Wikipedia

Talk:Tsushima Basin/Archive 1

< Talk:Tsushima Basin
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Tortfeasor in topic Page protected
Archive 1

isn't it invalid that the vote changed the rule after the vote starts?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is not fair that the vote changed the rule after the vote starts. Objectman 08:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The discounting of votes is at an admins disgression. I merely wrote them down after I got some support from other voters (on both sides of the argument) for my initial suggestion. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby! Why do you move without leave?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Don't you have the intention of arguing?Objectman 07:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tushima -> Tsushima

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Tushima" is not correct. I'd like to move the article to "Tsushima Basin". Any opinions?--Mochi 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (Tushima Basin → Tsushima Basin)

Tushima Basin → Tsushima Basin – {This is the opposing request for the one immediately below. The letter "s" is missing in "Tsushima". "Ulleung Basin" may be higher in google counts, but "Tsushima Basin" is the only registered name at the IHO. Endroit 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Since "Tushima" is obviously a spelling mistake, I moved the page already to "Tsushima". If the vote turns out to be for Ulleung Basin, we can move it again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Tsushima vs Ulleung

Latest comment: 18 years ago139 comments32 people in discussion
  • Voting started with the first vote 08:57, 5 June 2006.
  • Voting ends after two weeks 08:57, 19 June 2006.
  • Voters need a minimum of 100 edits
  • Voters need to have their first edit at least one month before the vote started (i.e. 08:57, 5 May 2006 or ealier)

arguments for Tsushima Basin

The IHQ registration name of that is the Tsushima basin.Objectman 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The IHO standardized name does not exist. Japan registered the name Tsushima basin, but it is not standardized. Deiaemeth 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chosunilbo says

"Japan has already given the name “Tsushima Basin” to the seabed south of Ulleung Island and Dokdo and registered it with the International Hydrographical Organization (IHO) in 1978, as an international sea map published by the IHO attests."
"A Maritime Place Name Committee, established in 2002 under the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, gave the name “Ulleung Basin” to an area almost identical with the Tsushima Basin,"

So "Ulleung Basin" is a far newer name. Before then, IHO used "Tsushima Basin" as the de facto standard. So this article should be move back to Tsushima Basin.--Mochi 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The chosun ilbo is a Korean news source. Of cource, it is on the Korean side, and meaningless in the English wikipedia. -- Himawarichan 10:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't see why you categorize any news source as 'meaningless', regardless of its origin. It's only natural that most of the news sources that mention the dispute would be either from Korea or Japan. Sure, sources should be evaluated against each other in order to ensure that the information is relatively unbiased, but excluding any one source solely on the basis of its point of origin seems a bit silly. If it makes you any happier, the Daily Yoimori Online also uses the term 'registered', as you can see here.
While it's true that the IHO-registered name is not necissarily a de facto standardized name, the whole point of registering a name in the first place is in order to promote standardization, as can be seen here. I would personally treat an IHO-registered name with some deference, and it still remains that the name 'Tsushima Basin' has been registered with the IHO, while the name 'Ulleung Basin' has not, as seen here (PDF warning). --Zonath 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Himawarichan that statement is just about the most japanese POV I've heard from you or any other Japanese Wiki. 69.216.112.191 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

United States Geological Survey(USGS) uses more "Tsushima Basin"[1], than "Ulleung Basin"[2]. Futhermore, Tsushima Basin appears in the list of oceanic basins, while Ulleung Basin appears in some reports. This means "Tsushima Basin" is widely accepted and "Ulleung Basin" is accepted in a limited way.--Mochi 03:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

arguments for Ulleung Basin

wikipedia policy

  • Wikipedia's official policy is to "use the most common name" in wikipedia articles WP:NC. in case of naming conflicts, WP:NCON says:
"The three key principles are:
  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names.
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves." Appleby 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

evidence

it is wikipedia policy to use the most common english name. please see WP:UE and WP:NC. please also see various google results showing ulleung to be most common, esp in scholarly literature. Appleby 07:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you should check the google results. I'm talking about the misspelling.--Mochi 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

i did. what evidence is there that tsushima is the common english name? i get:

There seems to be some kind of an error or problem at Google. The Google count (10500) above is boosted by the search count in Estonian. When the Estonian count is not in effect, the Google count seems to be around 900 to 1000.--Endroit 16:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

this basin is right off the coast of south korea (see map here and at Sea of Japan) and not japanese territory (despite the name of the sea being "sea of japan"), making the korean naming more natural in oceanography, fishing, navigation, meteorology, etc. it's not coincidence, conspiracy, or manipulation, most obscure ocean features worldwide are named from the local language of the closest state. google is as good a guide here as in any other of the countless cases where wikipedians look for common english names. japan may have "registered" its own local language name, partly as political jockeying for Dokdo, but that's irrelevant, as wikipedia follows the common english name policy. Appleby 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Applyby, your suggestion is incorrect. If you suggest the commonly using of "Ulleung basin" by articles on pentagon reports, nonuse of "Tsushima basin" in them should be also confimed. However you can find use of "Tsushima basin" in an article on pentagon reports. Both "Tsushima basin" and "Ulleung basin" are almost not found in pentagon reports.Reito-maguro 13:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidence for each name is now coming forward. This is proof that we did this backwards. We should have gathered evidence, discussed it like men and made an unbiased decision based on the facts and sources. Instead, we jumped right to a vote without being properly informed and without properly discussing it. For this reason, i refuse to vote. Masterhatch 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The authors of reports from both the pentagon and NRL are the same (W. J. Teague et. al.) who also use Korea/Tsushima Strait[3]Korea/Tsushima Strait. Thank you for your kind introduction of reliable authorities. Jjok

vote for Tsushima Basin

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

*Oppose, per common name policy. Appleby 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (my support vote for ulleung is below. oppose here is redundant & confusing, as this is an either/or poll)

ineligible votes

Why my vote is ineligible?Objectman 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
To be eligible, your first edit must have been done before 08:57, 5 May 2006. Your first edit was at 18:58, 19 May 2006.--Endroit 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

vote for Ulleung Basin

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
"Not even near Japan?" Would you care to look at a map instead of making things up? Korea may be closer but the basin sits between the continental shelves. (Tsushima, incidentally, is the long island at the bottom of that map.) - Sekicho 17:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be Ulleung Basin. I read that the Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name. The evidence that AppleBy has posted clearly shows that "Ulleung Basin" is a more common name. Tsushima Basin supporters have no strong evidence that I can see. Good friend100 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I did google, yahoo, altavista and lycos searches to verify Appleby's claim that Ullung Basin is more common name, and found that it indeed is more commonly used (as far as web search is concerned) than Tsushima Basin. Sydneyphoenix 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
When you did those searches, did you discount articles from Japan and korea? We should be concerned about articles published from the English speaking world, not the two countries who are involved in the dispute. Masterhatch 06:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ineligible votes

Why my vote is ineligible?Objectman 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
To be eligible, your first edit must have been done before 08:57, 5 May 2006. Your first edit was at 18:58, 19 May 2006.--Endroit 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The standard is irrational.Objectman 05:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the standard is to A. keep away sock puppets and B. to keep from one side calling all their friends and saying "hey, make a user on wikipedia and vote in favour of ...." Personally, I think that anyone who has participated in the discussion should be able to vote, so as long as it doesn't appear as he/she is a sockpuppet or a "friend" who just created a user to add to the voting. Of course, IP addresses should not be able to vote. Masterhatch 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet and I didn't necessarily make my ID for vote. I made my ID on May 19, but I was writing at my IP before then. I did not only feel the necessity for ID then. This is severe treatment. And it is barbarism that it changes the rule of started vote. Objectman 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would count your vote as, like you said, you don't appear to be a sockpuppet of sorts and, most importantly, you have contributed greatly to this discussion well before the vote started. But, alas, i am not in charge of this little poll (that in my opion is happening far too early in the discussion). Masterhatch 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
i would have to agree that there are several problems with this vote. the main problem, as pointed out by masterhatch, is that we should have seen and discussed all the evidence before head-counting opinions. wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a democracy; we should build consensus based on wikipedia policies and references.
this poll was started on the heels of a heated sockpuppetry attack, with voter fatique on a related survey, and confused with a misspelling issue, with mid-stream change of eligibility and timeline, etc etc. we have voters who obviously didn't consider applicable wikipedia policy and evidence (e.g., rationale: "'Tsu' is true"). as far as i can tell, the only policy cited is "use common name", and the relevant evidence, well, it just doesn't seem like a question that should be decided by a poll in the first place.
i realize whatever i say will be taken with a grain of salt, seeing how the tally's not going my way, but this kind of tallying just doesn't seem to serve the purpose of wikipedia, although i don't know what the procedural solution is either. Appleby 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed something with the poll. All the opposers of naming the article "Ulleung Basin" left no comments. If you are attacking or defending something don't you need to write an explanation of your reasoning. I find no comments or arguments of the opposers under Ulleung Basin. Good friend100 23:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

wow, another sockpuppet festival. that was quick. Appleby 14:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

doing some counting: Mochi: 326 edits, Objectman 76 edits, Rh-Kiriki 216 edits, Chris 73 (myself) 18105 edits, Hermeneus 1317 edits, Trilozengy 8 edits, Celldea 13 edits, Kamosuke 496 edits (source). Also, Appleby 1831 edits. In counting votes, I would not count Trilozengy and Celldea, but the other users are unlikely to be sockpuppets. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am divided on this issue. On one hand, the Japanese registered Tsushima and the Koreans didn't register Ulleung which makes Tsushima more official. On the other hand, Ulleung is more common. But is it more common because of Korean publications in English or is it more common because of publications by English countries? I guess for me, it depends upon which name is more common in English text books (not published from either Japan or Korea) and other reputable publications. Masterhatch 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the correlation between the use of "Ulleung Basin" and "East Sea" on Google to be quite interesting. - Sekicho 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, a closing date must be set on this vote and the vote must be well advertised in all the right places. Also, I think it is far too early for a vote. We should have had atleast 2 weeks of discussion on the matter so that when we actually do vote, we will have seen arguments from both sides. After two weeks, if an agreement hasn't been reached, then a vote should take place. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we can't just have a vote every chance we can. Problems should be solved through discussion and by people removing their own bias. Masterhatch 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What I object to the most is the manner in which Appleby started the "Requested move" process to "Ulleung Basin" only, by listing that in WP:RM. Since Appleby started that already, I listed a counterproposal (to "Tsushima Basin") in WP:RM also and started this poll. Like Masterhatch says, I believe it was started too early. But the situation is exactly the same as when Sir Edgar started the "Requested move" process from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo". That vote ended when Sir Edgar closed the vote after exactly 5 days with 14-0 in support of "Dokdo", although consensus actually being more like 15-5, a mess with sockpuppets (and one-time-accounts) placing more than 100 votes, and accusations flying everywhere.
Now, maybe we should stop this poll and start discussion first. Or maybe we should continue and salvage this poll, advertising in as many places as possible and ending this poll in the next 5 to 14 days.
Masterhatch & Chris, what do you think? Can you two respond and comment ASAP?--Endroit 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would continue the poll. The poll was announced and has alread started, and a number of users have voted. Stopping the vote now would lead to "voter fatigue" (i.e. why vote when the vote is cancelled anyway). The options seem to be not very complex, it is either Tsushima or Ulleung, with not much alternative options, and both are part of the vote. There is extensive discussion on the pros and cons on this talk page, so no need to define the problem. Voting should end after two weeks (June 19 08:57). The only thing that should have been decided is when to discount votes. My suggestion: Minimum 100 edits and 1 month on the project before the beginning of the vote. Any objections? -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very fair to me. (I'm glad somebody as experienced as yourself is helping us out with this poll!) I support and second Chris 73's plan above.--Endroit 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I support Chris too. Masterhatch 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a bit of restructuring to make it clearer. I would have structured it even more different, but since the vote already started this would have been not proper. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

i did a little refactoring for readability and logical organization. i didn't change any content (besides adding my signed comment and vote), but if you think it affects the fairness of the vote, please feel free to revert. Appleby 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question: If the reason we adopt Tsushima Basin over the more common name is because Japan has registered the name with the IHO, what happens if South Korea registers the name Ullueng Basin with the IHO in June? Tortfeasor 08:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
as far as wikipedia is concerned, nothing should change whether korea registers "Ulleung Basin" or "Whatsmyname Basin" or doesn't register at all. Until the majority of scholars and publications use a different name, the current common name is the common name, no? what if, hypothetically, you just learned that Tsushima Island was actually registered with the name "Daemado" at the International Island-naming Organization. would that change anything at wikipedia? Appleby 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How to vote

I'm not sure how this vote is supposed to work. Is each user entitled to vote once, or once in each section? And how are oppose votes counted? Are they counted as half a vote each for the two other alternatives, -1 vote for the alternative in question, or not at all? Rōnin 16:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend voting for both. The page title was misspelled "Tushima Basin". So there is a simultaneous poll, one to move to "Tsushima Basin" and another to "Ulleung Basin". In the meantime, the page was tentatively moved to "Tsushima Basin", to correct the spelling error. So the latter "Tushima Basin --> Ulleung Basin" vote is more relevant now, though.--Endroit 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

right now, it's an either/or poll (tsushima or ulleungdo), so there's no point in supporting one AND opposing the other. it just makes the page messier and count confusing. ultimately, i presume we'll just count the support for each alternative, and oppose entries will have no practical effect (unless someone opposed one but didn't support the other, which will be converted as a support for the other .... see why we don't want to encourage "oppose" entries?). Appleby 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If anybody wants to vote "support" on one and "oppose" on the other, that is allowed too. The "Ulleung Basin" vote is more relevant now, I suggest everybody at least vote there. so I can see people voting "oppose" there and not vote on the other. So I guess Appleby's counting method makes sense too.--Endroit 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
you are a practical man, endroit :-) Appleby 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's an either / or poll, that means you'll have to convert all the "oppose" votes on each side into "support" votes for the opposite side, sort them and eliminate all duplicates. You can't have an either / or poll where you allow people to vote for both alternatives using an unspecified number of votes without disclosing how you'll count them. Rōnin 18:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe your method has the same mathematical effect as Appleby's method. So I will assume that we are in agreement as to the counting method.--Endroit 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahh yes, I was just talking out of my ass. Rōnin 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We should totally name it "Liancourt Basin", by the way. :) Rōnin 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
then korea should rename itself "liancourt," and japan rename itself "pacific" and the u.s. ... oh, already took care of "america" ... :-) Appleby 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
And Earth should take the more neutral name "that blue thing". Rōnin 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote Results: 57.9% Tsushima basin, 42.1% Ulleung basin

The vote closed after 2 weeks on 08:57, 19 June 2006. Discounting voters with less than 100 edits before the start of the vote or less than 1 month activity before the start of the vote, the vote had the following results:

  • 11 valid votes support for Tsushima basin (6 votes not counted)
  • 8 valid votes support for Ulleung basin (2 votes not counted)

Therefore Tsushima basin is the primary name to be used on Wikipedia when referring to the ocean feature, with alternative names in brackets. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

just a note that WP:RM states: "Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 70% or more) supporting the moving of an article". 12 of 20 is 60%, and the original naming of this article was contentious from the beginning, not like there was a long-standing article with presumed inertia of acceptability. in fact, the basin was referred to as "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" at the sea of japan article (the only mention of it at wikipedia, afaik) before a new editor recently created "tushima basin." it could be argued that there is no consensus to change the name from the previous ulleung basin to tsushima basin. Appleby 14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, WP:RM says that 60% is adequate, not 70%. The 70% figure seems to have been inserted by an anonymous vandal (158.182.1.36)on June 17, and the number was subsequently corrected by an administrator today. I think we can safely say that, at 60%, we've got our consensus on the name of this article. --Zonath 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

as far as i can tell, User:Isorhiza had less than 100 edits at the time of his/her vote. that would be less than 60% valid votes for either name. Appleby 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I count about 83 edits from Isorhiza at the time he voted, as well. If we count his vote as invalid, we end up with (about) 57.9% support for Tsushima Basin out of the valid votes. I think it might be time for the admin facilitating the vote to step up and make a ruling on this one. --Zonath 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
That is correct, my mistake. I will check the other votes on this respect, too, and update the vote outcome. Nevertheless, if it is 60% or 57%, I think the outcome is the same. I will also update the map. Currently i am very busy in real life, but hope to take care of that later today. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Updated count. Since i am still extremely busy, can someone check if i have missed another valid/invalid vote? Many thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Updated image on commons -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI, my count is 11 support (57.9%) in favor of Tsushima Basin and 8 support (42.1%) in favor of Ulleung Basin as well.--Endroit 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That matches my count (after correcting myself twice), so I think this is the final result. Thanks for checking -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

chris, could you at least change your poll closure & notices at various talk pages, to reflect the actual %, & that the result of the poll was inconclusive? this is sure to come up again on korean & japanese news. future editors should not be misinformed about a "consensus" to name this article tsushima basin. thanks. Appleby 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While 57.9% is not a very large majority, it is a good majority, and more than 42.1%. Also, the vote guidelines do not require a 60% majority, but suggest it, and 57.9% is close enough to 60%. I would oppose using primarily Ulleung on a 42.1% majority, this would make no sense and would not be just. Hence Tsushima (Ulleung) is the way to go. On a side note, why is it that whenever there is a vote, the loosing side requires a minimum of 70% for the vote to count where there are only 69%, or 75% where there are 74%, or 60% instead of 58%, or 85% instead of 83%, or whatever numbers you pick. Any party in the (democratic) world would be thrilled to get 51% of the voters. Also, this vote is not set in stone, but can be repeated in the future (that does NOT mean tomorrow, but rather in a year or so). Maybe then it will be 50+% for ulleung, and i will happily change the map back to Ulleung (Tsushima). Another argument is that voting does not determine the truth. This is correct, but unfortunately we do not have a better way to determine the truth at wikipedia for such naming conflicts. Experts on both side could argue forever on Tsushima/Ulleung and would not be able to convince the other side. Appleby, you don't have to like it, but please accept Tsushima (Ulleung) for now. Thank you -- 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

note that just before this vote, this article was created, & after my move to the then-existing consensus name, re-moved to "tushima basin" by a proven sockpuppet User talk:Himawarichan. when the outcome depends on such small difference (1 or 2 people changing their minds, or moving the article to another misspelled name just before the vote), i think a more accurate summary would be that the vote was inconclusive. note that that's what User:Nightstallion did when he thought the vote was closed earlier. i was just a little surprised by the definitive, conclusory remarks after such a problematic and close poll, that's all i'm saying. Appleby 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, that the basin was called Tsushima basin on Sea of Japan for a long time before this article was created and the whole naming discussion started. Also, a majority voted for Tsushima, please respect that. Also, Ulleung can and should always be mentioned as an alternative, so you are not skipping information. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

it was named "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" by you, actually, since november 2005 until the dispute that led to this vote. Appleby 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, on your request. Back then it sounded like this was a clear cut case, which it was (obviously) not. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

you came up with the "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" on your own after your google searches, when endroit & i disagreed on the name. obviously, it's still not clear cut, & i'm suggesting that you shouldn't change maps and post at various talk pages as if a clear consensus has been reached, especially since you were a participant and voter rather than merely a facilitating admin. thanks. Appleby 06:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say or do, Appleby? Consensus is clearly leaning towards Tsushima Basin, awaiting endorsements from a few people who voted for Ulleung Basin. I would say that if such endorsements happen, there WILL be 60% consensus for Tsushima Basin anyways.--Endroit

endroit, are you saying the poll is still open right now? that means you'd have to give notices at all the places that say the poll is closed. i don't think that's a good idea, though, this poll has had enough midstream changes of rules & other problems as it is. i accept that the percent was 57.9%. i think the general rule is that such a percentage isn't considered a conclusive "consensus," that's all i'm saying. a neutral (non-voting) admin labeled it "no consensus" when the vote was 57% in this poll earlier [4] Appleby 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The admin added this in the middle of the voting period, and reverted himself 20 minutes later [5]. Appleby, you are slowly crossing the line towards POV pushing. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
obviously, he reversed himself because he realized the poll was still open at the time. my point was that a neutral admin characterized less than 60% as "no consensus," consistent with the WP:RM guideline. Appleby 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Measuring the consensus and counting the votes can be two different things here. Finding the consensus is the most important thing here at Wikipedia, and the vote was merely a tool to discover the consensus. Clearly, there was NOT a 60% consensus during the voting. And the voting is finished already. What I'm saying is that despite the percentage being 57.9%, there should be somebody who voted for "Ulleung Basin" but will support "Tsushima Basin" as the consensus, with merely a 51% majority, therefore accepting it as the new status quo.... In other words, aside from the voting, a new consensus can arise from among the 19 voters, on what to do from here, and that consensus can indeed be over 60%.--Endroit 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

wow this is snowballing out of all proportions, considering the obscurity of the subject. all this could've been nipped in the bud by an admin just undoing a proven vandal's unilateral renaming, or, after the vote, just following the WP:RM guideline. here's a summary of my take on this mess, at User_talk:Chris_73#tsushima_basin. Appleby 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Those "vandals", they were actually some sockpuppets/blocked users with a content dispute, and the content dispute resulted in this poll. Here's the chronology of what happened as I see it:
  • The Sea of Japan article had used Tsushima Basin until last year when there was a 2-1 (66%) 3-0 (100%) consensus to change it to Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin).
  • Last month, there was a revert war between Appleby and some blocked users in Sea of Japan, over Tsushima Basin / Ulleung Basin.
  • Then a blocked user created this page, and revert wars continued in this new page also.
  • Then Appleby requested a WP:RM to move Tushima Basin --> Ulleung Basin.
  • Then I added a simultaneous WP:RM request Tushima Basin --> Tsushima Basin. (Tsushima Basin was misspelled).
  • Then we changed this to an either/or poll between Tsushima Basin and Ulleung Basin, shown above. Also, Tushima Basin was tentatively moved to Tsushima Basin to correct the spelling error.
  • The poll resulted in 57.9% supporting Tsushima Basin, and 42.1% supporting Ulleung Basin.
So, the question is, do we have consensus to use Tsushima Basin as the primary name or not? And do we have consensus to use Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin) in the Sea of Japan article or not?
I personally believe we have consensus to use Tsushima Basin (Ulleung Basin) in all articles, as a notice of the poll was posted in various places, including Talk:Sea of Japan.
--Endroit 17:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

who opposed "ulleung basin (tsushima basin)" when last november, chris & i independently googled to confirm the commonness of "ulleung"? i don't see anyone voicing any opposition, assuming you're referring to Talk:Sea_of_Japan/Archive_1#map. Appleby 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was the one who opposed at that time. But if I'm mistaken, the consensus would have been 2-0 (100%).--Endroit 17:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just looked over the archives. I think all 3 of us agreed to use Ulleung Basin (Tsushima Basin) at that time, as we were relying on Google results only at that time.--Endroit 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do from here on

If Nightstallion or other admins from RfC don't respond below, I will assume that the rules in WP:RM do NOT apply. For one thing, we already agreed to change this to an "either/or" poll, and modified the voting period and eligibility requirements. In other words, the WP:RM rules already did't apply, and we can only apply any relevant rules in Wikipedia:Current surveys.

If there aren't any other superceding rules in Wikipedia, we need to declare that the 57.9% of votes is enough for a majority rule used in any standard voting system. (If it pleases Appleby, we will avoid using the word "consensus" with respect to this particular voting result, and call it "majority rule" instead.)

Also we will apply any relevant precedent set in the naming of Sea of Japan (East Sea), whereby the "Primary Name" becomes the page title, "Primary Name (Secondary Name)" is used upon first mention, and "Primary Name" will be used thereafter. Maps are no exception, and shall use "Primary Name (Secondary Name)". And we should use this naming scheme in ALL Wikipedia articles (not just Korea-related or Japan-related articles).

And in our case, we will use "Tsushima Basin" as the "Primary Name", and "Ulleung Basin" as the "Secondary Name."

I'd like to ask Appleby, Masterhatch, and Chris 73, and let me know if this is OK?--Endroit 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

and how is this different from what you'd do if, just purely hypothetically, there actually was consensus? of course, further assuming, hypothetically, that "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate" [[6]] [7] and that consensus generally means 60-80% [8]. i realize there's nothing practical to be done against a 50.01% majority, but you might want to re-word your justification in light of how wikipedia is supposed to work. Appleby 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC comments

For anyone participating in the Request for comments, please post you messages in this section. Please sign your somments with ~~~~. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Spellin/Grammar corrections

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, I made some corrections to the paper, but still don't get some things. I corrected anyways, so please tell me how I did. --Anarkial 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

just a reminder

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

We aren't here on wikipedia trying to determine which name should be used around the world, but we are here to determine which name is actually used. One user said that the basin is closer to korea, so the korean name should be used. Sorry, but that is not what this vote is about. We aren't tying to help the IHO or the international community to decide which name is the best, but we are here to figure out what name the international community and IHO feel is best. We arent' doing original research here folks. Masterhatch 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

i didn't realize we were here to figure out what name the iho feels is best. which policy is that? i thought the policy was to "use the most common name" in wikipedia articles WP:NC and WP:NCON, which says:
"The three key principles are:
  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names.
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves." Appleby 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that came out wrong. I agree we are not here to determine which name the IHO feels is best, but we must not discount any ruling by the IHO in the future (if it ever rules on this subject). If the IHO all of a sudden decides that East Sea is the name to be used for that body of water, even though it is less common than sea of japan, i bet you that as fast as you can say "What the?" the name of the main article will be changed from sea of japan to east sea. Basically, i am trying to say that not in all cases is the most common name more appropriate than the "official" name. There are many examples of this in Wikipedia where the "official" name, over-rides the most common name. Anyways, let's cross that bridge if the IHO ever makes a decision. Masterhatch 06:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

if the iho, but not the majority of publications, does change its position on the sea of japan, why would wikipedia change the name of the article? what applicable policy or convention overrides the common name policy for this article? can you be specific? anyone? Appleby 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, Masterhatch, anyone else who cares: I'm troubled (maybe too strong a word) by the fact that there was relevant evidence adduced after the voting had already begun. Do I need to vote to make to make sure my vote counts even though I think the process was flawed or abstain? What exactly is the procedure here. Tortfeasor 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
of course, it's up to you, but please feel free to contribute to the discussion of policies and sources. whatever the outcome of this poll, leaving your reasoning can be helpful for inevitable future revisits of this issue, imho. Appleby 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Let me get that straight about this problem. At first, all of us know that the former name "Tushima" is not registered in any official document because of a spelling mistake. Therefore, It's so natural to rename this from "tushima" to "tsushima". So far, "tsushima" is official use name in IHO.

Anyway, I am really surprised at the treatment of “COMMON NAME” in this article. Normally, the frequency of the word could not be measured by the coverage on the internet when there is little deference between the figures in the comparison. What does it make sense by compareing between really small numbers in statistics? In this case, if we have to measure the degree of “common name”, we should consider the frequency in the real world. I mean, we should use IHO name since it is worldwide prevailing name (at least by seaman).

In addition, I wonder there is a serious problem on this voting for Ulleung. At least, we should not discuss two votings(Tsushima vs Ulleung) on an equal level. I thicnk the proposition which is about renaming about "Ulleung" is quite hot political problem. Actually, the political meeting between Japan and Korea in regard with the issue of Takeshima is coming soon(It will be held in latter June). And then, the treatment of this basin (involving naming) will probably be deliberated on that meeting since these problems are highly linkaged. (Plz refer to Japan MOFA[9])

To summarise my opinion, I would like to say that we should suspend the voting about "Ulleung" not to violate the wikipedian POV.-Questionfromjapan 07:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to see the evidence of Ulleung Basin's more common usage by Applyby. Also, we are discussing the policy of using the more common name when in a dispute. The word "Ulleung Basin" is defintely more common. Good friend100 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The most important point I would like to say is the following. what is the implication in the result "508 vs. 139" implied by Mr/s. Appleby? I suppose the figures by Mr/s. Appleby do NOT imply any significant deferences in statistics. Would you mind telling me the implication in such small samples? At least, please explain the reason why you thougt "defintely more common". Why could you say "defintely"? In this case, we need more robust and plausible results, e.g., such as normal usage name by international organization in real world, not on virtual world. And also, I am pointing out the politial neutrality in Wikipedia. I was really schocked when I checked the edit-histries of supporter for "ulleung". I beleieve we should not bring the primitive nationalism into Wikipedia each other.-Questionfromjapan 11:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Both Masterhatch and Appleby made good points. (Wikimachine 01:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC))
Everybody on the "Tsushima Basin" side use the Wikipedia policy to their advantage. Just because the Wikipedia policy says that everything must be neutral, that does not mean that the articles must be kept that way. I don't think "Tsushima Basin" is "neutral" since there are opposers of this title.

Also you "suppose" the figures by Appleby do not imply any significant deferences in statistics. Supposing is not good enough for your argument that Appleby's statistics are false. Good friend100 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful comment. I really apreciate that. OK. I would like to ask Mr/s appleby to prove the statsitical significant about the figure implied by Mr/s Appleby. Generally speaking, we need 4000-8000 revealed samples in this case. pls refer to the textbook of statistics. thank you.-Questionfromjapan 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your sarcasm and I find it offensive. Good friend100 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

As we all know, the Wikipedia policy is to use the more common name in case of a dispute. Why are we arguing right now when the evidence is clealy shown?

Appleby's data of "Ulleung Basin"'s more common usage clearly shows that the word "Ulleung Basin" is more common that "Tsushima Basin"!

The article should be named Ulleung Basin because it follows the Wikipedia policy. Good friend100 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The vote actually weakened Korean's stance by bringing doubt into the table. (Wikimachine 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

The google results include so many articles written by Korean people. So, it is hard to consider Ulleung Basin as the Common Engilish name. The results are too noisy.--Mochi 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, articles written by the Koreans and Japanese don't really count since this is the English language section of wikipedia. We need to look at sources from English speaking countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. The most common way from those countries are the deciding factor. The best way to do that is to look at various encyclopaedias and other reference works not published be either Korea or Japan. Masterhatch 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
we now seem to be in repeat mode. that would be like excluding u.s.-related authors and journals in determining the common name for a basin off of the california coast. the results include so many korean authors because the basin is just off the korean shore see here (the northern boundary consists of ulleungdo and dokdo islands, administered by korea) and closely tied to the korean economy, fishing, tourism, shipping, weather, etc. it's just a natural result. there is no reason that the common name (ulleungdo) used most by english language scholarly journal articles should be assumed invalid. if you're going to take the political relationships into account, the more relevant question would be how the u.s.'s closer alliance with japan than korea affects u.s.'s positions on japan-korea disputes, whether u.s. sources can be considered truly unbiased. but we don't want to go there, do we, especially if we rely on google scholar results. Appleby 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between naming a body of water off the coast of California and off the coast of Korea/Japan! The difference is, we are looking for the English name, or the name that is most commonly used by English publications (excluding those published from either Japan or korea). It matters not which country does the most research there, or which country it is closer to!! All that matters is what name is most commonly used in English at present. Your agrument is for what name it should be called, not what name it is called in English. There is a huge difference and wikipedia is here to find out the "is" not the "should". Masterhatch 01:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be insignificant that "the basin is just off the korean shore and closely tied to the korean economy, fishing, tourism, shipping, weather, etc.". From the viewpoint of Japan, Takeshima belongs to Japan[10]. Clearly, the area of this basin is practically coverd by Japanese teritorial sea. This is a matter of course since the both Korea and Japan adjoin.I can understand your position which you would like to strain on renameing because you must be a respectable patriot. However we should take a neutral position in Wikipedia, shouldn't we? In this voting, we have very few samle in comparison with the degree of "Common". In this case, I suppose we should use the name which is mainly used in International organizations. Questionfromjapan 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the Japanese people here seem to be in favor of ruling with the IHO's name, stating that international names would be better. Are you unaware of the history that Korea itself used to be Corea, and was only changed to a 'K'orea when Japan realized that 'C' was before 'J', and as Korea was in a lesser light in their eyes, it was changed to a letter after the 'J'? --Anarkial 04:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's really ridiculous. Do you have any evidence for your claim?-Questionfromjapan 13:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually true, from what I've read. But at some point, everyone needs to take a breath, realize that history is in the past, and agree to move on. Corea/Korea has nothing to do with the issue at hand—namely, which name to use for this smegging pile of water. - Sekicho 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Mr/s.Anarkial, it does not have nothing to do with this issue. I would like to make clear about Corea/Korea problem. Please show the evidence. Or, is it a sort of accusation?-Questionfromjapan 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It's Mr. Well, as for proof, I just recommend googling "korea corea". I won't post direct links because I would like you to choose your own sources, not blame me for choosing biased ones. As for accusations, it's not a direct accusation, but I would just like to say that choosing a name based solely on the IHO would not be correct. --Anarkial 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
it's really unrelated, but fyi, according to the l.a. times:
"English books and maps published through the 19th century generally spelled the country's name as Corea, as did the British government in laying the cornerstone of its embassy in Seoul in 1890 with the name "Corea." But sometime in the early 20th century, "Korea" began to be seen more frequently than "Corea" - a change that coincided with Japan's consolidation of its grip over the peninsula." Most evidence is circumstantial, including a 1912 memoir by a Japanese colonial official that complained of the Koreans' tendency "to maintain they are an independent country by insisting on using a C to write their country's name." [11] Appleby 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. But, please calm down, Mr/s Appleby. According to your citation site, you could also find "That Japan would change the spelling so that it comes after in English is laughable. This seems like an invented story by some who have too much time on their hands". And, in the age of Imperial Japan(or Japan Empire), Japan usually call Korea as "Chousen" whose alphabetical ranks is advance one than Both "Japan" and "Nihon"(Of course, than IJ and JE, too). -Questionfromjapan 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, doing a bit more reading, there seems to be a lot of proof on both sides (unfortunately for my side, a lot more solid evidence towards non-Japanese inspired change). Nevertheless, as for "international recognition" by the IHO, that is nonsense. It is reminiscent of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:
Hobbes: Making a sign?
Calvin: I'm declaring the creek back in the woods "Calvin's creek." When you discover something, you're allowed to name it and put up a sign.
Hobbes: But suppose you didn't discover that creek.
Calvin: Of course I did! Nobody else has a sign there, right? (Hobbes has already put a sign there.)
--Anarkial 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down, Mr Anarkial. The induction from few samples does NOT give any explanations based on logic. If you'd like to provide evidence, you need to prove that imperial Japanese government enforced change the spelling on Korea so that it comes after in English. On fact, I can easily counter that. Japan did not enforce anything about the change. For example, Italian name of Korea is "Corea" and French one is "Corée". If Japan was abel to enforce the change on US, Japan could enforce it on Italy and France -Questionfromjapan 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Read my above post carefully. And I'm not angry. --Anarkial 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
You guys should go to Talk:Names of Korea. Some people and I discussed about the issue. The name of the basin and the name of Korea have no relation. You are discussing at the wrong place.--Mochi 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is a naming conflict going on right now, so I think this is relevant, even if in a minor way. --Anarkial 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To Questionfromjapan....i can't believe that you say that Dokdo is Japanese territory. Japanese claims are too late compared to Korean claims. If you think Dokdo is Japanese territory and should be called "Takeshima" then where are your claims. Japan's claims are not strong enough. That is why the article on Wikipedia is now "Dokdo" from "Liancourt Rocks".

Is "Tsushima Basin" neutral when there are oppositions from the "Ulleung Basin" side? Since you are endorsing the Wikipedia neutral policy, shouldnt the name "Tsushima Basin" be changed to something like "Liancourt Rocks" if you believe that the Wikipedia policy is the law of the land.

Also, I don't understand why we are talking about the Corea/Korea name. Even if the Japanese really did change the name Corea to Korea, it is totally unrelated to this discussion.

I have explained this before (I think on the Dokdo discussion page)... about references. Some Wikipedians believe that references MUST be from a neutral point of view. I disagree with that. Some users think that Korean references are POV and do not follow the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Yes of course Korean references would be Korean POV and Japanese references would be Japanese POV, but even if those references are POV, they are still correct claims!!!! References on the internet do not lie and they are usually true.

I am reminding you that this discussion is on the Wikipedian policy of WP:NC. Considering Appleby's statistics, I wrote above that the name should be Ulleung Basin. Wikipedians we are not discussing Corea/Korea. Good friend100 01:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

GF: "Japan's claims are not strong enough. That is why the article is now "Dokdo"." Erm... nope, sorry. The name change from "Liancourt Rocks" was made in order to acknowledge the political reality of Korea's control over the islets and in order to bring the article more in line with other articles on disputed territories (such as the Senkaku Islands), not as a way of passing judgment (which Wikipedia editors are in no position to do) on the validity of one claim or another. --Zonath 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Japanese claims are not strong enough still helped move the page to "Dokdo". Good friend100 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought everybody was picky about Wikipedia policies! There is enough proof that the word "Ulleung Basin" is more common than "Tsushima Basin". Also, I read somewhere that the proof is invalid because all the sources under "Ulleung Basin" are Korean. I hear this everyday!!! Of course Korean sources would come up because "Ulleung Basin" is Korean. If you think just because this is English Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that only English sources should be used. Do you think there are any English articles that write about Tsushima/Ulleung Basin article? I don't think people from the United States are very interested in the Tsushima/Ulleng dispute. Thats the reason why all the sources are Korean or Japanese!
Appleby's proof that the search "Ulleung Basin" is used more than "Tsushima Basin" shows that Ulleung Basin is a more common name. Good friend100 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think it's of paramount importance in resolving this debate that common usage is established. Given the (reasonable) questioning of the validity of Google searching on an issue as divisive as this, can I suggest that someone with access to academic journal servers (such as jstor, Swetswise and the like) do a search for the two names and work out how many articles use one name or the other, or use both names, and if they use both names which is given more prominence. It might also be an idea to do two sets of results: one with papers involving Korean and Japanese writers included and one without. I would do it myself but unfortunately my remote access seems to have died on me. Oh, and the Corea/Korea discussion, interesting though it may be, is really wholly irrelevant to the more pressing issue of establishing which of the two terms is more commonly used and perhaps better left to other pages. --Daduzi talk 09:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will concede. I will not bring up the topic of Korea/Corea anymore. I have recently come to believe it as a revolting topic anyways. I will unravel my tale over at the correct section.
But as for your previous suggestion, I wholly agree with you. It looks to be more "academically correct" than the vote at hand, and also the google search. Although google's scholar search may be scholarly, it is by no means the end. --Anarkial 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Current revert conflict, "more commonly"

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

It seems there's a dispute over whether or not to use the term "more commonly" when referring to the name Ulleung Basin. Can we try to settle the dispute here rather than in the article space? I think it would be a good idea to voice the arguments for and against inclusion here and try to get some form of consensus before continuing with more reverts of reverts of reverts. --Daduzi talk 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

there's nothing to be done against the majority, i guess. i thought WP:Consensus was about applying wikipedia policies, & meant something like 60-80% agreement among reasonable contributors, but, here we are. questions of commonality are uncontroversially resolved by google english/google scholar searches probably every few minutes at wikipedia, but for some reason, something different happens here. Appleby 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a neutral voice it seemed to me that there's a few issues (raised above) with a bald Google comparison. I'll try and see if I can have a look at the journal archives and see what they bring up. --Daduzi talk 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
i think that would help a lot. thanks. Appleby 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't mean the google statistics are not valid. Good friend100 02:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, no, but it does mean that they can't be taken as gospel truth, either. For those waiting for the journal search results, my university online journal account seems to have been disabled for the summer; I'm currently working on alternate access. I'll put up the results if and when I can get them. --Daduzi talk 09:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lame edit war

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, this is a really LAME edit war on a very minor point of a very minor topic. Don't you have anything more constructive to do? Also, if you believe the reverts involve sockpuppets, check through Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We've already tried checkuser and for whatever reason they've declined. I'm just restoring cited information that is relevant. It's frusturating enough having to revert these POV puppets with little or no support. At the very least, I don't want to be chastised for trying to help. If you can think of a better solution I would really appreciate it. Tortfeasor 08:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

preparing to register the name??

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it so important that it describes to an encyclopedia? I think that it should describe when it actually applies for registration. I cannot understand why it adheres to this description and they wants to delete the information about the first commercial gas discovery was reported.--Junmai 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It was important enough that it caused Japan to decide to survey the waters around Dokdo which caused a huge ruckus between Korea and Japan. It's relevant and it's a fact and it's cited. And no, nothing has been deleted. Read the article again. Tortfeasor 08:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There are so many fact to be prepared. If your opinion is accepted, Japanese prepareing investigations must be write, too. And ofcouse the wiki is an encyclopedia not newspapers. So it should describe when it actually is carried out.Mythologia 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another day, another disupte

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

OK, so the current dispute seems to be over whether to include the phrase "the Korean government has been preparing to register the name "Ulleung Basin", as the two countries maneuver over the claims to Dokdo and surrounding natural resources." or the phrase "The first exploratory drilling for gas was in 1972, but gas discoveries have drawn regional interest since the late 80s. The first commercial gas discovery was reported in 1998. Nine of 15 exploratory wells have contained gas, a rate indicating high potential prospects." First of all, can we keep accusations of sock puppetry off the edit history? They're not remotely constructive. The same goes for accusations of vandalism, neither side's edits constitute vandalism.

On to the matter at hand, the first thing that has to be said is that there's no reason both sentences can't co-exist, the naming issue in one paragraph and the gas issue in another. As to whether they should be included, my own personal impression is that there's nothing wrong at all with the gas sentence, so I can't see any reason not to include it. As to the naming issue, since it's cited and the issue of registering the name has already been mentioned I don't see any reason not to include the Korean government's attempts to register the name except for the fact that the phrase "is preparing" would seem to go against WP:MOS#Time. If it were changed to "The Korean government announced in (date) that it was preparing..." I would not personally see any problem with it. --Daduzi talk 09:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Support that. Thank you -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The new version of the naming sentence ("In April 2006, a dispute resulted from Japan's plans to survey the region and South Korea's plans to register the name "Ulleung Basin"; the two countries agreed to address the issue "at an appropriate time." [12].") seems fine to me with regards to [WP:MOS#Time]], though it could be edited to flow better. --Daduzi talk 08:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Daduzi: Thanks for being constructive in your comments. Tortfeasor 08:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple Question.

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why did Dollarfifty renew a result of a vote at 02:10, 7 July 2006 without agreement? So, I rewrote it.Vip001 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest people hold of on reverting for the time being and ask the people over at WP:Consensus for input. --Daduzi talk 11:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, upon reading WP:CS, in particular this passage:


It looks like Dollarfifty's edits are the more correct. As no consensus was reached either way with the poll it can't be taken as suggesting that any particular course of action should be followed. Of course, I freely accept that this is an area where I am not an expert so I'm willing to stand corrected if I've misunderstood anything. --Daduzi talk 11:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe: I think Daduzi, possibly Chris73, and myself agree that that the current version is okay. (If I am wrong, please let me know). Although I will wait for anyone elses' comments, the page was stable for a little bit before you locked it the other day. Thanks. Tortfeasor 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The Korean side wants Ulleung Basin because they believe the Japanese are trying to get territories (including Dokdo) without strong proof and they believe that the aggresive claims are a remnant of Imperial Japan's annexations.
The Japan side wants to keep Tsushima Basin because the believe that it is the correct name, along with "Takeshima". Also, they believe that Tsushima Basin is originally theirs (as well as Dokdo).
The article is not stable yet. Good friend100 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Goodfriend: Whether to accept the recent majority vote is a different issue from the recent edit war which had to do with one sentence. (My personal opinion is that we should abide by the vote.) Regardless, the content of this version is, not withstanding the name, okay. Agree or disagree? Tortfeasor 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I hear someone talking NONSENSE. In case you would not know what "nonsense" means, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense Learn the definition and come back. You are very welcome.

When the page is unprotected

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please change the link spelling from Korean langauge to Korean language. –RHolton≡– 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there really no Korean version of this article? If someone can find one, a language link would be proper. Mlewan 06:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tsushima_Basin/Archive_1&oldid=1136386999"