Talk:Sea of Japan

Archives
February 2003 – March 2006

Northeast Asia Sea

Since this sea is shared by several countries, its English name should be neurtal that can be accepted by everyone. Maybe "Northeast Asia Sea" is a better choice.

Media & Dokdo

Well, the International Herald Tribune uses it.

In the articles concerned with the N.Korea missile test, most maps have 'Sea of Japan' only becuase NHK (Japanese broadcasting system) was the first one to tell the world about the missile test.

Well, geographically, Dokdo (Takeshima) is more closer to Korea, and if dokdo is korean territory, we should use the East Sea of Korea.

However, because Dokdo is still a disputed area, I think it will be good to use the Sea between Korea and Japan before Dokdo's dispute ends. However, in my personal opinion, dokdo is korean territory because the koreans owned it since written history exists except for the colonnial time.

Huh? I suppose if ownership of Dokdo would actually place the Sea of Japan within the territory of Korea (just to be generous, I'll go ahead and count NK's and SK's shares together), that would make sense. But as it is, Korea's 'share' of the sea is more or less dwarfed by Russia and Japan's shares, the ownership of a jumble of rocks in the middle of the sea notwithstanding. --Zonath 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We should think from NPOV and should not think from POV. It doesn't have a meaning to talk about a supposition. In addition, It isn't appropriate to talk about the issue of possession of Liancourt Rocks here. I cannot agree to the way of thinking to connect a name of the sea with possession of Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is unrelated. Gegesongs 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, no one owns (or even pretends to own) the Sea of Japan, which is quite clearly international waters. Ownership of the Liancourt Rocks does not imply ownership over the Sea of Japan whatsoever (the Indian Ocean, after all, is not jointly controlled by India, the UK, the Maldives, Madagascar, the Comoros, Indonesia, and the other nations that have Indian Ocean territory, but rather is by and large comprised of international waters), and neither does the word "Japan" in the name (India does not own the Indian Ocean, and NATO does not own the northern part of the Atlantic, after all. And then who would own the Sea of Galilee?).--SZero 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Japan???

There are 3 reasons why this sea shouldn't be named after Japan. First, most of the seas on earth are named after either the peninsula (e.g. The Gulf of Mexico) or the mainland ( e.g. East China Sea). Japan is just an island in the Pacific. If this sea is name after a country, it should be Korea or Russia. Second, among the surrounding countries, Korea has the longest civilization history. If this sea is named after a country, it should be Korea. Third, due to history reasons, Japan is just unpopular. Everyone in the world dislikes Japan, especially in Asia. There shouldn't be any geographic item named after Japan, except the country of Japan itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fair name (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

First of all, Mexico isn't a peninsula. It's more or less mainland, or an isthmus (if you stretch the definition). If the Gulf of Mexico was named after a peninsula, it would be either the Gulf of Florida or the Gulf of Yucatan. You might be better of going with the Gulf of California instead. In addition, plenty of seas are named after islands, including the: Balearic Sea, Andaman Sea, Bismarck Sea, Halmahera Sea, Java Sea, Koro Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Visayan Sea, and Irish Sea. Even if the second assertion could be proven, it doesn't really reflect how seas are named. And your third assertion is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be on this page. The naming of bodies of water is not a popularity contest amongst countries. --Zonath 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

about Naming (The opinion of Korea about the map of Europe.)

[1] However, both "Sea of Korea" and "Sea of Japan" co-existed until the first half of the 19th century.

Korea is asserted in this way but it is not said that "East Sea" was used in Europe. In fact, there was no map written "East Sea" at Europe. This is in agreement with the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This fact should be written.Objectman 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectman, can you add this material to the Sea of Japan naming dispute article instead? This section should be a summary only. Can you please fix it? Thanks.--Endroit 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If they say that that description is unnecessary because of a summary, it also deletes this description. "when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." It is the opinion of South Korea what relate this problem to the history of colonial rule. It is not fair to write only the opinion of S.Korea.Objectman 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that part was added by Appleby. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) And I think that part is unnecessary. In addition, I think the following is unnecessary: "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919."--Endroit 03:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Objectman 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Since the last post here was in February, all previous discussions are in the archives. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Japan insists that it be called Sea of Japan

Is not true. Only S and N Koreans insist on using other names on the sea. Should be modified appropriately from NPOV. It is Europeans who came to consensus on the use of the name in 19th century. Before that, there were many names applied, I agree. Japan established imperial government only in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, Japan doesn't have any power on the propagation of the name of the sea. The last sentense "The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919, when Korea was under Japanese colonial rule." should be deleted because this is the worst propaganda. The words is here just in order to mislead readers to the POV that the name Sea of Japan have relationship with Japanese colonial rule. If you think about this by neutral and healthy mind, it is obvious that such a POV have no ground. Say, if it was Korea who have colonial rule on Japan in early 20th century, still this sea must have been "Sea of Japan" from the view of the rest of the world, because Japan archipelago (under the colonial rule of Korea) differentiate this sea from the Pacific. In that case, Koreans must have insisted Japan should be officially named East Islands. :-) Sea of Japan by The Ministry of Foreign Affair of Japan Isorhiza 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

all of these points are addressed in the dispute article & its talk pages, again & again & again. Appleby 18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

so your revision was not necessary. should that go to dispute article. Isorhiza 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I delete the name listing and just leave pointer to the dispute article. Isorhiza 18:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

um, no, the arguments you made above are rebutted in the dispute article & the talk pages. the summary sentence in this article summarizes the dispute. Appleby 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

summary should be short and comprehensive. Isorhiza 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

and summary should not include false. I'm making arguments about the sentense, but not to the naming dispute itself. It is only you who want to include this sentense here. Isorhiza 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not fair to leave in this article your POV. Please describe your POV fully in the article of dispute. It is vandalism if you continue to paste your POV. Isorhiza 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted the paragraph is just same as your view: it is discussed in the dispute article & the talk pages. I say that the NPOV of the summary is suspicious. Isorhiza 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I deleted the phrase, because that phrase contains obvious purpose to let readers to relate the name Sea of Japan and and Japan's colonial rule on Korea. The relationship between the naming and Japan's colonial rule is under intense discussion and dispute. It is not settled at present. It is not neutral to try to add such an unsettled description in the article. The description that I deleted should be fully described in Sea of Japan naming dispute. Those who revert this edition without waiting settlement of the discussion should be banned from editing this article. I, personally like Korea and know more than a handful of Korean people and even respect them. But I hate propaganda and lie. Isorhiza 02:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Section merge request: Naming and Naming dispute

The section Naming and Naming dispute should be merged.Isorhiza 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919 is questionable

The International Hydrographic Bureau was formed after the discussion in the International Hydrographic Conference held in London in 1919. The description widely used in en.wikipedia needs further investigation. Isorhiza 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming dispute subsection

What's wrong with creating Naming dispute subsection? Not everything about naming is disputed. Who's arguing there has been only one name for the sea? Who's arguing the name of the sea has never been standardized? --Kusunose 11:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You introduced the subcategory "Naming dispute" for the first time in Revision as of 02:15, 21 May 2006. First, I don't like the look of your edition with subcategory from the view point of esthetics. There is no other subcategory in this article. The category "Naming" and subcategory "Naming dispute" is very closely resembling and either of which does not have long description which needs subdivision. Secondly, I guess that you tried to distinguish "consensus" and "dispute". But my point is that almost nothing is settled as consensus. You placed the sentense outside of Naming dispute: "Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. The name Sea of Japan was standardized by the International Hydrographic Bureau in 1919." Readers may have impression that there were many names equally used before 1919, when the Bureau standardized the name. Here Korea POV can let readers think that Korea could not participate in the decision because of Japan's colonial rule, therefore the decision's effect is doubtful. However, from POV of Japan, the naming was almost settled before the Bureau standardized the name. Japan had no influence on the decision because European people decided to use the name "Sea of Japan" in 19th century. Therefore, the sentense you left there is still not neutral. My point is to leave pointer to Sea of Japan naming dispute and very brief and neutral (as far as possible) description here. Please read Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for further discussion. Isorhiza 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt rocks / Dokdo

Ive unblocked Applebys 3RR ban, accepting his argument that since Liancourt rocks redirects to Dokdo this article should use Dokdo in the intro, and switching to a redirect is effectively vandalism William M. Connolley 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulleung Basin

just did a google for:

• "ulleung basin" -wikipedia: 9720
• "tsushima basin" -wikipedia:353

in google scholar, it's 185 vs. 55 Appleby 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I get....

"Ulleung Basin" -wikipedia 982

"Tsushima Basin" -wikipedia 357

Encyclopedia Britannica article about Sea of Japan uses "Tsushima Basin"

Did I miss something?--Endroit 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

hmm, odd. i click on your link but get my numbers .... but i'm convinced by britannica cite, i agree it's a valid alternate name, even if far less common. Appleby 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

this is kinda bugging me, i wonder why we get diff't numbers. i ran the searches again but in english language only, & i get 508 vs. 139. endroit, do you have any ideas why? can others check & respond here please? Appleby 22:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How did you search? Was it hit only many Korean website? The number of hits does not become neutral basis.Objectman 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Basin is an official name by IHO since 1978. For 28 years, its been intimated with every people on earth. Koreans created the name "ulleung basin" only for distorted anti-Japan hallucination. English wikipedia must use the official name. -- Himawarichan 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We cannot trust a search result. Many Wikipedia articles of English edition is rewritten by South Koreans' organization VANK. I think Appleby is a member of VANK.Objectman 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"TSUSHIMA BASIN" is NOT a standardized name. It is a registered name, not a standardized name. Deiaemeth 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ulleung Basin" is neither a standardized name nor a registered name.--Mochi 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

it is the most common name, which is what wikipedia uses, per WP:NC. Appleby 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the google results above. There seem to be so many articles written by Korean people and Japanese people, that are not neutral. If one would like to couclude which is more common English name from the google results, he/she should filter out nonneutral ones.--Mochi 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Google is NOT an effective way to determine the most common name in English from reputable sources. You have to look at A. what is the most common name in reputable, English based (as in not from korea or japan) publications and B. the official name. Masterhatch 23:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:V supercedes WP:NC. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable, published sources. Google results is verifiable, but contains many unreliable sources. Thank you for your input. --Isorhiza 07:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

do you have a source for tsushima being the more common in english? it's not surprising that the korean romanization is so common, as it is a basin off the korean coast, naturally used and studied more often by koreans, just as features off the canadian coast is probably more often named & studied by canadians, rather than australians. see above for google, google in english, & google scholar, evidence that's been good enough for you in most cases. why is it completely discounted in just this case? it's not like the entire sea of japan is japan's territory. what's with the consistent anti-korean bias? Appleby 00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I could ask you the same "what is with all the pro korean bias?" anyways, i don't care what the basin is called as by the sounds of it, there is no "official" name for it. But what i do care about is that the current article is called "Tushima Basin" and so the links going there should be called that too. Also, as far as i know, there is no official dispute, so there is no reason to mention both names in an article, only on the article. If the main article name is changed to "Ulleung Basin", then the link from this page should be "Ulleung Basin". That is pretty simple, eh? (not to mention NPOV).

you gotta be kidding. "tushima basin"? that's your logic? Appleby 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My logic is that if the link going to the article is differnt than the article's name and the only reason is that Korea doesn't like the current name, then that is POV. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

the only reason that it's spelled "tushima" is because someone is trying to apply "official" name instead of common english name. unless we're going to change wikipedia naming policy, the correct name to be used in this article is the common english name, whatever errors there are in other articles. you know this policy as well as i do, in fact, you're the one who pointed this out to me, if you remember, when i asked why "south korea" wasn't named "republic of korea." as long as "tushima" is used in this article, it's not only a silly typo, but also inconsistent with wikipedia policy. it just unexpected, knowing how careful you are about applying the common name policy. Appleby 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Comparing South korea vs. Republic of korea and tushima basin vs. Ulleung Basin is like comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, i really don't care what the article is called but it makes no sense to call the article tushima basin and the link to it called Ulleung Basin. That's my point. If you want the article called by the korean name (which hasn't even been registered with the IHO yet), then lobby for it. If you are successful, then the links should be changed to match it. Masterhatch 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

if you don't care what that article is called, why don't you care about the typo and violation of wikipedia policy in this article? that article has its problems, but why duplicate the problem here? just a curious turn of events. Appleby 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this subject to get involved in an edit war of any sort. the most common English name is not always the title as there are exceptions to every rule (one exception is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim). Also, since i have done no research on this subject, i don't know why the IHO has never made the name official and I don't know where the korean name is more common than the Japanese name, and frankly, I really don't care. Has the name never been made official because the IHO never considered it significant enough to worry about? Is the Korean name only more common in English because of korean publications in English, or is it English speaking countries who are using the korean name more? What ever the reasons are, for right now, Wikipedia is using the Japanese name for the article, and the link going to the article should be the same (or similar). If you want to have the article renamed, then i suggest you go for it on that talk page. Masterhatch 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

you care enough about it to revert to the misspelled less-common name, despite the google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea. just making an observation. Appleby 03:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you calling "tsushima basin" misspelt or wrong? There is a world of difference between misspelling a name and using the wrong name. And for the record, my own personal POV puts offical and/or English names ahead non-official and/or non-English names in most cases even if other names are more common. That is one reason I am not a fan of google searches. Examples, i think it should be Liancourt Rocks and Pinnacle Islands. Also, I am wondering, what do you mean by, "google evidence that routinely satisfy you in other cases not involving korea." I rarely use google as "evidence" and I think google results are seriously flawed and are easy to manipulate. Masterhatch 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, i see the spelling mistake you are referring to. I guess my eyes just glanced over the missing "s". Masterhatch 15:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there IS a naming dispute. Just a couple month ago, there was a standoff between South Korea and Japan. See here and here. This standoff involved the Tsushima Basin/Ulleung Basin naming dispute.

I don't care what it's called either, but don't you think the alternate name should be in the parenthesis upon first mention? I do.--Endroit 01:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I will quote from those two sorces: "South Korea delay efforts to register Korean names for underwater features in the area" and "Korea is considering proposing its own name, Ulleung Basin". Funny thing is, the way i read that, there is no dispute (yet). Unlike the East Sea, no official dispute has been made. Korea hasn't even registered their name with the IHO yet. It just sounds like the same old pissing match between Korea and Japan. Korea is trying to remove all japanese names from everything in asia and Japan is trying to preserve status quo. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The name of Tsushima Basin is the official name. But we are kind enough to write Ulleung Basin together. Korean wikipedians, if you still trying to erase the name of Tsushima Basin, the name East Sea would be also removed from the article of Sea of Japan. Because East Sea is not the official name. We can't bear any more. -- Himawarichan 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to threaten anyone with anything, now is there? Wikipedia is not about tit for tat. Masterhatch 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

himawarichan, Japan was the one to "erase" East Sea from maps. East Sea is the official name, and I believe it is a very neutral name. Although I am against "neutral names" in the Dokdo article, the East Sea is a different matter. East Sea was not named by neither Korea or Japan. Because there is no evidence of Korea or japan naming it, I cannot support "Ulleung Basin." In fact, I don't want and don't care about "Ulleung Basin." It is an uncommon name. Everything must be kept historically true-East Sea and Dokdo. Oyo321 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"East Sea is the official name"??? It is only the official name in Korea. It's a local name.If you refuse it, you must show the evidence. Your remark is foolish. Objectman 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ocean currents

I wrote about two oceanic currents yesterday, but Appleby deleted. Why? Stop vandalism.--Mochi 01:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby always delete topics which is disadvantage to Korea without specific reason. This user is not neutral, not suitable for English wikipedia. -- Himawarichan 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Friends, do not accuse him of vandalizing. We are no better off with our sock-puppet and Ni-channeru. Ken ta987 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of a neutral picture

I strongly recommend that this article do not use a map of the sea with the tag "Sea of Japan". Instead, I put a picture where there is no tag.

Sea of Japan is the english name, regardless if Koreans like it or not. Nevertheless, the previous map also listed alternative names where applicable, and by that is much more useful than your map. Also, watch the WP:3RR!-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the previous map too, because it's always useful to have detailed information in an Encyclopedia. It's more "encyclopedic" that way. Please change it back to the previous map.--Endroit 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... i already reverted it. Try reload. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed, thanks!--Endroit 14:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone edit the map to change from "Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin)" to "Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin)" per result of the vote? --Kusunose 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated image -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kusunose 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

actually, because the recent poll was inconclusive, i think the map should remain as is, while the issue remains open. Appleby 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the poll was 57.9% for Tsushima basin, which was also the name when i first came across it on Sea of Japan, which was also the name i first use to create the map. In lack of a better option, please leave it at "Tsushima (Ulleung)" -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

i believe you labeled the map "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" yourself in november 2005, after discussion with me & endroit, & this article & map has kept that label until the current dispute that led to the consensus-less vote. Appleby 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ulleung Basin vs. Tsushima Basin

The article Tushima Basin is being requested to be moved to Tsushima Basin or Ulleung Basin.
Please vote for or against Tsushima Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Tsushima Basin).
Please vote for or against Ulleung Basin at Talk:Tushima Basin#Requested move (Tushima Basin → Ulleung Basin).
--Endroit 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

notice of poll

there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features of this sea, currently underway at Talk:Tsushima Basin. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be able to vote. Appleby 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to be offensive here, or anything, but I can't say that I approve of having page protection applied by User:Nihonjoe. Look, I actually think the position of the Koreas on this issue is patently absurd, but it can only inflame things to have an obvious Nippophile making the decision to page protect. Someone else should have done it. 68.154.210.100 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Just because I have an interest in Japan doesn't mean I can't be fair. Feel free to take a look at my edit histroy (be warned: it's very long) and you'll see that I've done my best to be fair, especially after being made an administrator. I don't take these additional responsibilities lightly. I also recommend that you create an account] rather than hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Your opinions will carry heavier weight if you take the time to create an account to which they can be permanently associated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't hide behind an anon IP; I had simply failed to remember to sign in—a great rarity for me. And what I don't understand is, that after I made my comments, and noticed that the IP was showing, rather than my username, I went back, signed in, deleted the IP, and put in my four tildes. I don't understand why it didn't change.

Anyway, of course you can be fair despite your Nippophilia. I know that. I think that I'm very even-handed despite my various leanings. I just know that this is an emotional issue for some (I'm a Seoul Man!) and I was merely indicating that someone else might have been less likely to rile up those already inclined towards passionate displays. No biggie. Have you also visited the page on the dispute over the name? They get it on over there, big time. I bowed out of that one months ago. Unschool 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

an edit needs to be made

While i strongly disagree that Dokdo should be the title of the article, it is. I think it should be liancourt, but that is a different story for a different time. but since the article is currently named Dokdo, this part of the article "Takeshima (Dokdo)" needs to be switched back to Dokdo (Takeshima)" I have been accused in the past of being a pro japanese editor (mostly by korean POVers), but i am neither pro korean nor pro Japanese here on wikipedia. If anything, I am pro English POV, which in most cases goes against Korea and for Japan. user:Mythologia is deliberately reverting to japanese pov by putting the japanese name for those islands ahead of the agreed upon name here on wikipedia (which happens to be the korean name). In my opinion, that is blatantly a POV edit and you page protected it so it can't be fixed. As for the other part, "There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community" vs. "There is a controversy between Korea and Japan" it should also be reverted back to my last edit. Why? because the international community has already decided on a name (sea of japan) and the IHO told korea and japan to work it out for themselves ei between korea and japan. Therefore, the dispute is not between korea and the rest of the world, but korea and japan. The rest of the world uses Sea of Japan, not east sea. Mythologia has been vandalising this page to add japanese pov and you edit protected it with the blatant pov still in the article. I strongly urge you to revert it back to my last edit, which is the closest edit to before the "revert war" started (which is what you should have done in the first place). Masterhatch 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of Masterhatch's comments, about the islands, but I think he is wrong about the second, and more important issue, regarding the parties to the dispute. The conflict is between Korea and the rest of the world. Japan has no motivation to discuss the issue, and the only reason that it has been a big issue over the past 10-15 years has been the efforts of Korea to persuade the world community to listen to them on this. Another way of putting this: The dispute is between Korea and the status quo (an undeniable characterization, that I hope even Masterhatch would agree with), which simply makes it their issue, not the Japanese. I think that Masterhatch is fooling himself by trying to make this into a Japanese-Korean conflict. Unschool 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While i agree that korea is trying to make it a worldly issue, it must be noted that most of the world just doesn't care. Japan cares, that is why they are ignoring it (hoping it goes away syndrome). It is between japan and korea. Since japan is refusing to deal with it, korea is trying to bring the rest of the world into it. The IHO and all other official governments just don't give a darn and are not interested in changing. It is up to korea and japan to resolve this. Status quo will remain until they do. If they never do, then status quo will exist indefinately. See, korea has no historical backing for "east sea" over "sea of japan" and the only reason korea wants the name to change is because of their dislike for japan. You don't see koreans trying to change "East China Sea" to "south sea" or the "yellow sea" to "West Sea". It is simply because of the word "Japan" that the koreans want that body of water's name changed. This is nothing more than a long series of disputes between korea and japan. Over history, korea got the short end of the stick too many times and are just trying to one up japan every way they can. I lived in korea for 4 years and i know this is how the people there feel. There is a strong "dislike" for the japanese and any way the koreans can get ahead of them, they will try. So, again, this dispute is between japan and korea, or shall i say between korea and japan. The international community made up its mind at the the last IHO meeting and has withdrawn from talks and told korea and japan to solve it amongst themselves. I will repeat, the IHO removed the international community from the dispute at the last meeting and left it up to korea and japan. Oh, by the way, i am not fooling myself into thinking that this is only between korea and japan, because it is only between them (thanks to the last IHO meeting). Masterhatch 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Well, I am glad at least to see your on-point analysis of the Korean motivations for this—I agree, their antipathy, not history, drives this campaign. I realize now that our disagreement on the parties to the issue is largely one of semantics (which, unfortunately, does not exactly solve the edit issue). You are, very understandably, citing the "letter of the law", so to speak, by giving us the IHO ruling. And of course, in that sense, you are correct. I have regarded it as a more informal debate within the court of public opinion, which is where Korea is attempting to engage the world community. Would you agree to that characterization? It doesn't tell us how the page should read, but am I correct in thinking that we are more in agreement on this issue that not? Unschool 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree totaly that korea is trying to make it an informal debate within the court of public opinion. But the key word is trying. But that isn't where the conflict or controversy is. There isn't enough people who care or even know about it outside the circles of korea and japan for it to be a controversy between korea and the rest of the international community. The part of the international community that actually might care (the IHO) made up its mind, ending any international controversy. The controversy is almost entirely among the circles of the koreans and japanese. But i think we can end this silly debate by using the sentence "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." as suggested by Zonath. Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If either of you could point to sources for your assertions you might gain some supporters for your positions. Fagstein 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything "much of the international community" is too vague to really be verifiable. What parties comprise 'much of the international community' in this case? I know that certain parties (such as map publishers and news media outlets, for example) have been dragged into the controversy, largely at the behest of Korean Internet users, but beyond those parties, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of controversy. Personally, I would leave off naming specific parties, and just say that "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." After all, the sentences immediately following this one identify the positions of Korea (South and North) as well as the common modern usage. --Zonath 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very happy with "There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be." Come to think of it, wasn't that what it originally said? Masterhatch 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

why don't we state the three facts briefly; sea of japan is the most common name; korea proposes east sea; japan opposes korea's proposal. unless anyone can cite any other country or internat'l org actually opposing korea's proposal. Appleby 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, Appleby, I think Zonath's suggestion is on-point. It's uncontestably true. I would be willing to add that the Koreas favor changing the name, but I oppose listing Japan as "the" opposing side, because, even if it's only the result of inertia, most of the world opposes the change, too. So I suggest Zonath's language as a compromise. Unschool 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

but japan is uncontestably the opposing side, no? & soj is the most common name. i guess we disagree on the meaning of "opposition", but sometimes less is more :-).

if we go with zonath's minimalism for the first sentence, for the same reason as unschool, but in the opposite direction, i don't want it implied that most of the countries are the "opposing side" either. further in that spirit, do we really need north korea's position in this brief pointer to the main dispute article? how about this version:

There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea. Appleby 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, Appleby. What say you, Masterhatch? Unschool 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Masterhatch 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Decision

Please post below a concise description of exactly what decision all of you have reached, and then indicate your support (or not) of this decision. If a consensus has been reached, then I will unprotect this page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of decision reached

There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above.

• Support. Unschool 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks ok to me i guess. Masterhatch 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC) user john smith's said it all "Although Sea of Japan is the [most] commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed 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. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." I give all support to that. It is fair and accurate. Masterhatch 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Zonath 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Appleby 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sea of Japan is the most common name currently sounds very weak, since pretty much everybody except Korea uses Sea of Japan. Also, where in the text should this statement go? Is in in the intro, or later in the description of the naming conflict? -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Chris said, the statement about "Sea of Japan" is far too weak. The fact is that Korea has little or no backing, so it shouldn't be given as much weighting. It's also highly vague as to the history. It would need to talk about what the most commonly used term was in the past. I do not see what is wrong with the current statement on the article. John Smith's 16:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Please read this history[1]. This poll was changed its content by User Unschool. This is first version by 日本譲[2].　I think this poll is invalid.Mythologia 18:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, John Smith's and Mythologia. --Questionfromjapan 23:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, Mythologia　--Jingxin 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per Chris, John Smith, Mythologia, Questionfromjapan and Jingxin. In addition, who can understand the meaning of the "East Sea"? Allmost of the people on this earth have never live in Korea. Even Koreans haven't lived only in Korea throughout their lives. What ridiculous name the "East Sea" is! On the other hand the name "Sea of Japan" is easiest to associate the sea between Japan and the Eurasian continent. That is, Sea of Japan is the best title of the articles about the sea between Japan and the Eurasian continent. Why admins need consensus poll? Admins of english version also wanna call Hwa-byung Koreans' attack by sockpuppet like japanese version by Hwa-byung Korean admins? I think it is clear that this problem is caused only by too self-satisfied Hwa-byung Koreans. --⇒Shougiku Wine 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Hermeneus (user/talk) 08:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Kamosuke 09:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -per　Mythologia--Celldea 12:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has any specific objections, let's scrap this poll and move on to the next one, since it's patently obvious that the consensus opposes this change. --Zonath 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Why not put my suggestion up with a second poll? John Smith's 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

polls are just not going to work until things calm down. what we need is a rational discussion of evidence and wikipedia policy, not a tally of how many uninformed votes each side can marshall. the protection will remain until some admin takes some bold actions, after taking the time to understand what's going on here. Appleby 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think my proposal is far more neutral. I think we should put it to the vote. John Smith's 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it one more try, since it seems that discussion on this topic has more or less dried up, and nobody has yet to put forward a more reasonable alternative. Perhaps John Smith's suggestion will be able to generate more consensus than the previous one. If not, we'll most likely just have to be content with leaving this page in a protected state for at least the foreseeable future, as I don't really believe that this dispute is going to just go away. Heck, maybe it's in the best interests of the article for it to remain protected -- after all, this is pretty much the longest stretch in at least a year that the article hasn't been vandalized. --Zonath 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Was the poll announced on the proper pages? (e.g. Japan/Korea portal, etc)-- Chris 73 | Talk 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. So long as everyone remembers that Wikipedia is not a democracy, everything will be fine. :) John Smith's 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't change anything! I wasn't the one who even came up with this wording. I just happened to be the first one to indicate approval of the wording that someone else picked. Unschool 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

>Unschool. You overwrote the text mentioned below and changed content of poll.

"Dcription of decision reached

Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your Support or Oppose opinion of the decision described above."

This conduct is a vandalism. Don't overwrite others' text in discussion page.Mythologia 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, you have got to be kidding me. You have got to be joking. Look at these words:

Please replace this text with the concise description of the decision.

Nihon was asking one of us to replace the text—that very line—with the text that we were agreeing to. He saw that we had appeared to reach consensus, but to make sure that we were all on board, he placed that line in there, requesting that one of us replace it with our consensus decision, and then leave that consensus text there to be posted, and to be voted on. If you don't think that's what was supposed to happen, then what do you think the purpose of the post was? Please have the passage read to you by someone whose primary language is English, and maybe they can make it clear to you. A request to replace a piece of text requires that the original text be removed and another piece of text put in its place. Jeesh. Unschool 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to apologize to everyone for my outburst there a few moments ago. I just looked at Mythologia's user page and realize now that, in his short time on Wikipedia, he has already demonstrated, not only poor English skills, but also has a good deal of difficulty in getting along with others. I should have reviewed his page before I wasted my time on such an outburst. Anyway, the poll is not invalid, the poll was not vandalized, and Mythologia is not worth arguing with yet (though I hold out hope; many newbies do come along and eventually learn the ways of Wikipedia. I made a few misteps in my first week or two.) Unschool 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made two warnings for you about Civility on this talk and Personal-Attack on user:Mythologia. Please be civil and please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thank you.--Questionfromjapan 23:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you read the writing which 日本譲 wrote? > Unschool. He wrote that writing to make consensus of unblocking this article. Not about the renameing this page. You changed his aim. This poll is limited it's effect by 日本譲's definition. You changed the contents of poll. So your vote is invalid. Mythologia 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that this was ever about renaming this page? As best as I can tell, that has never been an issue here. There is already an entire article about the dispute of the name of the sea, and that was not what the discussion was about. We were only discussing the actual wording of the final paragraph of this article. That paragraph currently reads:

• There is a controversy between Korea and much of the international community over what the name for this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Most countries use the name Sea of Japan, but South Korea insists on East Sea. North Korea supports South Korea's position but uses East Sea of Korea.

and Appleby, Masterhatch, and Zonath and I were discussing wording of that final paragraph that would be more acceptable. I believe it was Zonath who suggested this wording:

• There is some controversy over what the name of this sea should be. Over the centuries, this sea has been called by various names. Sea of Japan is the most common name currently, but South Korea supports using the name East Sea.

There was no discussion about renaming the article, just over what would be a reasonable, non-POV wording of the brief mention about the dispute of the name. Because this article is about the Sea in general, and not just over the dispute, the mention of the dispute needed (we all thought) to be short. And this version seemed to be accurate and non-POV. Look, I really must respect you, Mythologia, for having as good a command of English as you do—goodness knows that I speak no foreign languages as well as you speak English. Nonetheless, it clearly is making it hard to discuss matters with you, because you are consistently misunderstanding the fundamentals of what is being discussed. I would recommend for you the same advice as I need to take myself—be patient before making accusations; ask questions before making assumptions.

Anyway, the reason the page was being blocked was because of problems with this last paragraph, n'est-ce pas? Unschool 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The beginning of blockings has cause in a raid of changing of Liancourt Rocks to Dokto. So I might be too nervous about naming dispute, but I cannot help feeling your aim of this points. And if people in Japan didn't read the articles about Japan, those articles will be rubbish with one-sided way of looking those things like you know as Dokto.Mythologia 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just finished reading over the entire discussion page (which I should have done earlier). And, Mythologia, I must say, though there are a couple of comments about these tiny rocks, it seems that you have again missed the point. The point here, the issue upon which we were voting, was simply about the name of the sea, and the issue of the rocks needed to have nothing to do with it.

Beyond that, to those of you anti-Koreans who are voting against this because you think that this was pro-Korean language, you need to reconsider. Although it is subtle, I indicated that I favor Zonath's language not because it mentions the Korean name East Sea, but because it more importantly establishes that Sea of Japan is the status quo, and that only Korea wishes to change things. Personally, I think that Sea of Japan should remain the name, and I think that that VANK is on a Nippophobic witch hunt with this change. But so many of you—on both sides of this issue—are so full of vitriol that you can't recognize a fair compromise when you see it. Unschool 06:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You know VANK? So you are sure to know the real state of affairs. What I want to do is only to make wikipedeians known another viewpoint of things that isn't brought by VANK. In far east Asia, particularly North Korea, South Korea and Japan are in social unrest situation which are brought from lack of information in North Korea, South Korea and Japan. If we are well-informed, this situation will be changed to better one. So I struggle as far as I can.:-).Mythologia 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys, let's take time-out here. To be honest I think it's obvious the edit that was proposed is not as good as everyone originally thought. I doubt a consensus will be reached with the current suggestion, so let's open it up and discuss a better one. John Smith's 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it a great edit? No way. But with a subject as volitile as this one (I assume you've spent some time looking over the archives of the discussions at Sea of Japan naming dispute) sometimes vanilla is as good as you're going to get. Frankly, given the history of the debate, I think both sides would be giving a lot of ground to accept such laconic phrasing. I would really like to put Zonath's wording in the final paragraph and get the page unblocked. Unschool 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but another edit war will start if anyone tries to change it, won't it? Seriously I can think of something better. Let me try.

"Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed 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. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition."

How's that? It gives proper reference to how the current term is accepted, without trying to say Korea is "causing trouble", etc. John Smith's 22:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I really don't see this as a huge deal, and I can't believe that I've allowed myself to expend so much energy on it. This dispute is going to go on for years, will not be settled here, and probably is best left to the hypersensatives who a) won't let it go, and b) really are in no position to do anything (vis a vis the real world) about it. To top it off, I've just had somebody on my user page accusing me of instigating an edit war! My god, I've literally made one edit on this article in the last 9 months, and some hypersensitive accuses me of "instigating an edit war"? How does one instigate an edit war without editing an article? Some of you people must walk at an angle from weight of the huge chip you're carrying on your shoulders. Yes, my tone is non-civil right now, but I tend to get a bit annoyed with people who fabricate statements and try to pass them off as facts. Good night! Unschool 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of nerves are getting frayed regarding this as well as other protected pages relating to Japanese/Korean disputes. It's obvious that the current suggestion isn't generating the sort of consensus that would be necessary to get this page unprotected, so I would personally like to invite those that have opposed the current suggestion to step up and suggest something that would be acceptible to them. Simply jumping into the discussion once a poll has started (more than a week after the last comment was made to this page) in order to indicate opposition without suggesting a reasonable compromise is unhelpful in the extreme. As for John Smith's suggestion, while I can see where some might object to it, I would be perfectly willing to live with it. --Zonath 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't really see a solution to this until some neutral admins just invest some time to read through what's been going on here. nationalist mob rule will prevent any rational discussion of evidence and policy. time and again, i've been fooled into negotiations and concessions only to have all the work crapped on by last-minute barrage of bs. i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesn't see any "discussion" to participate in on these poisoned talk pages. Appleby 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile putting my suggestion up for a vote. It is undeniably more neutral, while still showing Japan's term is the more widely used one. John Smith's 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution

Description of possible solution

Replace the opening paragraph:

The Sea of Japan (East Sea) is a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean. Like the Mediterranean Sea it has almost no tides owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific.

with the following:

"Sea of Japan is the International Hydrographic Organization term for a marginal sea of the western Pacific Ocean. While Sea of Japan is more commonly used in international English language publications, South Korea has argued that it should be called the East Sea and North Korea has argued for the East Sea of Korea. It is surrounded by Japan on the south, Japan and the island of Sakhalin on the east, South and North Korea on the west, and Russia on the north. The sea is accessible by the Korea Strait on the southwest, the Tsugaru Strait and the La Perouse Strait on the east, and the Strait of Tartary on the north. Like the Mediterranean Sea, it has almost no tides owing to its nearly complete enclosure from the Pacific."

This would replace both the first paragraph and the last section (Naming), and do it in a way that still preserves neutrality and fairness.

Thoughts on the above proposal

After poring over the discussions above, I have come up with what I believe is a very fair, accurate, and neutral opening paragraph for this article. I think it fairly addresses all of the concerns expressed here, while still adhering to the neutrality that Wikipedia requires. It also follows common descriptive opening guidelines for geographic locations.

Please post your thoughts on the above proposal here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm slightly confused here. I thought the problem was the last section. Is there also a problem over the introduction as well? Is this proposal to replace the current introduction and the last section as it stands now?

Can someone just clarify - I've withdrawn the new poll until now. John Smith's 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've clarified that. I forgot to include the bit about the last paragraph. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the above proposal, I think it should read "While Sea of Japan is the most common name used in international English language publications", given that it is the most common name used. John Smith's 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Using "more" is more correct, and still accomplishes the same thing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also under the impression that much of the original dispute was over the wording of the 'naming' section of the article, rather than that of the first paragraph. I suppose we could always just return the mention of the dispute to the top of the paragraph, delete the 'naming' section, and put the 'dispute over the naming of the sea of japan' article in the 'see also' section, but that pretty much enc

ompasses more radical changes than we've been discussing, and might be a lot less likely to achieve a consensus as a result. --Zonath 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I think your proposal might be too bold. Can we put that on the back-burner and try mine out instead, first? John Smith's 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think with the change I'm suggesting it will address all of those concerns. I do agree with including a link to Sea of Japan naming dispute in the "See also" section. I think it is good to make sure people know about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

in general, I think this is a good suggestion. I guess the question would be which of the current proposals we should vote on first, whether there should be a concurrent poll, or what. I'd like to see some more suggestions from other quarters, but it seems like there's a lot of people waiting in the wings to oppose whatever suggestion is made, rather than discussing anything. --Zonath 00:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of silly? People coming here want an article on a body of water, not a naming dispute. If they wanted a detailed explanation of the naming dispute they would go to the article created on that subject. Common sense would say that the intro should be about the Sea of Japan, not the use of the term "Sea of Japan" worldwide. Fagstein 03:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Fagstein. To many Korean Wikipedia users, the naming dispute is certainly the most important aspect of the Japanese Sea, but to people in general who want to read about the Japanese sea, it is rather unhelpful. Mackan 11:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. The naming dispute should not be at the top. John Smith's 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, should we go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion, then? --Zonath 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, his suggestion is the best by far.Mackan 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I included it at the top is because WP:MOS indicates that all of the common names for something should be mentioned right at the beginning of the article. Mentioning them in the way I did presents the alternate names in a neutral manner, and provides a link to the naming dispute should people be interested in reading about that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sea of Japan (East Sea) accomplishes the goal of mentioning all the common names of this body of water rather elegantly. I think a lot of people on the Sea of Japan side seem to oppose mentioning the dispute in the first paragraph, since that could give undue credence to what is, essentially, a minority view. Modifying the first paragraph so drastically might end up causing more problems than it proposes to solve. While your suggestion is a good one, and worth considering, I think we should go ahead with a poll on John Smith's's suggestion for the time being, seeing as how discussion has (once again) more or less dried up here. If nothing else, maybe we can get a little more insight into the positions of the relative parties. --Zonath 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, come on. Just put my suggestion to the vote and get it over with. :) John Smith's 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's--forgive me for being a bit dense; which is yours? It's a little confusing--is yours the "above proposal"? LactoseTI 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine is "Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed 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. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition." John Smith's 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we move it to the "West Sea" (of Japan) (This is a joke! :D) John, it seems like a decent proposal; I assume this is intended for not the opening so much as the farther down part? I'll watch for if someone sets up a vote. LactoseTI 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to go lower down. And I'll do it myself. John Smith's 12:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal, new vote

Ok, guys, let's try this again, as it's clear the first proposal isn't going anywhere. I have changed the proposed edit to what I think is fairer. If it's still not going to get a consensus, then fair enough - but I want to try. John Smith's 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of decision reached (mark 2)

Although Sea of Japan is the commonly used term to refer to the sea amongst the international community, Korea has pushed 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. However neither of these two names has achieved any formal international recognition.

(This will replace the "Naming" secion)
(The poll will run for 2 weeks from 31.7.06 or until 1 week has elapsed since the last vote - whichever comes first)
(For a "consensus" to be reached, there will need to be a 60-40 majority)

Consensus poll

Please indicate below your opinion of the decision described above, by writing Support or Oppose with the reason why you wish to vote that way.

• Support, for reasons outlined above. John Smith's 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per above. LactoseTI 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. seems about as Japan-POV as possible. Korea "pushes" instead of "proposes", factually incorrect about "international recognition" as most major internationally respected encyclopedias, dictionaries, and mapmakers have adopted east sea as an alternate name, creates impression "internal community" is against korea, when in fact japan is the only actual opponent of korea's proposal, and no international body has rejected korea's proposal. seems carefully worded to be pro-japan in every wayAppleby 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hold your guns: The vote needs a clear ending date (e.g. 2 weeks), how to count the vote (e.g. 50% support or more is needed), and voting criteris (e.g. 1 month activity and 100 edits before start of vote), and the vote should be announced on the respective portals, projects, and poll pages. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if it was a straw poll... I think that's what this is. LactoseTI 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, I would suggest to do it properly, otherwise the loosing side does not feel to be bound by the vote (based on my previous experience) -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited it. 2 weeks or 1 week from last vote; 60-40 majority. But this is an informal poll to get the page unlocked - please don't over complicate it. Besides, if people REALLY want to cause trouble, they'll never accept the decision. If they are reasonable, they'll use common-sense to see whether there's a consensus or not. John Smith's 13:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)