Jump to content

Talk:Sea of Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A Closer Look at the East Sea Naming Controversy

[edit]

The preference for the term "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan" is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and geopolitical considerations. The term, "East Sea," is advocated since it holds historical and cultural significance predating the colonial era, emphasizing a more inclusive regional perspective. Countries like South Korea view the use of "East Sea" as a means to assert their national identity and diminish the dominance of the "Sea of Japan" name, which is linked to a contentious colonial history. The parallel lies in the potential to evoke historical grievances and sensitivity; just as certain war criminal flags, such as Nazi flag and rising sun flag, may carry a contentious historical legacy, the naming of geographical features can be a source of geopolitical tension, reflecting deep-seated historical issues. Both situations highlights the need for nuanced discussions and diplomatic approaches to navigate complex historical narratives and foster understanding among nations. The choice of terminology is also seen as a way to navigate geopolitical sensitivities in the region, reducing potential tensions associated with historical disputes. Proponents suggest that adopting "East Sea" contributes to a more balanced and neutral international approach to the naming of this body of water, reflecting diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of historical narratives. In essence, the naming debate transcends mere semantics, becoming a symbolic representation of identity, diplomacy, and historical consciousness in East Asia. 73.132.144.47 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of Wikipedia to make judgment calls on historical and cultural consciousness and sensitivity. These choices are made by the reliable sources which Wikipedia relies on. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the most common usage among reliable sources. In essence, your argument is with those reliable sources, not with Wikipedia. Westwind273 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Masterhatch (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of Wikipedia to make judgement calls, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't stand with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei(the Nazi Party), nor does it stand with terrorist groups like the Taliban. In fact, Wikipedia articles openly condemn them.
When we talk about Imperial Japan, we talk about the sex slave issues, various massacres, human experiments, and other various atrocities that Japan has committed during World War ll. Yes, it's not the job of Wikipedia to make judgement calls, but there's a certain line between keeping it politically neutral and upholding a symbol of violence, crime, and injustice. 112.165.73.185 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia has its own guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME) and it is very unlikely the name of this article will change unless the usage of "East Sea" exceeds that of "Sea of Japan" on reliable secondary sources outside of the enwiki. If you truly believe that the name "Sea of Japan" must be banned for its association with Japan's war crimes then arguing on a Wikipedia talk page is a waste of time. Try convincing the US department of state and Encyclopedia Britannica first. 00101984hjw (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s wrong of name “Japan sea”

[edit]

It shouldn’t Japan Sea. Google will have to find th right name without being biased towards to any country. 2001:8003:421D:701:BD86:7CF6:531C:B06B (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan is the common name in English, not Japan Sea. Masterhatch (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that that's not his/her point, right? 112.165.73.185 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

[edit]

The East Sea of Korea is a sea that includes Ulleungdo and of course, Dokdo. The real Sea of Japan is a little sea more east from the East Sea of Korea. The real Sea of Japan includes battleship Island and part of Gushu. 117.110.115.27 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. McYeee (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About my writing

[edit]

The sea of Japan was widely used before Korea was colonized by japan is a Japan's claims. Why are you deleting it? PU3lnm8JtfU

And i can't see any korea's claim that east sea was internationally used. Qwert0617 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not based on conflicting claims, but on the sources currently used in the article. CMD (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are saying You should talk about my first talk Qwert0617 (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with this Qwert0617 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East sea

[edit]

I just want to make sure one thing. I don't know what the basis for using the East Sea internationally before the advent of the Sea of Japan. Qwert0617 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but it is difficult for me to understand what point you are trying to make. Please consider refraining from editing the English Wikipedia given your level of English proficiency seems somewhat poor. Remsense ‥ 论 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure one thing. Artical says that East Sea internationally used before the Sea of Japan widely use. I can find that east sea used in korea 2000years ago but i cant fine that east sea used internationally do you have any research of it? Qwert0617 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

now? Qwert0617 (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit your comments after others have already replied, either. I've fixed this for you, though. To answer your question: that's not what the article says. The article says that Japan claims both names were in use before the occupation of Korea. It does not state whether the names were actually used during that time, only that Japan says they were. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any link? Because i can't found it any were. They says that it was only used in korea
And also sorry because im not used to wiki site i dont now the rule accurately 211.213.219.100 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 13:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find it 211.213.219.100 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop insisting for writting down evidence-free writings. If there is the only one simple thing you just have to do is just copy and paste it at the talk why cant you do that may i understand that you have no research to prove it? 211.213.219.100 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the article. If you actually cared about whether a source exists, you would've located it immediately. Since you're doing this instead, and given you're almost certainly also 117.110.115.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that makes it abundantly clear you don't care about what was or was not the case historically, or what sources there are or are not—you just want to argue and create more headaches for others. Remsense ‥ 论 13:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No its not.
I think you are the one who create more headaches for others.
Just give me the link. What you are saying Qwert0617 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_of_Japan&oldid=1260202779"