Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because of uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing quality

This article relies too heavily on first-party government sources and South Korean/Japanese news articles. It needs more references to expert-written books and other peer-reviewed publications. Overall, I don't believe this is a well-written article that merits GA status. Ringo62 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it might not meet GA status anymore. Masterhatch (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Sea of Japan naming dispute

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Source quality concerns have been raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to try improving this – please ping me if I haven't gotten around to it within a week. Toadspike [Talk] 07:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720 I've gone through and added a few tags. Could you please check if all issues that should be addressed in this GAR are tagged? This would help structure my work. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Undue weight/tone issues

I see a few instances of undue weight or an unnecessarily editorializing tone in the article and wanted to check with others if my view makes sense:

• "In the French language, the word orientale includes both the meaning of "eastern" related to compass direction and the meaning of "oriental", the Asiatic region. The same ambiguity is present in the Russian language, with both "eastern" and "oriental" indicated by one word." – This part is uncited, though I have no doubt that it's true. However, it seems completely irrelevant. I have yet to check the sources to see if it is mentioned, if it isn't I would like to remove these two sentences.
• "Thus, the Japanese side argues that the South Koreans misunderstand the history of the name." – This may be accurate, but it should be made clear from the examples earlier in the section and not tacked on to the end of the section. I would like to remove this sentence.
• "As a result, the international name of the sea changed from no name to the Sea of Japan, on the maps drawn by countries other than Japan or Korea during the 17th to 20th centuries." – This is very poor wording, verging on POV.
• "Contrary to the position of a few major countries..." – This whole paragraph is uncited and reads very POV. I would like to remove it, since the point it makes should be covered by a list of examples (which this section is) instead of evidence-free editorializing.

I haven't checked the referenced parts of the article yet, I assume there are more POV issues to come. Given the topic, I am not surprised. Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"comparison of surveys" table

I had to look at this table several times to understand what it is trying to say. It is extremely wide (going far off of my screen in Vector 2022) and the important trend it tries to show, the switch from "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan" from the 18th to 19th centuries, is hidden in a sea of irrelevant details. To fix this, at the very least the US, FR, and DE columns should be removed. Perhaps the table should be removed altogether and replaced with a graph. The citation (to an extremely partial Japanese government webpage – not ideal) needs to be reformatted to actually link to the data, not just to the main page of the report. Toadspike [Talk] 09:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Great question...I might remove some of the poorly sourced stuff, but finding sources hasn't been the easiest. I can't guarantee that I can get this fully up to GA-level beyond fixing the unsourced content. If that would be enough to keep, then please keep this GAR open for a bit longer – if not, then you can close as delisted and I'll work on this when I have more time. Toadspike [Talk] 16:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think replacing the potentially non-independent sources, as mentioned on the talkpage, might be needed to retain GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit the article title

It seems that there are multiple articles related to naming disputes whose titles demonstrate multiple names in dispute.

Here are the examples.

Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute

Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute

Isn't it more appropriate to follow them and modify this article's title into "Sea of Japan-East Sea naming dispute"? RaveEffect (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That's something worth looking into. I think we should get a few more people's opinions before boldly moving. May I suggest you doing an official move request? That way we can get the community involved. Masterhatch (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the opinion. I will request the move and see how others think of it :) RaveEffect (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2025

Sea of Japan naming dispute → Sea of Japan-East Sea naming dispute – There are some articles about naming dispute whose titles include other variant names in dispute as well. For example, there are Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute and Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute. I believe that it is more reasonable to mention the names in dispute from the beginning because it is more precise way to explain the disputes about the names. Can we rename this page to follow this convention? RaveEffect (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958^Talk 14:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I've redone the request using {{subst:requested move as advised in the hatnote. I'm out of my depth here, but it seems to me that a review of all articles related to these sometimes-so-called "naming disputes" is in order, considering the namings by the International Hydrographic Organization -- almost all nations are member states of that organization, including most or all nations said in those articles to be involved in naming disputes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment May I suggest "Sea of Japan–East Sea naming dispute" instead? Masterhatch (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. I couldn't catch '–' was being used insted of '-' RaveEffect (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: INACTIVEWP, WikiProject China, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Oceans, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject East Asia, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support follows naming convention established by similar articles. Just make sure we're using an en dash, not a hyphen. RachelTensions (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support Clarifies what the duspute is. --Altenmann >talk 17:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom seefooddiet (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. To clarify that there is a dispute between the two names. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Not so fast: See the suggestion from Eyer in the RM I just opened at Talk:Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute#Requested move 19 April 2025. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, @BarrelProof. It seems like we don't need to spell out the two disputed names in the article title. (What if there were more than two disputed names, for that matter...?) Instead, we can use the generally accepted common name of the geographic feature—in this case "Sea of Japan naming dispute"... and then explain multiple disputed names in the article itself. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose per Eyer. The current title is more WP:CONCISE and more common in English than the suggested one. Adding the other name would only be attempting a false balance. We should consider the common name in independent reliable sources written in the English language, not politically motivated attempts to manipulate language. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm weakly support the name change for this article, but giving that there also exist similar page move request (for Gulf of Mexico), i'm suggest this discussion be close and merge with Gulf of Mexico naming dispute discussion in the link above. For me, having two page move discussion with similar contents seem redudant. 2404:8000:1037:469:E118:746C:5176:1E50 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree Masterhatch (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with User:Eyer. What if there are 3 disputed names? Do we include all in the title? What if there's a 4th disputed name that is lesser known? Does that get put into the title too? I think the current title is best. Masterhatch (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sea of Japan naming dispute, as it stands, is the most concise title for the subject. Mentioning more than two names is only appropriate if multiple names for the area are equally common in English. It is the Gulf of Mexico dispute article that needs to be renamed. Ringo62 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Sea of Japan" is the common name in English and the proposed title is much less concise. While I mean no offense to those who support calling it the East Sea, putting both names in the title seems like false balance. (Also, if this is moved, the title should use an en dash and not a hyphen.) Toadspike [Talk] 20:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – Common name in English takes primacy. Yue🌙 22:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I leaned support initially and have changed my view after following this for a few days and considering points raised above. On balance, the current article title fulfills the naming criteria better than the alternatives. Sea of Japan is the common name for this body of water in English. Recognizability at WP:CRITERIA states: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. The descriptive title for this article is recognizable and reasonably natural and precise, both because of the common name for the body of water and because anyone familiar with the dispute will understand what is being described. The current title is obviously more concise. As for consistency, there is currently an "article title dispute" (RM) over one of the articles the nom mentions. Most of the entries at List of geographical naming disputes include only one geographical name in the article title. There are good reasons why some of these article titles would be "inconsistent" based on the particular factors at play in a given dispute, but broadly there is no pattern or practice of including multiple disputed names in article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, the article suggests that there is potentially a third name "Korean East Sea" for North Korean use, so a title ideally should have all contested names or just the sole most common. Which, under MOS:GEO and WP:CONSUB we must use the same name as the parent article (as the title is also descriptive) which is merely only titled "Sea of Japan". As well as the current being WP:CONCISE enough. DankJae 22:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)