Talk:Sea of Japan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo/Takeshima)

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

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

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

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

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

Stephane mot Indeed, there shouldn't be any mention of Liancourt Rocks (a controversial name too) here. The "Biology" section has obviously been added only to fuel the version of Japanese nationalists : mentioning the existence of a "Japanese" distinct specie around these rocks is like planting a flag. This is the reason why I think it should be removed. And I also correct the title (Liancour Rocks(Dokuto/Takeshima) : there is a t in Liancourt Rocks and "Dokuto" is the Japanese pronunciation of Dokdo.

WP:LAME

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

Wikipedia

need for SProtect?

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203.63.59.37's comment

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

In dispute to the above stated view point;

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

The Issues Regarding the Name Dispute:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sea of Japan

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

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

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

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect

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

IHO did Not decide to only sea of japan use

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

actually, iho chief said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The latest meeting of the International Hydrographic Organization ended without any changes, but South Korea is happy because the head of the organization suggested the moniker “Sea of Japan” be deleted from the world’s oceanographic maps until an agreement on the disputed name can be reached.[10]

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

According to IHO's technical resolution,

It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche. [11] [12]

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

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

Check the wikipedia Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)

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

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

1. For all international articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
2. For all Japan articles use: [[Sea of Japan]]
3. For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
4. For all Japan/North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)
5. For all Korea and South Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
6. For all North Korea articles use: [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea of Korea)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Like already metioned, According to IHO's technical resolution, internationally, "Sea of Japan/East Sea" (same use) is right.[13] [14]

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

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

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

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

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

1. you said, The history of the naming debate of this article is in the archives, and it is fairly presumptious to try and change the current consensus with just one source. <<<< Actually, i can not edit fair POV edit. bcz, if i insert history of east sea in these page[15], many japanese revert this and attack me, and report to me as 3rr violation. so, i can not edit Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute. so, these article did NOT contain Neutral POV article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disputed name section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oriental Sea

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

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

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

East Sea

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

Actually, there was no consensus and the intro continued to be written as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" after the discussion. That was changed on 3 May to the version suggested by jnestorius in the previous discussion, which has both "Sea of Japan" and "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".[16] And then, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" part was moved to the dispute section[17] thus "East Sea" disappeared from the intro. I prefer jnestorius' version. As the lead section is the summary of the article, we should talk about the dispute there. And it would be better to introduce "East Sea" in conjunction with the dispute, because for those who do not know the dispute, why "East Sea" is in the parenthesis is not obvious. --Kusunose 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It's Sea of Japan, not east sea. I never even heard of east sea before in my life.Phead128 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"often refered to as East Sea"

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

• "often refered to as East Sea"

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

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

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

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

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

How about MilesAgain's version[18]:

• "referred to in Korea as the East Sea"

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

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

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

Protected

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

RFC: When is it called the East Sea?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Who calls the Sea of Japan the East Sea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think the best solution to this problem would be to refer to this body of water as the East Sea in articles about Korean subjects, and Sea of Japan in articles about Japan. My source for this idea: Microsoft's maps service, bing maps. This is one of the best maps available on the internet. They use the name East Sea near Korea, and Sea of Japan (East Sea) near Japan and Russia. Please take a look at this map on bing maps[27]. This seems like a fair compromise to me. Mcettrick (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Dispute & protection - most recent one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the two paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't use sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

To free from suspicion

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

Support this articles

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

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

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

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

Appletrees's translation has mistakes.

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

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

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

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

Appletrees knows absolutely NO japanese and uses translation services thus misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.12.193 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, should I call you “Caspian blue”? Anyway, you insisted,

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

According to Japanese editors here, you are not familiar with Japanese language, are you? How did you know what people in the 2channel said? Could you show evidence to support your contention not only to Korean people but also to other people, including Japanese? And, do you regard me as a sock puppet or a meatpuppet? I am interested in your open questions.--82.83.178.118 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Korea naming

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

East Sea (revisited)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korea does not equal the world, everyone on this world uses Sea of Japan. The point is the major of Koreans are unpleasant when anything have a word "Japan" on it. Oh and by the way, the user named Appletrees is Korean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.12.37 (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a heavily biased remark if I ever saw one. Talk about racism. And no, arguments like "Korean is a nationality, not a race" don't make my accusation any less valid, because then I would just say "talk about anti-Korean bias" or "anti-Korean prejudice." True, Appletrees may have some antagonism towards the Japanese (though I suspect it's only towards ultranationalistic Japanese who he/she feels has affronted Korean nationalism), but making such blanket statements like the one above isn't any better. Yes, I identify myself as Korean as well, but I know idiocy when I see it, be it Korean, Japanese, or otherwise. And you, anonymous editor, are an idiot.

And just because everyone on this world uses "Sea of Japan" doesn't mean that it's not valid to investigate why, or to ask the question "is that the right thing to do?" Saying things like "everyone on this world uses 'Sea of Japan'" as if it were the end of the debate for something as nebulous as the way things were named in the imperialist era is not only intellectually stifling, but also works to limit free speech.Ecthelion83 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that's why there's this article: Sea of Japan naming dispute ;-) -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputes between Korea and Japan have been suggested mostly by Korean people all of a sudden, in the past 20 or 30 years for some reason. See Japan–Korea disputes. My Japanese friends are fed up with it. The friends often say, “Korean people consider us their rival and also hate us, though we do not want to be involved. We would like to go away from them, or they should be isolated from us.” I guess this is Japanese real intention.--82.83.178.118 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Distance of China from Sea of Japan

What is the closest China gets to the Sea of Japan (in km please)? All the maps I've seen show that the distance is very small. 79.103.204.1 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sea of Japan

In order not to be ignored its reputation, you have to confirm the matters appeared on your encyclopedia. Historiclly "East Sea" is the correct nomenclature of the site. We must not disturbed by the ultranationalistic japanese. We never heard about sea of japan which was insisted by only japanese political ruffians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimhj104 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the "East Sea" is not a correct name. _The_ correct name is "Sea of Japan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.12.37 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

how biased Wikipedia can be!

I was always a huge fan of wikipedia no matter what others say. But now I know how unreliable and biased it can be. This is the end of using Wiki for my part. This page is suspended from editing? I see what this implies of administrators. I do not see any respect for Koreans and international community from this Webpage. Bye Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.67.158 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, outside of (some publication of) Korea, it's known as the Sea of Japan. Wikipedia does not prescribe, it describes what others say. And the article is blocked from unregistered editors because of massive spamming by both Korean and Japanese IP addresses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

20th Century Fix

Suggest changing "XIXth Century" and "XXth Century" to 19th Century" and "20th Century", respectively for readability. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.17.87.62 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the recommendation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloning of article

This article has now been duplicated at East asia sea, even the protection icon. Kablammo (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And now redirected here. Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

East Sea

The headline should include both names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hko2333 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Map vandalized

Some vandal changed the map (again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.85.6 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There should not have the "East Sea" name in the article at all

I am a Thai, and everyone I know have no idea what is "East Sea", I also have several SEA friends in which no one also knows what "East Sea" means. They only acknowledge the name "Sea of Japan". This implies that the term "East Sea" is absolutely unknown except in specific western countries, China and Korea. The term "East Sea" should be removed completely from the main article as it is not acknowledged internationally. Want to rename it to East Sea? Sure, but do that in your lame Korean wikipedia not on the English one, which is INTERNATIONAL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.12.37 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, only things I can know about you is that you're using "Thai ISP", and have a strong Pro-Japanese agenda and did some poor research on me. That's all. Not only do your comments have no persuasive argument, but also nobody could figure out your being a Thai. From I've seen here, many fake people have been emerging in Wikipedia though. Besides, when did Thailand become English speaking world and what are SEA friends? Are your friend of "dolphins" or "mermaid"? Good, you can apply for a position in Free Willy 4, if the production had a mind to film the sequel. Obviously you already have some idea what "East Sea" means to you and you are now enlightened on one thing with the help by this encyclopedia. My real Thai friends even did not know the body of sea. Some friends told me that my Japanese expats are living in Thailand too. "Absolutely unknown except China and Korea?", ho, Britannica/Entarca/National Geographic are absolutely not China/Korea-owned institutions. You're just living in your small world and want your little opinion to be accepted as skipping to bring backup "sources" for you claim. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA for people, having been compiled with "sources". Whereas what you've got? Nothing but according to "me" with no credential. Perhaps, you're no interest in developing the article, but just want to push your lame agenda. So bye bye and why don't you log in your account for the next time since you're obviously not a new user per your Wiki knowledge.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thai IP vandal[31] (we don't know who you're, aren't you?) Your intention is so obvious, just agitating the page, not wanting to improve the article. I don't see any meaningful statement from your racist/personal attacks. Go away.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thai Ip vandal, 58.10.12.234 (talk · contribs)'s racist/personal attack[32] removed.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please make personal/racist/retarded insults somewhere else, if you have a valid point - make it, a valid point is more attractive when it is made in a mature manner. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, we do have to mention the South Korean name. If we would mention the name of geographical place in every language of every country it would not be manageable. We should be very careful here in Wikipedia not to fall for the South korean propaganda. IsorokuYamamoto (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The name "East Sea" is improper because it is ambiguous, and the sea isn't located to the east of Japan, it is to the west of Japan. It is ambiguous because the name "East Sea" is used to refer to the Baltic Sea in some languages. Similarly, the North Sea is not to the north of Norway, it is to the west.

The kind of ambiguity the name "East Sea" poses can be construed as neutrality. If the sea being on the west side of Japan makes the name "East Sea" ambiguous, how unambiguous is the name "Sea of Japan" to represent the sea bordered by Russia, Japan, North Korea and South Korea? --Ofsos (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The name "Japanese Sea" is improper because it doesn't only border Japan, it also borders Korea and the Soviet Union. Compare with the Mediterranean Sea, which was in the past referred to as the Mare Nostrum. This worked in the past when the Romans controlled all of the area around the sea, and similarly the name Nihonkai worked in the past when the Japanese controlled all of the area around that sea. The name of the Mare Nostrum changed (into something equally improper: the sea is not in the middle of the world from a Japanese POV -- that would be Biwako or similar instead). Maybe it's time to change the name of the Nihonkai into something else. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Given the location of the sea in question, it is absolutely fair to mention its Korean name. If other seas are known by various names in the countries to which they are culturally, geographically and economically important, go right ahead and list them on the appropriate articles. Any reverts or changes to the status quo - especially by editors who have previously posted here and are clearly aware of the issue - will be treated as disruptive. Deiz talk 12:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the name is "improper" is irrelevant to wikipedia, and discussion of this is most certainly "improper" on this talk page. English wikipedia is only concerned with what is the common name of this body of water in English as spoken by native English speakers, and whether this is verifiable. That is all. Everything else is just a sideshow which detracts from the purpose of wikipedia. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The title should be Sea of Japan (East Sea).

At least for now. Leaving the title as "Sea of Japan" and simply stating in the article that there are ongoing disputes about the naming does not fairly represent the very fact it is on dispute. The title should be "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", and it should also have the message "The neutrality of this article is disputed" on the top.

--Ofsos (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, the article title should just be "#*$*@&^%!!!". It will *always* be in dispute, because *any* name will insult someone. So we've settled on acknowledging the problem (did you see the third section Sea of Japan#Naming_dispute and its link to Sea of Japan naming dispute?) If you want to learn about the subject, read the article. We can't put everything in the title, and if we tried to put only the 'important' stuff into the title, someone would come along and complain that something had been left out! Shenme (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the naming dispute. This article is about the body of water commonly known to *English* speakers as the Sea of Japan. WP is not a battleground upon which to fight over the name. More specifically, *English* WP is not the place to push the naming preferences of non-native English speakers. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm not familiar enough with the Wiki's neutrality policy, but I still don't think this is the best way to present the article, given that "East Sea" is on disambiguation page. I do think it is better that searching East Sea does not automatically direct me to Sea of Japan page anymore, which happened the first time I searched it and which is the reason why I became interested in this subject. But a title has more implication than it seems on its face. Native English speaker or not, people use English Wiki all around the world, and I'm afraid the way the subject is presented does not contribute to the neutrality Wiki seeks. We do care about that here, don't we? To Shenme's point, I doubt that anyone will be offended by the name #*$*@&^%!!!, although it will be extremely inconvenient to ever mention the sea in conversation. :) But coming up with a whole new name, you are talking about the actual name of the sea, which is not what I am concerned here right now. Ofsos (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what; if you can get consensus on Korean WP to change the name of their article from "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", then we can talk.... 68.73.114.58 (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind that it is called East Sea on the Korean WP since the Korean WP is mostly made of South Koreans and most Korean speakers call it that in Korean. However in ENGLISH it is known as the Sea of Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

East Sea is Korea Sea

East sea is called Japan's sea because Japan is keep lying that Liancourt Rock is their territory. Truly it is Korea East sea. Or it is Chosun East Sea......

As you know, Dokdo is the Korean territory, which has remained as our territory, since AD 512( 13th year under King Ji Jeung of Silla) when Dokdo and Ulleung was assigned to our history and culture. there was a time period people weren't concerned about Dokdo just because Dokdo is small and isolated island, but understanding of values of sea getting better, Dokdo now has very important position of politics, economy, military and science.

On the other hand, due to these reasons, today Korea is suffering from Japan's insistence about possession of Dokdo which is totally absurd. Under the rapidly changing conditions of in and outside of Korea, DokdoKorea.org founded in August 20th, 2008

In this Website like syber museum of DokDo, We will find, collect and reaserch all materials about sea of Korea continuously as well as confirm the basement of our theories and arrangement of historical materials to argue against Japan's insistence. And with the result from our efforts, we will do our best to inspire awareness of our territory and nation to our people by exhibition, education, advertisement. Please support us with your heart.

ㅁ Dokdo The full address for Dokdo is: 1-37 mountains, Dokdo-ri, Uleung-eup, Uleung-gun, North Gyeongsang Province, South Korea. The islets are located in the sea area 90 km southeast to Uleungdo and east of the Korean Peninsula.

Based on the ancient literature called "Samguksagi," two islands, Uleungdo and Woosando (now known as Dokdo), were united to form an independent island state known as "Usanguk." It was incorporated into the Silla Dynasty in 512 AD when King Jijeung conquered the island state.

The first territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over Dokdo took place at the end of the 17th century. It was temporarily settled, however, when the Japanese government delivered a note to the Korean government apologizing for their mistake during the Joseon Dynasty. Ahn Yong-bok, a Koren activist who had worked fiercely in mainland Japan to claim Korea's ownership of Dokdo, had played an important role in settling the dispute.

In August 15, 1948, when the Republic of Korea was established, Dokdo was designated with the following address: 1 Do-dong, Nam-myeon, Uleung-gun, North Gyeongsang Province. In January 18, 1952, the Korean President announced the "Declaration of Sovereignty Over Neighboring Seas," or better known as the "Peace Line."

Ten days later, the Japanese government delivered a diplomatic note to the Korean government refusing to recognize Korea's claim for Dokdo. Since then, the territorial dispute over Dokdo between Korea and Japan has continued to this day.

Currently, the Korean National Maritime Police is guarding the islets and the only civilians residing in Dokdo are Kim Seong-do and Kim Sin-ryeol, both Korean nationals. Thus Dokdo belongs to Korea.

Well, Wikipedia is not the place to blame other countries. This applies to nearly all korean editors here. Please cite other than korean sources when posting historical contexts. That way we know they are internationally recognized historical facts and not biased evidence. 68.84.74.56 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

See Sea of Japan naming dispute. In English speaking countries the name given is the Sea of Japan. Sorry, the articles make clear reference to alternative names -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

East China Sea is East Sea

In China we translate what English speaking people call the "East China Sea" as just "East Sea". Chinese writing just translates as "East Sea". Its too confusing to have east seas everywhere. The Chinese "East sea" is enough.

I think Koreans just want to try and score points off from Japan they cannot forgive Japan for conquering them. Its old history and in maybe 20 years time everyone involved will be dead.

Even North Korea does not except just "East Sea".

In South Korea they call the Sea of Japan the "East Sea".

In South Korea they call the East China Sea (the East Sea) the "South Sea".

In South Korea they call the Yellow Sea the "West Sea".

If every country wanted to label the seas arround them according to the directions of the compass we would no longer be able to navigate the world. The Vietnamese call the South China Sea the "East Sea" but they do not want to change its international name, they are not small minded. Can you sea how confusing this could all become. How about if the English want to change the "North sea" to the "East Sea" because its actually of the east coast of England.

Why do Koreans only want to change the Sea of Japan and not the other seas arround them?

Why all the fuss about "East Sea"? most Koreans don't even understand what is "East Sea" because "East sea" is English language. Koreans actually call it "Donghae" which translates to "East Sea".

東海 is what Koreans use to refer to the Sea of Japan when they use Chinese characters (hanja).

東海 this is how the East China Sea is written in tradditional Chinese. We don't need another East sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.214.225 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I want...

Why this article name 'sea of japan'? I want a change a article name 'East sea'. gksrnrdls

See the section above why this is a bad idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

16:46, 16 February 2008 Nlu protected Sea of Japan ‎ (Roving IP provoking likely edit war [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was over 18 months ago. I'm reviewing this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I have also contacted Nlu, the protecting admin. --TS 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One never knows for sure until it is done, but I am of the opinion that it should be kept in place. There have simply been way too many anon-related edit wars over this article. --Nlu (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in this controversy in the past, and concur that the protection should probably continue. This article attracts an excessive amount of trolling and politically-motivated, POV edits. It is much more stable and serves the 'pedia better as semi-protected. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I describe such articles as "magnets" and agree that they are often best left semi-protected. Thanks for the feedback. --TS 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware of other issues that related on this topic.

It might make a preconception, but I'd like to make it clear that I'm a Korean.

Issue on "East Sea vs Sea of Japan" is not only matter of naming itself, but economical/political/geographical/historical one.

You might think that "East Sea" means "East Sea of Korea" which seems that this is national power game between Korea and Japan. But you rather should take this as "East Sea of Asia continent" - similar as North Sea between England and Norway. When you see this argument thoroughly, you will find that this is not the matter of containing specific country name on this sea. To stand neuter, let me kick aside any historical evidences which belongs to countries concerned - Korea, Japan and Russia even China. What name do you think most neutral one on this case that multi-nation border related?

Besides, there are some reasons that why Korea is especially sensitive on this issue.

First of all, Japan insist TAKESIMA Island (Dokdo Island in Korean) belongs to her which can extend border line on the sea. (You can see where it located with a few clicks on net. Just see where it located with size and distance between nearest land or island) Similarly, Russia also face conflict on Iturup Island between Japan. Now I need your common sense a little bit here - The name "Sea of Japan" will be any help on these dispute?

Second, "Sea of Japan" is officially taken in early 20C when Korea ruled by Japan on Limits of Oceans and Seas (1929). Korea just want it back as it was after achive independence. In view of Korea, it is one of vestiges from Japanese imperialism. If it is widly taken all over the world as "Sea of Japan" from that time, Korea just want correct it with more general, neutral name even used normally not only in Korea over 2K year but in Japan also. (according to source, Chosun Sea in that time)

Third, education in Japan these days makes related country shiver and resent manipulating history in there textbook. You might think there is nothing to do with on this issue, but this is why Korea is especially devote herself to correct what exactly it was. Sea naming issue is on the line of this. What is done is done, and accepted is accepted. But there is any chance to correct it, you should try. When people argue with certain issue like this, it means that they both need to understand the other's position. But once it fixed in childhood even by public education, who is one to blame?

I can not help if you think that I am a nationalist, but if you want to comment on this you need to see what is lying below. Whether pros or cons, I hope you to study these conflicts first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.53.101.184 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Internationally, the sea is called "Sea of Japan" and is recognized as such. Geographically, if Japan did not exist, the sea would not exist. This is something that is indisputable. Also, there is already an "East Sea" so we can't possibly have two of them on a map. So from a geographical context alone, it is given this name. This is the logical reason.

Also, keep in mind that this is the "English name" and not the "Korean name". Korea is free to call the sea whatever they want in the Korean language, but cannot force the international community to change the English name over an emotionally-charged reason. For example, Korea calls America "Mi Guk". From a philisophical point of view, if Korea feels it has the right to dictate to the international community what they must call a geographic point on a map in their own language, then by all rights America should be able to do the same and demand you stop calling them "Mee Guk" and instead call them as close as you can in your own language to their proper name, which would be "A Ma Li Ka". This is the philisophical reason.

Historically, this body of water has in fact been called "The Sea of Japan" before 1929. This is well-documented. The claim that Japan changed the name during occupation in 1929 and then failed to change it back is simply proven to be non-factual. This is the historical reason.

The bottom line is that this issue has only been a recent issue created by nationalistic Koreans who are anti-Japanese. I am Chinese, and China and Korea do share the same political and historical views that Japan has not fully re-toned for their past abuses. But sometimes going too far is going too far. Changing the name to "East Sea" will never be supported by the rest of the world because it is seen as a ridiculous demand for all the above reasons. This is the political reason.

Signed, Centrist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.125.8 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan (aka. "East Sea" or "East Korea Sea")

Why not just put the Korean name in parentheses after the more international name? It would be respectful of the other side of this reasonable disagreement. This is what is done with other things elsewhere on Wikipedia. Where's the harm? Chrisrus (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make this change unless someone can tell me why not. I will change it to read ...Sea of Japan (aka. "East Sea" or "East Korea Sea")....Chrisrus (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia, and these translations of foreign language are not commonly used in English, so it is important that you specify who uses those names. Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, some English-language speakers are Korean, some even are native speakers, and they call it this in all their English language publications, of which there are several significant ones. Do the Chinese call it that as well? There are more English speakers there, I venture to say, than in many English-speaking countries. So it's not true to say that it is not called that by many in English or in no significant English-speaking publications.

Having said that, you seem to be offering me a compromise when you say "..it is important...names". If I alter the line to read "...of Japan (aka "The East Sea" by Koreans)...", would that be acceptable to you? Chrisrus (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, please read this MoS. Besides, the United States Board on Geographic Names does not accept "East Sea" or "East Korea Sea". In China, people call East China Sea their domestic name "East Sea". So I think the Chinese in English speaking countries call the body of water Sea of Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I don't have a dog in this fight anyway. Chrisrus (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese name

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

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

The Chinese name is relevant because of China's historical influence in the region. For those interested, it's 日本海 (rìbĕnhăi, Sea of Japan). Rwestera (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

China used to border the Sea of Japan, until the Russians took the territory from them. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

!

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

No, it has not. Just because people out in the West are ignorant of the dispute and continue to use the politically incorrect name for this body of water does not mean that "Sea of Japan" is an acceptable name. Actually, the National Geographic and international cartography organizations have recognized "East Sea" as the correct name for many years.

Frankly, discussions like these need to continue in order to inform and educate the general public about the history of the East Asian countries, especially at the time of Japanese Occupations in the earlier parts of the last century. These discussions show how little is known by the international community about East Asian history and culture and also show that each country has distinct national viewpoints and cultural identity. China, Korea and Japan are not "the same things" as some of the less educated people believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.243.169 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, discussions such as these need to respect Wikipedia's aims and the policies that support them. Advocacy of this sort is unwanted here even on talk pages, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and/or the notice at the top of this page. In abusing this site, you are simply annoying other editors here, and doing your cause no good at all. Please stop, for everyone's benefit. Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

From the history of edit warring that from this article, I'm going to exclude this article as a candidate for the pending changes protection trial. Any objections to this so far? 山本一郎 (会話) 02:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article states although there is a dispute over the name the Sea of Japan, in 2004 the UN decided to call it the Sea of Japan. But the source for this revelation is the Japanese government. Surely using Wikipedia's own policy on sources, this would suggest that its completely POV i.e. pro-Japan.

Because on reading the article about the actual naming dispute, it's quite clear that the matter is not settled, not by a long way. Whereas this article's overall tone implies that the naming dispute is in favour of Japan's claim, particularly through the inference that UN has given its tacit approval to the name.

Compare these two statements. This article's uses the Japanese source:

There was a dispute at the United Nations over its official name. Although the issue is still open to discussion, the United Nations confirmed its adoption of "Sea of Japan" in its official documents in March 2004. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan

However the naming dispute article uses a much more neutral source that comes from the UN:

The United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) have so far neither accepted nor denied South Korea's claims, but left the issue open to discussion while continuing to use "Sea of Japan". The Practice of the Secretariat of the United Nations Concerning the Naming of the Sea Area between Korea and Japan

There is clearly a difference in tone between these two articles on the same point. This article compared to the naming dispute has a POV problem.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.5.36 (talk • contribs) 22:37, July 12, 2010

I don't see the difference between (the UN) agreeing to use the name Sea of Japan and adopting the name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot see a difference, then why on earth are you even an editor? You just made a refutation not a rebuttal. Secondly you have made up a quote, agreeing to use, there is no such wording in either sentence or direct quote. That's your opinion. Thirdly the statement used on this page is using a biased source, the MOFAJ website not the UN source that is used on the Dispute page article. This is clearly a breach of WP's POV policy on sources. The statement the UN "confirmed its adoption" is in English a tacit acceptance of the name "Sea of Japan" when in fact this is clearly not the case. BTW the relevant definitions of the word adoption according to OED are: To take up and make one's own/To take on or assume. The article's current wording implies that the UN is calling it the Sea of Japan after period of uncertainty. Whereas the neutral tone in the Dispute article makes it clear that the name is "used" for expediency (while the UN has "left the issue open") as it has "neither accepted nor denied" the South Korean claims. There is clearly a difference and one that is not being addressed at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.87.77 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the UN agency agreed (in that document) to use the name "Sea of Japan". That is different than confirming the adoption of the term, but it is not different than adopting the name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

East Sea

East sea should be the name, since Korea takes up the most part of it. Furthermore, the name 'Sea of Japan' was not the traditional one, it was just created, nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.96.5 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Speedy close per WP:SNOW. This proposal blatantly contradicts Wikipedia's naming policies, which demands that common English names must be used. The proposal had not a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan → East Sea

• East Sea is the politically correct name of this body of water and is a neutral name for a sea that makes contact with three different countries. Not only has this change been officially recognized for years, it is silly for Wikipedia to still retain this title since there are so many who protest the imperialistic connotations in the current title. The point of having editable Wikipedia pages is that users can access information that is accurate and current. After all, we don't title the page on Russia under "Soviet Union". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.243.169 (talk • contribs) 23:55, July 17, 2010
• Oppose Move. With respect to Japan, it would be "West Sea". It's only Korea which refers to it as "East Sea". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Move. Per Arthur Rubin. "East Sea" is not an international name, but only a Korean local name. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There is already a disambiguation page at East Sea, which would need to be dealt with. The United Nations uses the term Sea of Japan, and this is almost universally the common name in English. East Sea makes no sense to anyone other than Koreans: it certainly makes no sense to Russians (it's south of Russia) or Japanese (it's west of Japan), and the Chinese think of an entirely different body of water as the East Sea. The proposal is myopic Korean nationalism taken to the extreme. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not the place to advocate a change to a politically correct name. Actually I think this particular argument is invalid anyway, as has been pointed out above: It's only Koreans who refer to it as the East Sea, officially or otherwise. In summary, nothing to recommend the move at all. Andrewa (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Korean believes Yellow Sea as서해 (West Sea), East China Sea as남해 (South Sea) and Sea of Japan as동해 (East sea). Yahoo Local Map was successfully changed by e-mail bombardments by VANK. Ironically, thanks to this map, no uninvolved person agree with Korean's claim. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This issue has been discussed substantially before. This request should be closed immediately. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: It does seem to be something of a perennial proposal. But a premature close of this discussion, while perhaps justified by WP:SNOW, isn't a good idea IMO. Better to let it go through the normal process now, in the hope it will go away for a little while at least. See also Sea of Japan naming dispute. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This sea has been called the Sea of Japan for an age and an age. 'East Sea' is ambiguous: many seas are to the east of things. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is English language wiki so convention says we use the standard English names for articles. This really isn't a close call. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose WP:Use English, not Korean. This proposal is also racist, since it is not the East Sea in China, which is a whole different sea. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this was raised and bombed out before. If we grant this approach we would have to say e.g. Irish Sea is politically incorrect. I think the Baltic Sea is called the equivalent of "East Sea" in some languages. PatGallacher (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think those supporting the change to East Sea should focus on lobbying and changing the international bodies that govern such naming conventions, as well as lobbying powerful governments (say, China, Japan, the U.S., etc.) to also embrace the change. Until there is serious, worldwide approval of the name East Sea, Wikipedia can only reflect what reliable sources say, and thus continue to name the body Sea of Japan (with the parenthetical addition of East Sea as provided for in certain cases by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming convention

Regarding the move request above (Requested move (2010)) it's a bit sad that none of us referred to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) earlier in the process. Partly as a result we ended up to some extent reinventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That actually raises an interesting question for me, as the issue obviously comes up often; if I think a reader is seriously questioning the naming conventions rather than just vandalizing, I try to give them an explanation about both the naming of this page (or Liancourt Rocks, or whatever) and point them where to go if they want to make some sort of change. Now, personally, I this is a very dead horse, but let's imagine something significant changed in the future (say, the U.S. changed it's official naming policy). Where would be the right place for a person to raise the possibility of a name change? My thought has always been that they should start here, and, if they could get consensus to change here, then later propose changes to the Naming conventions. It seems, however, that you're implying that the person would have to try to change the naming conventions first. I figured that this is the much more visible site, so this would be the place to get a better initial discussion and consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and I should clarify. I agree that any such proposal should be first raised and discussed here, on the article talk page. But I also think that any such proposal should refer to the guideline.

Often the initial proposer will be unaware of the guideline. That's fine. The first contributor who is aware of the guideline should Wikilink to it, and contributors supporting a proposal that is contrary to an existing guideline should be encouraged to foreshadow corresponding changes to the guideline, to accord with the proposal. If we don't do this there's not a lot of point in having guidelines.

Similarly with previous discussions. We encourage everyone to be bold and so can't expect that everyone will have read all the relevant archives and project pages. Wikilinks are easily created, and subsequent contributors to the discussion should make good use of them.

Also agree that this particular issue is a dead horse. Probably there's some mechanism for flagging it as such by adding a note to the top of the talk page that won't be archived, as this discussion and the move request will be in time. If there's no such convention as yet, then at the risk of instruction creep IMO there should be. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am reviving a discussion on the naming usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. Chunbum Park (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

move to 'east sea (korea)' or 'sea of korea'

because my map and globe wrote east sea of korea because sea of japan is not good name for koreans. so we need to move to east sea (korea). like maps.--ITartle (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean "like the maps in Korea." Because my maps still say "Sea of Japan." More importantly, so do our reliable sources. This was decided by consensus a few years back; the results can be found in our naming conventions for Korea. Basically, until international conventions change, we have to match what the majority of reliable sources use. If those sources should change, then we would of course change to match. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose oh, i'm sorry. because i was corean.-ITartle (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

please move to east sea.221.155.75.133 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? What evidence do you have that East Sea is the common English-language name? Bazonka (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

East Sea (of Korea)

This is not the first time to speak about this issue. Once again, I'm requesting Wikipedia to change a big mistake that the sea on the east side of Korean peninsula is NOT SEA OF JAPAN, but EAST SEA. As a Korean, I cannot accept the Japanese refusing to accept the truth, as the East Sea has been called that for centuries, as early as the pre-three kingdom era in Korea in 200AD. Even in many ancient maps, including that of Japan itself, the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan is known as the East sea, not sea of japan. There are many more evidences that I can possibly cite to prove that it is EAST SEA, not sea of japan.

Lastly, Wikipedia should not follow Japan's path of going the wrong way. As a famous encyclopedia for the whole world, Wikipedia should not defame itself by denying what is right. That is all I have to say about the East sea and I hope to see the title of page as EAST SEA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaluck (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not Korean Wikipedia; it is English Wikipedia and so it should use the name used primarily in the English-speaking world. Bazonka (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The last time someone recommended changing the name (about 2 months ago, if I recall correctly), the impromptu poll ended up something like 15 to 1 against changing, within less than a day or so; thus starting the issue again here isn't really helpful. However, if you know of more reliable information on the topic, you may want to bring it to the talk page of Sea of Japan naming dispute, as that article is currently being overhauled (primarily by myself, although I'm looking for help), and we need more reliable sources, since much of what is in the article now is not. Any other editors here are, of course, also welcome to come comment there as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't possibly say that korea should stick to the english way of naming local sea? That is one of the most rididulous thing I have heard in my life. Korea is an independent country and has every right to name its sea 'EAST SEA'.There has been no changes to this name except for unsuccessful attempts by the treacherous japanese to make look EAST SEA theirs. In any way anyone can think about this so-called issue, the sea on the east side of korean peninsula has been called the EAST SEA OF KOREA and will be called by the same name forever!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaluck (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Koreans can call it whatever they choose to, and wikipedia does not object to that. However, in English it is mostly called the Sea of Japan. The name only holds imperialist context if you want it to. You don't see people going around complaining about the name Indian Ocean (although there must be some people out there :p ) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this silly rant. Koreans want to call it East Sea because it's east of Korea. Seen from Japan it's West Sea. The UN uses Sea of Japan. Why shouldn't Wikipedia? People wanting to change the name of a geographical feature should lobby the UN or other world bodies instead of Wikipedia. Koreans are welcome (I think) to call it Korean Sea/ East Sea in Korean Wikipedia. But I'm not a Korean, don't speak Korean and use english. Why should I toe the Korean line? Rad vsovereign (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Not sea of japan, neither east sea, but Sea of Korea?-Houston Street (H Street's footprints) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Ah, once again a non English speaker deigns to dictate to English speakers and ENGLISH wikipedia about the proper use of place-names in ENGLISH. Isn't it about time Wikipedia develop a template to address this particular and ever-occurring nonsense? 66.166.106.50 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan should be changed to East Sea. Since when did Japan have power to change the sea name? They do not even have clear evidences that say that it is the sea of Japan. However, Korea does have many evidences that can prove it is East Sea. From long time ago, we can see that our ancestors and even some Japanese wrote it as a East Sea, and Japan, who does not acknowledge this fact, is trying to make this as Sea of Japan just because they want to have more power, and have more terriotories. Doesn't it seem greedy? I think it does. They should speak out their opinions when they have certain and specific evidences that can prove their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.69.222 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Sea of Japan naming dispute. Japan didn't name the sea--it was named that by European map makers several hundred years ago. Furthermore, it is the name used on international nautical charts, and by most countries...actually, as far as I know, every country except for north and south Korea. So...yeah. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.137.7.170, 23 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Seaof Japan -> east sea 115.137.7.170 (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Seungshink1, 19 February 2011

To whoever it may concern: Hello. I'm Kim, So-yoon from Republic of Korea and a member of VANK(Voluntary Agency Network of Korea). VANK is a non-governmental organization and also a voluntary organization. VANK consists of elementary, middle and high school students who provide correct information about Korea to international textbook publishing companies and publishers. Recently, I visited a wikipedia website about the corner, Sea of Japan, that you edited and was quite surprised to see that. Using a proper name for the body of water between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago is not just changing names. It is rather a part of national effort by the Korean people to erase the legacy of Japanese Imperialism and to redress the unfairness that has resulted from it. It is an absolutely mistaken thing to hear one side of story and follow. If we let this kind of things alone, it brings about a serious problem to disturb order of International society. For your reference, the world's largest commercial mapmaker, National Geographic, Graphic Maps, and the travel guidebook, Lonely Planet Publication promised us that they would now use the name 'East Sea'. Also, many big companies are now using the name East Sea instead of Sea of Japan. As a member of VANK, I urge you to remove the page that you edited and say that the sea isnot Sea of Japan, but it is the East Sea of Korea. Once Korea and Japan agree on a common designation, which is in accord with the general rule of international cartography, we can then follow the agreed-on designation. Thanks a lot for reading, and I am looking forward to your reply. Yours very truly, VANK(Voluntary Agency Network of Korea) http://www.prkorea.org Email: soyoon99@naver.com

As reflected in this article, international authorities use the name "Sea of Japan" that wikipedia must follow. "National Geographic, Graphic Maps, and the travel guidebook, Lonely Planet Publication" are not such authorities. Wikipedia can not be involved in a political battle you mentioned. Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so then can you please explain these international authorities to me? because it seems like it's really not a reliable thing to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.69.222 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

By "international organizations" I've always referred to organizations like the UN, INTERPOL, and the EU. Corporate entities such as National Geographic, Graphic Maps, or Lonely Planet Publication aren't quite on the same level. Efforts to change the name in your native language are admirable and I would encourage you and your classmates to change things as you see fit, but in english (or, more specifically, on en.wikipedia.com), that geographical region is almost universally known as the Sea of Japan. As for your claim that these large mapmakers promised to change the name of this region on English speaking maps, I'm gonna have to go with [Citation Needed]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.233.202 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Info box title

Recently someone changed the infobox title from "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to just "Sea of Japan". I actually thought that was 'correct', but upon checking found that "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" has been there for quite a long time. (Years?)

I looked within Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_.28East_Sea.29 and I am trying to see if the title is one of those (logical?) choices. Does this fall under rule

• For all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)

I hate all this naming silliness, and don't know why people don't understand it is *all* relative. To me, it's the quiet pond next to the loud pond. Shenme (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I never noticed that before (I often don't notice or pay attention to infoboxes). Technically, this falls category 1 of those naming conventions, as this is an international article--that is, this isn't about the "sea between Japan and the Koreas", but is, rather, the general article about a body of water. So, in fact, it should just say "Sea of Japan". I'm going to change it to say just "Sea of Japan" per our naming guidelines. Thanks for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Qwyrxian. Arguably it could be classified as an international article, but really it's pertinent mostly to Japan and the Koreas, so "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" is more appropriate. Certainly for NPOV we should give both names - have you seen how many Koreans use this talk page to lobby for a name change? Bazonka (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the Russian coastline is longer than the combined Korean coastlines, and given that it also borders China, and that most of the waters are international waters, I'm not understanding how this isn't an international article. NPOV isn't the relevant issue here--the whole point is that the naming guideline already is the "neutral" name--because that is the name widely and primarily used in English sources. Unless editors could show that this is not an international article, the naming guidelines must be used. If people disagree with the naming guidelines, this is not the place to argue about them--that would be on Talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). The whole point behind the conventions is that the were decided through a long and extensive process to stop just these sorts of arguments from occurring across multiple pages. Finally, that editors on one side of the (geopolitical) debate are unaware of, or choose not to follow our guidelines isn't a reason to bend on them. In fact, it's a strong reason to continue to enforce them--because otherwise, it's just the side with the more persistent POV-warriors that wins (instead of being a decision based upon reliable sources and Wikipedia policies). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Qwyrxian. This is an international article. Please do not confuse international names and local names. See Korea Strait. The Japanese local name is not included in the infobox. Just because Japanese people do not protest it should be Tsushima Strait? Tsushima Strait is better known by the battle of Tsushima. Why should we add the Korean local name East Sea to the infobox? Just because Koreans say the name should be East Sea? This is en WP. The Sea of Japan is the common name in English speaking countries and the international name. Oda Mari (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Main problem seems to be that so few people are actually taking the time to review this talk page before making their demand for change. I actually found it an interesting read.Coradon (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think that many people don't read the discussion page before posting. Would it be appropriate to reorganize all the similar demands for change under a single section on this discussion page? Traveling matt (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would make a major difference to be honest. There's a controversial tag at the top of this page anyway and people don't seem to read that when they have the motivation not to - I imagine enough people might be concerned that moving comments around the talk page might change the context of comments. There might be some mileage in tagging the article as needing consensus as well, although, again, I doubt it would make any difference. The controversial tag might move to the top of the talk page though - which may help a wee bit. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

EAST SEA

I think sea of japan is wrong. because, East sea is Korean sea. So, Change please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky4327 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Wikipedia, however, decides the names of places based on the name most commonly used in English. In fact, the name "Sea of Japan" is actually written right into our guidelines because of past disputes on this issue; you can read those at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Also, we have an interesting article on the subject at Sea of Japan naming dispute; if you have any new sources that might be beneficial in further filling out the dispute, please discuss them on that article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The claim of naming "sea of JApan" from South KOrea began only in 1992. Since then ,There was no claim in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.87.58.35 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lake of Japan?

• During the Ice Age, did the world ocean level ever drop so far that all the straits between and in Korea - Japan - Sakhalin - Siberia became dry and the Sea of Japan became a super-big inland lake draining by a big river in the dry bed of one of these straits? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oriental Sea (Asia)

It is not clearly named in outer side, so to settle this bad non-controversy, and for neutralization policy, name it as Oriental Sea until one side of opinion clearly dominates other and approximately 90% of map could say it's Sea of Japan. --권정우 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty easy, since right now 95% of maps do say Sea of Japan. Korea is the only place that uses anything else; a small number of international organizations use (East Sea) in paranthesis after SoJ. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But I think differently. Even if almost map said that East Sea is Japanese sea, we have to remedy mistakes. See the map. East sea (Sea of Japan) is between Japan and Korea. It's also the territory of Korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.116.201.2 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, we don't--Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids "remedying mistakes". Our policy very expressly requires that we write only what is in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

East Sea (Sea of Japan)

Should Japan be able to name a sea?? I really don't think they should claim it. South Korea's name for it (the East Sea), doesn't include "Korea" or "ROK" or "South Korea" or "Hanguk" in it. Gv5028 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Countries name seas all the time; "Pacific", for example, was named by the Spanish, though the name is also used in English. However, in this case, Japan didn't name it--it's the international name used, well, everywhere except for Korea. So a better question is, why would we consider replacing the international name with one used in only 2 countries? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Korean name is just as much of a 'claim' as the Japanese one is, just less explicit about it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The "international name" was not adopted until the 19th century when South Korea was under Japanese control. During this time South Korea was refused access to "second peace conference" (which occurred prior to the Geneva convention)the previous name was "East Sea" or "East Korean Sea". At present North and South Korea maintain all rights to the "Sea of Japan" and any Japanese fishing in the sea is illegal according to international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athletictrainer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sea of Japan is the most common name in English. Besides, it was 20th century, precisely in 1910, when Japan annexed Korea and there was no country called South Korea until 1948. Oda Mari (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When the (english speaking) world starts calling it "East sea", so will wikipedia. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense at all. You are saying that we should call it Sea of Japan as it didn't even have its english name untill 1948. Then do you think all the other world where they don't use English as their mothertongue should follow their name as English made? Sea of Korea absolutely had their own history you can't judge whether it's worthy or not. We call it as East sea before Japan invaded. We think the others should know the truth. The time Japan invaded Korea was too short and it's beyond comparison for Korea's historical time. In other word, it's nonsense to use a word Sea of Japan. 1.237.235.22 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is English-language Wikipedia — what the sea is called in other languages is not relevant. Also, Wikipedia is a contemporary encyclopedia — it should use names that are currently used, and not historical ones. WP:COMMONNAME applies. The commonest, current English-language name is "Sea of Japan" and this is what we must use. Bazonka (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps

2 maps currently used in the article have Korean names. If we strictly follow WP:NC-SoJ, this article should use maps only with international names. Unfortunately it seems that Commons does not have such maps. I think I'll make a request for them at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Comment please. Oda Mari (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a clear discussion that established this article as an "international article" (meriting SoJ) rather than a "Japan/Korea and South Korea article" (meriting SoJ-ES)? Shrigley (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sea also borders Russia (and almost China), so it's more than just a Japan/Korea thing. Bazonka (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oda Mari, that seems like a good idea. I know nothing about making maps, so thanks for taking the initiative. Shrigley, there actually was a discussion before, some time within the last year or so, but for the life of me, I can't find it. The only discussion of the name that I can find is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names#RFC on East Sea use in Korea-specific topics, but that was someone trying to argue for a change to the current conventions. The discussion I remember basically argues the same thing Bazonka does--this is the article about an international body of water...I feel like someone even said that the Russian coast is actually longer than the combined Korea's, but that could be me remembering something else entirely and grafting it onto this discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a discussion here, so I'm satisfied that this is an "international article". Shrigley (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh...I was looking through all of the archives on WP:NCGN and its dependent pages, and other Wikipedia namespace pages...I never thought to just, you know, look up. Thanks for finding that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the two images locally. I am able to upload the images anytime. Sea_of_Japan_Map.png, Sea_of_Japan.jpg or Sea_of_Japan.jpg white version ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you, Phoenix7777. Please upload them. I also thank you for the JAL related works at Commons. Oda Mari (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the two maps. File:Sea of Japan descr.jpg was updated, while File:Sea of Japan Map en.png was newly created rather than updating File:Sea of Japan Map.png because the older file are used so many artcles other than en:Wikipedia. I will replace the map of other articles over time. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the two image files. But you forgot something. There is still the name (Ulleung Basin) on the maps. Though the issue is not as big and known as the Sea of Japan naming dispute, it's the same kind of dispute and I don't think the Korean name is accepted as the international name yet. As there is Tsushima Basin, I think another version of the maps is needed. "Sea of Japan Map with international names" or something similar might be appropriate for the new file name. Oda Mari (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood. However a raster image with a complicated background requires a bit of complex work, I will update the images when I have a time. Please be patient. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to Edit

Whoever deleted my comments, please give an explanation why it got deleted. I just gave reasons why the Sea was The East sea, and it got deleted. It is an outrage.

As I had said before, Japan has no right to claim the Sea. The Korean name for it does not claim it as Korean. Also, The only reason why Korea failed to claim for the sea is because the name of the Sea was decided by the IHO on 1929, when Korea was being colonized by Japan. AND PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS AGAIN. That is not a good way to silence me. I will continue posting if you continue deleting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki12379 (talk • contribs)

Put simply, en.wikipedia does not choose titles based on whether they are "correct" or "right". It bases it on English usage, which is quite predominantly "Sea of Japan". Also, forget the idea that "East Sea" is any less nationalistically claimant than "Sea of Japan". It's not East of any non-Korean country. CMD (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sea of Japan was named by Europeans and the name has been widely used in Western countries. Herman Melville used the name in his 1851 novel Moby-Dick when Japan was in seclusion. That was why the name was accepted by IHO in 1929. You are mistaken. Japan does not claim the sea like Mexico does not claim the Gulf of Mexico. And the sea would be Pacific Ocean if there is no Japanese archipelago. I'm afraid your request is based on Korean ethnocentrism and not on neutral point of view. Oda Mari (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Our naming convention is based on common practice, not on officialness nor historical precedence. In other words, we name things by how things are named, not by how things should be named.

For the porpose of naming an anrticle on Wikipedia, geographic reasonings, usage on historical documents, or international laws do not play a significant role. Of course, they influence what name come to be used commonly but it cannot be the determining factor. Please refrain from making an argument solely based on them. --Kusunose 06:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw this before, but only got time to respond now. However, what Oda Mari and Kusunose say is correct (including for the stuff that got removed because it erased other people's stuff). I understand your concerns Wiki12379, because when I first came to Wikipedia, I also assumed that people had discussions to decide what is "right". However, I learned quickly, as I hope you will, that we don't really think about "right" or "wrong", but rather about what sources say. And right now, sources say that in English, overwhelmingly, the sea is called the Sea of Japan. Most of the points you raise are covered in the Sea of Japan naming dispute article; that article lays out Korea's arguments, as well as counter-arguments made by Japan, along with quite a bit of the IHO and UN history you describe. If you have reliable sources about the dispute that aren't currently included, I encourage you to add them to Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute; of course, the articles will, no matter what, call the sea the Sea of Japan, and will not actually "decide" who is "right", but if there are well-sourced arguments on either side that are being missed, and we pay attention to WP:UNDUE, there may be room for more. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment moved from Talk:Sea of Japan/FAQ

Following comment is moved from Talk:Sea of Japan/FAQ

Question - I think there is a huge mistake. WIKIPEDIA is worldly used and I think we must use the PROPER & RIGHT NAME FOR THIS MATTER. IT IS NOT SEA OF JAPAN BUT EAST SEA. Though Sea of Japan is commonly used, the right name for the sea is EAST SEA!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.94.78.252 (talk • contribs) --Kusunose 07:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kusunose....IP, when Wikipedia decides how to title things, we don't actually decide what is "proper" and "right"...we decide what is regularly used. So even if you're right (you're not, but just assuming you were), we would still use Sea of Japan. In a certain sense, the name is by definition "right" because it is the name used in English. Of course, Korean Wikipedia is welcome to use whatever name is most common in Korea. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012

This is just beyond ridiculous. The website known for the best example of advertising-free, non-profit organization turns out to provide biased information. Why does the absurd name "Sea of Japan" represent the island that currently and will ever belong to South Korea? And why this page specifically does not allow users to edit it? You gotta give some legit explanation. Legacy1791 (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); even if all modern English sources switched now to 'East Sea', it would be decades before they outnumbered the existing ones. 'East Sea' is just as biased, as it is 'East' of Korea, which is one of the reasons 'Oriental Sea' and 'Blue Sea' were proposed, but neither have been accepted. Dru of Id (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"IHO General Assembly" and "Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names" decided

April 26, 2012, IHO General Assembly decided to maintain the single designation of "Sea of Japan". And, August 6, 2012, No. 10 to return even the Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names was rejected the North and South Korea claim that writing side by side of "East sea". This "Problem" is just a petty Korean ethnocentrism. To begin with, Nickname is not still definite in Korea. They call "East Sea" , "Sea of Korea", "Sea of Chosun", "Blue Sea", "Far east sea", "Green sea" and "Sea of peace". Is it JOKE ? Does not matter even historical. They on the basis of emotion that disdain for Japan, they just simply want to erase the word of "Japan" in the nickname. They believes that "Colonial history" is "Abjuration". Therefore, Korea think that there is no problem that to insult against Japan. Then, they on the basis of ethnocentrism, they are going to erase all evidence of their own country were inferior. Ah, yes , I understand WP:NPOV. And we need to dispute in the Sea of Japan naming dispute. But, we need to write on here the latest decision, isn't it?Wingwrong (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are not appropriate. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Sea of Japan be Sea of Japan?

I do not think that sea of Japan should be Sea of Japan. It was used as the East Sea for a long time(Since the 14th century), and there is a proof - a map given from Japan as a gift. In that map, it marks the current Sea of Japan as the East Sea. I am Korean, and I think we should not be changing the historical truth. This naming has caused a lot of dispute, in Korea and in other countries, and I think that it is by the time Wikepedia changed the name of the sea. Help us keep our history and our culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelle K. (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Read my comment in the thread immediately above. Bazonka (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I especially like the part that says "in Korea and in other countries". Actually, no, it's just Korea, and it's only been in the past 30 years that Korean nationalists have started flogging this issue to try to prop up anti-Japanese sentiments. Please read Sea of Japan naming dispute, which has some very clear arguments from both sides (though I think the bulk of the evidence clearly supports one side--luckily, so does the rest of the world, thus why the Sea is still named the way it is everywhere except Korea). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be just Korea, probably because it has a lot to do with us. And it has certainly not been only 30 years, and we did not flog this issue to try to prop up anti-Japanese sentiments. The sea was "East Sea" years and years ago, and yet Japan changed it to "The Sea of Japan" at the colonization era. You make me angry Qwyrxian, not that I believe you'll care about it at all. You do not speak about such affairs in such a sense just because it has nothing to do with your country. Or in fact, I think that it might have lots to do with your country. I'll bet that you're Japanese, though you might deny it for obvious reasons, and if you are Japanese, I do know that it is pointless to talk with you. At any rate, let me remind you that this is not your family web-site, but wikipedia, where Koreans may indeed see your insolent comment, and your comment does not please us. We argue that the sea must be called as the East Sea, because it was called like that ages before, and thus I would like to ask you not to presume too much. IT has nothing to do with Korean nationalists, though Korean nationalists may have someone to hate when they see this comment of yours. I will not speak to you about what Japan has done to Korea in the past, because it seems to me that you are not one of those people who learn from the past. However, if you have nothing to do at the moment (you won't probably,, don't pretend you're busy), just lay down and think how you would feel if another country comes in and torture your country and its people and take away your lands. Then, you might think better than to open your mouth every time you feel bored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.85 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a FAQ at the top of this page. Please read it. If there's anything you don't understand about it and the clear, obvious and multiply stated rationale for the naming of this article then I suggest you take it to an RFC or appropriate administration forum rather than to the article talk page. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they should probably take it to the International Hydrographic Organisation. Only they can change international usage. All we do is reflect the WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

East Sea and Sea de Coree, Corean(Korean) Sea were overwhelmingly more widly used than Sea of Japan until mid 18th century.

East Sea is even written in most pre-18th century's Japanese maps and foreign maps. The reason why from 18th century's maps use Sea of Japan is that Japanese spreaded Sea of Japan when they became known to European nations. And Japan clearly established the wrong title, Sea of Japan during the colonial rule to maintain the rule in Korea. Now, Japan is lobbying to US federal government to maintain and spread the wrong title, Sea of Japan. Japan has to accept the truth that it called the sea between Korea and Japan, East Sea before 18th century. Foreigners should be aware of this truth.

TO WIKIPEDIA,

WIKIPEDIA MUST CHASE THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS MORE KNOWN INTERNATIONALLY. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WIKIPEDIA MUST RENAME THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE, FROM SEA OF JAPAN TO EAST SEA. I WILL LOOKING FORWARD TO WIKIPEDIA'S CHANGE.

SINCERELY YOURS, a Wikipedian who hopes the historical truths and reliable Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.101.9.93 (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Historical names are not relevant. The most widely used name for the sea in the English language is, rightly or wrongly, Sea of Japan. And that's all there is to it. Wikipedia can't change common usage. Bazonka (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I had respectfully requested to change the term of this sea more than once months ago, but many people seemed to disagree. Well, I do not hope that any of you will listen this time. I also suspect that my comments will be removed within a day. Still, I post here again, because I believe that it is the only thing I can possibly do to keep the term of the sea 'correct'. The name... indeed, many people do use the term "Sea of Japan", but is something 'right' because many people think it's right? The only reason people use "the Sea of Japan" is because Japan adopted it when they colonized Korea. I do not know whether you're refusing to listen because you like Japan or because you really think that they are right. If you really do think that the term is correct, that proves that you are a pureblind fool, and I pity you as much as anything else in the world. If you argue that the term is correct only because you like Japan, I have nothing to say either. Perhaps, once in your life, a day might come that you will get to lose one of your most precious things because you are weak. Perhaps your country may get to lose something, may have all its people tortured, raped, and killed. And perhaps then might you finally regret what you have thought and done here on this page. Go on, remove this, I know you will... But keep in mind... Koreans never forget. Japan owes us an apology, and so long as they remain like this and acts as if they have done nothing wrong... The past is the past, but smart people learn from it, while others shit at it and shit their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.85 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a FAQ at the top of this page. Please read it. If there's anything you don't understand about it and the clear, obvious and multiply stated rationale for the naming of this article then I suggest you take it to an RFC or appropriate administration forum rather than to the article talk page. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:POVTITLE may be of interest to our Korean friend. Bazonka (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan

Appletrees is demanding to delete "South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan" from "Japanese-Korean disputes". He explained, "The South Korean government has not been disputing the matter with Japanese government." [33] Therefore, "Envirommental destruction of the Sea of Japan by South Korea" is discussed on this page.

The part that he deleted is posted. Qwyrxian (talk)

South Korean waste dumping into Sea of Japan

About 23,000 plastic containers having a capacity of about 20 liters, one third of them carry Hangul characters for "hazardous" or "oxidizing agent," while others carry chemical formulas for hydrogen peroxide solution and nitric acid, have washed ashore on the coast of Japan on the Sea of Japan by February, 2008.15,000 plastic containers washed ashore on Sea of Japan coast, Kyodo News/Yahoo! Asia New, February 19, 2008.(in Japanese) 【特報　追う】ポリ容器どこから？なぜ？, Sankei Shimbun/Yahoo! Japan News, 2008-2-28. The Ministry of the Environment (Japan) asked the South Korean government to investigate the cause and to take preventive measures. The officials said it is possible that plastic containers left on the coast of South Korea have drifted to Japan since gim seaweed farmers use acidic liquids to disinfect nets and the previous drifts of plastic containers since late 1990's occurred during the winter.

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

Dear webmaster

This is actually a well-known (in the community) spam message that gets sent to any website that uses "Sea of Japan"; it's an organized campaign run by a central agency. It's not really a legitimate request

Dear webmaster, Hello. This is Yeansu Lim who studies oceanography in South Korea. I have a project and research about marine environment and ecosystem, using your website. I really thank you for your website which provides useful contents for my research. However, I have found some minor different information in your website from other sources during the research. In the map of your website, the name of the sea between Korea and Japan is described as "Sea of Japan". It seems unreasonable to use the name "Sea of Japan" which is decided in the period of imperialism because its original name is "East Sea" which has been used throughout history. Therefore, I believe that the body of water between Korea and Japan should be described as the “East Sea” or at least with the simultaneous use of both names; “East Sea/Sea of Japan.” Thank you again for your help. I look forward to hearing from you. website adress: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sea_of_japan Yours sincerely, Yeansu Lim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.51.175.49 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Copied from WP:ANNE Ent 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Please read almost every thread on this talk page, and the FAQ at the top. Bazonka (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Korean magazine

In June 2012, a Korean children's magazine claimed that the title of this article as proof of one of the flaws of Wikipedia and other open websites (The article was about the good and bad things about things that anyone can do anything to). The point is that on Wikipedia, anyone can make an incorrect edit and keep it for a long time, and said that this would effect Westerners on information about the sea. As part of a campain to do these stuff, they've recently allied with VANK (which sent that message above), a nationalistic history organization Here on Naver Books. I've not found a description of its contents in the magazine's website itself.--Seonoo of Kim (ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 06:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does the Korean wiki get people coming to their East Sea article telling them they should rename it? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There were a lot of debates in that article, and East Sea seems to be consensus over there, as it's a Korean-majority site.--Seonoo of Kim (ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 07:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Really, should we classify it as media coverage, even though the Internet seems to lack a link?--Seonoo of Kim (ANSWER IN MY T.A.L.K. P.A.G.E!!!!!!!!!) 07:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A note on naming: "Sea of Japan" or "East Sea of Korea"

Please see WP:NC-SoJ -Arch dude (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This article follows that convention. Any reason why you think it doesn't? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd never seen that before, I'm happy to take it as an fyi. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I added this section to this talk page by accident, while trying to add it to another! Sorry, and I have no complaints about this article. After adding it to the other talk page, I came back here, and found that it is of interest to at least one editor, so I decided to leave it here instead of removing it. -Arch dude (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

S'all good, homie. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

East Sea

The usage of East Sea is under discussion, see talk:East Sea -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

dokdo

This is actually a well-known (in the community) spam message that gets sent to any website that uses "Sea of Japan"; it's an organized campaign run by a central agency. It's not really a legitimate request

Dear webmaster, Hello. This is yoo-jin Lee who studies oceanography in South Korea. I have a project and research about marine environment and ecosystem, using your website. I really thank you for your website which provides useful contents for my research. However, I have found some minor different information in your website from other sources during the research. In the map of your website, the name of the sea between Korea and Japan is described as "Sea of Japan". It seems unreasonable to use the name "Sea of Japan" which is decided in the period of imperialism because its original name is "East Sea" which has been used throughout history. Therefore, I believe that the body of water between Korea and Japan should be described as the “East Sea” or at least with the simultaneous use of both names; “East Sea/Sea of Japan.” I would like to attach some references to help your understanding of this matter. I hope that errors in your website will be corrected. If you do not mind, could you let me know an e-mail address of the person in charge or another possible way to correction, please? Thank you again for your help. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, yoo-jin Lee <contact info removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoo gin (talk • contribs) 06:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) F for facts, E for effort. Gold stars and dinosaur stickers for all. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC) To be honest, I'd give it an F for effort, too, because it's just a copy and pasted message that an organization sends to any website they find using "East Sea". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2013

I found there are too many errors

First, "Sea of Japan" is not correct name.

East sea is the correct name.

If you call East Sea "Sea of the Japan", you are like a supporter of Nazism.

and "East" in "East sea" is not only applicated in Korea but also in Asia and Europe.

I don't want to see that Japan break peace anymore.

I hope you correct this wrong information as soon as possible.

Thank you. Lyi0054 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Read the FAQ at the top of the page. TippyGoomba (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"If you call East Sea "Sea of the Japan", you are like a supporter of Nazism. Really? 75* 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You said there are "many errors". You have pointed out the one three times, what are the others? Britmax (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

East Sea

The Sea of Japan should be changed to the East Sea. It is only Sea of Japan because it was named when Japan was more powerful than Korea. It is not like people want it to be the Sea of Korea. It is just that the Japanese are just being selfish so the maps should change the name. Sea of Japan implies ownership just like when they owned Korea and took Korean territories illegally. Speaking of which, I think you should really change the name of this article or put it as the East Sea (Sea of Japan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsamxleex (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

See the FAQ near the top of this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

The English name for the sea should appear alone in the introductory paragraph, without any non-English names following it, as is the case with the Wikipedia articles for these other seas that border multiple countries:

The Yellow Sea: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yellow_Sea The East China Sea: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/East_China_Sea The South China Sea: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/South_China_Sea

The Japanese name for the sea should be removed from the introductory paragraph; the text box on the right-hand side of the article, which provides the Japanese, Korean and Russian names for the sea is sufficient for presenting the various non-English names for the sea.

Squidmantle (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

The name is east sea Seunghyun04 (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Read the "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) at the top of this page, which explains why "East Sea" is not the name used here on Wikipedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

the problem of this article

Hi. I'm Ha-yeon,Lim from South Korea. I saw many people talking about the problem of this article. But you were always answering, "In traditional English usage, "Sea of Japan" is far more common than the relatively recent arrival of "East Sea". It is the wording used by many large intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, and is supported by the majority of reliable sources." and something that tells about 'Sea of Japan' is the right expression. I think you're not admitting about the "FACT". It was first wrongly reputed to the world and now most of the people do not know the "FACT" I am now working as a volunteer in VANK. And as a volunteer I want you to correct the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.18.196.131 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Prove that "East Sea" is more commonly used than "Sea of Japan" and then we'll talk. Until then, there's nothing really to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are "always answering" that you might at least consider the possibility that this is because it is the right answer. Here we go with the facts, not the "FACT". Britmax (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dating of mountain chains

I am not convinced about the Reference [6] concerning the "Terrestrial invasion of pomatiopsid gastropods in the heavy-snow region of the Japanese Archipelago" or simple speaking snails. Is there not a more specific publication which can be related to the oregenesis of the Japan mountain chains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:1:8000:3103:1EE4:64E3:5865 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please use a combination of Sea of Japan and titled East Sea.

Please use a combination of Sea of Japan and titled East Sea. --Please use a combination of East Sea and titled Sea of Japan (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The common English name is "Sea of Japan" and as this is the English Wikipedia, style dictates that it remain so on this site. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

HELLO :)

This is actually a well-known (in the community) spam message that gets sent to any website that uses "Sea of Japan"; it's an organized campaign run by a central agency. It's not really a legitimate request

Dear webmaster, Hello. This is Cha Sung Woo who studies oceanography in South Korea. I have a project and research about marine environment and ecosystem, using your website. I really thank you for your website which provides useful contents for my research. However, I have found some minor different information in your website from other sources during the research. In the map of your website, the name of the sea between Korea and Japan is described as "Sea of Japan". It seems unreasonable to use the name "Sea of Japan" which is decided in the period of imperialism because its original name is "East Sea" which has been used throughout history. Therefore, I believe that the body of water between Korea and Japan should be described as the “East Sea” or at least with the simultaneous use of both names; “East Sea/Sea of Japan.” I would like to attach some references to help your understanding of this matter. I hope that errors in your website will be corrected. If you do not mind, could you let me know an e-mail address of the person in charge or another possible way to correction, please? Thank you again for your help. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Cha Sung Woo. Please read the "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) at the top of this page, which explains why "East Sea" is not the name used here on Wikipedia. Britmax (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though it might not be a legitimate request, please refrain from using the word "spam". Ignis Fulgur (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A message sent to everyone who uses "Sea of Japan" is spam. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

The East Sea is not the Sea of Japan. Please modify. Abcc0579 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the FAQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but the FAQ is wrong by claiming that the term East Sea is "relatively recent"; it has lived on far longer than even the nation of Korea, even before the Joseon Dynasty. Ignis Fulgur (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

IHO, please change the title Sea of Japan to East Sea.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion is closed until and unless the International Hydrographic Organization changes the name. Any further argument regarding the name of the body of water will be immediately closed. If you want the IHO to change the name, contact them. They do not run this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Would greatly appreciate the IHO admitting the term East Sea instead of Sea of Japan. Ignis Fulgur (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No. See the FAQ. (What does "IHO" mean?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Already did see the FAQ. I seriously do not mean offense, but the FAQ lacks the adequate descriptions that led to the spread of the term Sea of Japan in the first place. Oh, and IHO is short for International Hydrographic Organization. Ignis Fulgur (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can convince the IHO, you can probably convince us. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to lobby the IHO. Try contacting them directly. Bazonka (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, don't know how to contact them directly... Ignis Fulgur (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Email info@iho.int. Bazonka (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.