Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names/Old discussion

Previous discussion from main Talk page

User:Masterhatch has raised this issue on some other pages, and I think it's time we had another go at it. This seems like the best place... The current naming conventions suggest that a piped link be used when the "Sea of Japan" is mentioned in Korean contexts, i.e. [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]]. Personally, I think this makes sense. However, it has been accused of being POV, and it may also be confusing to users not familiar with the Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan.

In general, I think that context-appropriate piped links are a good thing. This simply happens to be a particularly prominent example. It is equally appropriate to use a piped link to reflect historical contexts. When Seoul is mentioned in Joseon Dynasty contexts, it would be IMO a good idea to use a piped link [[Seoul|Hanseong]]. That certainly is not POV; it merely reflects the correct name in the context of the article. Likewise, it is not POV to call the Sea of Japan the "East Sea" nor the Yellow Sea the "West Sea" in Korean contexts... it merely reflects name which is correct in the context of the article.

A quick note. Yes, I agree that sometimes it would make more sense to use a piped link. Say, for example, in an article about Korean history or Korean culture. But when it comes to any and all geography sections, I feel it is best to use the internationally most common name of "Sea of Japan". Masterhatch

For a previous discussion of this that did not reach a successful resolution, see Talk:Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Hoping for better things this time around... -- Visviva 03:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A vote is needed in regards to the name of the body of water that separates the Koreas and Japan. For more information, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Here is the question, answer with 'Yes' or 'No' (feel free to add comments):

Should all bodies of water on Wikipedia have the same name throughout all pages as to maintain a standard and avoid country specific POV?"

In the event of a 'Yes' win, all bodies of water will be given the same English name and the country specific name will be put in brackets. For example "Sea of Japan" (East Sea). In the event of a 'No' win, all international articles will use the international English name and in country specific articles, it will be the Englishised name with the international name put in brackets. For example on a Korean article: "East Sea" (Sea of Japan). Enter your votes at the talk page here: Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Please vote only once. Thank you, Masterhatch

I'm really not sure that a vote is called for just yet. Better to get a clear idea of the alternatives first. -- Visviva 04:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit frustrated, too. Yes, I am a newbie. But after checking out some articles on Korean cities, I noticed rampant spelling and grammar mistakes. No big deal, as these can be corrected easily. However, I also noticed that the Sea of Japan was named "the East Sea". I asked my family, friends, co-workers, etc. over the past few days if they know where the "East Sea" is. Not one of them knew. It's basically Korea vs. the world on this one, and I really wish they'd back off on this issue otherwise they just make themselves look like children throwing a temper tantrum.

As for the vote idea, good in theory, but bad in practice, as many are left out of the loop. As for myself, I will be changing all English articles that refer to the Sea of Japan as "The East Sea" as "The Sea of Japan (East Sea)" until Korea withdraws it's petty demands on the world community. Kojangee

It is your right and duty as a Wikipedian to be bold and implement what seems to you like a good solution. But that really isn't such a good idea when

The matter is obviously controversial,
A convention already exists, which the articles in question are in compliance with, and
Your fellow editors are trying to reach some sort of reasoned solution.

Accordingly, I have been just as bold, and have undone your changes. -- Visviva 15:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why change it back? That makes no sense. The name used by 97% of the world is Sea of Japan. Korea calls America Beautiful Country. America has no right to tell Korea what to call another country in their own language, yes or no? Therefore, why should Korea demand how to name a sea in English? It makes no logical sense. Even though I think adding Sea of Korea in brackets is doing proponents of the name an undue favour, I did so. The Sea of Japan is the known name of the body of water. I doubt very much that many native English speakers know where the East Sea even is, without refering it to the internationally-recognized name as the Sea of Japan. From Japan's point of view, it is the West Sea. From Russia's point of view, it is to the south. Calling it East Sea only serves the minority, which is Korea.

Again, I don't understand why you'd change it back to East Sea, when a quick look on-line and in my set of encyclopedias (Chinese books I might add) call it the Sea of Japan. Kojangee

I assume that he changed it back simply because he wanted Wikipedians to arrive at an agreement before the status quo was broken, even though no official agreement was ever arrived at. Masterhatch

OK, I will stop changing stuff (grudgingly) and instead debate the topic. As long as there is some ultimate logical resolution, it's fine by me. Kojangee

What are the issues? A first attempt

I do think it's high time we took another look at this issue, and I thank Masterhatch for bringing it up. As far as I can tell, the existing convention was not reached through any formal collective decision -- or if it was, that decision is now far in the Wikipast and is due to be revisited.

Although I haven't had a chance to look through the details yet, the recent Gdansk/Danzig vote gives me hope that Wikipedia is capable of reaching a constructive solution to these problems. As I see it, in such cases there are basically two issues:

1. Context. Should the preferred usage reflect national/cultural/historical context? To wit, should the body of water in question be called the "East Sea" in articles on SK-related topics (per current conventions)? Likewise, should Dokdo be called Takeshima in Japanese contexts?

2. Transparency. Should the usage be transparent to users who unfamiliar with the context in question? In other words, should local usage be explained to the international reader?

Because the question of correctness is still hotly debated, attempting to use it as a criterion is inevitably POV.

If we do get to the point of having something to vote on, we should probably take it to Talk:Sea of Japan, where it is likely to be more visible. At that point notices can be posted on the village pump and relevant Talk pages. It would be great to reach a similar resolution concerning Dokdo/Takeshima/"Liancourt Rocks" -- but let's take one thing at a time. -- Visviva 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal (Visviva)

Not really proposing anything formally, just laying out my responses to the questions I presented above:

1.For my part, I say "yes" for both examples, although the second puts a foul taste in my mouth. The alternative (one-size-fits-all naming) is poor style at best, and is almost inevitably non-neutral. We then get to the touchy subject of what counts as SK/NK/Japanese/etc. context. No policy can resolve all such issues, but most cases are pretty clear-cut.
2. That's a no-brainer: Yes, of course our usage should be transparent to all English-speakers, and that's where the current convention really falls short. Masterhatch and Kojangee are right to note that most people outside Korea have no idea what "East Sea" refers to. Therefore, I believe that alongside any piped link there should be a parenthetic disambiguation, i.e. [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] (Sea of Japan). This would be a significant change from the current standard. However, just as links normally occur only once in an article, so should the disambiguation occur only once. If the article is SK-based, East Sea should be used throughout, without further explanation. But if a second link is warranted (in a very long article, for instance), then it should also be parenthetically explained.

That's a bit complicated when I go through it in detail, but then this is an infamously messy subject. Responses, reflections, rejections, flames? -- Visviva 16:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Kojangee for your support, but we need to come to an agreement before changing the names (again). I changed the names a day or two ago and they were quickly changed back. I don't mind starting a discussion, but i don't want a war that involves changing back and forth every day. That is pointless. Thank you visviva for showing the other side of the coin. Now, i must make it clear that honestly i don't care if the official name is "Sea of Japan" or "East Sea" or "Oriental Sea". That is not for me or anyone else on wikipedia to decide. We on wikipedia are meant to report the facts and try our best to avoid POV. of course, avoiding point of view is very difficult. I am not trying to debate what the body of water should be officilally called. i am here to debate what we should call it on Wikipedia. Currently, calling the body of water between Korea and japan the "East Sea" is the POV of the Koreas. Calling it the "Sea if Japan" is the point of view of the majority of countries and the UN. Wikipedia is not here to please one particular group of people. Currently, there are four countries that border the body of water in question. they are: Japan, Russia, N. Korea, and S. Korea. Half call it East sea and half call it Sea of japan. Japan and Russia's coast line (and population) along the Sea FAR excedes that of both koreas combined. Besides, to the Russian border of the Sea, it is south and to Japan it is west. Now, what i propose is this:

For all geographic sections on Wikipedia sites that refer to 'that body of water' (including the Koreas), it will be "Sea of Japan" (the Korean sites can have (East Sea) after 'the Sea of Japan). Why? because geographically, the majority of the world knows it as "Sea of Japan" and to put any other name in front of "Sea of Japan" would be incorrect and POV, especially if it was done for only two nations. Wikipedia is not for or against korea and neither am I. By allowing "East Sea" (Sea of Japan) we are accepting the POV of a minority. Geographically, this shouldn't even be a debate. It should be cut and dry. the vast majority of maps past and present show the body of water as "Sea of Japan". Wikipedia should not be any different. I have two atlases back home in canada that call it "Sea of Japan". I was taught in school "sea of Japan". Everyone i know outside of korea calls it "SEa of Japan". If you were to go to the average Joe on the street in canada or america and asked "where is the sea of japan?" Most would know about where it is. if they dont' know a lot about asia, they would simply say "near japan" or "near Korea". If you were to go back and ask an average Joe in Canada or America "Where is the EAst Sea?" you would get baffled looks. They might give yuo answers to anywhere in the world. Plain and simple, "Sea of Japan" is recognisable as a geographical body of water. East Sea is not.
for cultural (and possibly historical) references, use either "sea of japan" or "East Sea" as necessary. I will give a poor example. please bear with me. Imagine this made up story: "In 1689 Kim So and So Left his home in Seoul with his family and travelled East in search of riches. He arrived at a small fishing village on the coast where he bought a boat. One day, he took his boat out into the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and caught the biggest fish the village had ever seen! In honour of him, they named the town after him and his fish." In a situation like this, where that particular body of water is part of the culture and history of Korea, i see no reason why it can't be refered to as "East Sea".

So, to sum up what my long winded argument is, is this: For all geographical references, it is Sea of Japan (East Sea) and to cultrual and possibly historical references, it could be "East Sea" (SEa of Japan) (using that pipe link mentioned earlier), depending on the specific situation. I think this is a fair compromise. I mean, seriously, one cannot argue that geographically, it is "Sea of Japan". having a different standard for just the Korean articles makes no sense and (in my POV) is totally POV to put "East Sea" ahead of "Sea of Japan". the Korean point of view should definately be mentioned, but it should not be the standard. Allowing one article to be the POV of a minority would set a horrible precedent for Wikipedia.

Also, i noticed that many sites have now been changed in regards to the other seas. Some sites call the "Yellow SEa" the "West Sea" and the "East China Sea" the "South Sea". I am going to fix this as Korea is not debating the names of those seas. So far, there are only three people who are debating this hot topic. I hope more come into it. Masterhatch

Some of those were probably me... Perhaps I took contextualizing a bit too far, eh? Anyway, feel free to change them back. -- Visviva 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Imagine the following scenario:

Little Johnny does a class presentation on Korea. He reads his report "...and to the east of Korea lies the East Sea of Korea..." at which point he pulls down the classroom map and there in between Japan and Korea the map says "Sea of Japan" then the teacher asks Little Johnny "Little Johnny! Where did you get your information from? It is not called the East Sea of Korea! It's called the Sea of Japan!" Then Little Johnny replies "Wikipedia!" then Wikipedia's reputation as an accurate source of information is tarnished.

Calling the Sea of Japan the East Sea is only a POV and nothing more. I for one do not support tarnishing Wikipedia, therefore the internationally-recognized name of "Sea of Japan" should be paramountly used on all pages in English. I do not support embarrassing children. I do not support using names on Wikipedia which go against what is being taught in classrooms throughout Europe, the Americas, Australasia, Africa, and most of Asia. If Koreans want to call it the East Sea in Korean, fine. Because that is how it is commonly known in Korea. Sacrificing Little Johnny's academic future to appease a movement based on nationalism, racism, and false logic is something I will condone. I will never condone making Wikipedia look like a second-rate information site. Encarta is probably laughing it's pants off wondering why Wikipedians would allow unrecognized names to be used. I like Wikipedia, and I support Wikipedia being accurate. kojangee

I support Mr. Masterhatch and Mr. kojangee. The "Sea of Japan" is the international name broadly established in every country in the world, and should not already be changed by the opinion of one country. The South Korean government requires that the name of the Sea of Japan should be changed into "East Sea." Moreover, when it cannot be realized, it is asking to write together the Sea of Japan and East Sea also at the lowest. Also in order for Wikipedia to protect neutrality, I desire for the "Sea of Japan" which is an international name to be single, and to use it. --Maizuru 06:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move?

Since this Talk page is still overweight, even after I archived half of it, perhaps we should move the discussion to a subpage, something like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed_names. If anyone agrees, let's do it. Then we can be as long-winded as we please.

To move the discussion, just copy all of the wikitext from here [1] into the new address, and replace this section with a link thereto. For my part, I'm going back to housekeeping for a few days. Hopefully some other folks will chime in. And please, let's not try to implement a general change until consensus has been reached. -- Visviva 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully Masterhatch can use some of his ample spare time to make the change. I support moving the discussion. Kojangee

The Debate Continues: Sea of Japan vs. East Sea

I went into the archives to find out how the original naming convention decided on “East Sea (Sea of Japan)" for Korean pages. On April 18th, 2004 Kokiri posted the ‘official’ way to name ‘that particular body of water’ between Japan and Korea. I figured that if that was posted (before Kokiri made that post, it simply said that the name was under dispute) then an agreement of some kind was reached. So I went hunting.

Searching these archives Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Archive01 I found only one basic reference to this dispute. That mention basically said the debate is being battled out here Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. So, going there I read it (again). (Most of the discussions were old) It read no different for me this time than it did the other 10 times I read it. Basically, it sounds like a bunch of little old ladies squabbling over who has bragging rights. In fact, it seemed like the majority of the discussions were centred around what the International community should call the body of water, not what Wikipedia should call the body of water. There was even an argument about what the name of the site should be. There was very little logic used in any of the arguments and all the arguments for and against seemed like ‘Korea vs. Japan’ type arguments. This is not a case of ‘Korea vs. Japan’; this is a case of ‘What is the best name for Wikipedia to use for that body of water?’ And, that ladies and gentlement, NPOV geographically speaking, should be an easy question to answer. Needless to say, previous discussions have failed to come up with a solution or even a strong case either way. Unless I have missed something, Kokiri made an official declaration of how to name that body of water without consensus. Remember folks, we aren’t after ‘least neutral’; we are after ‘least POV’. Masterhatch The 22nd of June, 2005.

Why don't we just follow Wikipedia rules and use the MoS Manual_of_Style? The most common applicated name in English should be used, in this case , Sea of Japan. Kojangee

Let's keep in mind that we are not currently discussing either the correct name of the Sea of Japan article, nor the use of the name in non-Korean/international contexts. In both of those cases, the "Sea of Japan" usage is accepted and reasonably NPOV. However, in Korean contexts it is POV and arguably incorrect to call the body of water the "Sea of Japan."

This shouldn't be a big problem. It is quite common for most-common/official names to be inappropriate in certain contexts. For example, when Jeong Dojeon struck up a friendship with Yi Seonggye in the 1380s, he did not strike up a friendship with King Taejo, although Yi would later become King Taejo, and "Taejo" is by far the more common name. In that case "King Taejo" would be inappropriate to the historical context. Likewise, I think that here "Sea of Japan" is inappropriate to the geographical context.

I'm not arguing that Korean usage should be given the same weight as global majority usage in international contexts. However, in articles relating specifically to Korea it seems bizarre not to seek a more neutral position. --Visviva 03:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japan does not desire writing together of the Sea of Japan and East Sea. Moreover, the writing together itself insists that it breaks neutrality according to a demand of South Korea. In order that "East Sea" may oppose the Sea of Japan, it will translate Korean "Donghae" into English simply in the 1990s, and is a very new coined word. A position of Japan is a position in which the "Sea of Japan" appeared in the 1600s, and is already internationally fixed to the 1800s, and it cannot treat in East Sea and the same rank which are a coined word of the 1990s. Moreover, although South Korea admitted the notation of the Sea of Japan till 1992, it created suddenly the new word "East Sea." And it claims as a historical basis of East Sea, "East Sea was extinguished by imperialism of Japan and the Sea of Japan was spread all over the world by it." However, this opinion is not applied to the "Sea of Japan" which was international in the 1800s. And Japan is making it collect distrust that South Korea creates East Sea and attacks Japan. And East Sea has a doubt as it was created in order to use for a political tool.

Therefore, Japan is requesting the independent notation of the "Sea of Japan" from international society. However, Japan is not opposed to South Koreans calling "Donghae." In my idea, it desires to carry out independent use of the "Sea of Japan" about the situation in Japan and the world, and to be referred to as "Donghae (Sea of Japan)" about the situation relevant to both Koreas.--Maizuru 07:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole point is being missed. This is the English language section of Wikipedia, not the Korean language section. We are not here to promote what the Koreans think it should be called. Besides, the Korean name is "Donghae", not "East Sea" (yes, I am aware that when translated they mean the same thing). The name of the body of water in English is in fact "Sea of Japan", not "East Sea" or "Donghae". This site is meant for speakers of English. It is not meant for speakers of Korean (although they are quite welcome to read and contribute). I am sure that there is a Korean language section somewhere and that is the right place to call it "Donghae" (not East Sea). As I have mentioned before, geographically, Sea of Japan is the best name for the body of water, no matter what page, Korean or otherwise. As for your example, visviva, I agree that in certain contexts, it would be better to use "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan". Those contexts, as I have mentioned in other posts, would be historical or cultrual references. It is not POV to call it "Sea of Japan" in geographical Korean contexts because this is an English language section of Wikipedia. Calling it "Sea of Japan" in Korean geographical contexts is calling it by its English name, plain and simple. Changing the name just for KOrea becomes totally point of view. Yes, "Sea of Japan" is not neutral in Korea (as that is Korea's POV), but we aren't looking for neutrality. We are looking to use the standard English name. To the vast majority of English speakers, it is NPOV to call it "Sea of Japan" and is POV to call it "East Sea". I will say one more time, we are NOT looking for a neutral (or new) name. We are not looking to please Koreans. We are not looking to support Japan. We are Wikipedians. We are here to report the facts in a NPOV way. We, as Wikipedians, should not write POV supporting Korea's desire for a name change. We should use the internationally recognised name until Korea is successful in either A: Changing the name internatinally or B: Having the international community accept "East Sea" with equal weight as "Sea of Japan". Until either of those two things happen, we MUST call it by its correct English name, no matter how much the Koreans protest.

Now, I am leaving Korea tomorrow for a few days to go back home to Canada and while I am in Canada I will not be posting on or even reading Wikipedia. I should be back in Korea on Tuesday. I will continue my side of the debate at that time. Masterhatch 8:00pm Korea time the 23rd of June, 2005.

Good points, but I beg to differ with the the idea that we are not aiming for neutrality. Surely that is exactly the point of having a Neutral Point of View, is it not? As the NPOV page states, neutrality is not the same as objectivity. To be neutral, we do need to take into account Korean points of view, as well as Western ones. Anyway, we'll be looking forward to your return. -- Visviva 11:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Visvisa and disagree with Masterhatch in that we are not seeking neutrality. However, it is certainly not neutral to put the official name in brackets and the Koreans' name in the forefront. Neutral would be adhering to the United Nations usage, as I have based my proposal on as written below. Kojangee 21:54, 23 Jun 2005 (Beijing Time)

I hope I can further this debate a little. First of all, yes, I posted the original naming convention. This happened after discussing the issue with the then active contributors on Korea-related issues. The first idea is to follow the Manual of Style and use the most common English name. The second idea is the insight that the most common English name in this case is context dependent. The South Korean government and some online netizen groups make a great effort to ensure that East Sea is used. The reasons for this are beyond the scope of Wikipedia naming conventions. Fact is that (for whatever reason) the use of the term East Sea is becoming more common. For example, Britannica and Expedia maps use the term (in conjunction with Sea of Japan). It is not our job here to decide which is the better, right, or neutral way to refer to the water (normative issues), but to determine the most common use (which includes offline publications, BTW).

The material I see clearly prefers East Sea in Korean contexts, whereas in international and Japanese contexts I hardly ever come across East Sea.

We decided on the use of piped links [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] because (a) there is only one body of water, and (b) we considered this an elegant solution (contrary to having brackets saying something along the line of in South Korea known as East Sea, in North Korea knownn as the East Sea of Korea).

Personally, I would have preferred to add (Sea of Japan) after links that go East Sea, so that a reader unfamiliar with the recent common use of East Sea saves clicking on the link to find out that she or he already knows all about the water. In this sense I support Proposal B below. I should also add that in the few articles that are not mainly about Korea, but affect it, I would use Sea of Japan (East Sea). In all the articles not affecting Korea (such as the many on US warships) Sea of Japan without mentioning of the East Sea bit.

Please also note that Donghae is a transliteration, not an English name. Kokiri 28 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)

You have said it all, Kokiri.

"It is not our job here to decide which is the better, right, or neutral way to refer to the water (normative issues), but to determine the most common use (which includes offline publications, BTW)."

Plain and simple, the most common way of referring to that body of water in English is "Sea of Japan". Many non-Korean publications are now referring to it as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", but only Korea refers to it as "East Sea" in English publications (that are written by Koreans BTW). This is propaganda on the part of Korean publishers. Should Wikipedia fall victim to this propaganda? I think not. The material seen written with just “East Sea” is written by Koreans and is highly POV. Material written by non-Koreans is actually the majority and the authority and is written either “Sea of Japan” or “Sea of Japan (East Sea)”. To even consider putting East Sea in front of Sea of Japan is so highly point of view that those people need a reality check if they think otherwise.

Your reference to "The South Korean government and some online netizen groups make a great effort to ensure that East Sea is used" is only further evidence of propaganda as these are minorty groups trying to change the name. They should take up their fight with the international community, not here on Wikipedia. Should they be successful, then Wikipedia will reflect that. Until that time, Wikipedia should reflect the name used by the international community and only make a note about the dispute. Masterhatch June 29th 2005

Second attempt at formulation

I’m going to take another crack at formulating the issues here. I think the present state of discussion naturally leads to two proposals, as follows:

Proposal A

1. On its first appearance in a Korea-related article, the name should be written as follows:

[[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)

(or “East Sea of Korea” in an NK-related article).

2. Thereafter, the article should use only the name “Sea of Japan.”

I believe that this proposal would meet with the approval of Masterhatch and Kojangee. They would prefer it because it would be as clear as possible to users from around the world. Please correct me if I’m wrong, or if I have missed something important. -- Visviva 11:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(As you can see, I haven't left quite yet) That is pretty close to what I am aiming for. But I am willing to let "East Sea" to be used for cultural and historical references as need be on the Korean pages (as long as it is clear that East Sea means Sea of Japan). It is the geographical sections that I am most concerned with. On a side note (I guess I should have done more research), I thought NPOV meant "Non Point of View". My bad. But either way, it makes no difference as using "East Sea" is the POV of Korea. And using "Sea of Japan" is the Neutral POV of the majority of the world. Masterhatch the 23rd of June, 2005.

I don't understand Masterhatch's meaning of "cultural and historical references". When he gets back, hopefully, he can enlighten us and give us an example or two. Kojangee June 25th, 2005 23:29 (Beijing Time)

Proposal B

1. On its first appearance in any Korean article, the name should be written as follows:

[[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] (Sea of Japan)

(or “East Sea of Korea” in an NK-related article).

2. Thereafter, the article should use only the name “East Sea” or “East Sea of Korea.”

This is the option that I would prefer. I think it is still adequately clear to international users, while remaining appropriate to the Korean context. -- Visviva 11:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only do I strongly disagree with Visvisa's proposal, but I find it very POV. Look, these are all written in English, not Korean. These are English articles, using the English language, using English names, and English grammar with English vernacular within an English search option. Korea and China call America beautiful country in their respective languages. Now, America does not place any demand on Korea nor China to start calling them by what they want to be called. Why? Because Chinese and Korean is not an official language of the US. America has no right to say "Start calling us America!" anymore than Korea has the right to say to America "Start calling us Hanguk or Choseon!"

I caution Wikipedians and readers alike to review Visvisa's final statements after writing his proposal: I think it is still adequately clear to international users, while remaining appropriate to the Korean context. This is important, my fellow Wikipedians. I believe that Visvisa is mistaken when he asserts that it will be clear to all international users, as all countries in the world use the Sea of Japan and not The East Sea.

Proposal B will confuse students throughout the world who might use Wikipedia as a base of reference. They will look at their classroom wall map and wonder where the "East Sea" is, unless they start digging into the discussions on the dispute. Instructors will wonder why Wikipedia uses uncommon and unofficial names in prominance for the English articles, and puts the official names in brackets, diminuishing them. It's unprofessional and we should not allow ourselves to tarnish Wikipedia's reputation in the name of appeasement.

Why are we not using the MoS as a base of reference? The MoS clearly states that we should use the most commonly used English name, in this case it being The Sea of Japan. Those were guidelines set out, so why ignore them? The two Koreas have failed time and time again to convincingly explain why the Sea of Japan should be renamed. To even add The East Sea is throwing the two Koreas an undeserved bone. It is overtly generous, to say the least. But what Visvisa has failed to answer to, is why would we even consider putting the links as

[[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] (Sea of Japan)

with a tributary Sea of Japan in brackets? It's like throwing a bone at the official name, and giving a nice juicy tenderloin to the complainers. What is Visvisa's rationale for diminuishing the officially-recognized name, and putting into prominence the name only used by the two Koreas? It's illogical. What would you do if you saw the following link:

[[cigarettes|smokes]] (cigarettes)

? It would be wrong, and you know it, and so does everyone else on the English-speaking planet. If it were reversed, then yes, that would be acceptable.

Please explain why you want The East Sea to be the main name, and The Sea of Japan, to be put into brackets. Sure, you have a proposal and that's all fine and good to have a proposal, but you have failed to explain your rationale as to why.

Additionally, you have also failed to consider the effects this might have on Wikipedia's reputation. Using unofficial names for articles is just begging for critics in the media to tar Wikipedia's image in public.

Therefore, as a compromise, even though I disagree with even using the term East Sea at all except in the context of explaining the the two Koreas' dispute, I have a proposal C down below.

Proposal C

Whereas The Sea of Japan is the officially-recognized name of the disputed body of water,

And whereas The Sea of Japan is the most commonly used name in the English-speaking world for said body of water,

And whereas Wikipedia's MoS states users should use the most commonly used name in English on the English pages,

And whereas the United Nations has agreed to include The East Sea after the name in brackets until the dispute is settled,

I, Wikipedian Kojangee hereby propose the following resolution:

On its first appearance in any English article, the name should be written as follows:

[[Sea of Japan]]

On its first appearance in any English article about the Republic of Korea (South Korea), the name should be written as follows:

[[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)

On its first appearance in any English article about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the name should be written as follows:

[[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

I can't express myself enough when I ask all members to consider Wikipedia's reputation. The issue of renaming the sea to The East Sea is a political issue. I believe that there should be no politics involved when writing factual information. Leave the politics on the discussion pages.

In closing, I humbly ask all readers and Wikipedians to consider the MoS. Consider POV vs. NPOV. Consider the offically-recognized name internationally. Consider the United Nations decision. And most importantly, consider Wikipedia's reputation if we use unofficial names.

-- Thank-you very much for your time. Kojangee 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (Beijing Time)

I'm afraid I don't see the difference between this and Proposal A. However, I'm glad that we are getting closer to a general agreement on what we disagree on. Incidentally, the most-common-name convention, as I understand it and as outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), applies only to page names. The Sea of Japan article is already named Sea of Japan, and no-one is currently proposing to change that. -- Visviva 14:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are similar, although I added a preamble. Also the method he came to formulating his proposal was a bit lacking in substance (apologies to Masterhatch). Specifically, he limits it to only Korean pages, whereas I would include all English pages of all topics. I would drop my proposal to support Masterhatch's if he explained what he means about "Cultural references". I guess we'll have to wait for him. I did e-mail him for clarification, but I guess he's in the air at the moment. Kojangee 23:32, June 25th 2005 (Beijing Time)

I too don't see the difference between visviva's A and Kojangee's C. The only difference is where I added the part about allowing East Sea for cultural and historic references. I am jetlagged right now and don't feel like typing too much, so when I feel fresh tomorrow, I will explain further what I mean about allowing East Sea for cultural and historical references. After being away for several days, I am sad to see that no one else joined this discussion. I do see from other Korean topic pages that people ARE reading this stuff. Too bad no one is making comments. But we do have to remember that this is not a discussion about what the international community should call that body of water. We already know that. This is about what Wikipedia should call it. Masterhatch 1:22am Korea time, June 29th.

Enough with the Support for Korean Propaganda on Wiki

Wikipedia is not here to promote or popularise Korea’s disputes. By putting East Sea ahead of Sea of Japan (on any article, especially on Korean articles), that is a form of both promoting and popularising Korea’s dispute of the name of the Sea of Japan. The dispute should be left up to world politicians and geographers, not Wikipedians. Wikipedia is NPOV and all articles must do their best to be NPOV. Simply mentioning and recording (not favouring either side) the dispute should be the job of Wikipedians. It is a plain and simple fact that the UN and the vast majority of nations refer to it as “Sea of Japan.” Sea of Japan is the name of the sea in English. East Sea (Dong hae) is the name of it in Korean. No one is telling the Koreans what they should call that body of water in their own language, so why are they telling English countries what they should call it in English? This is the English language section of Wikipedia, so let’s stick with English names. Wikipedia must conform to this and not allow personal feelings and POVs affect the articles. Wikipedia CANNOT be used to promote or popularise the wishes of a minority. By putting East Sea ahead of Sea of Japan on Korean articles, that is exactly what is happening. We are not here to fight the battle for the Koreans and promote their propaganda. Visviva states that the matter is controversial. Well, it is only controversial to Koreans, not the English speaking world. To the English speaking world, it is "Sea of Japan". There is no controversy in the English world, so why is it so difficult for Wikipedians to accept that?

I think everyone here can agree that the international name of the body of water is in fact, “Sea of Japan”. And since “Sea of Japan” is the international name, not “East Sea”, then by putting “East Sea” in front of “Sea of Japan” on any article, including Korean articles, it is totally point of view. I can’t see how anyone can argue that that isn’t POV. I guess that is why none of the “East Sea” supporters have tried. None of the other English online or offline encyclopaedias put East Sea in front of Sea of Japan. Why should Wikipedia? We aren’t here to fight for the Korean cause. We are here to report the facts. Simple mention of the dispute should be suffice.

So, since “East Sea” is the minority name of that body of water, it should be the supporters of that name who should be convincing the rest of us that East Sea belongs ahead of Sea of Japan, not the other way around. The minority should have to convince the majority to have the name changed. Right now, it is being done backwards. This needs to be rectified and soon. Masterhatch

I just wanted to mention that Britannica seems to follow a similar principle to my suggestion: in Korean contexts it is East Sea (Sea of Japan), elsewhere Sea of Japan (East Sea). Personally, I wouldn't go as far as mentioning East Sea in an article on Japan, EB think thaey should. I think that you seem to disagree with Visviva and myself on the issue of context dependency of the most-commonly used English term. As far as I can tell, we do not think much about why East Sea is used as an English word in Korean contexts, but the fact that it is. Kokiri 29 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

World Book and Art&Funkles encyclopedias use Sea of Japan with no reference to East Sea.

My question to Kokiri:

What is the reason you think Wikipedia should to use East Sea in any context?

Kojangee 29 June 2005, 22:39 Beijing Time

The reason is simple: in the context of Korea, East Sea is the most common English name of the sea. If we argue that this is because the government/netizens push this name (an act we may not agree with), then we've entered the realm of politics (POV). We do not have to ask why. I stick with my suggestion: [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] (Sea of Japan) for articles which are strictly about Korea (e.g. Korean cities and counties); [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea) for articles that touch Korea, but are not only about Korea, such as Korea Strait; and in all other cases [[Sea of Japan]]. Mentioning the other form once in brackets is, imho, a neat solution.

Having said all this, I really don't care that much. When writing the naming convention, we have attempted to interpret the Manual of Style for the Korean context, and came up with some sort of consensus. Personally, I'd love to soften this a bit—as outlined on this page.

Finally, I really wish to express my appreciation to everyone contributing to the messy discussion on this page. It might be long, nerve-wracking, and ((add your own negative qualifier here)), but at least we're not seeing another editwar on such trivial matters. Kokiri 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Some data points

As someone who's not previously been involved in this dispute and doesn't have any particular preference for either term, I thought I'd add a bit of data on English-language use.

The catalogues of the British Library and Library of Congress don't have any works on the "East Sea" dating back before about 2000 (the ones that do use that name appear to have been published by South Korean advocacy groups). However, there are works on the "Sea of Japan" that date back to 1905/1906, e.g. "The Battle of the Sea of Japan. By Captain N. Klado ... and numerous other officers ... An authorised translation from the Russian by J. H. Dickinson ... and F. P. Marchant. With numerous illustrations, maps, and plans." These are the earliest references that I've found, although I suspect that they probably go back a lot further.

I also checked a number of encyclopedias for references to the two names. "Sea of Japan" was universally used in dozens of articles, even for articles on Korean coastal cities. "East Sea" was only used in two articles in two encyclopedias, in each case as a disambiguation (i.e. "East Sea - see Sea of Japan"). The breakdown was as follows:

"Sea of Japan" used

Collins English Dictionary
The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Geography
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Penguin Encyclopedia of Places
The Columbia Encyclopedia
Philip's Encyclopedia
The Macmillan Encyclopedia
Crystal Reference Encyclopedia
The Hutchinson Encyclopedia
The Dictionary of Physical Geography
Concise Atlas of World History
CIA World Factbook
The Oxford Dictionary of English

"East Sea" used (but only as a disambiguation)

The Columbia Encyclopedia
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

So it looks like "Sea of Japan" is overwhelmingly the conventional term in English-language encyclopedias, even in articles relating to Korea. "East Sea" is not used in any meaningful way, and isn't even mentioned in most instances. In some respects this isn't surprising; until I was alerted to this dispute, I hadn't even heard of the term "East Sea"!

Hope this helps. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Thanks, this is surely helpful; but you merely state that the article Sea of Japan should be where it is at the moment. This is not disputed. What we're trying to find a consensus about here is how to refer to the sea in articles. Here you'll find that EB uses both names, with the order depending on the context. See my summary below. Kokiri 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I think you missed a point that I made... I found that "Sea of Japan" was used even for articles on Korean subjects. In other words, even in articles on Korean coastal cities - for instance Gangneung - the name used was "Sea of Japan", not "East Sea". "East Sea" was simply not used at all, even in a specifically Korean context. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)

you made some very good points ChrisO. Too bad East Sea supports refuse to recognise this. Sea of Japan is the most common way of referring to that body of water in all contexts from most reputable English lanuage sources. Masterhatch july 5th, 2005

Summary

I think we have two options for a conventions/consensus:

Either we accept that East Sea is the more common English name in Korea,
or we argue that despite the fact that many recent publications (in and about Korea) use East Sea almost exclusively (for government and Korean publications, less clear for other publications, but note Britannica, for example), the use of East Sea is not yet common enough to use it.

The former focuses more on recent publications, the latter more on what was published in the past. Have a look at Talk:Hangul for a similar discussion we had in the past (we decided to use Hangul and change the spelling when and if the new form is established).

As I see it, these are the implications of the two options.

We accept that East Sea is the most common name for the water in question in Korean contexts.
- This focuses on recent publications
- The use of a piped link [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] seems a good way to link.
1. We then have the task to delimit what we mean by Korean context (Korean cities and counties are probably a safe bet, but there will be blurry cases).
2. We probably should include (Sea of Japan) at the first mentioning.
3. Do we want to include (East Sea) after Sea of Japan in all other articles (like they do it at the EB)? (I reckon this is OTT)
4. Do we want to include (East Sea) after Sea of Japan in articles that affect Korea, but are not Korean-only (e.g. Korea Strait? (sounds reasonable)
We acknowledge the trend to use East Sea for the water in question in Korean contexts, but find that it is too early to reflect this in the Pedia.
- This focuses more on older publications
- This is certainly a more conservative approach: wait and see if East Sea really establishes itself.
1. We refer to the sea as Sea of Japan in all the contexts
2. We mention the name dispute in the Sea of Japan article (already the case).
3. Somebody with a great deal of patience will have to keep the nationalists happy… (i.e. revert changes and refer them to the naming convention).
4. In many years from now, we're open to change this, should East Sea really establish itself in Korean contexts.

In any case we should include our deliberations in the naming convention for future reference. If we can decide that this sumary is correct, then maybe we can vote? Kokiri 29 June 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Kokiri, I think you missed the point, even though you have stated it several times. The vast majority of publications that use "East Sea" are KOREAN publications in English, not English publications in English. This is called propaganda. Propaganda is POV. Wikipedia should not conform to propaganda by the Korean government. Until such time that the Korean government or other such propaganda groups convince the English speaking world (eg: the UN and majority of Countries) to use "East Sea", we must call that body of water by its English name. East Sea is NOT the English name. East Sea is what the Koreans want the name to be. What part of that can't you understand? quoting Korean sources in English means nothing as Korea is not an English speaking country. They are a Korean speaking country. In their own language, they can call that body of water whatever they want. No one is disputing that. In the English language sections of Wikipedia, East Sea should never come before Sea of Japan. The vast majority of English publications (by English speaking countries) conform to this. It is only the Korean publications in English that do not conform. As for your comment about keeping the Korean nationalists happy... That IS exactly the point here. It is the point of view of these Korean nationalists that want East Sea over Sea of Japan and someone has to keep Wikipedia NPOV. I am willing to do that. The Korean nationalists POV is totally POV and we can't allow that on Wiki. As stated before, if the official English name of the Sea of Japan changes to East Sea, then Wikipedia should and will conform to that. Until then, let's use English English, not Korean English. Here is a prime example (as first mentioned by Kojangee). In Korean, 'the USA is called 'Miguk', which means 'Beautiful Country'. You don't see English speakers trying to convince Koreans to change the name to 'Amelica' or anything else. Why? Because in Korean, Koreans can use whatever names they want. English should be the same way and a country with a differnt language shouldn't be able to force us to change the English language. They should be able to recommend a change, but not force a change. Masterhatch June 30th, 2005.

Is the Encyclopedia Britannica an organ of Korean propaganda, then? Even leaving that aside, although you're right that many "East Sea"-using publications are Korean in origin, most do not originate from the Korean government. That makes it less an issue of propaganda, and more one of genuine differences of usage. We should remember that English is an international language -- a fact to which, incidentally, you and I both owe our jobs. Hence, the English Wikipedia does not serve only the Anglophone world. -- Visviva 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Most don't originate from the Korean government? Ok, then will you agree that most publications that support East Sea originate from the combined group of The Korean government, The Korean Media, and Korean nationalists? That still sounds extremely POV to me. Yes, English is an international language and that is all the more reason to use "Sea of Japan" over "East Sea". Standardisation improves English as an International language. Fragmenting it does not. Masterhatch June 30th 2005

For my part, I think that's a good summary of the issues. Since consensus seems unlikely, I think we may as well move towards a vote. Perhaps it would be best to go along the lines of the Gdansk/Danzig vote, and break the options down by specific contexts (historical, cultural, geographic, Korean/Japanese, international, etc.). I'm short on time right now, but I'll try to post a draft sometime soon. Or someone else can, if they wanna. -- Visviva 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

A vote? So soon? Yes, it is a good summary of the issues, but still the supporters of East Sea have yet to show how East Sea is not POV. In fact, all that the supporters of East Sea have done is offer proposals without reasons. I don't think it is time for a vote quite yet. There actually has to be strong arguments on both sides before we come to a vote. And quoting the one Encyclopaedia that uses East Sea over Sea of Japan is not a valid reason. It is a mere example. If you want to talk examples from the English speaking world, the examples for Sea of Japan far out number the examples for East Sea. For a short list, see ChrisO's post. Besides, there aren't enough people discussing this to have a vote. There are only 6 people who have posted. Four of which support Sea of Japan and two of which support East Sea. If we have a vote now, what is to stop a bunch of Korean Nationalists from getting together and putting up a bunch of votes for East Sea without contributing to the discussion? Also, what is there to stop people from creating alternate IDs to sway the vote in their favour? IF we are to have a vote, it should be amongst the people who actually seem to have an interest in making their point known. So far, that is only 6 people, which is by far not enough. Masterhatch June 30th 2005

I agree that it is too early to vote. We can vote on a specific proposal (such as my summary), if we (those who discuss) agree that it reflects the issue—not before that. I think that Talk:Gdansk/Vote and Talk:Hangul serve as important pointers as to how we should react here. If I get you right, you make a distinction between English publications originating from Korea and English publications originating from the native Anglo-Saxon world. In this sense I think you've entered the dangerous realm of politics. Kokiri 30 June 2005 08:52 (UTC)

My point is that Koreans are publishing "East Sea" in English to popularise that name knowing full well that the international community calls it "Sea of Japan". They are trying to publish the name "East Sea" in English as much as they can to try to give it equal weight with "Sea of Japan". They have every right to do that in their POV in Korean-English publications. The English language section of Wikipedia is NOT a POV Korean-English publication. The fact remains that "Sea of Japan" is the standard in English, not "East Sea" and Wikipedia should reflect that. The UN and vast majority of countries, English speaking or otherwise, will attest to that. Masterhatch June 30th 2005.

Enough with the proposals

No more regurgitated proposals, please. Supporters of the East Sea are only offering proposals without reasons. Give us some reasons and we might be able to take your side seriously. Supporters of the Sea of Japan have given countless reasons for their cause while East Sea supporters only give proposals and quote what Koreans want. Kokiri, in one of your posts, you said: ”The reason is simple: in the context of Korea, East Sea is the most common English name of the sea. If we argue that this is because the government/netizens push this name (an act we may not agree with), then we've entered the realm of politics (POV). We do not have to ask why.” First off, we NEED to ask why. Why? Because the name “East Sea” stems from Korean, not English. We have to ask WHY is the name East Sea being used in English contexts. We can’t ignore that very important question. The answer to that question is simple. Korean nationalists are trying to change the English language to support their cause. Wikipedia is NOT the place to do that. We must recognise this and not ignore it. A very POV group is pushing for this change and doing it all wrong. Going around and changing all the Sea of Japans on the net to East Seas is not the way to promote their cause. It becomes a double edged sword. If this minority group goes around and makes enough changes on the net and if Korea pushes out enough propaganda, then they all point to THEIR changes and say “Look!! Look at all the sites on the net and literature that support us!! We must be right.” This doesn’t work because it is a shallow argument. For example, if I wanted to have the name of New York changed back to New Amsterdam, I could get a bunch of people who support me and go around changing all the sites to my POV. Do it enough times and you get what is happening with the Sea of Japan right now. I could argue that the English imperialists were oppressors of the Dutch and therefore we should go back to the original name. Of course this is all bulls**t and not a great example, but it is along the same lines. Just because a few minority groups say so, doesn’t mean it is right. Now, I have four questions that have not been answered that need answering.

Why should the name be East Sea and not Sea of Japan on Wikipedia on Korean subjects? If you respond by saying that the majority of writings in English support this, then you haven’t read a thing I wrote and you should re-think what POV actually means. The Korean nationalists are writing that propaganda. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine.

Why should Wikipedia support the POV of a minority over the established and official name (according to the UN and the vast majority of countries, English speaking or not)?

What is wrong with using the internationally recognised name of “Sea of Japan” in all English articles considering that this is the English language section of Wikipedia?

How can it be justified putting East Sea in front of Sea of Japan in ANY context?

As for thanking me about not having an edit war, all I will say is that I haven’t started an edit war for two reasons. One, it will solve nothing and only make people pissed off. Second, I know that cooler heads will prevail and I know that there are ZERO strong arguments for calling it East Sea in the English language section of Wikipedia, so it is a matter of time before things will be set right (again). I must also tell a little about myself. I am from Canada, but I am teaching English in South Korea and I have been here since January 2002. I don’t hate South Korea and I don’t visit foreigner chat rooms about Korea, not even Dave’s ESL Café (those chat rooms are too negative for my tastes). I actually love it here in Korea and I will be here for a long time. I personally don’t favour either Sea of Japan or East Sea. But I do favour what the International community calls it. Right now, that is Sea of Japan and until that changes, I will support Sea of Japan. I love South Korea, but I am not blind to the ignorance and propaganda here. Masterhatch

Rereading my post, I realised that the way I started the above block of text was rather rude. I apologise as it was not meant to sound that way. I guess I was in a hurry in my typing. I meant to say you're welcome and that I appreciate you working with me on this matter. Sorry about that Kokiri. Masterhatch June 30th, 2005.

I think they reason of why East Sea is so common in Korean contexts is irrelevant. What is, imho, relevant, is that this is the case. I think the only valid argument for East Sea, but I think a powerful one, is the fact that in Korea-related English publications today East Sea seems to be standard. I thought that I catered for your position (which may prevail in the end) in the second point of my summary—as long as you can leave the political bits out. I'm just not passionate enough about this topic, I'm just trying to help finding a consensus/convention. Kokiri 30 June 2005 08:52 (UTC)

The reason why is relevant. The reason "East Sea" occurs so often in Korean written English contexts is because various Korean groups are trying to push their POV. The motives are clear. They want the name changed and they are doing everything they can to change it. We here on Wikipedia are not out to fight their battle for them. Wikipedia is not a battle ground for International name changes. We should merely reflect the "official" names in English and not put POV names at equal or greater weight to the official ones. This includes putting East Sea in front of Sea of Japan on Korean pages. As I have mentioned before, I see no problem with using "East Sea" instead of "Sea of Japan" for certain cultural and historical references as long as it is completely clear to the reader that "East Sea" means "Sea of Japan". There is no way anyone can logically argue to put "East Sea" in front of (or in replacement of) "Sea of Japan" on geographical sections. That is essentially my point. Masterhatch June 30th 2005

I'm afraid I don't get your point. The Manual of Style states that we should use the most common English name (not the"official" one)—something reflected in our use of South Korea rather than Republic of Korea. Is it possible for you to detach yourself from political views, and contribute to a good summary of the issue/proposals for a naming convention? Otherwise we'll be discussing this issue ad infinitum.

I think we all agree on the following:

We should have a consistent naming convention
We should ensure that the conention is clear
We do not propagate uncommon terms as the norm

I think we disagree on the following:

That a naming convention can be context dependent (like in the Gdansk/Danzig case)
Whether we should discuss (at all) if East Sea is the most common English form to refer to the water in Korean contexts, because of the way this change has occurred.

If we all detach ourselves from our political views (which we all hold), and we accept context dependency, then we can move on and vote on something along the line of my summary above. If not, either we'll have no convention, or we find somebody happy enough to enforce a uniform Sea of Japan policy (which will probably burn out somebody). I probably missed some further possible outcomes… Kokiri 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Three and a half out of five isnt' bad. We are actually getting somewhere.

I agree: "We should have a consistent naming convention".
I agree: "We should ensure that the conention is clear".
I agree: "We do not propagate uncommon terms as the norm".
I agree (to a certain extent): "That a naming convention can be context dependent (like in the Gdansk/Danzig case)".
I disagree: "Whether we should discuss (at all) if East Sea is the most common English form to refer to the water in Korean contexts, because of the way this change has occurred". The way I see it, how the name East Sea is being propagated is very political. Therefore I feel that it has a very strong bearing on this matter and it must be pointed out that it is political motivation and totally POV that is putting East Sea ahead of Sea of Japan in numerous Korean-English articles; aka political propaganda.

As for your fourth point, I agree that in certain contexts, there is no problem using East Sea instead of Sea of Japan. I have said this all along. Those contexts are historical and cultural ones. I, nor anyone else, can argue using East Sea is wrong in referring to Korean culture and history. It's not wrong because it is Korean history and culture. My biggest problem lies with geographical references. Geographically, to the English speaking world, it is Sea of Japan, not East Sea. Throughout the world (both English speaking and not), that body of water, geographically, is Sea of Japan. Wikipedia should reflect this. Culturally and historically, it can be East Sea (as long as the reader knows that East Sea = Sea of Japan, as per the point you made with your point number two).

As for the MoS, the most common English name is Sea of Japan everywhere except Korean publications, which are mostly published by the Korean government, Korean media, and other Korean groups pushing for change (which is politically motivated, I might add, and isnt' that what we are trying to avoid?).

I will offer my proposal for a naming convention:

For all International and Japanese pages on Wikipedia, the body of water separating Japan and Korea is to be referred to as “Sea of Japan”. For all Korean pages in reference to geography, said body of water will be referred to as “Sea of Japan” (East Sea). Cultural and historical sections on Korean pages may refer to the body of water as East Sea, provided it is clear to the reader that “East Sea” refers to the “Sea of Japan”. Use a piped link if necessary.

MasterhatchJune 30th, 2005

Cool. Can you maybe provide a few articles (links) where you think the sea is used in a cultural/historic section, and a few where it is geographical. It's just that I want to ensure we're talking about the same thing. Kokiri 30 June 2005 21:53 (UTC)

Another Summary

We accept that East Sea is the most common name for the water in question in Korean contexts.
- This focuses on recent publications
- The use of a piped link [[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] seems a good way to link.
1. We then have the task to delimit what we mean by Korean context (Korean cities and counties are probably a safe bet, but there will be blurry cases).
2. We probably should include (Sea of Japan) at the first mentioning.
3. We probably do not want to include (East Sea) after Sea of Japan in all other articles (like they do it at the EB).
4. We probably want to include (East Sea) after Sea of Japan in articles that affect Korea, but are not Korean-only (e.g. Korea Strait.
We acknowledge the trend to use East Sea for the water in question in Korean contexts, but find that it is too early to reflect this in the Pedia.
- This focuses more on older publications
- This is certainly a more conservative approach: wait and see if East Sea really establishes itself.
1. We refer to the sea as Sea of Japan in all the contexts
2. We mention the name dispute in the Sea of Japan article (already the case).
3. Somebody with a great deal of patience will have to keep the nationalists happy… (i.e. revert changes and refer them to the naming convention).
4. In many years from now, we're open to change this, should East Sea really establish itself in Korean contexts.
We acknowledge the trend to use East Sea for the water in question in Korean contexts, but find that this is Korean propaganda and wish not to take sides.
1. We refer to the sea as Sea of Japan in all the contexts
2. We add (East Sea) in Korean contexts
3. We mention the name dispute in the Sea of Japan article (already the case).

What do you think? With a little work (details), I think we can have a vote on this… Kokiri 30 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

I do not deny that East Sea is the most common way of publishing the name in Korean-English publications. My problem is that a lot of it is ill-informed propaganda. I will give a perfect example of this. Professor Shin Kim of Kyunghee University wrote an article on the net that is full of half truths, lies, and misinformation. He also uses logical fallacy to claim that the name “Sea of Japan” actually means that the sea ‘’belongs’’ to Japan. His article is the perfect example of the garbage and propaganda being spewed on the net (and other places) and is why I am so determined to have it rectified. The public is being misinformed and we cannot let Wikipedia fall into that trap.

http://www.eastsea.org/article/report1.htm

Because of so many of the recent publications are based on misinformation, they are not as reliable as much of the older ones from reputable sources.

Your reference to “keeping the Korean nationalists happy” is another reason to use Sea of Japan. They are trying to inflict their point of view by forcing the rest of us to conform to what they want. Why should Wikipedia bow down to this minority POV group just to avoid a fight? Wikipedia should not have to keep the nationalists happy.

Taking a conservative approach right now is probably the best because Wikipedia is not a medium for new-age change. It is simply a medium of reporting facts. If Korea becomes successful in changing the world view to East Sea, then Wikipedia will gladly reflect that.

I have been looking for a reference to East Sea in Korean articles that doesn’t come under the heading “Geography” that could fit the billing of cultural or historical. I am running short on time as I have to head to work soon, but when I get home, I will further my search. There are a lot of Korean articles to sift through. If you happen to run across a reference that is historical or cultural, mention it and it can be discussed. As for the places where the headings are geographically related (such as “Geography of South Korea”), Sea of Japan should take precidence because geography should use the names familiar to English speakers and fit the MoS that says the most common name is to be used. No one can question that throughout the world (English speaking or not) and the UN, geographically speaking, Sea of Japan is by far the most common and prominent named used. Masterhatch July 1st (Canada Day) 2005.

So, why are we even including East Sea at all? Can someone explain this to me? If someone gives me a logical reason why East Sea should be used on any of the English pages, I will fold my cards and walk away from the table.

And, what do we mean by 'Korean context'? Are we saying that articles written about the two Koreas are 'Korean context'? That makes no sense because these are English articles and for English speakers to come to a Korean article only to find East Sea without reference to the Sea of Japan is misleading and false. The name of the sea is not East Sea in English. The name of the sea is the Sea of Japan. Period. Full stop. I'm bending over backwards even with my marginal support of East Sea to be placed in brackets after the official name.

If the supporters of using East Sea cannot explain why it should be used in Korean contexts (whatever that's supposed to mean) then I say stick with the original MoS and use the recognized name. Kojangee July 1st, 2005 15:32 Beijing Time

Honestly, Kojangee, I agree with you 100%, but a compromise needs to be formulated at some point in time, otherwise we will be discussing this on these pages from here to the end of time. I know that it makes no logical sense to include East Sea anywhere except to mention the dispute, but unfortuately, removing the name completely wouldn't fly. I have offered a compromise by softening my stance to allow "East Sea" without Sea of Japan for cultural and historical references as long as the readers know that East Sea = Sea of Japan. I think that this is a very fair compromise. But, to my dismay, the East Sea supporters have not budged an inch. My suggestion actually meets half way, which is a lot. Still, the East Sea supporters won't budge and they still haven't answered all of my "four" questions that I posed earlier. I guess can't. Masterhatch July 1st 2005

The propagation of the term "East Sea" may well be "propaganda", but it's not up to us to rule it in or out on that basis alone. The NPOV policy does not say that articles have to be free of bias. It's subtler than that; I quote: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate." So just because one party thinks the use of the term is illegitimate, that does not mean that Wikipedia has to be bound by that view.

Equally, if "East Sea" is widely used within Korea, we would be endorsing the opposite POV if we ruled out its use altogether. But we do need to recognise the fact that the term appears to be widely used only in a specifically Korean context.

The best compromise, I think, would be to use "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" in articles about Korea, and use "Sea of Japan" exclusively in all other instances except the Sea of Japan article. -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Your compromise is what the current naming convention holds true. In the current naming convention, for all sites non-Korea related, it is Sea of Japan (without need to mention East Sea). In all Korean related sites, it is "East Sea (Sea of Japan)". Personally, I feel that at no point in time should East Sea come before or instead of Sea of Japan on any article, but I am willing to compromise and say that all geographical references on Korean sites should be "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and historical and cultural references about Korea could be simply East Sea, with or without Sea of Japan in brackets (so as long as the reader knows that they are the same body of water). Since it is a fact that East Sea is so widely used in Korea (for whatever or however the reasons), it should be mentioned on Korean articles and never left out. I guess one of the biggest problems is that why should the unofficial and least common name world-wide be put behind the official and most common name worldwide in a geographical section? This makes no sense. So, if we take the compromise you suggest, we will literally be back at square one and the last two weeks would have meant nothing. A compromise needs to be found and going back to the beginning is not a compromise, it is a one-sided victory; a victory by a side that has put forth no strong arguments for their case; a side that continually spouts out "But Koreans use East Sea in their publications all the time". As I have pointed out (and offered a weblink to) many of the publications are propaganda based on misinformation. As for endorsing the opposite POV, well the opposite POV is the most common and official world-wide, including the UN. That doesn't sound very POV to me. Masterhatch July 1st 2005

Rather than repeating ourselves time and time again, can I ask everyone to state whether they think my Another Summary includes the disputed positions or not. One word should be enough. Kokiri 1 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Yes. Kokiri 1 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)
No. Because it is missing my latest suggestion that allows East Sea ahead of Sea of Japan for cultural and historical references in Korea and Sea of Japan ahead of East Sea for geographical references. Masterhatch July 1st 2005
Not quite, as Masterhatch says. Thank you very much for your efforts, however. If we do get around to a vote, I really think that breaking this down by contexts, with a two-way vote in each context, would be the best way to go. -- Visviva 3 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Masterhatch's summary of the dispute

I have re-read everything (again) and I am attempting to summarise the dispute.

East Sea Supporters

Here is a summary of the points made by East Sea supporters to favour East Sea over Sea of Japan (I am sure I have missed a few points, but the basics are here).

In Korean contexts, it is best to use Korean names.
The name is currently being disputed by Korea. A One-Size-Fits-All name won’t work.
In Korean contexts, it is POV to use Sea of Japan.
The South Korean government and some netizen groups are make a great effort to ensure East Sea is used.
In Korean English, East Sea is most common.
The term East Sea is becoming more common (a trend if you will).
The on-line Encyclopaedia Britannica puts East Sea ahead of Sea of Japan.
How the name East Sea is being propagated doesn’t matter; simply the fact that it is matters.
The Korean Nationalists must be kept happy.

Sea of Japan Supporters

Here is a summary of the points made by Sea of Japan supporters to favour Sea of Japan (I am sure I missed a few points, but the basics are here).

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

What is agreed and disagreed Upon

Despite all these differences, the two sides do actually agree on a few things.

For international and Japanese pages, there is no need to use East Sea, only Sea of Japan.
For the Yellow Sea and South China Sea, there is no need for the Korean names.
A One-Name-Fits-All won’t work and a clear naming convention is needed.
Uncommon names aren’t propagated as the norm.
To a certain degree, names can be context dependant.
There is a need for the average reader to be informed of the name dispute.

Now for the differences: East Sea supporters want East Sea to come before Sea of Japan on all Korean articles. Sea of Japan supporters want Sea of Japan to come before East Sea on all Korean articles.

This discussion has intensified over the last three weeks. The Sea of Japan supporters have been pushing to have the name changed to conform with the MoS and the most common and official usage in English. The East Sea supporters have been requesting status quo because East Sea is the most common way of referring to Sea of Japan in Korean English.

Unanswered Questions

I have repeatedly asked for answers to some questions and I am still waiting. I will ask some of my questions again in hopes for a response.

I would like to know why the unofficial and least common name should come before the official and most common name in English. Remember, this is the English language section of Wikipedia, not the Korean English language section.
Why do East Sea supporters continue to mention that East Sea is the most common name in Korean English when we on Wikipedia are looking for the most common name in English (as per the MoS)?
Why should Wikipedia support the POV of a minority?
Why should Wikipedia try to make Korean Nationalists happy by conforming to their POV when it is obviously the minority?
What is actually wrong with putting Sea of Japan ahead of East Sea on this, the English language section of Wikipedia?
There is no controversy over the name in the English speaking world, so why is there on Wikipedia?

I would love to have a vote on this matter, but unfortunately, there aren’t enough people discussing this. Other pages with disputes have various points of view from various and numerous people. Only six people have put input into this. Three support Sea of Japan and two support East Sea. One poster seems in the middle. To have a bunch of people come and vote without partaking in the discussion would be unfair to both sides. Another beef about having a vote is the stance that the East Sea supporters are taking. They continue to just put up the same regurgitated proposals without giving any reasons (other than East Sea is most common in Korean English). I really want East Sea supporters to put up their reasons and answer some very important questions. Masterhatch July third, 2005.

OK, I think we've gone over all of this before, but I'll lay out the two key arguments for the East Sea usage, as I see them:

1. The argument from frequency. Kokiri has made this argument quite clearly above. In Korean contexts -- not limited to either government or nationalist usage -- East Sea is more common in English. This point might be disputable, but I haven't seen anyone dispute it so far. Thus, by the most-common-name principle, East Sea should be preferred.

2. The argument from neutrality. There is a very active dispute about the proper name for this body of water. Accordingly, it would be grotesquely POV of Wikipedia to favor one name to the exclusion of the other. The Korean POV is neither more nor less valid than any other POV. Thus, by the NPOV principle, we should look for a sensitive compromise that recognizes both sides of the dispute: the piped-link-and-parentheses solution does this admirably.

I must say I'm surprised by the strength of feelings shown by the "Sea of Japan" supporters. I had no idea that my fellow Westerners were so attached to this name. All the same, I don't think we should go into a dispute like this presuming one or the other name to be correct. As Masterhatch mentioned above, the question is not what the world should call this body of water, only what Wikipedia should call it. -- Visviva 4 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Your agrument of frequency doesn't hold water. You said no one has disputed this. I have done nothing but dispute this. In the English language, it is still more common to put Sea of Japan in front of East Sea. Only in Korean English articles does East Sea come before Sea of Japan more frequently. I am not a fan of the "Google" test, but I have done one nonetheless.

Google test: "East Sea"-Wikipedia = 104 000 hits.
Google test: "Sea of Japan"-Wikipedia = 178 000 hits.
Yahoo! test: "East Sea"-Wikipedia = 74 600 hits.
Yahoo! test: "Sea of Japan"-Wikipedia = 178 000 hits.

The vast majority of encyclopeadias and maps in English support Sea of Japan over East Sea in all contexts. Korean publications continue to put East Sea in front of Sea of Japan and there is a student body called Voluntary Agency Network of Korea that is emailing every English publication that uses Sea of Japan and demanding that they change the name on the maps and publications. Many English publications are fed up with constantly being harassed and have given in by adding (East Sea) after Sea of Japan just to shut them up and avoid their servers from continually being flooded. This sounds like propaganda to me. Should Wikipedia give in and allow East Sea in front of Sea of Japan just because of the POV of Koreans? Many English publications are compromising by putting East Sea behind Sea of Japan. As much as I hate to "give in" to this propaganda, I feel that allowing East Sea behind Sea of Japan is a fair compromise.

You said, "The argument from neutrality. There is a very active dispute about the proper name for this body of water." First of all, is it neutral to put East Sea in front of Sea of Japan? No it isn't. It is the POV of a minority to do so. Is it neutral to put Sea of Japan in front of East Sea? In the English language, yes it is. The Koreans are doing it all backwards. If they really want a neutral name, they should be pushing for a neutral name, such as "Oriental Sea". That is neutral. But we here on Wikipedia aren't trying to come up with alternative names for the body of water. Secondly, there is no dispute of the name Sea of Japan in English. The Koreans are trying to create a dispute to serve their own ends. Their dispute needs to be taken up with the UN, not Wikipedia. If the UN agrees to change the name or give East Sea equal weight with Sea of Japan, then Wikipedia will reflect that. Until then, only the fact that there is a dispute needs to be mentioned. Secondly, you said, "Accordingly, it would be grotesquely POV of Wikipedia to favor one name to the exclusion of the other." So, it is grotesquely POV of Wikipedia to favour one name over the other? Then why are you trying to favour East Sea over the Sea of Japan? Besides, the Sea of Japan supporters are not trying to exclude East Sea. We recognise that there is a dispute and we have no problem mentioning it. Our problem lies with the fact that the least common and unofficial name should not come before the most common and official one. You also said, "Thus, by the NPOV principle, we should look for a sensitive compromise that recognizes both sides of the dispute..." How is East Sea sensitive to Japan when to Japan it is west and Russia when it is south? Putting East Sea behind SEa of Japan is sensitive to the fact that there is a dispute. Excluding East Sea is insensitive. We are not trying to exclude East Sea.

By the way, I am still waiting for answers to my questions. Masterhatch July 4th, 2005

As for frequency, the question is not term which is more common globally (that is currently "Sea of Japan", as we know). The question is which term is more common in Korean contexts, regardless of the writer's nationality. Interestingly, the ratios change dramatically if one adds a keyword that is generally restricted to Korean contexts. For example, Google gives 3,670 hits for "east sea" busan -wikipedia, but only 589 for "sea of japan" busan -wikipedia. Similarly Google yields 1,240 hits for "east sea" pohang -wikipedia, vs. only 505 for "sea of japan" in that context.

In any event, English is English, whether the speaker/writer is Korean, Japanese, or Canadian. Let's not take the native-speaker franchise too far.

Your questions are framed in such a way as to make them rather difficult to answer, however I will do my best.

1. The question under discussion here is specifically how the body of water should be referred to in Korean contexts. Therefore, usage in Korean contexts is relevant. No one is talking about "Korean English," whatever that is.

2. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, even when one POV is held by the majority. See WP:NPOV. This is always a balancing act, but it makes sense to give a bit more weight to the Korean POV in Korean contexts.

3. I can't imagine that any decision we reach will satisfy Korean nationalists. However, successfully maintaining neutrality may reduce POV vandalism somewhat, which is always nice.

4. To use one name without regard for context, is to blatantly support one side of a very real, ongoing dispute. That is not neutral.

5. English is an international language. Many people who speak English, including Japanese and Korean people as well as you, are very animated about this issue. It is disingenuous at best to exclude English-speaking people of Korean ethnicity from the "English-speaking world." -- Visviva 4 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. I guess you can see why I hate using the Google test. Basically, one could play around with Google entries all day to get a hundred different results. I just finished playing with another Google test and I am sure that you could easily come up with ten dozen different ways on Google to get results that favour East Sea (BTW, I exclude "Wikipedia" on all my searches).

Encyclopedia Korea "Sea of Japan" –wikipedia: 8920 hits.
Encyclopedia Korea "East Sea" –wikipedia: 681 hits.
Geography Korea "Sea of Japan" –wikipedia: 14 500 hits.
Geography Korea "East Sea" –wikipedia: 5230 hits.

My findings on Google suggest that for geographical and encyclopaedia references about Korea, Sea of Japan is more common than East Sea in English. Your findings suggest that East Sea is more common on Korean pages written in English about specific places (Such as Busan). I have never actually doubted or disputed that. I have also said that I have no problem if East Sea is used in certain historical and cultural references about Korea. It is the geographical references that I have a problem with East Sea coming before Sea of Japan. My dispute (as Google seems to agree with me) is that for geographical references, Sea of Japan is more common in English on most of the major encyclopaedias and maps about Korea. Since the majority of reputable English encyclopaedias and maps use Sea of Japan in front of East Sea (many still don’t even include East Sea) even in Korean contexts, shouldn’t we on Wikipedia do that too?

Our philosophical differences on the word context are just too different. I still think that since the majority of the English speaking (and non-English speaking) world uses Sea of Japan even in Korean contexts, it is not wrong to put East Sea behind Sea of Japan on Korean articles in Wikipedia. You obviously see it quite different. You are giving a huge weight to English articles published in Korea. I am giving weight to articles published world over about Korea. Most major encyclopaedias and maps consider it a fair compromise to put Sea of Japan (East Sea) on Korean articles. I agree and that is the stance Wikipedia should take until such time that Korea convinces the UN to give East Sea equal or greater weight to Sea of Japan. Masterhatch July 4th, 2005.

I want to respond to Visvisa's answers to Masterhatch's questions. I think a few points of clarifications are in order.

1. You mention "Korean context" time and time again. What do you mean? Give us an example of your definition of an article written in a Korean context.

2. Again, you are talking about "Korean contexts", but you have never given us a clear example.

3. And adding "East Sea" is not POV? Not only do you want to add "East Sea", but make it the primary name on Korean articles. How more POV can you be? That's the Korean POV. Last time I checked, 2 countries out of 200 or so isn't a majority.

4. Again you mention context, yet fail to give an example.

5. A quote from Visvisa:

It is disingenuous at best to exclude English-speaking people of Korean ethnicity from the "English-speaking world." -Visvisa

Using your logic, it is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of Chinese ethnicity, including over a million ethnic Koreans within China, whom call the sea "The Japanese Sea". It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of Russian ethnicity, It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of Mongolian ethnicity, It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of Spanish ethnicity, It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of French ethnicity, It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of African ethnicity, It is also disingenuous to exclude English-speaking people of Malaysian ethnicity. What's your point? By including the Korean POV and excluding every other nation on the planet, who is the one truly being disingenuous?

I have two questions:

1. What is the logic behind using East Sea instead of Sea of Japan?

2. What do you mean by "Korean context"?

Kojangee July 5th, 2005 08:09 Beijing Time)

I'm glad we agree that all viewpoints should be respected here. Of course, Wikipedia works by consensus and neutrality, not by majority rule, so the fact that the name is only disputed by 1 or 2 countries out of 200 (most of whom couldn't care less) is irrelevant.

1. The logic is based on the arguments of frequency and neutrality (particularly neutrality in my view) outlined above. Note, however, that no one is suggesting excluding "Sea of Japan" from any articles. It would be included for clarification, just as East Sea (of Korea) would be included in Korean contexts if Sea of Japan is primary.

2. You can find more than a thousand Korean-context articles in the List of Korea-related topics. Relevant examples include Busan, South Gyeongsang, South Korea, North Korea, Chongjin, Ulleung County, etc. -- Visviva 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

I assume that Kojangee meant Korean context outside of Wikipedia, but I could be wrong. In Korean context in Wikipedia, yes, East Sea comes before of Sea of Japan; that is what we are trying to change. If Kojangee meant Korean context about Korea outside of Wikipedia (I am pretty sure that is what he meant, but I can't speak for him), then I think what he meant was that two countries use East Sea before Sea of Japan and 200 use Sea of Japan before East Sea on Korean articles. Kojangee, correct me if I misinterpreted your meaning.

My thoughts still state that since the majority of reputable sources put Sea of Japan in front of East Sea even on Korean articles in English, then Wikipedia should do the same. The majority of English textbooks, encyclopaedias, maps, and other official publications still put Sea of Japan in front of East Sea even on Korean context articles. Wikipedia should be no different if it wants to avoid being POV. The fact the Koreans are publishing "East Sea" as much as they can and everywhere (see my previous posts on propaganda) they can is irrelevant in the English language and will only become relevant if they are successful in convincing the UN to change the name. I believe that as long as Koreans continue to push a POV name such as East Sea on the UN, the name will never change. When the Koreans are willing to adopt a truly neutral name, such as "Oriental Sea", then the UN might listen. Until then, Wikipedia should conform to the majority of reputable English writings, the UN, the majority of countries (English speaking or otherwise), the most commonly used name, and the most recognisable name. Sea of Japan is the NPOV of the vast majority of the world both English speaking and not, even on Korean articles. Masterhatch July 5th 2005

Contexts

OK, let's hash this out. I have broken the options down by contexts. Hopefully this will help to clarify where we agree and disagree. Is this list complete? Please comment.

Before contributing, please review some of the older discussions.

The Debate Continues: Sea of Japan vs. East Sea

For my part, based on the reasons outlined above, I support 1. A 2. A 3. B 4. B. -- Visviva 5 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

For context (1) I support A.
For context (2) I support C as it is currently worded. If the wording was to change especially to only, I might consider A.
For context (3) I support A.
For context (4) I am willing to support B. I have a better example than Usan-guk for this context. Provinces of Korea under the heading "Provinces of Goryeo" there is a reference to East Sea that is in historical context. The wall was built to the East Sea (Sea of Japan) over a thousand years ago and as long as the reader understands that East Sea = Sea of Japan, then I see no problem with that. For a similar example, see User talk:Masterhatch under the heading Sea of Japan/East Sea. Masterhatch July 5th 2005

Thanks for your thoughts. I have revised the list based on your input. It appears, then, that at least the two of us are in agreement on (1), use "Sea of Japan" only in multi/inter-national contexts, and (4), use "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" in Korean historical/cultural contexts. We might also be in agreement on (2) -- I'll await your further consideration. That leaves only (3), Korean geographical contexts. Unfortunately there are a lot of these, and as I recall this is where the current dispute began. Hmm... well, some progress anyway. -- Visviva 6 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)

What i really want is this: Context 1: Sea of Japan. Context 2: Sea of Japan. Context 3: Sea of Japan. Context 4: Sea of Japan (East Sea). Why do I want this? Because Sea of Japan is the most common name, most recognised name, and official name even in Korean contexts in the English language in reputable sources and the unofficial and least common name should never come before the most common and official name. I like to think of Wikipedia as a reputable source. The name East Sea is being spread using ill-informed, misleading, and forceful tactics by the Koreans. They are trying to change the English language to suit their point of view, which is something that I disagree with and that is why I am so opposed to East Sea coming in front of Sea of Japan. It has nothing to with my love or hate for Korea or my love or hate for Japan. My motives are not political either. The Koreans are professing that East Sea is a neutral name. It could be construed that East Sea is no more or less neutral than Sea of Japan. The biggest difference is that Sea of Japan is considered neutral by the English speaking world and East Sea is considered POV by the English speaking world as a whole. The vast majority of English speakers, there is no dispute. So, why is there a dispute on Wikipedia? To keep the Korean nationalists happy? That is a pretty poor reason. As I have said, I am strongly opposed to East Sea because of the Korean tactics (see my propaganda posts above) used to proliferate the name. If they would just go through the proper channels through the UN and other naming bodies to have the name changed, then they would get more sympathy from me and the rest of the English speaking world.

But of course, I can’t have my cake and eat it too. A compromise has to be formed at some point in time.

Context 1: A.
Context 2: A (very very reluctantly I choose A. I feel there is no need to mention East Sea in these contexts, but like I said, I can’t have my cake and eat it too).
Context 3: A (Geographically, there is no way East Sea should come before Sea of Japan, but a need to mention the dispute does exist. Putting East Sea in brackets is the best way to do this. The vast majority of English maps and encyclopaedias agree that this is the best compromose even in Korean contexts. Wikipedia should follow their examples).
Context 4: B (only because a compromise needs to come from somewhere that I choose B. I am bending over backwards with this one in attempts to reach a compromise).

We're getting there. My view 1A 2A 3B 4B, largely because that's what we're currently doing. Kokiri 6 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

On a different note, I think we all agree that the mentioning of the alternative form only is needed once. Kokiri 6 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Yes. Masterhatch July 7th 2005

Is it also save to assume that we can substitute East Sea for East Sea of Korea when it comes to North Korea? Kokiri 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Yes. Masterhatch July 7th 2005

By way of severe compromise, I support using 1B,2A,3A,4A, being consistant for all articles. I think we should be consistant. To flip things around depending on the article will be confusing to many junior readers doing their homework, etc. Using Sea of Japan and East Sea following in brackets will basically say Sea of Japan is the official name and Sea of Korea is the disputed name and that there is an on-going dispute with the two Koreas wanting a change. I'm finished arguing, hence the little compromise. Kojangee July 7th, 2005 09:45 (Beijing Time)

Mountain out of mole-hill

I want to delete Sea of Japan, because it's not frequently mentioned in English-language publications, except in the context of the naming dispute!

We have 20 to 100 times as much info about the dispute - including disputes over how to characterize the dispute - than about the water itself.

I've got better things to do with my time, much as I love Japanese and Korean people. This is beyond ridiculous.

If Admiral Yi built ships on the "coast of the East Sea" then call it East Sea in that context. When is it mentioned elsewhere? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you Uncle Ed. "If Admiral Yi built ships on the 'coast of the East Sea'", that is a cultural and historial reference and I see no problem with calling it East Sea there. When is it mentioned elsewhere? Specifically geographic sections. Sea of Japan is the official, most common, and most recognised name for that body of water in English, so therefore, Sea of Japan must come before East Sea. Otherwise, it is putting the POV of a minority above the current standard in English. Masterhatch July 6th, 2005

I sympathize with those remarks, good uncle. It may interest you (and then again it may not) to learn that only one participant in this discussion is Japanese and none are Korean -- unless I'm much mistaken. Would that we could just get back to editing. Still, this is not an entirely trivial issue, especially when it comes to Korean geography. It requires a reasoned resolution. -- Visviva 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

I think I'm completely unbiased on this:

I speak English
I love Japan.
I love Korea.

And I just know was googling to determine the distance from the shores of South Korea to the South China Sea, when I found this map:

[2]

Sorry, but that adds another name to the mix. And I didn't even notice the caption until I zoomed in from the thumbnail.

By the way, do we have to say that Korea borders on the SC Sea? It seems like you'd have to sail past Taiwan to get there. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Maybe we can drink the sea empty? ;) Kokiri 6 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea

Over the last month the discussion over the name of the body of water that separates Japan, Russia, and the Koreas has intensified. The Sea of Japan supporters have claimed that the current naming convention is POV and goes against the idea that the most common English name should be used on Wikipedian articles. East Sea supporters have claimed that the current naming conventions are NPOV and they say that East Sea is the most common in English in Korean contexts, and therefore the naming convention should remain unchanged. It must be noted that there is no dispute about using "Sea of Japan" in Japanese and international contexts and there is no dispute about using "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in Korean/Japanese contexts. It is also agreed upon that "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" is to be used in Korean cultural and historical references. The dispute is solely about what it should be called in Korean geographical contexts.

The biggest argument by East Sea supporters appears to be "East Sea is the most common way of referring to that body of water in Korean contexts; therefore it should be 'East Sea (Sea of Japan)' in geographical references."

As it has been pointed out in earlier discussions, almost exclusively in Korean publications in English is East Sea more common than Sea of Japan. The vast majority of English publications outside of Korea still put Sea of Japan in front of East Sea even in Korean contexts. A quick look through various English encyclopaedias and other reputable sources support this (See the post made by ChrisO on June 29th 2005). The many publications in English agree that "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is a fair compromise even in Korean contexts. Wikipedia should follow suit. Wikipedia is not a medium for change and this compromise set by other publications seems quite fair and NPOV.

So, because of afore mentioned reasons already stated, I am being bold and "Sea of Japan" will now come before "East Sea" in all contexts except Korean cultural and historical references. This does not mean that the debate is finished. The debate will continue if the East Sea supports wish. Thus far, only 8 people have contributed to this discussion in the last month. Two appear in favour of keeping status quo. Two appear to be neutral and four seem in favour of change. Until such time that "Sea of Japan" is no longer the official and most common name of the body of water in English or until East Sea supporters can come up with convincing arguments for their cause, the new naming convention will be as follows:

For all International and Japanese articles on Wikipedia, the body of water separating Japan and Korea is to be referred to as "Sea of Japan". For all Japanese/Korean related articles on Wikipedia, it is to be referred to as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". For all Korean articles in reference to geography, it will be referred to as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". For all cultural and historical references on Korean pages it will be referred to as "[[Sea of Japan|East Sea]] (Sea of Japan)" or simply "[[Sea of Japan|East Sea]]", provided it is clear to the reader that "East Sea" refers to the "Sea of Japan". Note: North Korean references to that body of water may use East Sea of Korea instead of East Sea. Masterhatch 11 July 2005.

I'm sorry that you have chosen not to be convinced by the many compelling arguments against this incorrect usage in Korean geographic contexts. I am particularly sorry that you have chosen to mess up a large number of articles, on a few of which I have done a great deal of work, and to none of which you have contributed anything substantial. I am restraining my urge to bulk-revert this silliness, for the time being. However, I will not hesitate to correct your erroneous usage when I encounter it. Cheers!

I'm going to vent my annoyance by noting that of four authoritative reference works on Korea sitting on my desk right now, all four use East Sea as the primary name. These are the Handbook of Korea 11th ed., the Korea Annual 2004, Nahm's Korea: A History of the Korean People, and Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History. Note that Cumings' book is written by a Westerner for Westerners.

By the way, if you can find the time to actually improve our coverage of Korean geography, instead of engaging in these extremely tiresom name games, your contributions will be most welcome. -- Visviva 16:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since I see you have not even bothered to follow your own policy, but have added this incorrect usage to a number of historical articles as well, I will simply revert all of them. I supposed this sort of well-intentioned defacement should annoy me less than simple vandalism, but in fact rather the opposite is the case. -- Visviva 17:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visviva, the only reason why these "name-games" are tiring is because you yourself are making them tiring. You are essentially guilty of breaking the rules of this site which state to use the most commonly used name in English within English articles. So, you have four books that all say East Sea. I have dozens more that use Sea of Japan. I hate appeasement. You are basing your decision on politics and appeasement, noit logic and reason. You are basing your deicisions on a select few books that you yourself have chosen. It's like having a few books published that show the sky is green, yet the majority of the world's books tell us that the sky is blue. Yet you ignore all the other books completely. That is ignorance and favouritism at it's best.

Masterhatch is indeed convincing and correct when he says that in Korean publications they use East Sea. Well, Visviva, last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a Korean publication. It is meant to be used by the entire world. To accomodate Korean nationsism or racism, or whatever reasons they have for removing the word Japan from the sea's name, Wikipedia has a Korean language section, and in that section the name of the sea is Dong Hae, with no Sea of Japan in brackets. Why the double-standard? English users of Wikipedia have been more than fair in even putting East Sea in brackets after Sea of Japan while the Korean to not reciprocate on the Korean site. This is blatant hypocrisy on your part and on the part of others.

Masterhatch has been very convincing and has convinced me that the change should be done and lets get on to other things. There is no arguement nor discussion. The discussions have been fruitless and only ended up with convention after convention and no real concrete reason why East Sea should even be used at all. But Masterhatch had included it in brackets, and that is being more than fair.

I have seen more than enough publications, debates, maps, charts, yada yada yada to show that YES there are many publications that use "East Sea" but there are far many more that use "Sea of Japan". And the use of "East Sea" in your books is very questionable. It is extremely difficult to find any textbook or map or article within South Korea using The Sea of Japan because the South Korea propaganda machine removed them all! Like my earlier analolgy, suppose in South Korea prior to 1990, most English books in South Korea use "Sea of Japan" yet there are many that use "East Sea". If you remove all the "Sea of Japan" books, of COURSE you will think.."hmm... no Sea of Japan, eh? Must be East Sea because I can't find a Sea of Japan reference anywhere!" That's primitive monkey thinking.

I would also like him to change the Korean language site from "Dong Hae" to "Dong Hae (Ilbon Hae)" but we can't do that, can we? It's a Korean article written in Hangeul for Korean Korean readers in QUOTE Korean context UNQUOTE

So, if you want to be fair and open and NPOV or neutral or whatever you want to call it, change the Korean language site to include Sea of Japan and change the Japanese language site to include "East Sea" otherwise just damn well let everything be that Masterhatch has done or go do something productive like join the Korean Uri Party and run for office if you don't like what the rest of the English-speaking world calls the Sea of Japan.Kojangee 110:01, 12 July 2005 (Beijing Time)

Compelling arguments? Name one. I haven’t seen any by the East Sea supporters. "East Sea is more common in Korean publications or publications found in Korea" is not a compelling argument. That is just more proof of the Korean propaganda machine. Go outside of Korea and you find that the number of publications that use Sea of Japan far out number the number of publications that use East Sea in Korean contexts. I do not feel that I messed up any articles. I feel that I set the articles right in Korean contexts for the English speaking world. There is a Korean language section on Wikipedia. This isn’t it. Yes, you have done a lot of work on Wikipedia and I am very impressed. But to me, it sounds like your ego was hurt and you are unable to remove yourself from the Korean POV. I am not favouring Korea or Japan here on Wikipedia. I have lived in Korea for a long time and I love this place. It is my home. But I am not blind.

About four days ago, I went looking through the "what links here" for this page. I realised that not many pages linked here and I realised that this page is hard to find. So, in hopes of bringing more people into this dispute, I went and I made obvious links to this page in various different places. No one came. I also noticed that many important questions were still not answered, such as "If the majority of English encyclopaedias use "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", why shouldn’t Wiki? That seems like a fair compromise." I also noticed that it had been since July 6th that any East Sea supporters had made a comment on the dispute. I also noticed that East Sea supporters weren’t giving reasons for their desire to keep status quo, they were simply tossing up more proposals that were exactly the same with no hint of compromise. I was tired of seeing the same regurgitated proposals from East Sea supporters with no reasons. And since no one else seemed interested in coming to this page, the dispute stalled. Was this a tactic of East Sea supporters? Stall and stall and stall trying to avoid the issues? Sea of Japan supporters have tackled every element in depth sparing nothing. Can East Sea supporters say the same?

By the way, I did follow my own policy. I did not change all of the East Seas to Sea of Japans. There might have been a couple that could go either way. The ones that I felt were closer to a historical or cultural reference, I left alone. It was the ones that were specifically geographical or mostly geographical that I changed. If you want to debate specific references, I can be easily persuaded. Masterhatch 12 July 2005

I agree with Krojangee. 조선동해,동해 or 한국해 should also have Japanese Sea mentioned in Korean webpages. That is fair. But also I want to see EAST SEA on all the English webpages AND JAPANESE too!

Proposal to archive and move forward

It is disappointing that one of us has chosen to apply a pattern of usage which not even Maizuru seemed to support. At any rate, clearly we need to move this discussion forward. Perhaps a consensus can still be reached.

Given that this page has swollen to monstrous proportions, I propose that we move this entire page to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed_names_archive1, replace it with discussion broken down by contexts per "Contexts" above, and work toward/verify consensus on each point. This would be a good time to post a note on Wikipedia:Current surveys and update notes posted elsewhere. Objections? -- Visviva 17:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to this. Kokiri 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Why keep moving things around and putting them all over the place making it more difficult for others to find. It's like a smoke and mirrors game. How many pages do we need? Kojangee July 12th, 2005 10:25 Beijing Time

Archiving the older suff (Previous discussion from main Talk page) is ok, but leave the rest alone. Visviva, show me which articles I changed that were against my own policy and we can discuss them. As I mentioned in my other post, I can easily be persuaded. Masterhatch 12 July 2005

Well, the ones that got my dander up were Okjeo, Jinhan and Samhan, obscure tribal entities that occupied portions of the Korean peninsula prior to the the Three Kingdoms period. Those are so non-geographical that we don't even know exactly where they were. Also I wouldn't have said there was anything very geographical about Kim Dae Jung.

I still have serious reservations about the geography vs. history/culture distinction. It seems difficult to argue that one is somehow less Korean, or more international, than the other. I'm not beyond being persuaded, but please let's hold off applying such a compromise until we have something in the nature of consensus. Please? I hate reverting.

On a lighter note... if either of us could easily be persuaded, we wouldn't still be here. :-) -- Visviva 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is no consensus, so I will not archive (except perhaps for the "previous discussion" portion). Consider the proposal shelved. 100K is just a rather forbiddingly huge amount of text is all. -- Visviva 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of redundant information here on this page and a lot of reading. For the people who have been following this since the beginning, there is no problem archiving most of it. But for the newbie just coming in there is a lot of important points made by both sides that needs to be read before an intelligent and informed post can be made. I wouldn’t have a problem with selectively archiving the redundant information. For example, I propose that everything written before "Some date points" can be archived. This can be done without a newbie losing too much information. References can be made to the archive if need be. Masterhatch 13 July 2005

Contexts II

This is still a discussion, not a vote.

Basic provisos

Under all options with a secondary name in parentheses, the secondary name would be added only once in an article.
In North Korean contexts, substitute "East Sea of Korea" for "East Sea."

These have gone without objection so far.

International contexts

Example: Pacific Ocean

Our choices:

A: Sea of Japan

B: Sea of Japan(East Sea)

We appear to have a consensus for choice A.

Japanese-Korean contexts

Example: Korea Strait

A: Sea of Japan (East Sea)

B: East Sea (Sea of Japan)

C: Sea of Japan

We appear to have a consensus for choice A.

Korean geographical contexts

Example: Busan

A: Sea of Japan (East Sea)

B: East Sea (Sea of Japan)

We do not appear to have a consensus yet.

I still don't really get the reasons for supporting A in this context. However, it seems to me that the strongest point made by our Nipponists above is that the "East Sea" usage in articles such as South Korea could be confusing to Western users, many of whom can barely find Japan on a map, let alone its sea. Also, such articles are arguably in an "international context." I tentatively propose, therefore, a further split: let's define a closed set of gateway articles, which will follow usage A because of their relative prominence (such as Korea, North Korea, and South Korea). Then we can follow option B for all other Korea-related articles. Thoughts on this? -- Visviva 14:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We might change the naming conventions into both are acceptable (because both are clear to the reader). It's just a convention, not a policy... As long as we don't revert each other on this (just like UK and US spellings are both perfectly acceptable on the Pedia). Kokiri 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to compare British and American spelling with Sea of Japan/East Sea is like comparing apples and oranges. Both British and American spelling is widely accepted by authors from both countries and both spellings are official in English. Stephan King uses both British and American spelling is his books. For example, in his book the Gunslinger from the Dark Tower series, he regularly mixes gaol and jail and he almost always uses travellers or travelling. He has even used colour on the occasions. Another example is J.R.R. Tolkien uses connexion, colour, travelling, but recognize. This is fine because both spellings are official in English. East Sea is not official or even equal with Sea of Japan in English. One day it might be, but for now it is not. Masterhatch 13 July 2005

Korean historical and cultural contexts

Example: Provinces of Korea

A: Sea of Japan (East Sea)

B: East Sea (Sea of Japan)

We appear to have a rough consensus for choice B. However, this may need further discussion.

Actually, I don't agree with this. I (still) fail to spot the difference between a geographical and cultural/historical context—don't we always refer to a geographical feature? Also, why should historical articles use East Sea if at the time the name was not any more common than today? Kokiri 16:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kokiri, that is actually the point that started all of this mess. I don't see why East Sea should ever come before Sea of Japan. Unfortunately East Sea supporters don't recognise that SEa of Japan is the most common and official name in English even in Korean contexts. Therefore, instead of having an edit war, a compromise has to be made. I suggested the cultural/historical references as a compromise. I will gladly take that compromise off the table if you want to go backwards in this dispute. Masterhatch 13 July 2005

The NHL lockout is over...Maybe there is a chance for Sea of Japan/East Sea

I feel like we are getting somewhere. Today, the impossible happened; the NHL ended its lock-out. Maybe we can actually come to some agreements here on Wikipedia. I must admit, though, while at work, I quickly read the new posts by Visviva and Kokiri and my first thought was, "My God, not another proposal without…" Well, after work, I carefully re-read the new posts again and realised it wasn't the same regurgitated proposal from before. I looked at the articles that Visviva pointed out and, yes, I agree, that Okjeo, Jinhan, and Samhan (see the example on Masterhatch’s talk page about London and Londinium) could come under cultural or historical and therefore, I feel that yes, East Sea coming before Sea of Japan would fit quite nicely on those articles. I do have a minor problem with Kim Daejung fitting in there, though. Tentatively offering a proposal to allow Sea of Japan (East Sea) on the major pages is a bold step forward and the first real sign of compromise by "Hangookists". I am impressed and like the NHL, maybe we could actually end this conflict.

As for the "Nipponists" (By the way, I don’t consider myself a Nipponist as I much prefer Korea to Japan), our strongest point isn't the one you mentioned. I can't speak for everyone else, but I feel our stronger arguments lie in the fact that Sea of Japan is the official name of the body of water and most reputable sources in English use Sea of Japan even in Korean contexts and by having Wikipedia go against the grain, so to speak, I believe that makes Wikipedia POV.

As for your tentative proposal, I too will offer up a tentative proposal. This is just an idea I had and I am offering it up to see what kind of reaction it will get. As kokiri has pointed out, defining historical and cultural references is hard. I agree, as that is totally opinion based. I had originally offered that idea up as a compromise and I wanted to see where East Sea supporters would take that compromise. Honestly, it wasn't received as well as I had hoped it would be. I had hoped that East Sea supporters would bring forth pages that would fit this concept. Until Visviva's last post, no one had. Prior to Visviva's post, there was one East Sea supporter who simply said, "I don't think that there are any." But like I said, I had just thrown it out to see what kind of response I would get. Now, to my actual point. It appears to be fact that prior to 1919, the most common name for that body of water in English was Sea of Japan. But it wasn’t standardised until 1919. Before 1919, there were many names for it, including Oriental Sea, East Sea, East Sea of Korea, Korean Sea, Sea of Japan, Japanese Sea, etc. but none of them were official or even standard. I am very tentatively proposing that we could define historical references as references in Korean contexts prior to the name being standardised in 1919. This goes against what I feel is right, but again, a compromise has to come from somewhere. Three of the articles Visviva mentioned fit this "prior to 1919" suggestion quite well. Any thoughts? Any suggestions? Masterhatch 13 July 2005

Goodbye to this discussion

I will no longer contribute to this discussion. I am happy that somebody brings up this topic, but I am not willing to talk about this minor point ad infinitum. It strikes me odd that somebody whose contributions to Korea-related topics almost entirely consist of enfore his/her point of view should have much to say with regards to the naming convention.

I quote from the conventions: This article covers naming conventions generally followed by editors of Wikipedia articles on Korean subjects. None of these rules are cast in stone, and not all contributors follow exactly the same standard, although we are gradually arriving at a general consensus.

If only we could invest all this time and energy in making the articles better... --Kokiri 20:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, don't discuss anything. For my part, I have decided that in the order of fairness, I will change all Korean-context articles using East China Sea to South Sea, the Yellow Sea to West Sea, America to Beautiful Land (see also: Beautiful land), among dozens of other examples.

After all, using East Sea proponents' logic, if we create, edit, and/or add to Korean-context articles, should we not use the names Koreans use?

However, to be fair to Americans, we should also edit Hangeul/Chosungeul articles that are American-context by changing names of places to those used in America. I will begin changing the Chinese ones, if someone wants to go ahead and work on the Korean ones.

Actually, we can take the politically correctness even one step further by editing the French language and German language sites. Then, work on the Korean sites that have French context to change the names to benifit the French. I can work on the French, Japanese, and Chinese ones if someone knows German they can work on those ones. Also, I have a friend here who speaks Swahili who can work on the Swahili ones. Kojangee July 15th, 2005 10:07 Beijing Time

Kokiri, you said, "It strikes me odd that somebody whose contributions to Korea-related topics almost entirely consist of enfore his/her point of view should have much to say with regards to the naming convention." So, does this mean everything I say in regards to Korean related topics is invalid? Just because you have made more contributions than me, that makes your POV relevant? The vast majority of Korean articles here on Wiki are written by people who are bias towards Korea. Sometimes someone needs to come along and fix some of the bias mentionings. It is a plain and simple fact that Sea of Japan is

the most common name used in English around the world, including Korean contexts;
the official name according to the UN;
used by the vast majority of governments;
used by the majority of English encyclopaedias and atlases.

With the occasional exception, only in Korea and Korean publications does East Sea come before Sea of Japan, even in Korean contexts. I am dumb struck how East Sea supporters cannot see that East Sea (Sea of Japan) is POV in English. In the Korean language section of Wiki, there is no problem using East Sea without Sea of Japan. But this isn't the Korean language section. It is the English language section and officially, there is only one name in English. The name "East Sea" is not official, and outside of Korea isn't even common. I don't even know why there is a debate about this. There is no debate as the facts clearly point to Sea of Japan as being, in English, NPOV. I agree that this debate has gone on too long. The worst part is that East SEa supporters provided few, if any, facts showing why East Sea should come before Sea of Japan. Masterhatch 16 July 2005

Tabling indefinitely -- goodbye from me too

It looks as if this discussion has fizzled without consensus, which is rather disappointing. At any rate, it seems to most reasonable to follow Kokiri's advice for now, and tolerate our different usages. I will not engage in any further bulk-reverting, although I will correct the usage in any articles that I actually happen to edit. (I will freely revert bad-faith editing of the kind just displayed by Kojangee.) Perhaps we can revive this discussion after a while. Cheers! -- Visviva 02:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had taken a few days away from this dispute and had moved on to other things. I come back and I see it is all a mess. I am disapointed to say the least. I think Kojangee took things a little far, but he did have some valid points. He just went about it all wrong. Masterhatch 16 July 2005