am violating the policy. In my own experience, I have read through it but I can't find the statement to which I am being against of in this perspective. Mr Tan 06:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan, your whole proposed addition/modification is against WP:NOR. None of your sources provide the analysis for the trend of word usages which you are suggesting. I also find your sources offensive, with blogs containing the words "Daemado is our land" in Korean. This is a work of a troll, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Endroit 15:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems that you did not get my message. I am making a request to you to copy and paste out here the portion of WP:NOR which you believe that I am violating the policy. I really can't identify my violations with only explanations alone from you. The page is so big, and I can't find where exactly you think I have violated even after I read it.

I apologise if I have offended you from the sources I have provided; the purpose is to prove my point to you. However, I want you to note that since you know that "Daemado is our land" in Korean by the Gangwon blogspot is offensive, and having read it, it is apparent that this term, in the modern context, is being strongly harped by Korean ultranationalists who claimed Tsushima to be theirs, which I can't understand to why the phrase in the naimg conventions "However, many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its specifically Korean name" is removed. Please read through the final message before you brought up the WP:NOR matter for further details, and read the tone I write the Korean naming conventions..... I did stuck to the NPOV style, and don't call me a troll anymore. It is very rude. Thanks. Mr Tan 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Here they are, portions of your wording, copied and pasted:

"traditionally known in Korea by its Korean equivalent Daemado"
"is now officially referenced by the South Korean government and most media by its international name's phonetic transcription Sseusima (쓰시마)"
"However, many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its specifically Korean name rather than Sseusima."

These violate WP:NOR. Your sources don't make the conclusions that you do regarding these statements.

Also, I consider your actions to be representative of a troll because you have kept following me around into my talk page. Don't harass me or bother me there again, as I have already stated my opinions regarding this matter. Also, as I see that you are against consensus already, don't bother me again until such time as you are formally pursuing Wikipedia:Resolving disputes to dispute the consensus here.--Endroit 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Endroit. You seem to get me totally wrong. I want the portions of the phrases and statements from the WP:NOR which specifies that I have violated the policies, not the reverse.

As a matter of fact, yes, I am here to resolve the disputes once and for all through thorugh clarifications. I am disputing the consensus because the application of the policies of yours is not clarified. Consensus can only be talked about if all policies and guidelines are being clearly followed, which I am doing a thorough investigation and analysis. Furthermore, I have noted the earlier discussion of Deiaemeth with you too. There are somethings in life whereby consensus is not the ultimate dictating power if the opposition could not clarify their logical reasons by the major side. So many of you disapproved, but without sufficient reasons. I don't want another Ypacarai. Can such a consensus be considered effective, without sufficient clarification of differences between both sides? I urge you to be more pro-active in resolving the matter soon, and evaluate reasons on a mutual basis. Thanks. Mr Tan 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if people are still sore about this or not, but my two cents: Mr. Tan, there are a number of reasons why your particular wording might be singled out for deletion, any of which could be Ypacarai's reasons. First, your line "[h]owever, many Koreans, especially among ultranationalists, continue to refer to Tsushima by its specifically Korean name rather than Sseusima" implies that there is an ideological implication in the usage of the term "Daemado," when in fact it is only the Korean transliteration of the characters used to spell out the name of the territory in its native language. This line itself is problematic for other reasons: it suggests that Korean nationalism is a problem, that Korean ultranationalism is widespread and is a political force significant enough to merit early mention on an article about a Japanese territory with some documented Korean influence, and, in combination with your line "traditionally known in Korea by its Korean equivalent Daemado," that there is some unfortunate link between modern Korean ultra/nationalism and Korean tradition. Secondly, there is really no need to elaborate in the introduction as to what official naming conventions exist if everyone officially calls it the same thing; when including relevant (which in this case is questionable for Korean naming of Tsushima outside of the history and recent controversy contexts) traditional pronunciations/names, they can always be included as follows: Name in English (Name, English phonetic spelling in native language; Name, English phonetic spelling currently used in other languages) - the way you originally put it was very awkward and unnecessarily suggestive. Third, any expansion on the context of the naming should not really be covered in the introduction of the article unless it is distinctly relevant to its current incarnation.Ecthelion83 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

source blocked as attack site.

http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20090922500006 was blocked as it has been hosting trojans etc.

Quote:

"This web page at www.seoul.co.kr has been reported as an attack page

What is the current listing status for www.seoul.co.kr/news?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 2 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 881 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 46 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-06-13, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-06-13.

Malicious software includes 47 scripting exploit(s), 31 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 1 new process(es) on the target machine."

in my eyes that makes the source about as reliable as a 10yr old Hyundai. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There were three sources, two of the sources did not mention the incident, and the last source was reported as an attack site - can someone try to find a new source relating to this incident? Preferably a source in English? Once a reliable source has been found, I will not have any problem with this section being put back in the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"The main island of Tsushima was once a single island, but the island was divided into two in 1671 by the Ōfunakosiseto canal and into three in 1900 by the Manzekiseto canal. Tsushima is composed of North Tsushima Island (Kami Jima), South Tsushima Islands (Shimo Jima), and over 100 smaller islands" -- This isn't clear to me. Is Shimo Jima two islands? Kdammers (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How many islands?

"The main island of Tsushima was once a single island, but the island was divided into two in 1671 by the Ōfunakosiseto canal and into three in 1900 by the Manzekiseto canal. Tsushima is composed of North Tsushima Island (Kami Jima), South Tsushima Islands (Shimo Jima), and over 100 smaller islands" -- This isn't clear to me. Is Shimo Jima two islands? Kdammers (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)