Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Tsushima Island INSTEAD.

Archives

Earlier discussions on this page have been archived:

• Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 1
• Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 2
• Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive A The file apparently doubled somehow before this, I'm cutting the 'TOP' to this location as it seems the older/most out of date. FrankB 13:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION ABOUT MOVING (RENAMING) ARTICLE: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island

Discussion

FrankB Circular Argument

1. This was cut out of the discussion below, as while germane, it is clearer and briefer to present the conclusion — that it is a form of logical fallacy to rely on it for the relavant issue. It was replaced by My paragraph (1) below after Mr Tans presentation of my text as part of this discussion. (I preserve the sub-numbers by numbering this reference), and duplicate his point (immediately below) so the two can be compared on the same screen.
   1. ) Article Supplied Fact -- I suspect and believe originally inserted by Mr Tan, but for which I have since asked for substantiation (of him as he is both 'relatively' local and multilingual.), inthat, the article also refers to a causeway, and also to two canals. Sub-point — A canal, is not a permanent sundering of the land, a two km WIDE ship channel (As I originally understood the text meaning coupled with other references to 1 km, s.a. ...'in places 1 km to 2km wide' — I accepted such at face value, but it began to bother me, and still does. A confirmed history of whatever happened there between 1895 and 1900 is badly needed.) with a subsequently added causeway (presumably with a ship bridge) would still be divided. I however, consider it more likely that a 2km Isthmus (or an Isthmus averaging 1 km to 2km wide) maybe or is being misconstrued into something it is not. If so, the Canal is a more technically correct engineering term, and the two main land blobs (islands) have not ever truly been sundered. I'd like a solid reference either way.
   2. ) Article Supplied Fact -- the point was made by me several days ago (Coincidentally just below the link I provided in my Request for Clarity (see Discussion Header) as an example. I'm amused, as it was unintentional.) that if there were indeed two islands, that they would have a name — that's human nature and experience speaking to Mr Tan — the names may have been buried less prominently in the text theretofore and I just overlooked them (as my focus is on history -- specifically, Battle of Tsushima), but however, when I next looked at the text, they were present. My orignal sentence was couched in terms TBDL## which concept suddenly blossomed into several other locations within the text, presumably for alternate or foreign names (Mr Tan again.). The existance of these names is indicative, but not conclusive as they merely describe 'Where terms' when translated, and hence can be local references of no particular note. (What we need in this arguement is a 'native' of Tsushima, or failing that, a native of the Prefecture of Nagasaki. If you are such, please identify yourself much better!)
   3. ) This is pure inference based on the following, and my experience as a sailor (Closet Admiral) with naval historical interests and avocaton:
   4. ) These are Solid Historical Facts (I added references at same time): (a) Japan was broke (nearly bankrupt) after both wars and ended up borrowing (before and during) to finances the R-JW, MORE TELLING STILL, she was still bootstrapping a feudal economy into an industrial economy, and had mainly light SUBSIDIZED industries but had for decades made extraordinary efforts to avoid borrowing of foreign capital despite unfavorable trade terms and the need to import technical advisors across the board military and economic, and pay premium salaries to do it, but she suddenly cuts a channel she can live without while b) smarting at the rough handling by the (then racist) powers (c) called the Triple Intervention; (d) Her leadership did immediately foresee and conclude that a likely war with Russia or another major western power would be happening eventually; (e) Her major naval (home) ports WERE (are) on the Inland Sea, while her (f) economic and political focus and National Interests was on/in Korea and Manchuria, specifically, the Liaodong, and Jilian portions thereof. Those things may be counted on strongly — I merely glued them together and then infered (as an engineer as well as amateur historian with special interests in matters naval and with a lot of economics courses) taken together with the article facts, the text I composed. Under the cash position she was operating in at that time, a matter much discussed in the various references I'm using, My Tactical and Strategic presentation is conclusion, but as you can see a defensible one — what it is not, is evidence one way or the other of ONE vs. TWO islands. It can't be as it takes a reference from the asserted fact that there is two islands permanently sundered by said hypothetical channel. Since 'channel' was once misinterpreted for nearly a century into canals and proof of life on Mars, I think we should avoid that particular pitfall. Circular arguements prove nothing.

The below was excerpted from the below discussion so they could be compared on the same screen. A summary is presented at my paragraph 1.1 below which was the above text. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. See an atlas, and this paragraph by User:Fabartus in this article: Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a ship channel (between one or two kilometers wide), through an isthmus of the single island between Aso Bay from the west, and Tsushima Strait on the east, permanently dividing the island into two islands. (01) These have since been named Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. (02) They have ever since been able to rapidly move warships between the main Naval bases about the Inland Sea and the Korea Strait or beyond to destination about the Yellow Sea, their tactical purpose for the project.(03) Strategically, Japan had been humilated by the Triple Intervention after the First Sino-Japanese War ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the statesmen foresaw a war with Russia was likey (04) and explains the scope and funding of the project. (05) We should not look at how the Japanese government look at it, but we should look at the present geographical status of Tsushima. However, I agree to have something stated that the Japanese government recognized it as an island. If anyone thinks that I am bluffing, check the Encarta map: [1] Mr Tan 04:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I would also like to add on that if you can search whether Tsushima is an island or islands, there are more webpages stating that they are "Islands", not "Island".
  • Comment on the above concatenative assembledge — dada dada dada... ([[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

A request for clarity

I would like to observe that with 36 pages of prior PRINTED history, participants in this MOVE discussion should restate their arguements (IN FULL but CONCISE TERMS) here for the sake of clarity and understanding. IF AN CASE or TWO is LENGTHY, Please provide an CLEAR Paragraph TAG built from clicking the matching Paragraph in the text above, and inserting it as the full html address pipe Para_Title_Above. (Like this: Intro) Those of us, without a dog in this fight, will surely appreciate it!!!! Sincerely, [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A compromose proposal

Suggestion: Why not move it to Tsushima as a compromise? The present Tsushima would have to be moved to Tsushima (disambiguation), but that's been done elsewhere.

Hoping this helps Septentrionalis 17:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd go along with that (it had occurred to me, but I suspected that it wouldn't go down well. Crossed fingers). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can live with this, as it's how I think of it, but only if the Vote is inconclusive... No change is better as a rule! Definitely Oppose Disambiulation idea. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have to use another side page in addition to the mainstream Tsushima page for disambiguation? The main article space can be used for disambiguation already, see Takeshima for example, it was originally Takeshima (disambiguation). Mr Tan 18:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To make clearer what I suggested: The text of this article would be moved bodily to Tsushima; and the disambiguation text would either be made

• a new page or
• an italic headnote, much as at Gorgias;

in either case, the disambiguation text would only appear once, and the name of this article would be Tsushima, which is, by itself, fairly common in English. Septentrionalis 19:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, if there is more than one name with the word "Tsushima", the main namespace would be better for disambiguation. I would prefer the old style, or everything is going to get messed up.

And see the history of Tsushima [2]; the first version of Tsushima is refering to this article. And now all of you want it back? It"ll be mroe troubklesome to have Tsushima (disambiguation) than Tsushima proper, unless we have no choice! Mr Tan 05:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/Arguments by: Mel Etitis

My evidence from earlier discussions: (User:Mel Etitis by fab)

On the other hand, the reasons for "Island" aren't wholly convincing; names that are plural in one language often become singular in another, and we should be asking whether the English name should be singular or plural. The Columbia Encyclopedia (and another edition), Britannica, American Heritage Dictionary, various academic writers (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6]), The Japan Times, other relevant Wikipedia articles, Wikitravel, and many reputable Japanese and foreign sites (such as [7], [8]), all refer to islands, and those sites that use the singular appear to be referring only to the largest island, ignoring the smaller islands (which may be insignificant, but which nevertheless exist).

There's at least enough doubt over the question to mean that changing the article's name (which means either changing many other relevant articles, or leaving this article out of step with the rest of Wikipedia) shouldn't be rushed into. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/Arguments by Baru

I spent just twelve minuits for google search. I found many examples for "Tsushima island". To make Mel Etitis's one-sided evidence more fair, I add the following links.

Encyclopedia :

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9338912

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tsushima-Province

http://www.docoja.com/cgi-bin/mainwordj?geog+Tsushima_island+dico/geogifg

News :

http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20001104b3.htm

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GC23Dh03.html

Academy :

http://www.yale.edu/ycias/pier/resources/lessons/geography.htm

http://meme.biology.tohoku.ac.jp/POPECOL/RPcontents/AB40(2).html

http://www.seto.kyoto-u.ac.jp/publication_e/publication_25.htm

There are more examples.Baru 13:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/Arguments by: Hermeneus

Tsushima is officially recognized as an island by the government of Japan. The official data of Tsushima island such as area and population are all of one large island. There are no data available for the alleged two portions of Tsushima as independent islands. Also Tsushima is widely known as the the third largest island in Japan; it cannot possibly be the third largest if it were merely a group of smaller islands. Hermeneus 02:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attached Statement Correction by fab w/notification to User Talk:Hermeneus — Any of Japan's four main islands dwarf Tsushima, Q.E.D. fabartus as mediator extraordinaire! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 02:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Japan the four main islands (plus Okinawa) are not generally counted among the islands of Japan but only parts of the mainland Japan, just like continents are not counted in the list of islands of the world. You don't count the main islands when you talk about the islands of Japan because islands are considered as parts that are isolated from and subordinate to the mainland even if the mainland also consists of islands as in the case of Japan. From a larger perspective the entire Japan is but one of many archipelagos surrounding the Eurasia continent, and the Eurasia continent itself also is only one of many land masses on the globe from a still larger perspective. Not to mention the Japanese do know that the four main islands are "islands" also; otherwise they don't call their nation "island nation" (島国). You just don't count them in such a list. Besides that's not the point of my argument. The point is that Tsushima cannot possibly be the third or eighth (counting the main islands) largest if it is consider as a pair of two smaller islands; and since the Japanese government does recognize Tsushima as the third largest island, the Japanese government does not recognize Tsushima as islands. Hermeneus (talk) 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you call Indonesia an "Island nation" as well? Apparently not. Indonesia is a country that consists of Islands much more than Japan numerically.

There is no need to expand your view to such a large scope. An island is a land mass that is much smaller from a main landmass. If there are no second landmass much larger than the first landmass, it is apparently not an island. Please proceed to List of islands by population to differenciate between a continent, and a proper "island".

And how can you care what a government likes to utter? What we Homo Sapiens should look at is the physical landscape of Tsushima, not the political or adminstrative opinion of any government. And I believe the Japanese government consider it as an island simply because it merely wants the convinence of economic reasons, and its close proximity between the two islands makes the Japanese government choose to consider it as an island.

In the first place, can you explicitely show me where did the Japanese government says that Tsushima is physically an island? Is there any part of Tsushima that is still physically joined by natural land in the first place? I would greatly appreciate on condition if you can show me any proof that the Japanese government answers against my respective questions, or I have to consider what you say as null. Mr Tan 15:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/Arguments by: User:Mr Tan

• • Comment. See an atlas, and this paragraph by User:Fabartus in this article: Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a ship channel (between one or two kilometers wide), through an isthmus of the single island between Aso Bay from the west, and Tsushima Strait on the east, permanently dividing the island into two islands. (01) These have since been named Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. (02) They have ever since been able to rapidly move warships between the main Naval bases about the Inland Sea and the Korea Strait or beyond to destination about the Yellow Sea, their tactical purpose for the project.(03) Strategically, Japan had been humilated by the Triple Intervention after the First Sino-Japanese War ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the statesmen foresaw a war with Russia was likey (04) and explains the scope and funding of the project. (05) We should not look at how the Japanese government look at it, but we should look at the present geographical status of Tsushima. However, I agree to have something stated that the Japanese government recognized it as an island. If anyone thinks that I am bluffing, check the Encarta map: [9]
• I would also like to add on that if you can search whether Tsushima is an island or islands, there are more webpages stating that they are "Islands", not "Island".

Mr Tan 04:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment on the above concatenative assembledge — which I (fabartus) provided to the article: (The germane point is 1-2, essentially casting grave doubt on My paragraph cited by Mr Tan as evidence — My text was derivative of my understanding of his insertion of new text moments before I editted. It is in no way evidentary, no matter how sublime it reads!)

1. (Note the added (#s), which tags refer to the preceding sentence.) — This is a compendium gluing facts that were present in the article at the time I viewed put together with the histories I am working with concerning the First Sino-Japanese War (FSJW) and Russo-Japanese War (R-JW) in the decade 1894 — 1904. Historical fact is combined with Article supplied fact into adequately smooth text, hence these notes:
   1. I cut all these points for the sake of brevity and inserted them above at #FrankB Circular Argument. In essence, I present a proof therein that the paragraph above that seems to be proof of the permanent division is derivative of information posted in the article by another, and so is a circular arguement — thus invalid. (i.e. A --> leads to B --> which means A is true — a logical fallacy and trap)
   2. I have no germane evidence as to whether the big island was permanently divided or whether it was just cut by a canal, and hence never sundered. However, I just tracked back through over 70 edits in less than three days CHILDREN, to establish that the reference to the 2 km channel originated with Mr Tan, to wit:
   3. Edit change, fact added by Mr Tan revision of 20:18 (UTC) 14 June 2005, THE KEY CHANGE relavevant to my text above, after comparing to a reversion by admin JBell, (who appeared to trying to moderate in this matter B4 his vacation). The excerpt pulled off of the diff history is:
   4. Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, between one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between Aso Bay and Tsushima Strait, not only dividing the island into two islands, but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea Strait to the Tsushima Strait.
   5. Six an a half hours later, I see I need to clarify the import of the above statement — I misunderstood the sentence to say a channel 2 km wide was blasted by the Japanese navy through an isthmus, a goofy error WHILE IN A FOGGED OUT OVERWORKED STATE. Since I must have started editing immediately after Mr Tan added that sentence, I naturally fixed it up, and concantated it with historical background, for which I gave references. But the FOUNDATION of the statement was MY MISUNDERSTANDING of what Mr Tan had written — his 2 km almost certainly refers to the width of the Isthmus, not of the channel cut through it. I'm not involved in this project and have no axe to grind. I was visiting and got mugged (because I tripped) while working on the Battle of Tsushima and other Russo-Japanese War articles... which is where I'd researched enough to present the historic diplo-military material I rolled into the misunderstanding of Mr Tans text. Ipso Facto, the case that the islands have been sundered has not been proven to my overly busy engineers mind. And no, a poor resolution Encarta Map is not proof. As of this writting, I have located and asked some native Japanese people to look in on this matter. I trust that will satisfy everyone? No? Too bad, as their points will undoubtably carry a lot of weight with another or twenty very experienced editors I'm asking to come in on this as I've warned, there will be an end to this unproductive arguement, and a stabilized article. Mr Tan — please limit yourself to one entry or add a day. Some of us use the history as a tool and your spontaneous multiple changes mess that tool up. Please try thinking then acting after a long period of making sure your contribution is as logical, significant, short, clear, and generally best you can manage. The best will probably require several drafts and self-criticism sessions. Then submit THAT product.
   6. And THIS change was at least 66 edits ago! Are you folks possesed of so much free time over trivia? Give me some, Forsooth, Nay — ALL YOUR FREE TIME! — I need all I can get for important things! (I just put an Inuse on the arty while this is settled. Please honor it!) ([[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))
   7. After re-reading the above, it appears I misinterpreted the intent of the original insertion due to the grammer, and personal fatigue. (My edit concluded at 08:42 (UTC) or 04:42 (EDST i.e. local time) so I'd been up for nearly 20 hours -- I apologize if this change sparked the 65-70 edits since!) Mr Tan was probably refering to the Isthmus with his width perameters. The historical fact, would then be the cut engineered at that time is merely a canal. So, the documentation and clarification one way or the other Mr Tan?
2. Additionally, this Excerpt seems somewhat germane: The Liancourt Rocks are comprised mainly of two islands; the eastern island, known as Dong-do in Korean, Higashi-jima in Japanese, and the western island, known as Seo-do in Korean, Nishi-jima in Japanese, are separated by a distance of 170 meters.
3. I have no emotional attachment (or history within) either Camp/clique/part of this (But before I started writing, I did aquire an unfortunate 36 pages of Talk Listing from the laser printer — before editing here and now!).
4. But logic dictates to me that IslandS has to be the correct title in that Tsushima, is an island group — an Archepelego which in english is usually rendered in the plural (e.g. The Bonins, the Gilberts, The Indonesian Islands, the Marshals, the Hawain Islands, etcetera, ad nauseum).
5. Hence, seems silly to worry whether there are 14 or 15 islands in the group, which is what this boils down to whatever geographic or political status the big island or islands.
6. We all know (At least those of us that participate and vote on the Wikipedia:vfd, that none of the smaller islets are likely to be considered note worthy enough to survive having any hypothetical article solely written on them; they would be expeditiously merged into an article entitled Tsushima Islands, as a subpart of the text we are discussing. #Similarly, Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima hypothetical articles would be bundled into an Tsushima Islands article, probably before even being presented to a VFD process. Most good editors that participate on the Vfd would just do it, a risk the result here will have to face. Why change it in the first place?
7. In sum, given the usual dynamics of THOSE Vfd Wiki-Politics — politics usually frequented by steadily and faithfully contributing Admins and would-be-Admins, and the concurrent existance of a strong Mergist' tendency in those many regular participants in that formal Official process, this issue is very likely to be moved back to Island's should this measure succeed. Don't we all have better things to do with our time? [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Again, Mr Tan's is his own personal opinion and counts nothing because Wikipedia is not the place for original research, whereas the recognition of the island by the Japanese government is official and merits reference on Wikipedia. If there are as many usesages of one name as the other name in the public, the one supported by more authoritative socurces should be respected in the namespace. Hermeneus 07:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• My research has its sources; just look around the links I have provided, they are the sources, notably the Encarta map. Mr Tan 10:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rebuttal of above (Heremeneus). The question ON OUR TABLE is the proper expression to the english reading reader, not the Japanese translated terms they apply. The point has already been made on the differences in plurals from language to language. Our focus is on what makes sense in ENGLISH. Moreover, said government has bundled all the towns, villages and cities in a wide geographic region into a single polity - Nagasaki. Our key is what is understandable, particularly with names of half the island(s) and smaller islets in possible additional material. A similar blurring of meaning and term occured in the Dalian article regarding Lushun - wherein an editor magically transported the historically central Port Arthur/Lushun 40 nautical miles into the city of Dalian thru the miracle of text editing (to the concern, consternation and confusion of all the people leaving their houses next morning now to find themselves living atop someone else's home in the properly located existing Dalian — At least they didn't merge trying to occupy the same physical space and explode! <G>), because Dalian acts as county seat as we'd say it here in the USA. That hardly makes the two the same, any more than the Japanese Governments failure to seperate the islands (when they are concerned with courts and police and municiple service rather than semantics... which is our proper concern as editors). I'd submit publications in Japan such as Japan Times are a better guide as they probably pay expert translators pretty well as opposed to the hiring propensities of most any democratic governments' normal practices with low life barely-entry-level hires (i.e. Their translators are likely to be C students to the newpapers A kids.). The Japan Times uses the trailing S in the stuff I've seen. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 21:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Rebuttal of above rebuttal. This is not an issue of language. Japanese language does distinguish island (島) and islands (諸島). Also Japan is a member of the UN and observes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That means that the government recognizes islands in their official documents according to the international standard. Hermeneus 03:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • That is your own look out on the Japanese wikipedia; we are talking on the English wikipedia! Now, why should you look at Tsushima politically, rather than geograohically! While Politics is the concortion of a man's mind, Geography is always 100% accurate because it is how it has been modified. Thus Tsushima should be Islands. Furthermore, from the Encarta map, I see no point of contact between Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima (not including the causeway). The map User:Nanshu gave seems to be something wrong. The canal, how big is it? A canal more than 500m wide is a river, strait, rather than a canal.
          • That's not a political definition because it's after all geologists hired by the Japanese government or the UN that decide what's island or not, not the politicians themselves.Hermeneus (talk) 03:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, coming back to point 2 of the convention: Tsushima has been split into two islands around 1895. Although I cannot make out very well what point 2 means, but let's take it the other way: There is one island in Singapore known as Jurong Island, a reclaimed island made up of seven original islands (with some land reclamation). Do you still call it Jurong Islands? In fact, Jurong Island is an island used for industrial purposes in Singapore.

The same applies to this Tsushima, and we should not care how the Japanese government classify; they are wrong geographically. Mr Tan 04:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question to Mr Tan.

Please give us the following information items immediately.

• 1. The year when Kaminoshima and Shimonoshima were physically separated
• 2. The width of the canal you know
• 3. The size and population of Kaminoshima
• 4. The size and population of Shimonoshima

The first two are the basic information for this "island-islands" issue and I think almost all "island" supporters know them. No.3 and 4 will be necessary when "islands" is chosen. Baru 14:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My question is simple and easy to answer, but Mr Tan did not answer. The fact about No.2 is that the canals in Tsushima are quite narrow (less than 50m). Since the canals are narrow and human-built, they are neglisible geographically. The facts about No.1 is that Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima were physically separated three centuries before 1894. Thus, Mr Tan's knowledge about Tsushima contains lots of mistakes. Baru 17:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I did not notice your question. The first point is found in the paragraph "Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a ship channel (between one or two kilometers wide), through an isthmus of the single island between Aso Bay from the west, and Tsushima Strait on the east, permanently dividing the island into two islands. These have since been named Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. They have ever since been able to rapidly move warships between the main Naval bases about the Inland Sea and the Korea Strait or beyond to destination about the Yellow Sea, their tactical purpose for the project. Strategically, Japan had been humilated by the Triple Intervention after the First Sino-Japanese War ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the statesmen foresaw a war with Russia was likey and explains the scope and funding of the project."

The second point I don't know, for I have never been to Japan or Korea, or could I read Japanese or Korean well; and I have seen no English or Chinese sources talking about the canals. However, I have seen that Nanshu stated "Manzeki-seto is 40 meters wide (originally 25 meters wide) and Funakoshi-seto is 49 meters wide and 242 meters long. GSI maps back this up [10][11]. "

• I have no idea of the population of Kamino and shimono, but I have checked sources stating that the population of the 2 islands is 40,000 to 41,000. Mr Tan 03:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • I would also like to mention the fact that the paragraph that I have provided comes from the article; and the paragraph is contributed by User:Fabartus; and he has stateed his sources in the article. This concludes that my research is a collection from various sources. Mr Tan 11:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I shot down anything I wrote as AUTHORITIVE, That's what my Comments above mean -- they are derivative of your data inserted just before my unlucky edit. However, I noticed about five minutes ago that somewhere in the morrass above you gave a Korean website with the text you inserted. That should be brought down here for people to judge. (just prettying up, folks! For clarity, paragraph numbers above should be refered to as: 1-0, 1-1, 1-2,..., (OR) 2-0, 3.0, 4.0 etc. That way everyone knows they and you are looking at the proper paragraph or subparagraph. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complimentary Evidence by Mr Tan, unearthed by fabartus

I just located Mr Tans cited source way up above for the text I wrote. It is by a professor at Columbia University, and part of his discussion (This is quite a way down in the posting) he refers to a personal visit he made in 1974. The link is: | Gari K Ledyard (Gari Keith Ledyard gkl1@columbia.edu Fri, 2 Oct 1998 17:12:04 -0400 (EDT) ). Mr Tan placed this above on the 14th.

• It appears to me that Mr Tans english is NOT at fault and I and a few users owe him an apology, as he quotes this professor pretty much verbatum. (An Eye Witness Account by a scholar of Far Eastern Studies) — (Emphasis Added - fab)

"On another occasion I was hiking high up in the mountains (Tsushima is mostly mountains, and they are very steep), it was a very clear day and as I looked to the northwest I saw the hills of Korea stretching out seemingly forever into the distance. Korea looked very, very big, and Tsushima felt awfully small. It was easy to imagine why Korea was taken seriously by most people on the island.

I once read an article by a Korean writer arguing that Tsushima was Korean because its NAME was Korean. He etymologized Tsushima as coming from "tu shima", which he said was obviously a reflex of Korean "tu sOm" (< syem), meaning "two islands." It is true that today Tsushima is indeed two islands. But in traditional times, Korean maps always depicted it as a single island, and correctly so. Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, perhaps one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between the great Aso^ Bay and the Japan Strait, not only dividing the land mass into two islands but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea (between Korea and Tsushima) into the straits of Japan (between Tsushima and Japan). This capability proved crucial during the Russo-Japanese War, when the Russian Baltic fleet, which had spent the better part of a year sailing around Africa (England would never have let it through the Suez canal) in order to be re-based in Vladivostok, was smashed to pieces and sunk by the Japanese in the "Battle of Tsushima." Tsushima has only been "two islands" for only about a hundred years, and the "two islands means Korean sovereignty" theory turns into a bubble.

The name Tsushima has a long textual history, appearing earliest in the Chinese "History of the Three Kingdoms" (Sanguo zhi, compiled before 297 CE and partly based on the earlier Weizhi of ca. 250, though the latter is now known only through quotations ..."

• • I believe a comparison of Mr Tan's insertion, cited in my para 1-4 or 1-5 above compares verbatum with this professor, and vindates Mr Tans text change, though not his lack of using a pair of quotes! I still own the responsibility for jumping to the conclusion that the professors "blasted a cut" coupled with "one or two kilometers wide" referred to the width of the cut. The construction of the sentence is poor, and the comma offsetted parenthetical (?)phrase isn't clear to me even now as to it's object (actual meaning): The cut, or the isthmus? "Cut" however, connotes a canal, not an extravagant outlay for overengineering. Thus, a canal is my interpretation pending further information. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/Arguments by: User:Baru (Map and Definition)

1.I investigated more than ten maps of Tsushima sold in Japan. But, I found neither Kamino-shima nor Shimono-shima. 2.I also didnt find any geographical definitions of Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. Baru 17:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nanshu's comment

Before entering the main discussion, you should note:

• Tsushima-jima 対馬島 refers to the main island. Islets around it are out of the scope of the article.
• We should distinguish words in common use (CU) from academic terms (AT). The former is often conventional and inaccurate, but the latter is not.

Some provided damn long explanation of Manzeki-seto, but the real focus of the discussion is whether to take account of artificial waterways in the case of counting islands. I consulted the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard (JHOD) [12][13] and received an answer: there is no clear standard for that.

So the way we should take is to consult the authorities. The Geographical Survey Institute (GSI) [14] and JHOD treat Tsushima as a single island. That is the answer. In terms of "authoritativeness," books like Britannica cannot compete with them.

Treating Tsushima as two islands in inappropriate. Physically (but not necessarily geographical), Tsushima consists of three parts since two canals divide the mass. In addition, the terms of Kaminoshima and Shimonoshima do not appear on GSI maps. They seem CU and are not official terms, at least in the field of geography.

FYI, Tsushima-jima is AT and certainly not CU. Tsushima-jima is highly unnatural Japanese word. Whatever the true etymology of Tsushima is, Tsushima-jima sounds duplication of "island" (shima and jima (see: rendaku)). As it is AT, -jima (shima 島) is singular. Although the Japanese language does not distinguish singular/plural in common usage, academic field does by using gunto 群島, shoto 諸島, etc.

I don't think this is important for the current discussion, but maybe I should point out factual errors. According to [15], Manzeki-seto is 40 meters wide (originally 25 meters wide) and Funakoshi-seto is 49 meters wide and 242 meters long. GSI maps back this up [16][17]. --Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are the two "seto"s you pointed out canals? Tsushima are two seperate islands, so long the width of the canals are fairly great. And I believe that the Straits of Johor can be comparable with the length of the two setos. If you consider Tsushima as an island just because the canal is too small, then why Singapore is considered a seperate island? Also, we are looking at the current state of the Tsushima is in. As I have said, Encarta has the map: [18]

I have already said so, humans can create island or split islands. You see Jurong Island? It is a unification of seven former island, and part of the sea around the seven islands are joined up. In terms of natural geography it is supposed to be seven seperate islands, but in terms of Physical geography it is one single island. Likewise, as I have said a project around 1900 blew up Tsushima into two parts, and it should be considered as two seperate islands. To summarise the point:

• Tsushima Islands = Jurong Island. --- mutated and man-made state of the of the lands, which is what it is today and now.
• Tsushima Island = Seven Islands (Pulau Seraya]], Pulau Sakaraya, etc + sea around Selat Pandan --- the natural and original state the lands

We should not care so much what National geography says, for they themselves can make mistakes, or their opinion maybe based on the Japanese government POV. I myself have summarised the points above. Mr Tan 04:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by KTC

The below is a Wikipedia Article Sub Section on Revert Wars, and one all the original participants here should read. Its amusing regardless (fab)

• Disinterested bystander view -- KTC 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence by Osani or Re: Tsushima Islands

To whom it may concern, this is a Cart in Front of the Horse - My reply to the very helpful message which immediately follows, by Atsi Otani, a native Japanese posted to my talk 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC), or about an hour ago See: Actual paragraph for the original.

Thankyou very very much for your posting on my talk. That clarifys matters greatly, especially the pics. The matter was much muddled, as you will see if you choose to visit the LONG LONG talk page, but your cogent comments are a breath of fresh air, and I'm going to take the liberty of taking them 'AS IS' and posting them (way down) into the MOVE DISCUSSION.

• I'm merely trying to mediate this, and historical readings are as bad as the encyclopedias and acedemic resources (One of whom stated plainly the Island was "permanently divided" 100+ years ago, but He was really trashing some (theory of a) Korean Claim to the Islands (with a bit of wry tounge-in-cheek humor as I read it) in the full context it was given — The sentence he used is poorly constructed and that got put in verbatuum without quotes, so yours truly bent folded, spindled and mutilated it while wincing at the awkward English. THAT product (paragraph) seems to have ignited this most recent furball — so I'm mediating as penance for being foolish enough to edit at 04:00 local (Boston Time). As you say, one author uses an 'S' and another doesn't, so Wikipedia redirects it, done... it's a lot of wasted energy and time over a split hair. The article also discusses the two half-islands, so english grammer gets sticky with the plural, which is kind of where I came in for ACT II, as I was asked as a neutral party to copyedit — which I had to stop doing as the plural-singular is germane to THAT TASK.
• When you finish rumenating on the matter, by all means stop in and VOTE. It's part of your country! Thanks ever so much for the input, and especially your time! Thanks as well for the info on the Japanes BB, I'll post an notice there very soon. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frank - sorry I'm late replying. I haven't read all the arguments yet -this is just a quick note. I just noticed your message on my talk page and it's almost one o'clock in the night over here. Ignore this message if it's too late.

It's not surprising that people don't agree on this issue - a quick google search revealed that the Columbia Encyclopedia and the Britannica don't agree on whether Tsushima is two islands or one island (although the Britannica seems outdated). The minor surrounding islands shouldn't be a problem - for example, most people would consider Guam an island, when it actually has at least one minor island nearby.

The way I see it, both opinions have their strong points. You can't deny that Tsushima is composed of many different islands, even without the north/south island thing. On the other hand, Japanese people usually treat and call Tsushima one island, which seems to be reflected in the various references people have been showing.

I'm speculating here, but I think there are two reasons the Japanese call Tsushima an island:

• Tradition
• It may not feel like two islands when you live there - the canal may feel like a river for locals

If I had to choose between Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Island right now, I would probably give very weak support to Tsushima Island, because it's less surprising to someone who has general knowledge of Tsushima (who would probably either be Japanese, or have lived in Japan). For example, the author of a book I recently translated calls Tsushima an island (the author is an American missionary to Japan). Both titles are correct in their own way, so the principle of least surprise should apply - which is unfortunately, very difficult to determine.

That said, the article title really shouldn't matter, because the article will be talking about the same group of islands regardless of the title. The best compromise may be to name the article Tsushima. I'd rather have an article with a title that's the result of a compromise than an endless, unconstructive edit war.

You might want to call for help on the Japanese Wikipedians' Notice Board. The following are pictures of the canal, to give you an idea of what people are talking about.

• Aerial picture of the canal
• Another canal picture

I'll sleep for now and give this issue some thought. Atsi Otani 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THANKYOU AGAIN VERY MUCH MR OTANI! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additional info (good morning, everyone!)

• According to this page on the Nagasaki Prefectural Government website (written in Japanese), the early bridges that spanned the canal were about 80 meters long.
• Topographical Map (1/25,000) of the area. Canal can be found around the lower right corner of the map.

Just contributing info ;) Atsi Otani 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • By measurement off the topographical map, the total cut measures about 400-420 meters in Length, by the 80 meters or so mentioned by Mr Otani. (Just in case you didn't take boyscout map reading! <G>)

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Is there any part of the island (excluding the causeway) that remains physically conjoined together? However big the canal, or river, so long that there is no physical contact between the two "islands", it is considered as two seperate islands. Mr Tan 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To add on, the Ketam strait that seperates Pulau Ubin and Pulau Ketam is about the same width and depth as the canal seperating them up. Why are they not collectively called island then? Mr Tan 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree to what Osani says if Tsushima is the name of only the Islands---but Tsushima is the name of many, many topics. Also, having the description of Island or Islands would be better--or else some will say Island in one sentence, while other says Islands in other sentence, which will cause tremendous condusion. Mr Tan 07:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the compromise

or a SHORT (one sentence) explanation of what it is herePhilip Baird Shearer 11:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the proposed compromise is as stated below: to move Tsushima Islands → {Tsushima]] and Tsushima → Tsushima (disambiguation). I am establishing a vote page below, and moviong FrankB's vote in accordance with his apparent intention. I have left him mail. Septentrionalis 16:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VOTE HERE ON Requested move: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island

Requested move: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island. --Nanshu 06:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. If the discussion had continued, I might have been persuadable, but apparently Nanshu isn't interested in discussion, so I'm left (for the reasons that I gave above) inclined to a preference for the plural. I'd be happy to go with a move to Tsushima, as suggested by Septentrionalis below. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose to move Tsushima and Tsushima Islands, and the reasons are stated below.Mr Tan 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Tsushima is officially recognized as an island by the government of Japan. The official data of Tsushima island such as area and population are all of one large island. There are no data available for the alleged two portions of Tsushima as independent islands. Also Tsushima is widely known as the the third largest island in Japan; it cannot possibly be the third largest if it were merely a group of smaller islands. Hermeneus 02:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course there will be no Japanese data stating that Tsushima is two islands because the Japanese government says that Tsushima is an island! Mr Tan 16:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful if people would read the discussion before commenting; I'll copy the relevant data to the discussion section to make it easier to do so. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. See the section of "Page title: Island or Islands?" --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Encyclopaedia Britannia says there are two islands and refers to them throughout in the plural. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think Encyclopaedia Britannica is reliable. In fact, the explanation you quoted contains (at least) two mistakes. One is the areas of "two islands". The sum of the areas is 705 square kilometers according to Britannica, but the area of "Tsushima island" is 696 square kilometers according to the recent official stat. The other is "lumbering is the principal economic activity". But fishery is more popular and active than lumbering. There is one more questionable explanation. Britannica says "Kami and Shimo, which are separated at one point by only a narrow channel." The fact is that there are two narrow canals on the main "island" and they separate the "island" into three (two large parts and one small part). --Baru 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (sign added by Tokek)
• Conditional Support. If the proposal I made below (which is in line with Britannica, etc.) is unpopular. —Tokek 16:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of Tokek's proposed compromise. JMBell° 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. If this article was about Tsushima island and a few more surrounding islets (if there are any), I'd stick with the plural. But I'm not knowledgeable enough in this field. JMBell° 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Same reasons with Hermeneus. --Ypacaraí 22:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Support. For the same reasons as Hermeneus mentioned. In addition to them, I could not find any geographical definitions of Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima in spite of my ten-days effort. I also could not find Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima in any maps of Japan. That means we can't write any geogragically exact explanations about Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima. Baru 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What? The Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima is mentioned in the Encarta map! [19] Mr Tan 15:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What map did you look at? I can't find those names on the map. (I don't want to add another mess in vote section. If you don't mind, please move to the position after your answer to my question.) Baru 16:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I could watch the enlarged map and confirm Kami and Shimo names. But, it does not change situation because the map does not say Tsushima is island nor islands. It just uses "island(s)".Baru 14:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have said that it is the Encarta map. You must enlarge your map, using the enlargement function provided just above the map in this map. (Note there? The original state of the map was at 8 but you must increase it 9 or 10 to see the Kamino-shima and Shimonp-shima. 8 is not enough. [20] Understand? Mr Tan 06:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unconditional SUPPORT... with a strong leaning (now) to the Compromise (as well) as per my remarks when I posted in the new info above moments ago. See: Comments and Pictures By Mr Osani, a Japanese Native living on Japan, i.e. I suspect most literature drops references to the word "Island" once the author gets past the introduction.
  • • Is there any point of physical contact between Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima? Regardless of how big, or small the canal is, if there is no point of contact between the two islands as in [21], it should be islands. The Ketam strait of singapore that seperates Pulau Ubin and Pulau Ketam is of the same width and depth as Tsushima. Why are they not classified seperately then? Mr Tan 06:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also noticed from Osani's comment, he stated even if Tsushima is not seperated by a canal, there are islands around the two islands, and Tsushima should be considered as Islands, rather than island. Thus I would greatly appreciate to those voters to reconsider their opposition vote in retrospect to this fact. Mr Tan 13:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Japanese people, including locals generally call Tsushima an island. There are other similar examples elsewhere in the world. Pender Island is divided into North Pender Island and South Pender Island by a canal, but is often called an island (some people call it the Pender Islands or the Penders). Ono Island, Alabama is divided into several bodies of land by canals, but always seems to be called Ono Island. Merritt Island, Florida is also called an island despite it is technically not an island. Pine Island (Lee County, Florida) also has many canals towards the south that appear to separate the land into several bodies of land. Atsi Otani 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Tsushima is thought to be an island in usually life of local people.The canal is looks like a river.Ken304

---

Regarding the Vote on the proposed Move: 'Tusshima Islands' ---> 'Tsushima Island'

I count 5 Support and 3 Oppose, with one explicit abstention, and a number of implicit ones. Can somebody please check my count and sign after me that you have done so. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) /

Well this would be a good Baseball score, but I wish it had been more clear cut. The last vote was Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC), or nearly five days ago as I write this just at 05:00 (UTC).

• I don't know the formal process (or indeed, whether this was an informal process), but I believe such voting ends after five days to vote, or 24 hours after the last vote, so I expect the process is finished. Anybody care to change their vote in the interests of Unamininty and Amicabilty?
• Who takes action, when? In 12 hours it will be five days since the last vote.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea who takes action when, but I'm voting now, knowing there is a possibility that my vote will not be counted. Atsi Otani 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

VOTE ON THE Proposed COMPROMISE Tsushima → Tsushima (disambiguation) & Tsushima Islands → Tsushima

According to counts by Google, the singular form is by far more common than the plural form on the web. Also "Tsushima islands" can also refer to the group of several nearby islands instead, so the plural phrase over-counts.

"Tsushima Island":

• 3,480: "Tsushima Island"
• 6,030: "対馬島" (Japanese pages only)

"Tsushima Islands":

• 642: "Tsushima Islands"
• 63: "対馬諸島" (Japanese pages only)

The singular form beat the plural form in academic and governmental websites as well.

Just because there are names for the region above and below the canal doesn't mean those regions didn't have such names before the canals existed. The names "upper island" and "lower island" can just as equally refer to parts of the same island as well as two different islands.

I am of the opinion that it should be considered a singular entity even if it indeed has a canal. I can imagine someone saying "Panamas" when specifically discussing the two bodies of land on the sides of the canal, but I am sure that person would usually refer to the whole geography as Panama. People usually don't say Venices, Edos, Egypts, New York States, Chinas just because canals exist or had existed at one point, although in some special contexts it is plausible that they would use the plural form.

I think it would be best to take a hint from the examples made by Columbia Encyclopedia, Britannica, and AHD by having the article named not Tsushima Islands, not Tsushima Island, but simply Tsushima, and simply have the Tsushima disambiguation page moved to Tushima (disambiguation). The whatever-you-want-to-call-it is very often referred to simply as Tsushima.—Tokek 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information. Mr Tan 05:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This is creating confusion; the Korean and Portuguese wikipedia has disambiguation on Tsushima itself. And the content was originally from Tsushima; then shifted by User:TakuyaMurata to Tsushima province; but was later transffered here. Add a statement that the Japanese government recognizes Tsushima as an island, and this will not only save all the trouble and confusion, but also the debate. Tsushima cannot be and never be called island now because it is a fact that it is Geographically split into two separate islands around 1900. Unless there is a land reclamation project, Tsushima shall be called Islands.
  
  Even if the article is shifted to Tsushima, people can still add islands or island in sentences, and this is making matters worse, because the article title did not specify whether it is island, or islands. Then there will be some sentences which are island, some islands. Even if there are regulations, who knows, for some people do not like the trouble of reading them one-by-one. Most people listen to what the page title says first, and imposing regulations on Tsushima alone may not be that effective like this. Why have a "piped" disambiguation when we are in such a comfortable state?
  
  And there are several disambiguation pages who don't use the bracketed word with the (disambiguation) title, one of whom is Cadbury. And also, from my observation, most Users use pages without the piped "(disambiguation)" title, and this can be evidenced in Category:Disambiguation For me, I go for the less-confusing and complicated majorty style. Mr Tan 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional YES Support either way — provided the above vote is deadlocked. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) And revised vote: [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support: In addition to Tokek's arguments: compromise and simplify where possible, especially when this is likely to minimize the number of aliased links and redirects. Septentrionalis 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The search results on google doesn't count; that is merely the people's opinion. What we are focusing is what is the actual geography of Tsushima is, and we should not deviate off to what the government or people says on the rest of the internet. Mr Tan 16:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not a vote, strictly speaking; although I would understand Mr. Tan to vote Oppose(crossing out because Mr Tan's vote was casted below —Tokek). I Comment that the advantage of Tsushima is that it does not state either "Island" or "Islands", leaving that question for the article text, which seems to me proper. Septentrionalis 20:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support - it seems Tsushima is already a disambig page, so it wouldn't hurt to add the "disambiguation" title. And moving Tsushima Islands to Tsushima will remove the need for "island(s)", thus ending this whole debate once and for all! And the Panama/Panamas argument is not really applicable here, if I may say so, because Panama does not consist of two islands. JMBell° 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My new vote is down below. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The case of Panama is not the same as Tsushima, for Tsushima is an island but Panama is part of the giant continent of America. Mr Tan 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I write in response to the note left by Mr Tan on Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The moving of this page to the primary topic page is not a compromise; it is a major change in stucture that should be undertaken if and only if "Tsushima" is used *mainly* to refer to the islands in this article, and it is very, very rarely used for any other purpose - that is, if I, from New Zealand, talked randomly about "Tsushima", I would be assumed to be talking about the Tsushima Islands. Please do not use this as a compromise - that is not what the primary topic page is for. If there is really such a debate with singular vs. plural, and no-one agrees on which is the more common, I suggest it be looked up in an atlas, otherwise the manual of style requests singular titles where appropriate. I hope I haven't looked over the argument too much; I only skim-read it before posting this - if you've already thought about this point, then ignore me completely. Neonumbers 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Your comment has not only many things in common with my point on Tsushima but has also greatly enlightened me on one point that I have yet to say.

In addition to the points that I have stated, I would like all voters who voted "support" to reconsider their vote; While there is more than one topic with the name "Tsushima", why do you not target Battle of Tsushima, Tsushima province to Tsushima as well? The social reason of article "discrimination" should be considered. If this article is shifted to Tsushima, how about the other articles? Also, a notice stating that there is an disambiguation would prove to be very troublesome to many--UUnless Tsushima is shared by the name of two articles, notably Madagascar, then the {disambiguation} seems reasonable. But Tsushima is the name of many, many articles! Think about the long-term consequences carefully. Think about it seriously before you vote. Thanks. Mr Tan 12:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I would expect a random reference to Tsushima to be to the place; and to this place. For example, the original Britannica stub calls it simply Tsushima. (Even conversations on the Russo-Japanese War might well use Tsushima of the place, and Battle of Tsushima for the battle; and they are not random.) As for the other entries for 'Tsushima', three are coterminous with Tsushima (the city, the prefecture, and the former province) and two (the straits and the battle) are adjacent to it. An italic headnote to these might well be a good idea anyway; as would be a cross-note to the other two places. That leaves two stubs and one not yet created article - which is not many. Septentrionalis 16:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you say like this, why don't you use Tsushima province as a random reference instead? Also, if the people are not interested in Tsushima Islands, but rather the other articles, they have to take one step more, and click on the piped Tsushima (disambiguation), and go to the second-generation piped variants of articles with Tsushima, and this is merely creating more unnecessary trouble for our valued readers.

For what should we compare with other encyclopedias on their naming conventions? We are not interested to hoods what Britannica or other sources like to call their article. And also, britannica has no such disambiguation stuff, unlike wikipedia. And you must be sensitive enough to know that the structural conditions on other encyclpoedias is not the same as wikipedia. Mr Tan 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you say like this that Tsushima is okay, how are you going to tell people what you mean as "Tsushima" alone between Tsushima Islands, Tsushima city, Tsushima province, (not withstanding the content plus description)? Look at Tsushima city as well, for the city itself is the entire Tsushima Islands. The city is refered in wikipedia as Tsushima, Nagasaki, and the Islands itself is also part of the Nagasaki prefecture. If you insist on the move, how are you going to answer on Tsushima, Nagasaki? Merge the content? I don't think that it is feasible. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) on why. Mr Tan 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Revised vote: In that case, I change my vote to Oppose for the reasons stated by Neonumbers and Mr Tan. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote withdrawn. JMBell° 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Despite the fact that there is no name clash on Senkaku, why is it called Senkaku Islands and not Senkaku? Why make Tsushima an exception, especially when there is numerous name clashes? This vote is certainly tearing the identity of Tsushima whether it is a single or double, or more islands, for Tsushima is a free definition. And Fabartus left me a message stating that

"He also stated that the Japanese are themselves occasionally inconsistant with how they refer to them. The point is moot, as there are many examples of a big island being refered to in the singular, but almost all of which have some small islands with them. God pokes rocks out of the strangest places. In custom, it matters not at all, though you are technically right. But custom rules communications, .."

However, he claimed that customs rules communications, but this is not the case in Jurong Island, a merger of several islands. We have to make a choice between island and islands, and staying neutral would be near-impossible, due to such inconsistencies! This is wikipedia, an editable encyclopedia! Mr Tan 05:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only reason for the suggestion to move to simple Tsushima is the existence of the naming conflict over "Island(s)"; although Tsushima is also English usage. If that primary conflict can be resolved by consensus, fine. If not, the compromise is an alternative. I see no such conflict in the other Tsushima pages, and therefore do not suggest moving or merging them.

The naming conflict at Senkaku Islands involves different issues. But, more importantly, the other name there is Diaoyutai Islands (in various spellings). No such easy compromise is available. Good luck, all. Septentrionalis 17:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Procedural anomaly -- metadiscussion

moved from WP:RM

This is disingenuous at best; there has been discussion on this at Talk:Tsushima Islands, during which it has been pointed out that there is considerable evidence on both sides. Nanshu has placed this request here without mentioning it on the Talk page, in an apparent attempt to bypass proper debate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To make Nanshu happy, I would suggest that something is mentioned that the Japanese government sees it as an island, not Islands, but the page title, will remain "Tsushima Islands". I think that this is the best way out. Mr Tan 16:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want the page moved then you will have to oppose the request. At the moment one proposer means 100% to move. One oppose will mean 50/50 and no move because it is blow 60%. Philip Baird Shearer 16:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I let this case for Mel Etitis to decide, for he was the one who objects to voting, so please do not ask me anything in contrast whether voting should be carried out. I don't know. Mr Tan 16:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

??? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refering to your first message. Mr Tan 18:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nanshu has twice changed the article text in line with his proposal, despite the fact that this conflicts with the article title, and that the debate has not finished. I've now warned him that this is not good-faith editing, and is vandalistic. I'll add here that his position would be strengthened if he responded to the points made by other people, rather than simply insisting on his own view. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting the infobox. I meant to delete only the in-use tag, but ended up deleting all the others by mistake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Amendments

I am intending to change the phrase "are a group of islands" to "two islands", based on the Columbia's description which states that there are two islands.

I did so because a group of island can mean any number, but two islands specifically means that there are only two, seperate islands. Mr Tan 13:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Mel Etitis: Professor Cho Kyeung-dal is professor of modern korean history. The source is from [22]. Mr Tan 13:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Late Interjection to Mr Tan: Thanks for the link immediately above, and your respect for its author Professor Cho Kyeung-dal. Did you notice how this Korean Tokyo resident refered to Tsushima in his article, or what the caption on the map reads? (Make sure your browser is set to English) Before you peek, was it Island or Islands??? User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Until the question of the title is settled, could you leave the summary alone with reagrd to the number of islands?

Thanks for the information; it should go into the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Mr Tan, I'm sorry but I don't understand your message on my talk page. I was in the middle of doing a copy edit for grammar and punctuation in order to get rid of the clean-up box. I deleted the section in brackets because it's not clear what purpose it served in that sentence. I was about to go back and clean up the intro properly, as the meaning isn't entirely clear. I would suggest:

The Tsushima Islands are situated in the Korean Strait between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula. The strait is split by the islands into two channels, with the eastern channel known as the Tsushima Strait, and the western channel the Korean Strait.

Copying your posts below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would need to clarify with you before I made this edit:

• I had intend to write "lying in the Korea Strait concerning this paragraph :

"The Tsushima Islands are two islands lying between the two channels of the Korea Strait (the eastern channel is also known as Tsushima Strait), between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula. ", but when I wrote "lying in the Korea Strait", Mel Etitis had protested in Talk:Tsushima Islands and wanted to revert it back sometime ago. However, I noticed that your new edit is not feasible, so I am here to suggest whether is it appropriate to use the old plan? If you have doubts about the infobox, please see the talk page again. Your reply will be greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 12:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...I was in a rush to eat my dinner...I"ll explain again.

The current state of the article states that Tsushima Islands are two islands lying between the two channels of the Korea Strait (the eastern channel is also known as Tsushima Strait),.., but your edit unbracketed the bracketed sentence and you then brought it to the end of the first paragraph, right?

Let's come back to what I want. From the edit history [23], you noticed that I edited ..a group of islands lying in the Korea Strait between the Japanese.., but Mel reverted to the original version, which says ...a group of islands lying in the Tsushima Strait between the Japanese island.... Please see the Talk:Tsushima Islands if you want to know more...

What I want, is the third version that I stated. However, I instead used the version to soothe out the edit war that Mel was on. But again, I saw you opting for the second version, which seems to make the article look worse. I won't mind the first or third version, but I do not want the second or fourth version. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind about this message; I have seen your change; and I can accept it. Mr Tan 13:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Number of islands

I don't know what the issues are regarding the number of islands, but in case it's helpful, I'm copying the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry below.

Tsushima, archipelago, Nagasaki ken (prefecture), off the coast of southeastern Japan. The islands lie in the Korea Strait separating Japan and Korea, and divide the strait into the Tsushima Strait (west) and the Korea Strait (east). The archipelago consists principally of two rocky islands, Kami and Shimo, which are separated at one point by only a narrow channel. Kami has an area of 98 square miles (255 square km), while Shimo has an area of 174 square miles (450 square km).

The islands are heavily forested, and lumbering is the principal economic activity. Shiitake mushrooms, millet, soybeans, and buckwheat are produced on the limited agricultural land. The archipelago is part of the Iki-Tsushima Quasi-National Park. The principal towns are Izuhara (the administrative centre) and Kechi on Shimo and Hitakasu on Kami.

Historically, the archipelago was a stepping-stone between Korea and Japan, and throughout its early history it was raided by Korean and Japanese pirates. From the 12th century to 1868 the islands were the fief of the So daimyo family, who often acted for Japan in diplomatic relations with Korea. During Mongol attempts to invade Japan in 1274 and 1281, the islands' population was massacred. In 1905 a Russian fleet was defeated by Japan in the Battle of Tsushima, which took place north of the islands. Pop. (1980) 50,810. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with having the bilingual infobox, by the way? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Do you see such bilingual infobox in any other article describing a land or teritory? Tsushima is under Japanese rule for long long time. Tsushima isn't under special condominium. No other country is claiming posession of Tsushima. Therefore we don't need such bliningual. I will keep removing that infobox. --Ypacaraí 15:50, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The Korean have made Tsushima as a dependecny during Silla [24], the Joseon dynasty ruled Tsushima from 1419 to around 1592, and Tsushima forged strong cultural and economic links with Korea. Even Korean maps, until 1860, claimed Tsushima as Korean. Also, the people of Baekje may have connections with Tsushima [25] and [26]. Syngman Rhee and Masan claimed Tshshima in 1950 and 2005 respectively.

And the Korean impact on Tsushima is very significant, just like the Japanese on Sakhalin, who attempted to colonise the island, and ruled the island from 1855? to 1945. And again, I have stated my reasons very clearly on [27] in contrast to the Japanese name on Sakhalin, which answers your question on "...has such bilingual infobox in any other article...". And Sakhalin is not disputed and not claimed by Japan, and the Japanese name was there for a very long time.

Thanks, and I will reinstate the infobox in a short time if there are no further objections. Mr Tan 16:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please proceed to [28]. If you (SlimVirgin) are interested. Mr Tan 15:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Above isn't replying to you, it's to Slimvirgin. I have no more patience for keep up with your gibberish, Mr Tan --Ypacaraí 22:44, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Now look here; I see no resentements in Sakhalin with the Japanese (Karafuto) and Chinese (Kuyedao) names; why are you so fussy about the Korean name in Tsushima? I have told you why, but I seem to be speaking to a deaf woman.

Also, there is mention of Daema-do day in Tsushima from " the Masan city of Korea declared June 19 as "Daema-do day" on 18 March 2005,..." here, how can people know the Korean name if they have no infobox? And there is no strong objections on the Korean name being displayed besides you. You are creating confusion for readers who want to know what is "Daema-do" like this. Even if you hate me or don't like the Korean name, at least please have a sense of consideration for the avid readers. Mr Tan 03:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General topics (continued)

Problems

Mel Etitis. I'm not interested in that person, and I have no intention for a personal attack, but I reached a conclusion that we should remove obstacles for cooperation first.

One of Mel Etitis' problems is arbitrary selection of a default version of the article. He sets up a default version by editing and moving the article without discussion. He criticizes other editors' similar behaviors. (Isn't it double standard?) And he makes whole (not partial) reversion to his version whenever he disagree with a portion of others' edits.

At first I didn't think Mel knew how to use MediaWiki. He behaved as if he did not use diff. But actually he knows MediaWiki and his behavior is intentional. He edited a redirect page to obstruct the move of the article. His forceful attitude was also shown when he archived active discussions.

He cannot join in-depth discussions because he knows nothing about Tsushima. But he does try to keep the whole activities in hand. That causes a great trouble. He makes whole (not partial) reversion to his version whenever he disagree with a portion of others' edits. There are only two reasons he does and can present. One is bad English and the other is lack of discussions. Bad English cannot be excuse for whole reversion. All he should do is to fix bad English and, if a sentence doesn't make sense, to ask the editor what he means. He accuses me of editing without discussions but actually they are here. I asked him a dozen times to specify his disagreements but he simply ignored.

At that time Mel Etitis sticked to his own discussion style. He always adds his comments to the bottom of talk and expects others to do so. He behaves as if he was privileged to ignore other users' comments that has been placed elsewhere. I realized that my effort for reconciliation was in vain and I sought opinions from Villege pump. Mel Etitis failed to gain support for his method while two editors gave positive responses to mine. Judging from his recent edits, he seems to abandon persistence in his way but he still ignores what I wrote before.

We don't have to, or shouldn't, get involved in what we don't know. There is no necessity for his presence. Criticizing a small portion of edits and making whole reversion do not lead to a solution. Do not revert if we cannot discuss immediately. We can edit at any time. So edit when you can.

Mel Etitis has presented his opinions so badly that it is very difficult to find them now. But as for mine, it's easy to join discussions. Check diff and see which section was changed. Then go to talk and look at the Table of Contents. Discussions are arranged in accordance to the article. Jump to the corresponding section. --Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, for I have encountered similar difficulties in working with him (and with another friend) on other articles. However, you may wish to post this section into his talk page, but I am not interested in involving with the affairs that involves two of you. Mr Tan 03:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is this "other friend" supposed to be me? Well, here I am trying to help out in every way I can, and here you are accusing me of making your life difficult! A nice way of thanking me for my efforts, indeed! JMBell° 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this dispute, and came here in order to help. I did a copy edit as the first step toward getting rid of one of the tags, and now find that even the copy edit is being reverted! Nanshu, please explain your revert because you reintroduced errors and red links. I'm going to stay away from editing this page now, so that I can lock it if need be. Please try to act in the interests of Wikipedia. Articles can't be full of grammatical errors, and pages full of red links look untidy. Also, it might make sense to stop changing it until people have decided on a title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. It was a careless error. --Nanshu 14:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has been locked, and unlocked again many times. And requesting to unlocking the article takes many days. How many times is this article bloody not going to be locked??? Mr Tan 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support page protection until the dispute has been resolved and a title chosen. Never mind how many times it has been protected and unprotected. This is in the interest of our readers, not of ourselves, remember that. JMBell° 12:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree to some extent, but in the case of new editors are unfamiliar with wikipedia and who want to contribute facts maybe turned away. However, I strongly discourage blocking this article, unless absolutely necessary. Also, even this article is blocked, please do not let a block exceed three days from that day the arguement ceases. I hope that this is a reasonable suggestion, for the article was blocked ten days in a row, when an arguement lasted around three to four days. Mr Tan 12:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, to prevent that, I think we'll just have to set aside our differences and cooperate, no? The problem is that no one wants to cooperate. Ah, human nature, really.... JMBell° 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis demonstrated my concern again. I asked him not to make whole reversion by criticizing a small portion of an edit. But he has no ear. Sigh. --Nanshu 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand this comment, so can't respond. Nanshu, however, has a thing about posting comments in the middle of a long Talk page, during a hectic discussion at the bottom (i.e., most recent) part of the page, and then being surprised when his comments aren't noticed. If he's done that again, I apologise for not noticing it, but the solution is in his hands...

As for my revert, Nanshu: your changes to the singular (which are unacceptable, being out of keeping with the title, and the subject of a current discussion and poll) are reasonably complicated; your view seems to be that if you make them with some other changes, people won't be bothered to go through laboriously changing back just the bits they want to. If you want to make uncontroversial changes, make them separately. If you insist on making your bad-faith changes to the singular, then at least their inevitable reversion won't affect your other edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many darn times do I have to say that personal criticisms do not belong here! PLEASE! STOP! JMBell° 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. When a user persistently makes a bad-faith edit, it isn't possible to respond on the talk page without, first, addressing him personally, and secondly, criticising him. You may be confusing personal criticism with personal attacks.
2. I've checked on the admins' noticeboard, and so far the response is that Nanshu can be blocked (for vandalism and/or disruption) if he makes the same edit again. I'm not sure what you want responsible editors (never mind admins) to do in a case like this.
3. I'm all for keeping things calm, but shouting at people is unlikely to have that effect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Romaji

Apologies; I have realised that "対馬島" is simply Tsu-Shima. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how to sort out such mess in an article with two seperate votes clashing with each other at the same time. I also wonder how an admin is going to choose which move to take. Mr Tan 16:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The capacity of the human mind is much greater than you think. An experienced sysop can immediately size up the situation and act accordingly. Wonder some more, Tan. It's good for your development. Ever heard of a thing called philosophy? JMBell° 23:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amendments

The case whether Tsushima is an island or islands is doubtful. So I have made a provisional edit that the "Japanese government consider Tsushima as an single island", from "tsushima is the third largest island". I don't know who originally introduced the initial sentence. Mr Tan 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kusunose's edits

I have seen that Kusunose have put up the Korean "Daema-do" name in a sentence, but for the sake of article organization, an infobox would be much better, as it states the romanization and the Hanja name of Tsushima--that would be more informative. In Ypacarai's last edit, I see no effort in him removing the Hangul name.

Also, I cannot make out what he mean by "There has been caltural influence from Korea, where they are called Daema-do (대마도)." Mr Tan 06:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I say below, there is good reason to mention the Korean name in the article, but not in the infobox. The islands are Japanese, not korean, and to mention the Korean name in the infobox would suggest Wikipedia's support of a (non-existent) Korean claim. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page protection?

Does this article need page protection? I see no stopping of the revert wars, and there appears to be no sense of consensus on this talk page. Perhaps the only way to cool things down is for a 3-4 day page protection to be enforced. BlankVerse ∅ 11:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page protection just postpones revert wars. There is no possible end till Mr Tan give up his bilingual infobox. Adding such a bilingual (or trilingual) infobox to an article on a territory that belongs to only one country and not under territorial dispute is wrong and can't be overlooked.

I have explained repeatedly, but he just doesn't seem to listen, insisting on his way without reconsideration. And he is the only one who has strong objections to my infobox, and it was merely to make the article neater. Like Tsushima, Sakhalin, for example, is not under territorial dispute with other countries and has the Japanese and Chinese names besides Russian! How many times do I have to answer your same old stupid question, again and again? Mr Tan 13:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And again, as so many times before, you assume that if someone doesn't agree with you it's simply because they don't listen to you — even when, as here, arguments against your position have been offered. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

I have noticed that like User:Nanshu, he has explicitely reverted my edit, not only removing the infobox but also mentioning in his summary as "rv vandal". I stongly disapprove of his edit, for his edit not only removed the Korean name that I had vividly explained in [29], [30] and [31]. However, his edit has not only wiped out the infobox to which other people has no strong objections about it, his edit has also introduced the wrong Japanese romanization "Tshshima Jima", when it should be "Tsu-Shima". Mr Tan 12:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already explained, time and again, but [...] User:Ypacaraí just couldn't seem to understand on the Korean name and table, and has also reintroduced errors on the Romaji. And there I see no strong objections with the Korean name so far. He seems to refuse to understand the reason and accept the explanation, and he wrote this in his talk page's summary:

"(Mr Tan, I don't read your message nor your linked articles because I have supplied tons of your gibberish and useless links.)" in [32] I just hope that he can just stop the revert war once-and-for-all, which is already resembling more and more like vandalism. Mr Tan 15:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question of the Korean name was discussed, and there was considerable disagreement; you're writing here as though your replacing of the name were uncontroversial, and Ypacarai's removal of it surprising. I agree, though, that he shouldn't have referred to vandalism; that's a term that's vastly overused, and indeed misused (not least by you, incidentally).

There is grounds for mentioning the Korean name in the history section, but not in the infobox. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are much more grounds for mentioning arabic name in the history of Gibraltar(It's originally arabic), Granada or Andalucia but there are no arabic names written in arabic. I think interlangauge link is enough for that purpose. --Ypacaraí 23:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I see that Mr Tan has yet again replaced the infobox with the Korean names, the edit summary merely pointing to this page — which, of course, does nothing to justify it. I've replaced the box without the Korean names; a similar box is used on many Chinese and Japanese articles, and provides a quick and easy method of presnting the Japanese name. Could this not be a compromise? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, at least for a while. Thank you Mel! --Ypacaraí 13:59, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Let's come down to the basics; I have already stated about this;

"Provoked by the Shimane Prefecture's claim to Liancourt Rocks, the Masan city of Korea declared June 19 as "Daema-do day" on 18 March 2005,", and if you remove this, how can readers know what is Daema-do? You are apparently making a bad compromise. Opinions? Mr Tan 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why we have to help local city's propaganda? Enough is enough. Give up, or get blocked again. This is my opinion. --Ypacaraí 06:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• What city? What propaganda? What's the stupid fuss on Korean name? It is a fact, and I don't care what is it. I want to know how to let people know what is Daema-do in Korean, and that's all. I don't care how or what you say. This is for the interest of readers. If you say that, how about not having the Kanji Karafuto? Mr Tan 06:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'm a person who will not do and hate unnecessary wars so long a person is willing to negotiate with me, agrees with me, or respond to my message within a reasonable period of time. This, unfortunately, happens when the person refuses to respond for sometime, giving me a mistaken notion that he agress. Mr Tan 06:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interjected by FrankB:

Ahem,Tan. An open link to the server site does not put a backside on the seat in a postition to view your changes, nor does it require them to do so, except out of mutual courtesy. I wrote you a while back that you were out of good will, and had made real enemies of these people. At any one time, I have as many as four computers with an open page onto the Wikipages. I'm sure there are others that do not close their windows so they can take up the last task without bother as well. Your problem is you don't have enough tasks of your own demanding time, nor enough patience to realize that others don't have your spare time. I wrote you some days ago that it is irresponsible and ridiculous to expect an answer of any kind in less than three to five days; I put it less bluntly then, but you seem to need blunt to learn a lesson. People contributing here are volunteers, and have real world demands on their time. Try to work on a few other things until that reasonable five day period expires! If you need a speedier answer, send an email, but then you also need to give at least three days out of courtesy. (If you agree with me, as a message to Tan, sign your name after mine.) [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Ypacarai refusing to discuss this matter with me? Is he doing that for personal interest? I will reinstate the Korean name then. Mr Tan 06:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's something very peculiar about complaining that an editor hasn't replied to you when his reply is just above your comment, made less than half an hour before.

We don't have to explain in full why your edit is unacceptable every time you try to make it. Once is enough. I've already said that there's no reason that the Korean name can't be given and explained in the text of the article, in the right place, so your argument doesn't go through. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can place the Korean name at the side of the sentence "...Daema-do day, and at the same time bracket the Japanese name of Tsushima at the first paragraph. Why didn't I do that? It is for organization, like how the Liancourt Rocks is formatted! I have already made myself understood, but it is probably not so in the reverse case. Just see how he reverts. Mr Tan 13:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It is apparent that Mel Etitis and Ypacarai is making me out as a stupid fool. I have difficulty in trying to understand what are they saying, and they, especially Ypacarai, always take a turn on a hard stance on my reasons of having something. And that is why I need them to make their points clearer, but things can get frustrating if this goes on. I"ll reinstate the Korean name soon, for the reasons Ypacarai give are not very good reasons, unless one of both of them, preferably Ypacarai himself, is willing to give new resolutions to this dispute. Or this bloody sickening war is to go on. Mr Tan 15:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what Ypacarai saying about interlanguage links is something that does not get to the point: The Korean wikipedia uses the transliteration of Tsushima. And we must consider the convinence of our valued readers. Mr Tan 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I am waiting, but is this issue going to take on a hostile turn? Both users, for at least one hour, are on the net but have yet to respond. They are apparently uninterested to say any thing. Mr Tan 17:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to insist on adding the Korean, with edit summaries gesturing at the Talk page as though the edit were agreed upon here, and marked as minor (I've explained this to you before), then it may well become hostile, yes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because you did not give me an alternative route to get out of this dispute. I have already said, the interlanguage link is not relavant and null here, for the Korean wikipedia uses the transliteration Ssushima and not the actual Daema-do. And furthermore, the Korean name has been lying here all along. Unless you are either willing to cooperate, or find other means to resolve this dispute, you are causing a revert war. If you refuse to provide any comments or response for this case, I see that you are a very difficult to work with. (I am not sure whether Frank's comment is talking about this issue either) Mr Tan 06:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And from Mel Etitis' question:

And again, as so many times before, you assume that if someone doesn't agree with you it's simply because they don't listen to you — even when, as here, arguments against your position have been offered. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I have already offered my counter-rebuttals in this very talk page in contrast to you and your friend's rebuttals. Mr Tan 06:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A change of pace — progress!

FrankB says: I would suggest you all pay a little more attention to presentation in the above free-for-all. Just signing your name at the left margin and indenting once or more would for follow on arguements and rebuttals would make discussion blocks stand out much better. Preface any arguement or rebuttal that needfully disrupts a primary block by the orginal writer with a preface line indented to the same extent as your arguement saying 'Interjection by nickname' or the like, so people realize the speaker is changing for a while. It would make it far easier to catch up for those of us mainly disinterested and dispasionate about this whole embarrasment. YOU ALL DO REALIZE THAT IN A MONTH, the only substantial change in length outside the top two or three paragraphs reverting this way or that has been my own modest contribution? See this diff: Click Comparison FrankB

• • Apparently that link is dynamic with respect to whatever the current reversion is, but I made about a dozen checks to various versions, and the result is the same — you folks have just been spinning your tires. Why not take a real drive?

See "Another comment. As well as the dispute for Tsushima Islands has been defunct for many decades, there is a name of Tsushima Islands in Korean language. (Kanji/hanja is the same though.) --Puzzlet Chung 09:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)" from [33]. Mr Tan 06:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have quarantined the infobox, so I would appreciate everyone, especially this User:Ypacaraí, not to interfere, or revert the changes for the time being. Mr Tan 08:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, Ypacarai's comment stating that the infobox was "unnecessary". Even though he has given a few claims, but I think that what he does is probably for personal interest, from what he says in his summary. I have argued back his reasons, but he did not counter-argue back why. And because of this, I assume that he was convinced, but if he want the Korean names down, why didn't he counter-argue my points? Solid reasons, evidences or explanations are needed, rather than what he is doing now, forcing his way through. Mr Tan 09:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, I dropped in to say that I fixed my offending paragraph (This is drag N Copy off the webpage, not the edit window):

"Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a ship canal (80 meters wide and about 420—450 meters long) (See Pictures: Ref1 (Arial) and (http://santaiyo.hp.infoseek.co.jp/image/121.19%20006.jpg) Ref2- Water Level View (http://www.yado.co.jp/kankou/nagasaki/tushima/manzekik/manzekik01.jpg) as well as lower right corner of topographical map Topographical Map Ref3 (http://watchizu.gsi.go.jp/watchizu.aspx?id=51293255)), through an mountainous rocky isthmus of the single island between Aso Bay from the west, and Tsushima Strait on the east, dividing the island into two islands in a technical sense, but not in terms of local custom where the natives, Japanese people as a whole, and the Japanese Government all still think of it as one island, neglecting surrounding islets. These two parts are named Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima, which useage probably annedates the minor topographical change. They have ever since been able to rapidly move warships between the main Naval bases about the Inland Sea and the Korea Strait or beyond to destinations about the Yellow Sea, the national governments tactical purpose for the project. The two sections of the island are joined by a combination bridge and causeway as can be easily seen in the above Link to the Airial View (See Ref1) Strategically, Japan had been humiliated by the Triple Intervention after the First Sino-Japanese War ended with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and the statesmen foresaw a war with Russia was likely and explains the scope and funding of the project."

If you don't like it, let me know. At least it is now accurate insofar as I can determine. I have too little time and too many projects to beat dead horses or watch you folks quibble over minor matters without being willing to compromise like responsible adults. Do try and grab the paragraph (out of an Edit Window) for any future reverts. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Fabartus's recent change Fabartus's above explanation contains wrong information. I and some other japanese already served enough information about the canals for this island/islands issue. However, since our notes are distributed, I am trying to summarize it with some additional points. (FAB says: THANKS! Great Idea!!! Kudos!)

1 There are two canals in Tsushima, called Manzeki-seto and Ofunakoshi-seto whose widths are less than 40m. Ofunakoshi-seto was built first in 1671 or 1672. 330 years later, in 1900, Manzeki-seto was built as a preparation for the war against Russia. Thus, the island is phisically separated into three portions by these two canals now. (Two large portions and one small portion. These canals are close to each other. See the maps linked in comment.)

FAB says: I have no dispute with that, but knowing the date of the older was fuedal, I assumed it was suitable only for small craft. If we split hairs over that as a permanent sundering, it gets us back to two islands but with three. Is that what you want, or was this a correction of the english phrase "dividing the island into two islands in a technical sense", which I kept in as much to please Mr Tan, as over any firmly wedded desire to echo that Professor's statement. It caused enough trouble', heretofore, so I'm not about to wish that is inherited to others in other venues because someone regards my phrase out of context! Let's fix it instead. There IS the technical difference over the older canal if it is indeed for small craft (Shallow), and this major engineering work in that This new one had to blast through mountainous rock, including the difficult task of underwater ledge (bedrock) removal, if my engineering sense is aright. That would have been impossible to the earlier effort, and hence is a significant TECHNICAL difference between the two. Still, the language 'In my paragraph' would be fine without the phrase, save that it gives emphasis to the scale of the task, and the discussion which follows about the finances and political and military preperations the government of Japan was committing to the effort. Can we get some suggestions here folks? Between the lines, please! (fab)

Baru's short comment: (Im sorry I don't have enough time to make long comments.) "dividing the island into two islands in a technical sense" is out-of-context and diffirs from geograpical facts. As for the scale of the task and preparations by Imperial Japan, I can't grab your intetion from the paragraph.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I need to get to bed, but in a technical sense, the island is divided in three. THAT is a geographical fact, as you yourself have said. 'Technically', the land on one bank is no longer touching the land of the other bank, so technically they are divided. Pragmatically, and customarily, they are not — Neither does the Erie Canal seperate New York State into North New York and South New York, as someone correctly argued on the discussion page. 'Technically' is Mr Tans narrow world view as seen from inexperience; pragmatic, is 'So What, they are still same place', lots of places have rivers and canals and no one calls them two different cities. 'Customary', is how the inhabitants feel and talk about it. They don't have to administer the three sections as the same community, but evidently they combine even more, including some communities on the satelite islets. This is the 'CU' of Nanshu's Comment, and well said it was indeed. Thus the dividing ... in a technical sense was an attempt to avoid the phrase 'Permanently dividing the Island' used by that professor Mr Tan should have quoted properly with quotes. I have no objection at all in dropping the whole phrase leaving the reader free to make whatever interpretation occurs to him.

---

Suggestions for altering the Paragraph, Sentence, phrase 'dividing the Island' that will avoid confusion hereafter: (CAUTION — several points below have interplay in this rewrite!)

1 I think...

2 ditto

---

2 The present width of Manzeki-seto is 40m, not 80m. 80m is the length of the bridge over Manzeki-seto. Initially, Manzeki-seto was 25m wide. It was widened to 40m in 1975. As for the canal length, I can't find any concret information yet.

FAB says: You are correct of course, for just the CHANNEL, and I probably should have considered this in that light. I used the bridge abutments distance measurement as that was the approximate width of the cut through the mountain, again trying to give a sense of the projects scale. (Which was extraordinary for a cash strapped nation through difficult times in a light-industrial economy. That is a thing of admiration to me. Especially when taken against the background of forseeing a foreign power war was likely from 1895 onwards! Wonderfully resolute governmental actions.) To be more precise, we could give this and the other canal more promenence as some section or subsection... perhaps "Major Engineering Alterations", as the older canal was I am sure difficult enough in its own era. As to the length, I picked it right off the Topo map provided by Mr Otani. If that range isn't totally accurate, it should be very close, as the scale is right beside the canal cut. (Besides... I'd have to give back my Boy Scout Map Reading Merit Badge, and that would be embarrassing as I've been teaching others to read maps for decades!)

Baru's short comment: The cut width at the 1900 construction is 25m. See the photograph of the canal. The brasted rocks stand just beside the water pass.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3 I don't know the width and legth of Ofunakoshi-seto. Some sources on the Internet suggest that its width and length are or were 49m and 242m, respectively. However, this is not correct in the present days. Accoding to the map linked by Nanshu, the width of Ofunakoshi-seto is less than 30m at the narrowest point. As for its length, it is difficult to specify from the map.

FAB says: I'm Afraid I've missed that map.

Baru's short comment: The map of ofunakoshi-seto[34]Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4 While the canals separate the island phisically, Aso bay, located in the center of the island, also separates the island virtually. I believe that the presence of the bay is the primary factor to affect people's recognition on the separation. Because from long time ago, even before building of canals, people have been giving different names to those two portions.

FAB says: I said as much to Mr Tan, when I left him a note asking him to fill in TBDL's I'd left behind in my edit. Some discussion of this would be appropo as added material if we can stop reverting, see how it can be managed, or lay it out as a specific suggestion here for all of us to pee in, as you prefer. Again, my only involvement was that the digging of such dovetailed nicely with the historical background preceding the war with Russia. If there are better, more commonly used names for the two, those should be covered properly. It need not be in my sentence — it's presence is because things (starting with the idea of the thing) don't happen in us humans without labels — we need the symbols to manipulate (think about) the idea. That sentence is where I remembered that psycological fact, and I'm not silly enough to argue that it should remain here if it's covered elsewhere in a proper way. If it is the wrong term to the customs of the locals, by all means if we keep it, go on and correct it to customary useages. (See My points to Mr Tan yesterday on custom User Talk: Mr Tan. I'm agreeable to any change, including outright deletion of my paragraph if it will help all of you get back to writing! (fab)

Baru's short comment: I know your effort and admire it. I just tried to support your effort.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5 We use Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima in the article and discussion pages. But the present locals in Tsushima use Kami-jima and Shimo-jima instead.

• • The two versions can be presented, why hold back? Mr Tan 19:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAB says: It'd be nice to know the diff between shima and jima. But the locals use is more germane than that translation sense. I suspect the less used local term is seafarer's reference, or the like. However, this can be rewritten without these names in this section, and I almost did so on the correction. Since another was kind enough to track these down for me, I didn't. Perhaps Mel should rewrite this for me, and have Baru fact check his work product before it's inserted. Your english is better than mine Mel, if not, I'll give it a go, but I'm running out of time today until late evening. (Now 16:20 (UTC))

Baru's short comment: I telephoned some plases in Tsushima and confirmed that the shima names aren't used now. I believe the shima names is just out-of-date because these old names were brought from a very old article by the initial editor of [35].Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6 The history of the names for the north and south portions is complicated. As far as I know, there are at least three types. 1;Kami-jima and Shimo-jima (used now), 2;Kami-agata and Shimo-agata (old official names, but used sometimes even now), 3;Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima (not popular in these days). And there is one more fact that makes matter more complex. Today the north part of the island is called Kami-jima. But several ten years decades ago, the south part was called Kamino-shima. That is, Kami and Shimo exchanged at a certain point in these several ten years decades.

FAB says: It sounds like you, Baru, just talked yourself into a 're-' or 'co-' write on this one... why don't you draft up an accurate paragraph that still makes the historical points I was interested in adding (Recall, I was just innocently passing through and thought to shed some background light!) and maybe see if Mel can check it over before posting, or me if he's not about at the same time. I won't be available much this weekend. (fab)

Baru's short comment: While I have been gathering these factsby using telephon and books, I don't have enough reliable sources on the Internet. And I think that we should not use the shima names. Drafting the article under such situation will be reverted.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

7 Official organaizations in Japan treat Tsushima as an island. Consequently, there are no official (or reliable) data about Tsushima as two islands. And I couldn't find any Japanese maps which denote Tsushima as "islands". In addition to that, I also couldn't find the names of Kami-jima and Shimo-jima in any maps.

FAB says: That matches exactly what Mr Otani said in his researching this matter, though the lack of a 'jima' reference is bothersome. Does that check out negative on Mr Otani's Topographical map as well? Or is your knowledge that of a native that can be taken as reliably ahead of an official or other published document as being the persons on scene and doing most of the talking about?. Perhaps a posting on the Japanese Interest BB would turn up an actual occupant if you are not. In any event, if all the name stuff is bundled into a general paragraph on naming, (For an acceptable enclopediaic aside like this as an example, See my discussion added to Battle of Tsushima viz Admiral Rodenvenski and translation problems in particular. That sort of paragraph would work here I think. (fab)

Baru's short comment: Im sorry but i cant understand what you say.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

8 I think that the above information I summarized is too detailed, and unnecessary in the article. I feel that even Fabartus's explanation is too long and may be more suitable for Battle of Tsushima.

FAB says: disagree, as is historically significant specifically to Tsushima Island. The government project must have been a huge disruption, and still is in that the island needs the bridge and causeway. But I'm willing to delete it, I'm not writting herein, just trying to clean up my mess and provide mediation where I can.

9 Lastly, I know there are lots of mistakes in the present article, especially in "History" and "Demographics and culture". However, I don't want to correct them immediatly. Because I am expecting that such correction will arise new edit wars.Baru 14:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • There are sources from the wikipedia information, and you must also refer to Korean sources in addition to Japanese sources first, before you think that the facts which you think is wrong maybe actually right. And the Korean sources are already presented in this talk here. I also believe that what you want to do is something like User:Nanshu, but please check thoroughly sources not from only Japanese, but also Korean sources before you make a move. And that is how I managed to obtain so much information. And much of the history information also comes from User:Nanshu. Mr Tan 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAB says: Bring them out here by excerpting each in it's own subheading, and get a point by point discussion going to resolve them one by one. Most will probably generate a yeah I agree, go fix it. Good Work! HAVE TO LEAVE NOW w/o PREVIEW!!! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Baru's short comment: I will do so after the votes settled.Baru 04:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In order to convince Ypacarai that Sakhalin is not claimed by Japan, please see [36]. Mr Tan 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ypacarai, the Korean (Daemado) name and the infobox

From his behaviour, Ypacarai's behaviour is almost certainly vandalism. While I have posted messages to prompt him to respond, he seems to be very ignorant; he has not responded a message, or giving anymore comments on his edits since 22 June. There had been reasons to his actions, but I have counter-explained (argued), and he refused to say why my counter-arguements are wrong.

However, what I saw on Tsushima and Sakhalin was very starkling shocking; I had mentioned that Korea had contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name should be put up, he removed the infobox relentlessly, along with the Korean names. On the other hand, he had just removed the infobox in Sakhalin (History:[37]), saying that the infobox was "unnecessary". So is he targeting the infobox or the Korean name? On one hand, he removed the Korean name repeatedly here, leaving the Japanese name, but on the other hand in Sakhalin, he removed the infobox, and retaining the name, without saying any reason at all. Talk:Tsushima Islands And the infobox is widely used, notably Liancourt Rocks, where the Island has many names. It is to make the article neater, and names, especially Korean names, should be in an infobox from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). And I never added the names of more than one language in any of the articles so far, the names were already originally there, notably Daemado.

Are there any ulterior motives from Ypacarai? He is taking the matter without other's consideration by discussion, and this is probably merely for his own interest. Don't make my life difficult lah. Or should we even remove the Japanese name if he says like this? Or should we use dispute resolution methods if he refuse to listen and do such vandalistic reverts at this rate? Mr Tan 12:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Even after reading Mr Tan's reason, I can't understand why the infobox is necessary. Baru 14:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may not all be necessary, but how about the Japanese name in Sakhalin? So long no harm comes to it is all right. In fact, it is benficial to have the Korean name than not to. Mr Tan 19:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Mel and Fabartus

My opinion is as same as I wrote here, talk page of spanish edition Tsushima article and my talkpage for many times. Tsushima is not under international territorial dispute unlike Liancourt Rocks, so there should not be name of third country especially in infobox. Language of this edition of Wikipedia and language of the country ruling the territory. Mr Tan claims that Korea has enough role in Tsushima's history. Even so, I don't think korean name shouldn't shown in infobox. I mentioned about Gibraltar, Granada and Andalucia somewhere of this page and also mentioned about Balkan countries in my talk page. Those are only examples but there are no infobox containing arabic name written in arabic alphabets or turkish names though those territories had been greatly influenced by islamic moroccans and arabs or Osman turk. Mr tan also claimed Sakhalin has(had) infobox shown japanese and chinese names, but look at the [history]. He added the infobox in Jun 19 of This year, obviously just for exploiting as his source to reinforce his claim. Also give a look at the last part of Fabartus's talk page.

I'm sorry for the revert war but his infobox is actually a propaganda and absolutely unacceptable. To prevent further revert-wars you must block one of us(Mr Tan and me) or both of us indefinitely. Although I think w/o blockage of Mr Tan, revert wars will never terminate.... Don't you think it's good chance for his soul-searching? Oh if you block me, please let me edit japanese edition of wikipedia. There I am a gentle wikipedian and never made an edit war since I joined in 2004. --Ypacaraí 14:21, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

1. Blocks are edition-specific.
2. In any case there's no reason to block you; Mr Tan is another matter.
3. I agree that the insertion of Korean in the infobox is unnecessary; I've given reasons for thinking that it shouldn't be done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FrankB replys:

1. I too agree that the language blocks/boxes are unecessary. And understand they may also be culturally unwelcome, in the extremis.
2. Perhaps we can get Nanshu to expand Tsushima province article greatly and parrallel some of that history here as well, could be a sop to Korean claims on islands, if I am correct in my read that that is driving Tan. A strictly NPOV article would I think, at least mention that there are extremists claims from the (todays) fringe elements while making it plain that there is a lot of case to dismiss the matter as a serious issue. Would that satisfy you?
3. I hope you are not expecting us to believe magic spacemen moved people (i.e. Since the Ice-Age days brought causcoid peoples with decendents appearently being the 'Aniu' (Sp?), IIRC) to Japan without first passing through Korea Strait in the post ice age days. The references I have specifically cite post-Ice Age cultural-etymological-writing evidence that pre-historic and pre-written as well as post-historic avenue, though spend negligible time discussing Tsushima, itself. Analysis is cultural radiation out from Honshu tip (or the mainland), thence to Shikoku, and Kyushu; radiating fastest east and northerly in the main.
4. I also understand that genetic studies of racial stocks make it pretty certain that the two peoples have been co-mingling a long long time, early and often (as they say, and I like to vote!). Now that Impression of a memory is non-specific, but was, I thought, solid and ongoing. Any idea? (I'm just trying to get a sense of the intellectual gulf and poles here if we are to cross this apparently cultural chasm!) (After all, I'm not working very hard at 'Working hard to stay out of the Fray herein', my attempt to nurture and mentor Mr Tan seems to be dooming me, regardless of my intents and wishes! <G>)
5. Is it your postition that no Korean language translated words should ever be in the article, which is of course contrary to my proposed compromise posted on your Talk this very morning (for me at least <G> — I evidently landed here first, I didn't yet post it there. I'll have to back down to that window and send it along as soon as I save this one.)
6. I raised the dropping of the edit box with Mr Tan and the cultural landmines at the background of this issue at tedious length, repeated, IIRC, over the last several days. I'm considering (lingering urge, now three days long or more) an ammendment to my comments in his Rfc, as it is, tho' conflicted.
7. I've also repeatedly noted pointedly to him that the (his) Rfc is 'still open', and he has totally ignored that, plus points about others time and such like necessity of waiting several days for answers. I'm running out of ideas, as he says he will read and think on advice, then twists it around in juvenile circumvention as if by presenting arguement in a slightly different way changes it's initial merits. My hats off to you guys (very inclusive, not just you two) for tolerating this as much as you have.

Answer above the line if you would be so kind! ::[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the link I proposed seperately as a compromise to users Ypacara and Mr Tan.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ypacara%ED#Proposed_Compromise Section On Ypacara's Talk ]

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have presented my opinion and suggested how to terminate edit wars. You two agreed about that infobox. I don't care how you two handle that verbose kid. I need a break too. --Ypacaraí 00:42, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

So you said that they agreed with the Korean name or what? I have seen, so far, nothing that helps to continue the discussions. Anyway, do have a good look at my statement below. If there are no rebuttals within a reasonable period of time, there should be no reason why the Korean names, not the infobox itself, should be rejected. Anyway, is the infobox an element of harm in the first place? You didn't say so, so why remove it just because you think it is "unnecessary"? Things removed from wikipedia should be content that is completely irrelavant, not somebody that anyone things that it is unnecessary.

---

Mr Tan

Firstly, why are you concentrating on the infobox? The infobox is merely for making the article look neater, and that's all. I am here to talk about having the name of a specific place in different languages.

Secondly, I have already repeatedly said that

• Sakhalin is controlled by Russia, and is no longer contested by other countries. The Japanese (Karafuto) and Chinese (Kuyedao) names were already there, and they were not added by me in the first place, and please check the history into further detail before accusing me that I introduce the Japanese and Chinese names. I only added the infobox in order to make things look more organized.
• Tsushima Islands is controlled by Japan, and is also similarly not contested by other countries. The Korean name had been there all along, since the original content was already in Tsushima province, follow its history:[38]. And for many months, until now, there was no objections on the Korean names. And Ypacarai had done edits on Tsushima before that. Why is making such an objection now?

Thus I see no good reason to why names in foreign languages of a specific place that was not contest by any countries, yet the languages belonging to those foreign countries is culturally abusive, or whatso ever. So long as another country, even though they does not claim to that place any more, the foreign name should not be rejected. In fact, it should be used as a sense of honor. And the Japanese name was placed on top, then the Korean name, and not the reverse. If it is the reverse, then it is an insult. But it isn't! And furthemore, there is no harm in the Korean name. And having the Korean name would be beneficiary in many parts of this article.

There is no wikipedian rules saying that you can't add the Arabic names in Gilbartar, but an infobox is suggestable in order to make things look neater. I don't know anything much about Gilbartar either, but I know Arabs have played a significant role in its history.

For the matter of Ypacarai, there is no reason why both of us should be blocked. Rather, we should have the initiative to settle down and discuss the matter, and work in harmony together. But why did you remove the Korean names, even it was quarantined? It was to be in a standby mode, and what you did is certainly absurd! And I will not fight with you only if you are willing to discuss with me until we have reached a steady conclusion.

For the matter of Frank Bartus, I see no direct relations between my RfC and this specific case. I cannot do anything to control's one mouth, but I can and am aware of what I am doing now is wrong or right. Mr Tan 17:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments; I"ll read them little by little, and let me comment them by and by. I need a break now, so I"ll pause this case for a short while (a few days), but please follow up every now and then. Mr Tan 17:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Actually Tan, this is open air, but limited between the three of us, you may monitor, but interjecting anything would be impolite. You may address this discourse after we have had some time to have a discussion and figure out what options are still open. That will be in a block of your own where you can rebutt, and present your own case. Mel or I will Stub one in below WHEN it is time for that.

Do give us a few days to explore possible compromise approaches.

We're trying to see where ground is the same and where is violently and vehemently in opposition, so please standby. We'll get to you, in your proper turn. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"ll hope it wouldn't take too long, or if there are no comments posted concerning this debate within a week, I will assume that nobody is interested anymore, or have agreed. Thanks. Mr Tan 17:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you won't. Or rather, if you do, your edits will simply be reverted. You have been warned before, on a number of occasions, that you can't set deadlines, and that you can't assume that no response means agreement — especially when people have expressed disagreement in the debate so far. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least an approximate deadline. C'mon, be reasonable, do you want to hold on if the debate cease to progress for a year? And I only do that when I have counter-argued, and have not received responses for a long time. And I am not that unreasonable as you think! (However, my mood can swing) Mr Tan 19:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Material Needs Covered In Article

FrankB says: (Some may just need better coverage)

1. I'll address Barus comments in interleaved fashion above on my paragraph. So for new business:
2. Don't comprehend why these maps and lang boxes are above, or were you intending to create a vote and comment section? I so move, if it will move the article forward. Do I hear a second on this? Then Fix it up as such, if you would be so kind.
3. I should note that I've made the compromise suggestion to Mr Tan and Ypacarai that perhaps they could compromise by in-line multiple names like the four or five historically necessary national names in Liaodong, Dalian, Lushun, etc. in and around the Russo-Japanese War and other parts of post turn of the century Manchuria, where Imperiast powers made their mark.
4. I noticed that while the length of the article hasn't appreciably changed (or have you guys declared a cease fire?), these geo-political matters haven't been addressed for the most part, so I bring them to your attention here. The source for these is Tans Encarta reference, repeated below for your convienience. In the interest of moving the article forward, someone might want to tackle them with one or two line exansions. (Reminder: I'm not writing herein — I made that mistake once! (As well as the other doozy on the cut! <G> ~:(, sniff, sniff), just mediating a bit.
5. You all might consider a debate on the relevant merits of 'Mergeto' of the various coterminal entities disambigulated in Tsushima. I seem to smell a bit of the same edit war therein, and they are so short, it makes some sense. I'll stub in a title box below for that debate, Don't see that a seperate vote section is warranted. (This is a logical 'problem analysis' follow through to User talk:Pmanderson (aka Septiemonius?) proposed compromise. (Don't know where that and the renaming VOTE is either, guess I should check!)

Towns/Villages, geo-features in Tsushima City

re: Zoomable Encarta Atlas Tsushima Map

N+W to S+E On Kamino-shima: Kamitsushima Kamiagata Mine Toyotama

On Shimono-shima: Mitsushima Komoda Tsushima Tsutsu

Points/Peninsula N + W to S + E: Sao-saki NW KAMINO_SHIMA Ko-saki S SHIMONO-SHIMA

Discussion AND VOTE: 'On Merging Geo-Political Co-terminal Articles'

This is a STRAW POLL, Not a binding vote!!!
Proposal: That the listed articles, being co-terminal with Tsushima Island (or all three parts of it <G>) should be merged into this mother article. The articles I've figured as likely candidates:

1. • Tsushima, Nagasaki — Sometimes aka. 'Tsushima City'
   • Tsushima Province — well maybe not; I'll just figure a loud Automatic No from Nashu. <G>
   • Tsushima subprefecture —

I nominate these solely as they are short and coterminal; not on any particular merit, or lack thereof. I suggest the three wide format I stub out as an example, followed by indented comments and signature just below. Thus votes in margin will act as Block header if all commentary and discussion is indented. Subsequent insertions (counterpoints above YOUR vote on the point immediately above should be Asterisk Indented and signed so speaker is clear if we drift in a big furball of an arguement. Thanks! FrankB

---

• Strong Merge/Mild Keep/Waiting For Info

Indent your arguements like this, Those aren't All my real votes yet. (Guessings half the fun! <G>) I don't know which is why I call the question.

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Municipalities in Japan have their own articles. Former provinces also have their own articles. Tsushima, Nagasaki should be an article. Tsushima Province should be a separate article. Parts of Tsushima Islands such as culture and history do not belong in the article on Tsushima Islands. They should be moved to the city article or to Tsushima Province. The article on Tsushima Islands should concentrate on the land, not the people or culture or history on it. Fg2 01:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... you really start to think what an article should cover, when you see so many articles dealing with similar (but not identical) topics. I tend to agree with Fg2 here... this move could be similar to merging Hawaii, Kingdom of Hawaii, Ancient Hawaii and Hawaiian Islands, although they're much more developed compared to the articles related to Tsushima. I'm seriously thinking that my statement "Tsushima could be the best compromise" may have been a big mistake, and I apologize for the unnecessary confusion it has caused. That said, if we want to sort out what each article should cover, Hawaii (and other well-developed, similar articles) could provide some good examples. For example, Hawaiian Islands more or less focuses on the natural environment (geography, geology, climate). Atsi Otani 29 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)

revert 25 vi 05

I've just reverted Nanshu's latest set of edits. I began to go through them one by one, but there are just too many that are controversial, go against consensus, or are unverified. I tried to find his explanation, in order to reply there, but it's somewhere in the middle of the Talk page (if he edited just the relevant section it would at least make it a little easier to track down his comments).

To mention just a couple of examples: the infobox was settled on as a compromise between those who wanted it gone altogether and those who wanted it to include the Korean versions of the name. Commenting out parts of the article that indicate a pluraluty of islands is not acceptable while we're still deciding on that point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original Sakhalin, which is ruled by Russia, and not claimed by any other country, already has the Japanese and Chinese versions of the name, even before I ever interferred it [39]. And I see no problem with those names there, except for the fact that Ypacarai removed the infobox that I have introduced, which I have explained in Talk:Sakhalin. And he has no reason to do that, the infobox is for the organization of the article, where all the names of the place in many languages are placed in the infobox, in order to make it look neater, such as those of Liancourt Rocks (there is an infobox there).

And since you want a compromise, why not have a reverse compromise where there is no infobox, but the Korean and Japanese names are placed in the mainstream article? This is also midway what? Mr Tan 14:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. What is done in another article is of no interest (except in so far as it might indicate a problem there). What I'm concerned with is this article. I've given my reason for rejecting the Korean name as being placed either in the summary or in the infobox. You haven't replied.
2. I've already said that I thought that the Korean name could go into the historical section of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it does, Ypacarai has asked before whether any other articles have placed names in foriegn languages in a place that is not contested by any country as of 2005. I have shown him Sakhalin for the sake of comparison.
• I have already indicated my main reasons here. [40]
• Why should it be what you proposed? If you say like this, why not place the Japanese name in such a format like this

The Tsushima Islands (対馬 in japanese) are situated in the Korea Strait between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula., having the Japanese names bracketed, and placed beside the Tsushima Islands.

On the other hand, the Korean name has its Hangul, Hanja, Revised Romanization and McCune Reischauher. And if you do your pattern, the article will be in a state of mess, for I have to put up the two scripts and romanizations, which is essential. And I am partially following the [41]. The Liancourt Rocks article has an infobox for the sake of tidiness, and partially for this convention. So since you have no objections to the Korean name, why should you remove the Korean name section and have this proposal in mind? Let the Korean name be in an infobox, and when people wonder what is "Daema-do", they can automatically refer to it, at the same time benefit people who can get easily confused on reading the Hangul, Hanja....all in a line. Mr Tan 17:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't need the scripts. only the Romanisation. It's not a Korean place, it doesn't need full details (any more than United Kingdom has an infobox giving full details of the Korean name). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what you think. Then why Sakhalin, a Russian place, has the Japanese and Chinese script when I first came? And if people want to know what is "Daema-do" in Korean, how do you answer? And United Kingdom is simply written as United Kingdom. But Daemado is written as 대마도. Wikipedia is a place of information, and it is encouraged that we should give the Korean name! What's the harm in the first place? Mr Tan 18:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why Sakhalin has those scripts; I'm not interested. If people want to know what "Daema-do" is in Korean, then they should find an English-Korean dictionary that gives place names, not Wikipedia. "United Kingdom" isn't written that way in Korean; you missed my point. As for the harm, I've already explained that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You missed it again. The Koreans has nothing to do with your UK historically, but yes on Tsushima! I have said that the Korean position in Tsushima is equal to the Japanese position in Sakhalin is the same. And if you have the romanization alone, it cannot stand firmly. See the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. And naming conventions is official policy. If you want to have one Daema-do alone, it is not enough. You must also have Hangul, Hanja, etc, from the naming conventions (Korean). You follow? Mr Tan 18:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand all this, but your point about the U.K. is precisely the point; Korea had a relationship with Tsushima, but doesn't now. The naming conventions don't cover all references to non-English languages in articles not directly about the countries concerned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So does Japan had a historical relationship with Sakhalin, but not now! And what we want is specifically the Korean name of Tsushima, the scripts and romanizations of Daemado. The mentioning of the Korean name should be in full, the entire set mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). Mr Tan 18:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: I'm not interested in what happened at some other article. The question is: what should happen in this article? Secondly, we don't want any such thing, you want it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If you are not interested that is your own lookout; we are using it for comparison only, because this issue has a strong connection with the Naming convention, and we are using Sakhalin as an example. And you say that this article is not Korean related, therefore it does not covers this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) section. Tsushima is related, historically to Korea, and therefore you say that "don't cover all references to non-English languages in articles not directly about the countries concerned" is not true. The Korean naming convention says that "This article covers naming conventions generally followed by editors of Wikipedia articles on Korean subjects." And Tsushima is both Korean and Japanese related to a strong extent, just like the Japanese, Russian and Chinese on Sakhalin, and Sakhalin is also a co-subject to Japanese-related articles with Russia and Tsushima is also a co-subject to Korean-related articles with Japan. And the Korean naming convention, is therefore applicable.

And it is you who do not want such Korean names, how about the readers? What we want is to reach a stable conclusion on this issue. And it is pretty absurd of you to raise objections; you had been working with me all along for months on this article, the Korean name had been there for so many months, and why are you raising this issue now? If you had objected to the Korean name, you should have raised it from the start, but you did it only when Ypacarai raised his voice.

If you cannot understand or pretend not to understand, I cannot do any further, for you, who is also involved in this case, should have the respondsibility to make out what I say, but of course, I will make myself as clear as possible. Mr Tan 06:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For What its Worth (Tan)

FrankB says: I just left this note for Tan on the Korean Names issues:

I don't have time tonight for long points, but this is exactly on point wrt the issue between you and Ypacari:

You wrote (on T:TI): "However, what I saw on Tsushima and Sakhalin was very starkling shocking; I had mentioned that Korea had contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name should be put up, he removed the infobox relentlessly, along with the Korean names. On the other hand, he had just removed the infobox in Sakhalin (History:[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sakhalin&action=history)), saying that the infobox was "unnecessary". So is he targeting the infobox or the Korean name? "

• • He is objecting to the Korean Name — appropriately so.
  • Korea has never controlled and occupied either place in modern times. Whether it did so before them is immaterial, and I believe disputed.
  • China and Japan both owned Sakhalin, or at least half of it. Russia traded Japans interest in it for the Kurile Islands, IIRC.
  • Korea has no business there, and never has. Korean names would be appropo in an Korean Wiki. Not in an english one.
  • Those historical Japanese and Chinese names however ARE still present in source materials, such as the books I'm using as references, so they are something Wiki wants to provide to people that may be looking at such older documents of any kind, such as perhaps an old novel that uses that sort of old name. If the novel was written in the 1920s, its author had no way of telling that the name of Ceylon would be todays Sri Lanka. So old name references are kept out of courtesy to certain types of readers. Notice that two of the copyrights on the references I'm using are well before 1910, another two or three are before 1940.
  • If you were arguing that we should include a Russian Name for Sakhalin, you would have a point. But a Russian or Korean name for a place like Tsushima, that they never occupied is inappropriate. You can't even travel directly from Korea (Legally) to Tsushima, but have to go to customs elsewhere, probably in Honshu.
  • Some scholars work with source materials of another country or language, otherwise, even Japanese and Chinese writing would have no place in Wiki, in this case, Wiki makes sure far eastern topics have the translated names so that those readers also can check their translations. But the common denominator is that this is english Wiki, and historical ownership determine what is correct.

............ But let me add here, as the above contains a comment about the Korean Influences on Tsushima:

• My country influences the culture of the whole world, but it would not be appropriate for an Arabic or Spanish Wiki to be using English terms in articles because that was true.
  • More to the point Korea's direct cultural contributions were pre-Modern.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 07:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My statement to Frank Bartus' objections

FrankB rebutts below indented once more, and in italics. Mr Tans post spans several edits ending: 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your arguement is somewhat out ofOff point---The Koreans have owned Tsushima, just like the Japanese and Chinese did so on Sakhalin. The Japanese and Chinese names have been lying there for so long, why is there no objections to the Japanese and Chinese names there? In fact, like Japan is to Tsushima, Sakhalin is not contested by any other country as of 2005, and is legitimate Russian territory. (FrankB has to interject: My arguement was exacly 'On Point', but your failure to take the time to look up words, to understand it, means I must now reply in exhaustive length... because it is you who do not understand! Apologies readers, but I see no option but to interleave answers and rebuttals here in the faint hope I can help him understand. My text is usually Italicised and signed w/o timestamp as the following: '(FrankB))'
  • The Chinese names are there because China owned it in Modern times, and it then passed to the Russians with the ceding of all of Outer Manchuria; Part or all of it had been colonized by Japanese nationals, IIRC, and to 'buy off' the Japanese claim to the Island, the Russians ceded the Kuriles, again, IIRC. I wouldn't state these things I wasn't studying though if I wasn't very sure. Japan then occupied (=Conquered without a fight) Sakhalin during the Russo-Japanese War, and was ceded the southern part instead of being given Money reparations by Russia, as a compromise engineered by our President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. This I have beens studying, as you know. Where is the Korean claim to Sakhalin? She was a weak country at the mercy of China on one side, and Japan on the other through most (probably ALL, but one must be polite.) of the Modern Era; Then suddenly Russia was there too, and therafter, Korea was in three way trouble. (FrankB)
  • Lets Deal once and for all with 'Modern Times' (=Era) and 'Recent Modern Times'. Those terms are admittedly 'Eurocentric', but the customary usage would be that 'Modern Times' started somewhere in the 14th to 16th Centurys (1300s-1599), almost all historians would agree on a date in the late 1400s to low 1500s. (Also note that an English Language Wikipedia is necessarily Eurocentric itself, the language and shared culture are all derivative from Europe.) (FrankB)
  • Since it is an imprecise term, that definition should suffice so that YOU now finally understand it — use 1500 onward as a working trigger figure. 'Recent Modern Times' would again be imprecise, but would certainly be after the Portugese first sailed ocean going ships up to Japanese and Chinese ports. I'd have to look that up, but vaugely recollect a date in the later 1500s; it's probably listed in Japans History, but dates in that era were firmly during the days of Japans warlords, not Korean Imperialist Conquerors, so far as I know. So for 'Recent Modern Times', I'd bet most historians would probably agree to place the date of that term from the Industrial revolution onward — That is 1750s to present. Some, possibly even many would insist on 1800; so in the period 1750 — 1800 would be a safe start date for 'Recent Modern Times'. So split the difference, use 1775. (FrankB)
  • Lastly, the arguement 'whether the 'turf' (land) is contested in 2005', was an unfortunate choice of arguement, as that particular point is relevant only to an outraged Japanese National insensed by your insistant pesterings about claims on Tsushima by Wacko Koreans on some extreme nationalistic political fringe. (You 'DO' have a talent for bringing out 'the best' in people, don't you? NOT!) Moreover, it is a misconstrual due to your insistance that Sakhalin is a parrallel case, and should just have been dismissed, pretty much like it was... with obvious frustration at YOU. (FrankB)
  • Use of Korean there is as wrong (See two paragraphs down, Damn this is confusing, where I establish (teach YOU) why that is!) as it is here — and that is the only parrallel the articles share. The key is whether any western literature, or other references would have copied the Korean Names you are so insistant on shoving down everyone's throat. So let me ask you for proofs: What 'Western newspaper, magazine, diplomatic letter, military dispatch, diary, or letters to the folks back home, texts, novels, historys, biographies, or encyclopedias (written back then), so called primary and secondary sources, can you show us that 'copy Korean Name sounds' for something they are saying about some place in either Sakhalin or Tsushima? If your answer is none, 'you loose.' Otherwise, I want to see some western source references showing accounts of Korea's occupation and control of the island. Either one. (FrankB)

• Korean has historical links with Tsushima--just like the Japanese and Chinese on Sakhalin. Why is the Japanese and Chinese there but not the Korean name here? The conditions of the Japanese and Chinese of Sakhalin is similar to those of the Koreans to Tsushima. And that's why I'm using Sakhalin for comparative purposes.
  • I've never said anything other than they are linked 'CULTURALLY' (and even genetically) — I would argue they are even strongly linked; see my add-edits at Tsushima Strait — but they differ considerably in kind and impact; your references are 'Ancient History' cases - The Silla article you link (in your text) below says that qualifying word bluntly. The question is whether those 'historical cultural influences' warrant a Korean name in a place Korea did not and never owned in 'Recent Modern Times'. 'Sakhalin' is an 'Apple' to Tsushima's 'Orange', and one should not call them similar when one cannot compare them. Sakhalin could 'correctly' be compared to Lushun or Dalian or Qingdao or Weihai; all terratories managed for a time by foreign powers, but when has Korea been a power? Or did Korea do some 'stealth conquering' she neglected to tell the rest of the world about? 'Did the Mayor of the town of Tsushima even notice the Korean troops?' No? Too bad for 'Similar' cases. The only similarity I can see between them is you adding Korean names where they do not belong. Like this article. (FrankB)
  • The key point is simply: 'Did Korea own and manage Tsushima for decades and decades' in the 'last few centuries' — i.e. the centuries western culture knew something detailed about Tsushima other than it was an island controled by Japan one had to skirt passing through the Korea Straits — where are the decades long periods in our shared historic period where Korea occupied and managed Tsushima like those when Japanese and Russians did control on the Liaodong Peninsula? No such periods? — Then what 'English language references' in old 'western literature' and 'historical primary source archieves' would have tried to copy the sound phonemes in a Korean Name that they never came in contact with? If there is nothing that occurred to comment about and document (i.e. Ownership and Control), why should Wikipedia repeat (?!!) something that never occured in any western writings about the Recent Modern Era? The only possible reason would be to benifit Korean school children and 'would-be tourists' who are reading about Tsushima in English. 'That reason is something Wiki-is-not', however nice THAT may be in the ideal. It is not a license for Mr Tan or any other lone editor to hold all the adults on the article project hostage out of sheer stubbornness because he has yet to learn how to draw such refined distinctions. (FrankB)
  • 'That key' seems to be the one you consistantly do not want to see. Unless the name would have been reported in English language publications, diaries, diplomatic dispatches, or ships logs, we simply 'have zippo reason' to be interested in it. (FrankB)

• Consider those reading the phrase "...Daema-do day..." people will wonder what it is if there are no original Korean names. And I would appreciate if you can proceed to [42] and reconsider your present ideas. Thanks.
• The above link made no connection or sense when I viewed that part of this talk page. It puts one into another Tan argument, that doesn't shed light on 'Daema-do day', but does refer to Sakhalin Island. So I just foiund it confusing. (FrankB)

More to be answered... Mr Tan 07:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Discussion of one or two Korea linked cultural feastivals certainly merits some SMALL reference, but does not in any way justify cluttering the article with Korean names in general which will be of interest to only a few readers, and hard to explain as to why they deviate from standards seen in other articles, regardless of whether such are presented in a table or 'in line' in the text body. If you don't like that standard, try posting an RfC and see if others support your DESIRE. FrankB

First of all, the first four points of what Mr Bartus said seems to be a bit hard-to-make-out-what-is-he-saying sort of things to me. Never mind, I"ll answer what I can, and I hope that both Mr Bartus and his colleague-in-hand maybe able to get my point clear. FrankB, frustrated rejoins: 'Why do you consistantly not see that everyone BUT 'Mr Tan' — understands just fine' , and it is 'ONLY Mr Tan' who does not understand why his personal POV is not welcome in learned discourse? Do you realize how ARROGANT that COULD seem to others, that do not know you well? (Okay — I can answer myself: Perhaps Lack of experience? Lack of training in schools, training which will in time to come teach analytical thinking, uncoupling personal viewpoints, proper research, critical analysis, self-criticism, planning of edits, fundamentals of debating, and many other things it is NOT the job of the Volunteer editors here to teach? But when will you realize that when you get arguments from other editors, strong actions (reverts), or clearly cause frustration and unfriendly comments that your point is perhaps one that wouldn't be made by someone with such training, and so is something you should take as a signal to drop the wish, YOUR WISH, and that it is time to move on to a new article where you will not be 'stealing time' from other editors who are far better qualified to judge what is and is not appropriate? Why do you not get such blatant hints? Or direct statements — I advised you at least three times last week to get yourself out of this article. The ONLY reason I am here is trying to help you to realize just that — you are unwelcome here, becasue it is very difficult to make you understand things you have yet to be trained in, and that 'obtuseness' is costing other people dearly, and alienating them so that they might stop working for Wikipedia all together — which is why you need to leave, or the ArbCom will make you do so, and you will have to leave anyway. The bottom line: 'You are ill equiped to 'complete' any article'. ESPECIALLY one edited by others at the same time, and that makes YOU an issue, because you don't have the training to handle issues of fact and content appropriately. You do not yet know when an arguement is 'empty and inappropriate', or POV; neither do you yet exercise self-criticism to sufficiently check your sources, or demand that they be of high quality. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you no longer have any business in an article this far along, especially, as your participation is wasting others time. 'Precious, never to be given more of, Capitally important time. If you continue to NOT get THAT message, the ArbCom will be giving it to you loud and clear for a long long Wiki-vacation. Go back and read the advice JBell gave you a month ago on your Talk page. You did not listen to that very good advice, and did not listen to the commentary in the RfC, and did not listen to the lengthy posts on your talk page by me. 'JUDGEMENT DAY' is coming, and you still seem unaware that this sort of discussion is A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME. Unfortunately, that is very true, and you will probably be banned while you try to learn the lesson. If you get out of these folks way, you may only be restricted, or banned for a short while for the discord and time waste you have generated thus far. Adults do not argue points over and over. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. With you, it takes days or weeks, and you bring it up again over and over. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE NOR RESPONSIBLE, NOR RESPECFTFUL OF OTHERS TIME! PERIOD. (FrankB)

• When you tell yourself 'Never Mind', that's probably a good place to stop and think — which is far harder to do correctly rather than to just do something, because you are frustrated. If there has been something YOU have not understood, when have I ever, or James Bell, or Mel ever not given you a clarification If and When YOU ASKED. DID YOU ASK ME? OR did you say 'Never mind', I see an angle I can wiggle away from the undesired conclusion I think he means and I don't want to accept! Let me do something to create more confusion! No, well, that's not how it looks from outside of you; Better to ponder for days, than to miss an obvious point. FrankB

From what Mr Bartus stated above that "Korea has never controlled and occupied either place in modern times. Whether it did so before them is immaterial, and I believe disputed. " I assume that Mr Bartus is refering to Tsushima. First of all, how does he define the word modern? Secondly, Tsushima has been controlled by Korea during the Joseon and Silla dynasty, and also the aristocrats of Baekje after it was annexed by Silla. If anyone thinks that I'm lying, please proceed to [43] or [44] (It is assumed and editor is acting in good faith — which rules out lying — the policy is unfortunately mute on those lacking sufficient sophistocation to appreciate an arguement is dead horse, and dead on arrival at that! Moreover, your ref. to Josen is a disambig page, add a date range at least (i.e. the specific years you claim), but don't bother, just strike through, if it's NOT in Recent Modern Times FrankB)

Secondly, for the cultural influence, please see [45] by Cho Kyungdal. For the Ariran and Chingu festival, please see [46] and [47]. There is apparently strong Korean cultural influence, if you browse the sites cafrefully and look for its answers. (I don't think anyone disputes that Korea exported influences to all of Japan, not just Tsushima; it is YOU THAT MISUNDERSTAND that cultural influences do not justify foreign names in the article. FrankB)

Use the Japanese and Chinese names on Sakhalin to analyse my reasons, especially through the history section if you still do not understand why I want the Korean names on Tsushima. Both conditions are very similar! Mr Tan 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Conclusion, a Personal Plea

• I am sorry to have to apply such 'Tough Love', Mr Tan, but you need to leave this article immediately, and go do others where you can make a contribution without costing other editors their precious free time. We've had that discussion several times now... What you've done here is detrimental to Wiki, and you just do not seem to understand something so clear cut — The ArbCom CAN HARDLY IGNORE IT. It needs to keep good editors happy, not let you Play and abuse their time.
• When someone challanges your text on content, it is probably a good signal that you should now leave that article and go on to some other where subtle nuances and fine shades of meaning, and slight differences and your limited understanding of the Adult world do not matter so much.
• Please face your limitations RIGHT NOW, and understand that someday you will be embarassed by the behavior you now apparently think is 'OKAY'. It is not. People have been very patient with you, but that time is ending. You now have too much visibility to not be watched carefully in all that you do, as it is clear to everyone that sees your arguements with others, you just do not have the necessary acedemic and analytical tools to participate in finishing an article. If you can accept that, the ArbCom will probably go easy on you.
• I am willing to help you, but you must take what I say to heart and make it practice. I only wish you well, but you are making it damn hard for me to not join in with others recommending a harse sanction by the ArbCom. Even if you just adopt that little change in behavior — that recognition that the heat in the article Talk reply to you means you did something you wouldn't do if you were fully trained; If you could master that little thing, then you could be trusted to not disrupt the well intentioned work others are trying to finish. But YOU MUST learn that trick, and moreover, you must learn to discipline yourself to not act afterwards on THAT point... whatever point it may be.
• My server is blocked for maintenance, so I'm emailing this to Mel Etitis, hoping he can post it for me.

Still Your friend, User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 17:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

FrankB:

• I just posted a lengthy (interleaved) response to Mr Tans objections to my points on the Korean Language content. Here's the quicklink to the section:

Talk:Tsushima Islands#My statement to Frank Bartus' objections.

• If Baru hasn't fixed my paragraph in line with our discourse, I'll get to it sometime this afternoon; I have errands that won't wait.
• I want to repeat to Tan what Mel said about deadlines above -- you have to wait for consensus before making changes involving disputed content. PERIOD.
• OK Link tests Okay... I'm outahere for now. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 11:49 (UTC)

• Only if negotiations is a complete failure, then consensus come next. But such consensus only involves we a handful of people, and it is only a large number of people on a consensus that we an consider the interests of others clearly. So such consensus within a small community of people seems redundant. Full stop. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Removing comments

It is not acceptable to remove any comment by another user, unless it's a personal attack. I've replaced Fabartus' message. If Mr Tan wants to reply, or to ignore it, he can, but he can't simply delete it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

I have notified him, by the way. Anyway, since this is a rule, I shall not remove it anymore, but such messages is more of a personal message. Thanks. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

But in the first place, there is no reason why should this Mel Etitis revert my changes at the expense of removing other messages that I have posted [48]. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Because you removed another user's message, and then added various interleaved comments. I could have spent a great deal of time cutting and pasting in oder to retrieve the situation, but as you made the mess, I thought that you should clear it up.

Incidentally, could editors refrain from adding bold, , etc., from their posts? It tends to make them difficult to read. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Number one, you did not tell me to clear the "mess" up. Number two, if you have the capability to revert, there should be no reason why you complain that it is very troublesome. Your reverts, had not I realised it, would have deleted many precious messages that I posted, yet you do not have the intention to delete it. And in my own eyes, sad to say, my core hatred of you is from your numerous reverts at the expense of reverting other changes that you did not inted to do so. Period. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Hey, folks, debate (with new discovery on the rules on Naming convention) on infobox 'ere!

It is a pleasure to get another user as a middleman (JMBell) to resolve the problem but it is a very heart-aching affair when I get another user who just doesn't seem to understand what I say. I fully understand that as of 2005, Japan claims legitimate soverignity to Tsushima, and Korea had ruled Tsushima for a considerable period of time. And see Sakhalin, Japan and China had ruled Sakhalin but not now, and the names are there, having no c0omplaints there! In fact, Sakhalin is legitimate Russian territory!

I still cannot understand why did you all not understand the formatting guidelines of Korean spelling and formatting guidelines, from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). As the Official policy, the naming convention had said, the Korean names must have a name table, if you look at the page carefully. And this article is a Korea-related article.

If you insist on the way on your way by placing the Korean name beside a certain sentence in anywhere on Tsushima Islands, it is not only violating the policy but also, discriminating the use of the infobox, if you solely want the Japanese name on it. And the infobox is especially suitable for displaying two or more languages. And if you do not want the Korean name in an infobox, then why not merge the Japanese name into the mainstream article as well? And the Korean naming convention said that "should be used in preference to long lists of romanized, Hangul, and Hanja spellings." And doing your way will make the article even messier, for the romanization should be also added for the benefit of our readers. Comments? Please domn't let me hold on for too long. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 11:51 (UTC)

My edit

I have added the Korean name (Daemado) under the history section. This as a piece of information. I hope this way there is no more need to argue about the box, where, imho, Japanese is enough. Korea as a country makes today no claim on this land… Kokiri 28 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Thanks — I hope that that satisfies everyone. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)

CopyEdit — InUse Notice

FrankB:

1. I placed the Inuse template prematurely - I will copyedit it this evening circa 20:00—23:59 Boston,MA time, or 00:00 — 04:00 (roughly) UTC, tomarrows date. So edit away until then. If you need additional time to complete a change drop me a note. My only focus will be readability from the (English) readers pov, not content. Note the copy edit and Move proposal notices have already been deleted and replaced by the Inuse template. I see no reason to simply revert, and assume this explaination will suffice. I've asked another with better training in English to look at it after I finish.
2. Mr Tan has taken himself out of the project. See: User Talk: Mr Tan (Bottom)
3. Hence anything depending on Korean Name issues or other arguements from him are past.
4. I have proposed to Mel that the talk be archieved, save for the discussion about renaming and moving. Without a firm consensus, he says we have to keep this (Older) name. My count was 9-Move, 5 Keep, 1-abstain last time I looked.

Best regards,

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)

1. 1. Sorry to have reverted you when I did it, there was no explanation, and you were editing from an anon IP.
   2. The poll is intended as a means of reaching consensus. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached (indeed, it looked very much as though people were simply voting, with no attempt to read what other people had written). Until there's consensus for a move, the article should stay where it is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

No, not quite. I am editing it in accordance to the Naming convention, and official policy is superior to consensus. The infobox is only meaningful when bilingual names are needed, and what I want, is to add all the Hangul, Hanja and romanizations, and to make things neater, an infobox is needed such as those in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), but in the form of a bilingual infobox. I do not want the Hangul alone. Hangul is merely for pronouncation. If there are no comments, I shouldn't expect anymore strong objections in future. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 02:10 (UTC)

1. You seem not to have read our discussion very carefully; we're talking about the proposed change to "Tsushima Island".
2. In any case, the naming convention isn't relevant to the infobox issue; this is a name in a foreign language — that is, Korean is a language foreign to the subject of the article, which is part of Japan. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that demands an infobox including details of the Korean name. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 17:41 (UTC)

And besides, the Korean names are superfluous. I don't see any reason to use them other than in the history section. It'd be like placing

(t3wy = Egypt)

in the infobox in Egypt just because the Ancient Egyptians ruled their own country. Right? JMBell° 29 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Kokiri's edit

In view of the fact that User:Kokiri added "In this context, the Koreans refer to the island as Daemado (대마도).", only the Hangul name is shown. However, how about Hanja and the romanizations? An infobox is therefore relavant. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 06:09 (UTC)

We can't have an infobox every time a Korean word is mentioned in an article; at most, the Hanja can be given in brackets in the text. Nor are alternative romanisations needed, but again, if they were they could go in the text. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see why Tan wants to put the Hanja name and romanizations in the text when one name is enough. Could someone kindly explain the differences. Thanks. JMBell° 29 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

• The naming convention encourages to add on Hanja and other romanizations. And Hangul only suits the pronouncation of the Korean language, and a single Hanhul character can means many Hanja characters. Hanja clarifies everything in this case together with Hangul.

And official policy overrules consensus, Ypacarai. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 02:17 (UTC)

And I have explaine don more than one occasion that the official policy doesn't apply here. You haven't responded to that; you merely repeat your false assertion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 30 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)

If anybody who still doesn't know what are the negative effects, I shall open a demonstration page on Tsushima Islands/temp to show the consequences of not having an infobox.

See [49] for naming conventions. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 02:19 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a different Chinese character… (real valuable info for somebody familiar with them). In the light of that, I'd put: Daemado (대마도, 対馬島). As for the romanizations, they are not necessary—it is the original Hangul and Hanja (Kanji) that remove ambiguity, should there be any. Still no table, imho. Kokiri 30 June 2005 08:23 (UTC)

• The Hanja word for Daemado is 對馬島, not the Kanji 対馬島. This is the first reason why I want the Hanja as well.
• If you do not put Hangul:xxx Hanja: xxx, those people who are completelt alien to the Korean language may get confused, especially the Hangul characters, for the Hangul characters are solely used by Koreans, but the Chinese characters are used by several ethnic groups around the world.

• The romanizations are for pronouncation, and people who do not speak Korean and are yet interested in the pronouncations may feel at a lost. Also, nearly ever article which states Korean names have the romanizations, and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) tells us to give romanizations as well. And in the process, an infobox should be used to accomodate this chunk of information. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have the Japanese romanization of Korean Peninsula (韓半島) in its article even though the peninsula was ruled by Japan in the early 20th century. Nor does Wikipedia have the Chinese romanization of Korea (韓國) in its article even though China has had a tremendous influence on the nation for the past thousands of years. Should they also have Japanese and Chinese romanizations, too? Also it should be nothed in the nations of Kanji/Hanja culture names are written in ideograms, i.e. characters representing an idea rather than sound. That's why China, Japan, and Korea use the same Kanji/Hanja to refer to many things while they read the Kanji/Hanja words in their local pronunciations. Hermeneus (talk) 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

• We need the Korean name because it is mentioned in "....a dependency, though it is not known whether actual control was exerted over the island. In this context, the Koreans refer to the island as "Daemado"." We need people to understand what is Daemado in Korean characters, and in the process, both Hangul and Hanja are needed. Also, nearly ever article which states Korean names have the romanizations, and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) tells us to give romanizations as well.
• The Japanese refer Korea by a transliteration which I don't know, but Daemado is certainly not a transliteration of Tsushima. Also, see Sakhalin, the Japanese and Chinese have colonised it, and the names were shown. Even the Romaji and Hanyu Pinyin romanizations are shown as well.
• There was no resentement on the Korean name until Ypacarai raised his voice. Good day, Hermeneus. Mr Tan 1 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)

• And finally, I am already seeing the extremistic Ypacarai removing the Hangul as well. Why? Mr Tan 1 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

1. We don't need to use the Korean characters for a name mentioned in an article on part of Japan; I don't object to them, but they're certainly required neither by Wikipedia policy nor by common sense. If they are to be sued, they certainly shouldn't be bold; indeed, bolding is inappropriate for the Romanised form too.
2. It doesn't matter who first noticed a problem.
3. As in so many cases, you choose another article which fits your case, and insist that it constitutes the ideal — that's not a reasonable argument for your view.
4. Ypacarai is no more "extremist" for removing it than you are for inserting it. Thses personal attacks are not only against policy, but are unhelpful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

To Mr. Tan: (1) Daemado and Tushima are transliterations of the same kanji/hanja word, "對馬島," which is written "対馬島" in modern Japanese kanji (新字体) where "對" is replaced by the modern kanji equivalent "対." (2) If the Korean romanization of the kanji word 對馬島/対馬島 should be added to the article because Korea had some influence on Tsushima in the past, the articles of Korean Peninsula and Korea also should have the Japanese and Chinese romanizations respectively by the same logic, which just shows how ridiculous your argument is. (3) Whoever added the Romaji and Hanyu Pinyin romanizations to the article of Sakhalin has his own reason. We don't know what the reason was and whethere it is legitimate or not. However, we do know the reason why you added the Korean romanization to the tsushima article, and it is a weak one as shown above. (4) Like I said earlier, China, Japan, and Korea are nations of the hanja ideographic culture. They take the meaning of the word more seriously than the sound. The Chinese don't give a darn if their names are pronounced correctly in Japan as far as they are stated using the correct hanja. Hermeneus (talk) 1 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Then I guess we have reached a consensus, namely not to include the Korean name and the Romanised form (if ever, not in bold). Hermeneus, many thanks for clarifying this matter. JMBell° 1 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

JMBell: Official policy always overrules consensus, and I still have something to say, unless it is something related directly to the point, please let us finish this discussion so that both of us to have an agreement. And agreement is always better as consensus, though.

Heremenus: Allow me to interject a few words in contrast to your statement:

• In contrast to your second point, I must first say that we have to see how Japan looks at Korea and how Korea looks at Tsushima. As I have said, the Koreans conquered Tsushima because they look at Tsushima as their own island, and this can be evidenced in their long-standing claim to Tsushima. On the other hand, Japan conquered Korea in view of Korea as a foreign land, just like how Japan conquered China and Southeast Asia in WWII. And Tsushima is wedged between Korea and Japan, and traditionally both countries would have looked at Tsushima as their own land. For this reason, the Korean name should be included, because we should look at how the conquering countries look at the land that the want to conquer. And also, Korea was ruled by an emperor, but not Tsushima, and its location between Korea and Japan. This is also why Tsushima is considered as "native" both to Koreans and Japanese.

• You should note that the Korean transliteration of Tsushima is 쓰시마 섬, not 대마도. Even if you want to say that the meaning is the same, I have said that we must add the Hanja for the benefit for people who have little or no knowledge of East Asian languages, who looks at the structure of the word, rather than the meaning. Why?

• • Firstly, I understand that Tsushima is written as
    • Simplified Japanese Kanji:対馬島
    • Korean Hanja:對馬島
    • Simplified Chinese:对马岛.

• • Secondly, the traditional Kanji, Hanzi and Hanja are all written as 對馬島. However, traditional Kanji is already obsolete and the Japanese government recognizes the simplified script. And likewise, Wikipedia follows what the Japanese government says, and 對馬島 will be left out if the Hanja is not displayed. And the modern Kanji 対馬島 is not the same as Hanja 對馬島 in terms of the structure of the character. And westerners count on how they look first, then the meaning. That is what I did, when as a Chinese, I was a little doubtful of what is "対馬島" when I first encountered Tsushima, because the character 対 does not exist in the Chinese and Hanja vocabulary. The structure of the character is the most important thing, followed by the meaning of the word, in terms of the non-Asian viewpoints. Comments? Mr Tan 1 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

(1) Whatever the conquers had in their mind makes no significant different at all and so is irrelevant. No one "conquers" a land if it's already his possession anyway. You conquer a land because you don't own it. You don't own it because either (A) it's owned by someone else, (B) it's owned by nobody yet and so is up for grab, or (C) you lost the land to someone and want to get it back. Also the Imperial Japan "annexed" Korea because they believed the ideology that the Koreans and the rest of Asian nations shared the same divine ancestral origin as the Japanese (日鮮同祖論) and thus could form the co-prosperity sphere together.

(2) 쓰시마 (Sseushima) is the Korean transliteration of the Japanese pronunciation (Tsushima) of 対馬/對馬. Daemado is the Korean hanja reading of the same word.

(3) Tsushima is "owned" by the residents of Tsushima themselves who have been residing on the island from the antiquity. Nations don't own anything. The people are the sovereign and have the right to self-determination in the 21st century. We don't live in the ancient age of warring feudal states any longer. And the fact of the matter is that today the people of Tsushima consider themselves Japanese and call their island nothing else than the Japanese name "Tsushima," which is also the English name of the island.

(4) How ever Tsusima is written or pronounced in Korean language or Chinese language or any other languages than English and Japanese is not the concern of English wikipedia. If you want to know how the word is written and pronounced in other languages, look up the dictionary of that language or go to the wikipedia of that language. For Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Hermeneus (talk) 1 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

• Actually, to say that who initially owns Tsushima is very hard say. As I have said, Tsushima is wedged between Korea and Kyushu, and Tsushima appears to be a dwarf in comparison to Korea and Kyushu. To say Korea conquer Tsushima, I won't say that you are wrong, because you can see that Yi Jong Mu conquered Tsushima in 1419. On the other hand, Hideyoshi conquered Korea in 1592, and the political power was returned to Japan from then on. However, this is not my spotlight answer to your question.
  • At the beginning of history, Tsushima was part of the Tsuikai kingdom. Now the question is, what are its origins? I believe that it is of Korean and Japanese origin, for Tsuikai was an independent kingdom not directly linked to any main central government in Japan or Korea.
  • To feed your question on Japan conquest on Korea, it is indeed that they conquered a foreign land. Yes, the Japanese conquered the nations because that they believe they share divine ancestral origin. However, the Koreans don't look it that way at all. Never mind about that anymore.

• Yes, Daemado (Hanja) uses the same word as Tsushima (Kanji). However, what we are focusing is the modern structure of the Kanji Tsushima and Hanja Daemado. And there is a difference in the structure of the character, so if the Korean name is ever to be put up, the Hanja should be included. Anyway, I have already explained in my previous message posted to you.

• Ha Ha...Now, please do not belittle me that I don't know Tsushima is a legitimate soverign territory belonging to Japan not contested by any other countries as of today. The people there, of course, are indeed Japanese! What's the point of bringing this up, by the way? The purpose of this debate is about the factors why the Korean name should be put up!

• My purpose of adding the Korean name is because I'm merely what the Wikipedia:Naming conventions say, and Tsushima is both Japan and Korea related in a strong way. Even my proposed edit is up, it will not look like a billingual dictionary at all, even though the meaning is the same, because, a dictionary tells the meaning of the word. And my proposed edit does not include the explanation of the meaning of the word. How can you say that what I'm doing will convert it into a dictionary? A thesaurus, at the most, in the viewpoint of some people. If you say that adding on the Korean name is making a "dictionary", why not remove the Japanese name as well, just because this is an English wikipedia? This arguement is already on the border of absurdity.
  • Come to the main point: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) tells us to put up the Japanese name and its Romanizations on Japan-related articles. Tsushima is. Likewise, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) tells us to put up Hangul, Hanja and romanizations on Korea-related articles. And Tsushima is. Because the two names and their romanizations are bing put up, an infobox is needed, also partially that the Korean naming conventions tells us to have an infobox. However, things can get complicated here on Korean names, but I have already explained before. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a genuine official policy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not an English-Korean dictionary or English-Spanish dictionary. Wikipedia is not the right place to look up how to write or pronounce a word in Korean or Spanish or any other foreign languages. Use Wiktionary instead for such a purpose.

"Tsushima islands," the very title of this article, is a "place name with a Japanese origin." Articles with such a title is required by the Wikipedia Manual of Style to include the romanization of the original Japanese word as well as its kanji/kana writing "when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation." The Japanese pronunciation of Tsushima islands is "Tsushima jima", which is obviously different from the English word and so merits reference.

"Tsushima islands" is not a Korean word and so doesn't need reference to the Korean writing and pronunciation of the word. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

• My proposed edit is not in the least converting it into a dictionary; dictionaries explain the definition of the word, I didn't. Also, my edit is following what the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) says, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions is of official policy. The Korean naming convention says that Korean-related articles should follow what the naming conventions says, in terms of the styling and as well to include the romanization of the original Korean word as well as its Hangul and Hanja scripts, and adding the romanizations. Like what you say on your Japanese counterpart, my edit certainly merits reference. (Note that I do not object to the Japanese names.)

• It does not matter what was the nature of the name. Karafuto is the Japanese name of Sakhalin, and the Japanese name was added in accordance to the Manual-of-style for it is a Japanese-related article. And furthermore, I have heard somewhere that the name Tsushima is of Korean origin. I have tried to trace the webpage, but through trial and error, these pages maybe the answer to the question: [50] [51]

Mr Tan 2 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) only states that "name tables should be used in preference to long lists of romanized, Hangul, and Hanja spellings," NOT that every "Korean-related article" should have the Korean rendering of the term, which is utterly ridiculous a policy if it were really one. The bottom line is that "Tsushima" is a Japanese term, not Korean. Since there is no room for Korean spelling or Korean hanja writing or whatever in the first place, the Korean naming convention is irrelevant here. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

• Look here, they said that they encourage having name tables, but the naming convnetion on Korean expects romanizations to be used. Tsushima is a Japanese term, yes, of course.

• And it says that "This article covers naming conventions generally followed by editors of Wikipedia articles on Korean subjects", and Tsushima is a Korean subject! And what I'm doing is following the general wave.

• Nor is there any such a thing called "no room for anything" on wikipedia. You pack your things properly, and you surely can find a lot of space.

• Let's do a flashback. Mel stated that the Korean (Hangul) name can be placed in the history section, but I say that Hanja is needed to remove the ambigity of Hangul because one Hangul character represents many Hanja characters. And I suggested Korean romanizations, and you eventually said that Articles with such a title is required by the Wikipedia Manual of Style to include the romanization of the original Japanese word as well as its kanji/kana writing "when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation." The Japanese pronunciation of Tsushima islands is "Tsushima jima", which is obviously different from the English word and so merits reference.

• In reply, I said what you said on Japanese Romanizations here exactly applies the purpose of the Korean romanizations.

• And honestly, I am already quite confused on your present message. Comments? Mr Tan 2 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Like I said, nowhere in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) is there such a ridiculous "policy" stated as that every Korean-related article should have the Korean rendering of the term, period. That is not an official policy of Wikipedia but a creation of Mr Tan's own imagination. If such a policy were ever implemented the articles of 韓半島 and 韓國 also should have the Japanese and Chinese romanizations respectively. These two examples should suffice to show what an utter nonsense hi claim is. In contrast, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a genuine official policy. Wikipedia is not a place to collect various pronunciations and spellings of words in foreign languages. That is what Wiktionary is for, not Wikipedia. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

• I don't mean exactly what you accuse me of; look here, the naming conventions is official policy. I have already explained about how the Japanese conquer Korea, they look at it as foreign land, but Korea conquered Tsushima, they look at it as their own territory, and the Oei Invasion was more of clearing off the Wokou, and if Tsushima wasn't theirs, they would have let the Japanese did it.

• The Korean naming conventions certainly applies to all Korean-related articles, and Tsushima is one of them. If there you think that there is no need for such rendering, why should the Korean naming convention exist in the first place, moreover telling on how the romanizations, Hangul and Hanja is given in a certain manner, adding the romanizations in addition to the Korean scripts?

• I don't know or don't care how you say that Wikipedia is not a place to collect various pronunciations and spellings of words in foreign languages. That is what Wiktionary is for, not Wikipedia. As I have said, I am not here for such ridiculous edits, and I have already said that my purpose is not focused on what you say. And if you say that "various pronunciations and spellings of words in foreign languages", you are certainly refering to the romanizations of all non-European languages. But the naming conventions say that pronouncations are the romanizations itself, and romanizations should be included in articles. And since Tsushima is both a Japanese and Korean-related article to a very strong extent, they are both applicable, just like Sakhalin. And naming conventions is also official policy, you know! Mr Tan 2 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Stop arbitrarily overinterpreting the rules to your advantage. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) are a set of rules for the literation of Korean names. They are nothing more than that. If an article does not have a Korean name in the first place, then there is no use of the convention at all. Whether Korean names should be included in an article or not is NOT an issue covered by the conventions. In other words, the conventions are NOT comprehensive rules on how to write articles on Korea-related issues in general. There is nothing in the naming conventions page that even remotely resembles what you are claiming. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) only states that "An English loan word or place name with a Japanese origin should be used in its most commonly used English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese.... Give the romanized Japanese form in the opening paragraph if it differs from the English form." The primary purpose of stating the original Japanese literation is to provide information on how differently the English loan word is pronounced in the original language. If the word is pronounced exactly the same way in English as in the original language, then there is no need to provide such an information as far as this rule is concerned. "Tsushima" is an English lone word from Japanese and so this rule applies only to Japanese. Whether the Japanese word came from yet another foreign language is a different story that may or may not be mentioned in the history subsection of the article. In either way, this rule does not say that every loan word from Japanese should have the original Japanese kana and kanji literation in the article, or that every "Japan-related" articles should have the original Japanese literation. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• Wait! Look at Baitou Mountain. Does the article has a Korean name in the first place? And what do you mean by that? The article is Baitou, not Paektu! And they follow the Korean naming convention on the Korean name! Paektu is the Korean name of Baitou, and Daemado is the Korean name of Tsushima! That does not mean that the naming conventions don't apply, and what matters it is the relation of the article itself, how strongly related it is to the highlighted topic, and if it is strongly related and has an alternative name in that alternative language, the naming conventions apply, because they say "-related".
• The naming conventions are strict rules on how the Korean names are to be displayed and formatted, not how the article content itself should be wirtten. Don't undermine me on this point. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

Korean names are not necessary to be included in this article at all. Not just Hangul or Hanja or Korean romanization. None at all. This article on Tsushima does not need any Korean literations and so there is no need for the Korean naming conventions to begin with. For how "Tsushima" is called and written in Korea, China, Mexico, and the rest of foreign countries is not a concern of Wikipedia but of Wictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an official rule. Hermeneus (talk) 2 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) is not Wikipedia policy. Kokiri 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) is a subpage of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and the naming conventions is official policy.

• In the first place, why did Kokiri added the Hangul name of Daemado? That's the question. And Mel Etitis did not object to his edit, though he acknowledged it is somewhat unnecessary. And my proposed edit is strongly tied to the naming conventions, and I have explained thoroughly why but you seem to be merely a personal reason in this issue. Unless you can give a hard-stance, solid explanation which I cannot rebutt in accordance to the wikipedia policy, personal tastes are not welcome on wikipedia/

• Allright. I have seen some overlap between Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the Korean naming convention. Yes, both the naming convention and "wikipedia is not a dictionary" are official policy. But, from what I see in "wikipedia is not a dictionary", it staes that wikipedia is "not a slang or idiom guide, usage guide and not a biographical dictionary". It does not says that showing the names of a certain geographical place in more language is included. And adding to my claim, this article is Korean-related. And I only add the name of Daemado, but I did not give the defintition of what is Daemado? And this is purely based on the guidelines of the Korean naming convention, which is official policy. Am I violating this policy? If yes, please define and explain in detail why. Thanks. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) are official or not since they are utterly irelevant to this article of Tsushima. Korean naming conventions don't apply to any part of the article because "Tsushima island" is the standard English name of the island, is an English lone word from Japanese, and is not a Korean word. No Korean name, no Korean naming conventions. There is no need of reference to whatever Tsushima is called in modern languages other than English because Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary. That includes Japanese language as well. Japanese literation is mentioned only when it is pronounced differently from the English counterpart. The priority is for the English name first and foremost; inclusion of Japanese literation is secondary: "Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia. An English loan word or place name with a Japanese origin should be used in its most commonly used English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style).

• Yes, there is no problem with the Japanese name; I never objected to it. It was merely used for comparison purposes. Yes, the English name comes first because this is an English wikipedia, and the Japanese names are given in a corner to give reference.

• I have explained, but I do sincerely apologise for I still could not understand how you see the Korean naming conventions is not related to Tsushima Islands. I did not object to use "Tsushima" instead of "Daemado" in any part of the article, I only want the Korean name to be mentioned in an bilingual infobox. I did not go that far.
• Concurrently, I believe that it is related and I have made rebuttals against your reasons. Please bring the rebuttals out and counter-rebutt if you wish to.
  • I would like to make a rebuttal from your main point here: Korean naming conventions don't apply to any part of the article because "Tsushima island" is the standard English name of the island, is an English lone word from Japanese, and is not a Korean word. Yes, Tsushima Island(s) is the standard name of the island. Yes, I have said that Tsushima is a Japanese word. But they write in the same orientation as Daemado.
    • So is Baitou Mountain the standard English name of the mountain, because Baitou Mountain is the standard English name of the mountain, in which "Baitou" is an English word from Chinese, and Baitou is not an Korean word, even they write in the same orientation. And it so happens, that the Korean naming conventions apply there, and the Korean name is Paektu! In fact, it is highlighted on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). By the way, what is your main objective here? Mr Tan 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

I'll make it simple for you.

Naming conventions is "a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages." The name of this page is "Tsushima Island" :

1. Is "Tsushima Island" a Korean name?
   No, it's not a Korean name. "Tsushima Island" is the standard English name that is loaned from Japanese language.
2. What naming conventions apply to this article?
   Japanese naming conventions apply. Korean naming conventions don't apply.
3. Does it matter if Korean naming conventions are "official" or not?
   No, it doesn't, because Korean naming conventions are not applicable to articles with Japanese names anyway.
4. Korean literation of the island's name might be mentioned in history or the like subsection of the article. Would that justify the addition of the Korean info box to the article?
   No, it wouldn't, because the naming conventions only apply to names that are used in the titles of articles. You can't add the huge info box every time a Korean name is mentioned in an article.

Is it clear to you now? Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Very clear to me, even if you do not make these explanations, but I don't think it is very clear to you.

• I had mentioned that Tsushima is a Japanese name. I have mentioned that the name of Tsushima is of Korean origin.

• I oppose to your point that the Korean naming conventions also apply. (I"ll explain below)

• You say that " Korean naming conventions are not applicable to articles with Japanese names anyway." In response, I said that it is not true because I have shown an example, Baitou Mountain, that this is an article with a Chinese, not Korean title. And the word Baitou is of Chinese, not Korean origin. And the Korean name of Baitou, Paektu, is put in an infobox in accordance to the Korean naming convention. This proves that the Korean naming convention does not solely apply to articles with non-Korean names. The naming convention does not say that the convention does not apply to articles that have non-Korean names either. Tsushima is included.

• I only want an infobox that includes both the Japanese and Korean names--they are mentioned only once, like those in Baitou Mountain. I did not say that I want more than one infobox to be pasted all over the article.

Can you get me? (Sigh) Mr Tan 3 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

We aren't talking about Baitou. If the article of Baitou violates the naming conventions, then it ought to be corrected. If not, no problem. It's irrelevant either way.Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 17:21 (UTC)

I'm doing for comparison. What you said is exactly parallel with the conditions on Baitou. If you believe that I am violating the policy, please look at how Baitou Mountain violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), and explain if you think there is. I see no problem in both places on having the Korean name. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

I doubt that "Baitou" is the standard English name since I can't find it in Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, American Heritage, or Webster. If "Baitou" is not the standard English name of the mountain, then it is quite appropriate to have the romanization of the name from the local languages. If there were multiple languages in the locality, then the romanizations from all the concerned languages would be included. Anyway, it must be either (1) that "Baitou" is not the standard English name of the mountain, or (2) that it is the standard English name and so including the Baitou article as an example in the naming convention page is wrong and ought to be corrected. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 17:38 (UTC)

• Well, you cannot compare anything concerning the naming conventions outside wikipedia. If you say that Paektu is the standard English, so can be Daemado. The definition of "standard" is free, so all we can do is to do things within Wikipedia's limits.

• I also believe that Baitou and Paektu are both accepted names by the inhabitants around the area, and this corresponds to Tsushima and Daemado, for I knew that both names are widely accepted by the local inhabitants there, and the Korean culture has a strong influence there. I do not wish to involve with anything outside Tsushima. For now, I believe that we should follow how the bilingual infobox is used on Baitou Mountain as on Tsushima Islands, just as how Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) instructs so. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

What matters is if the given name is the standard English name or not. It doesn't matter whatever name the locals use as far as there exists the standard English name. Like you also accepted, Tsushima is the standard English name of the island, and this English name is loaned from Japanese language. Therefore, the Japanese naming conventions apply to the article's name and the Korean naming conventions are irrelevant. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 18:01 (UTC)

• At the present wikipedia outlook, Baitou is considered as the standard English name, not Paektu, because Baitou is used in all parts of the article. And the Korean naming conventions applies there. And Tsushima is considered as the standard English name, not Daemado. Why does not the Korean naming convention apply here? Did the official policy say so that we can't? Highlight the sentence, and link the page here if it really does. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Korean naming conventions aren't applying anywhere. Whoever added that info box could have violated the naming convention and added the info box anyway IF Baitou were the standard English name of the mountain. That only means that some Korean wikipedians could possibly be abusing the info box. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

• The article Baitou Mountain was featured as an example on the Korean naming conventions, and if it were to be used as an example, it couldn't be wrong. Baitou is treated as the standard English name of the mountain in Wikipedia. That's for sure. So far, I cannot see where the naming conventions rules apply that it is a violation if the standard English name of a certain article is used, and another naming convention co-applies to another (alternative and popular) name of that same article. Until I can or you can find proof on your arguement, I will treat it as a lie. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Examples could be wrong as a matter of fact. Wikipedians aren't gods. If the example is not wrong then Baitou must not be the standard English name. Anyway, it's either (1) that Baitou is the standard English name and the example is wrong, or (2) that Baitou is not the standard English name and so the example is right. There is no other possibility, no matter how wildly you interpret the naming conventions. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

True, although they are correct most of the time. For now, we will have to take Baitou Mountain as the standard English name, because this is the present outlook of wikipedia, and we have to presume that the example is right because the naming convention is supposed to be right and we have to trust it, and edit accordingly. If you still think that it is wrong, please make your announcements in whatever talk page you want to, I don't care.

But for now, we will have to take everything as right because official policy have to be followed, no choice, and official policies were made through an approval of a very large number of people. The current convention did not make objections and the Korean convention is therefore, co-applicable here. Good night. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Like I said, the only possible case where the Wikipedia naming conventions require you to state the romanizations of multiple languages is when there exists no standard English name of the object. This is the only possible case that is mentioned in the naming conventions. Standard English name must be lacking if the inclusion of the Korean info box is to be supported by the naming conventions. You could ofcourse add the info box for other reasons. You could just add the box to piss off the Japanese, for example. Such a reason ofcourse is not a legitimate one. If you contest otherwise, quote which part of the naming conventions justifies the use of info box even when there exists a standard English name. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 19:11 (UTC)

The Baitou example is of no use for you on its own unless you could quote sentences from the Wikipedia naming conventions that justify the use of info box even when there exists a standard English name. Examples don't mean a thing unless it is accompanied by info on its relevance. Unless you could show what part of the naming conventions the Baitou article is an example for, it means nothing. To me the Baitou example seems to be there just to show what the bilingual table would look like and nothing more than that. Hermeneus (talk) July 3, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Kokiri's edit (cont.)

• In the first place, I'm not a psychopath who goes around insulting you Japanese people. Secondly, I'm a Singaporean, not a Korean, an I am neutral in my POV between these two races.
• Coming back to the point, there is no big need for evidence because the Naming convention has been widely accepted by wikipedians, and it has become official policy, and my proposal strictly corresponds to the manual-of-style used on Baitou Mountain, which is used as an example on Naming conventions (Korean), and the naming conventions is official policy. If there is problem with Baitou Mountain, why should they use it as an example on the Korean naming convention? The people would have voted and chosen a better example if they think it is defective!

• Thirdly, there is nowhere where it says whether we can or cannot state the romanizations of multiple languages, irregardless whether the English name of the topic is commonly used or not. It is common sense, and so long if the second name is widely commonly used as well, it should be stated, just like Paektu to Baitou, and Daemado to Tsushima.
  • For your information, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for clues. And my aim on Tsushima Islands is exactly as on Baitou Mountain--all they state is "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article", but they didn't state that we can't add an infobox to state alternative (popular) variants of used names in non-European languages and its scripts, however. So, this says that we should use "Tsushima" in every sentence of the article where needed, but this does not say that we cannot use an infobox that states the Korean name "Daemado" as well, and that is what I want. Thus the Korean naming convention is still co-applicable in Tsushima and as on Baitou in that more indirect sense. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Who said evidence is not needed? That is the most preposterous thing I have heard in the past few days. Why don't you check out the story of the parallel postulate and tell me if supporting evidence is really necessary? Your arguments are all null and void without evidence, even if it is official policy like naming conventions. Please cite a few sentences as your proof. James Bell 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

• It is not really needed as such, because I have already explained about the wikipedia policy and the Baitou mountain. Neither could I find any direct evidence, but I have found some clues and have given quotations from the clues to his questions and I have given a statement on the clue on why the policy is remains valid on the modern wikipedia outlook, but I am still searching for more direct evidence. Please read carefully before making any criticisms on comments.

In the meantime, let's wait for Heremeneus to return before I make anymore comments. Thanks. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

STOP referring to the Korean naming conventions because they say nothing that supports your argument. The naming conventions are rules on how to appropriately create and name pages. The name of this page is "Tsushima Island," and it's the standard English name that is loaned from Japanese language. Such a page name requires Japanese naming conventions, not Korean ones. There is no room for the Korean naming conventions as far as Tsushima, the very name of the page, is the standard English name of the island.

STOP referring to the Baitou article because it is irrelevant to the Tsushima island. The Baitou article is mentioned in the Korean naming conventions page as an example to show what the bilingual infobox table would look like and nothing more than that. Also bilingual infobox is required by the naming conventions only when the standard English name is lacking. Tsushima does have the standard English name and so the infobox is not required by the naming conventions.

None of the naming conventions justifies the use of the bilingual infobox when there does exist a standard English name. If you believe that one of the naming conventions justifies the use of the bilingual infobox even when there is a standard English name and insist that the Baitou article is an example of this, then please quote the relevant text from the naming conventions. Otherwise the example of the Baitou article is utterly irrelevant.

You could add the infobox even when it is not required by the naming conventions. However, if you add the infobox for a reason other than the naming conventions, then naturally the naming conventions don't support your argument in this case. If so, please stop referring to the Korean naming conventions or the Baitou article already, and stop speaking as if your argument is supported by the "official policy" of Wikipedia. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 09:54 (UTC)

• To be frank, I am utterly shocked and confused.

• I used the Baitou Mountain because you said that "The name of this page is "Tsushima Island," and it's the standard English name that is loaned from Japanese language. Such a page name requires Japanese naming conventions, not Korean ones. " So I'm using the Baitou Mountain, because it is the standard English name loaned from Chinese, and such a page requires Chinese naming conventions, but the Korean naming conventions applies there!
  • And why do you think that the Baitou is lacking a standard English name? Please quote the part of the naming convention to support your claim. And how do you define the definition standard? To me, Baitou is equal to Tsushima, Paektu is equal to Daemado. And many people (Koreans) uses Daemado as well, just like many people (koreans) uses Paektu. What I want is a billingual infobox on Tsushima, because the conditions on Tsushima are parallel to Baitou.

• And there is no need for the naming conventions to explain such a thing where it "justifies the use of the bilingual infobox even when there is a standard English name". Thre is no oppposition to this case, however, in the naming convention itself. However, in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it says that "The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known, so those too can be searched for..." and this proves that we should add in Daemado because Tsushima is also known as Daemado. In the process, the Korean naming conventions is also co-applicable, because it tells us to provide the Hangul, Hanja and romanizations if the Korean name (in English romanization) given. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

Tan, if I were you, I'd shut up now or else I'd be facing the ArbCom sooner than I'd like. You're just repeating the same old stupid questions and everybody's tired of shouting the same old stupid answers in your face and having them fly in one ear and out the other. Now, if I were you, I would take a break from Wikipedia, and find some good books to read, improve my English so that I can better comprehend what others are saying, and then, only then will I return. Sound good? James Bell 4 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

BTW, let me list down the people who could request for arbitration: Mel Etitis, Hermeneus, Frank Bartus, and me. The nice thing here is that once upon a time, we were willing to help you. We were your allies. And now, what have you done? Through your stubbornness and density, you have alienated all of us. The nicer thing is, you don't seem to get a hint. Wake up, kid, this is real life. You're not playing a game anymore. Your decisions determine your life and there's no turning back once you make them. James Bell 4 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

• Bell: No, I did not do any uncivil edits, only talk. And how could you Arbitrate me just because I open my mouth? I am only voicing out my opinion, and freedom of speech is permitted to a great extent in wikipedia. And if you observe, I have just quoted a sentence from the naming convention that might possibly support me in my case, which Heremeneus demanded for. You are far too hasty. Please let me finish up this discussion as soon as possible without interruptions. Thanks. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

• Bell: By the way, this will probably be the last case that I will be settling on. After that, I will leave wikipedia, for good or temporarily. For the case of Zanskar, I will settle it in the long run. I'm very sick and tired of all these houndings from you all, anyway. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

There is NO convention that justifies the inclusion of the bilingual info box when there exists a standard English name of the object. It doesn't exist, period. STOP making up a convention. Such a convention exists only in your head. It doesn't exist in any part of the naming convention pages. That you have failed to quote a single sentence of the alleged convention is the very proof of its nonexistence. Non-existent convention justifies nothing. It can't support your argument because it doesn't exist.

If there is no convention, there is no example of the convention, either. The Baitou article is an irrelevant example because there exists no convention which the Baitou article is an example of . The Baitou article is merely an example to show what the bilingual infobox table would look like and nothing more than that. The Baitou article may also be an example of a convention that exists only in your imagination. However, such a bogus example is completely irrelevant as a matter of fact. As far as you cannot prove the existence of the alleged convention by quoting the actual sentences from the naming convention pages, it means nothing. So stop referring to the Baitou article until you could provide the relevant quotation.

It does not matter if Baitou is the standard English name or not because the very naming convention which the Baitou article is claimed to be an example of does not exist in the first place. It cannot possibly be an example of a non-existent convention. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 13:29 (UTC)

The English naming conventions says "Title your pages using the English name... If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.... The body of such an article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all of the other names by which the subject is known." Since "Tsushima island" is the "commonly-used English name" of the island, this does not apply. Hermeneus (talk) July 4, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

I don't want to restart the discussion, but suggest that those who can't see the difference between this article and Baitou Mountain read the first sentence of said article. Compare this to the third sentence of this article. HTH. Have a nice day everyone! Kokiri 09:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Vox populi, vox Wikipediae?

No, it does not. Remember, vox populi, vox Dei. If you want to stay on Wikipedia, you cannot decide to act as our imperator and dictate everything that you want us to do. Also, your arguments had already been answered by Hermeneus. Argue better if you want us to side with you, but remember, consensus is everything. Strength in unity. JMBell° 1 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

I did not dictate; what I want is good faith. Remember, negotiations into agreement is always better than consensus, for consensus is like forcefully dominating the minority. And also, official policy is always superior to consensus. Now, I have already rebutted his arguement, if you notice, and do please have the courtesy to treat this discussion as a private talk between me and Heremeneus. That is because I do not want to complicate the matter. Thanks. Mr Tan 1 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

What you say about consensus and policy is exactly what Napoleon, Hitler, and Darth Vader said. Look what happened. JMBell° 1 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that it works by consensus, but it says that official policy overrules consensus, and consensus is not enforced, but highlighted in terms of when the dispute has no other way out....I cannot continue with your conversation anymore...We have to carry on with the mainstream debate and wait for Heremenus to come back. Cheers! Mr Tan 1 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Either way, Hermeneus has given his response, and as I told you, it just reiterated what he said earlier. Consensus is another way of saying the vote of the majority. Of course it dominates the minority. If the majority didn't, they'd be called the minority, and vice versa. If the minority (you) want to push through with their unaccepted ideas, then they'd start a rebellion or a coup d'etat. Try it. It's not going to get you anywhere. If you want the procedures to be "official", why not start a poll? It'd still be completely unnecessary, given the opinions already written here. JMBell° 1 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

Just to make a couple of things clear. First, consensus isn't the vote of the majority; it's agreement. It's frequently pointed out that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but in fact it is; people get confused because what Western states call democracy isn't, it's a voting majoritarianism. Wikipedia isn't that, of course.

Secondly, Mr Tan cannot demand that we treat his disagreement with Hermeneus as a private talk; that's a (very slightly) more polite way of telling us to shut up and mind our own bsiness. Well, this is our business. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Thanks - somehow I got the two mixed up. :) Either way, Tan is still wrong about policy overruling the wishes of the people. Or is he? Now I'm confused... JMBell° 1 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Policy does override consensus — but there's no relevant policy here (see above, passim). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

(I hope that this can conclude this lame dispute of the behavior) One, just imagine; if ten people are going to involve themselves in this topic, and it just so happens that they ask me things and giving me different, different answers, how and who am I going to answer to? If I answer all, the dispute will generally get very complicated. All I want is carrying on this debate comfortably, rather than suffering from more stress.

Secondly, in the light that you say that consensus is something that is an agreement where after negotiations, it comes to a point where you and everybody agree? I'm very sorry to say that, but I have found you that you a sort of hypocrite by saying that, for I have never reached a stable agreement in talking with you in other discussions, and you simply say that it is a consensus and ignore a great deal of my messages. However what the content says, so long it is not an exact repition of the previous comment, you should have the courtesy to reply. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

As usual, I can' make out a good deal of the above, and much of the rest is just a repetition of the complaints with which we've all become too familiar. On the substantive point, however: when one person holds a view which everyone else rejects, we have to go with what everyone else wants. It's not ideal, and we try to discuss matters in order to reach full consensus — but you have shown yourself to be almost completely impervious to reasoned argument, and so your view must reluctantly simply be overridden. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

This is forced consensus. Rather, if the minority wants to continue his discussion on his reasons, so long it is reasonable, there should be no reason why he should be discriminated. And I have seen that you are a bit of that sort, by the way. Anyway, negotiations into agreement through convincing and explanations so long it is possible it is always the better alternative than consensus by majorty force, and where the minority still have very sharp objectoons, which should be a second, or third alternative, for this can cause emotional, and spiritual turbulence. Period. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)

You must learn your place, young man. Agreements like this only work if all the parties are reasonable, not if one of them acts immature and wants his way done. After all, who can make agreements with the belligerent and unreasonable people in this world? It is impossible. Tone down your voice and accept our advice, and perhaps we might eventually listen to you. But if you want us to keep repeating answers which have already been answered, I can only say that it is not our duty to repeat things a thousand times for people who do not even take time to understand them. Remember that you're not talking with your peers or parents anymore. The kind of language you use with them is unacceptable here. Welcome to Real Life. JMBell° 3 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)

Wiki arguements are strongly based on the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. Of course I am reasonable, and I have already made my explanations on my point-of-view of arguements below. And arguements have always to be harsh, yet reasonable, and civil. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Your failure to understand and accept our advice clearly is not reasonable. If you think the opposite is true, tell me why. James Bell 3 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Bolding

I have witnessed that Mel Etitis have removed the Daemado bolding, but I see that that is needed for Daemado has been the Korean name for Tsushima since the ancient times, and it should be highlighted. I hope that Mel Etitis will post his comments here (if any). Mr Tan 30 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

The bolding is just as unnecessary as the name itself. If it warranted being bolded, the name should also be included in the introductory paragraph. However, I don't support doing so. The name isn't really relevant, even in this historical context. Include it if you must, but this is one case where we should not "be bold. :-) -- Visviva 30 June 2005 12:59 (UTC)

From Ypacaraí's talk page

Please see Tsushima Islands/temp. Is that what you want on the Korean name? And giving only Hangul is very vague, for Hanja and romanizations are needed to clarify how it is pronounced. And Official policy always overrules consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) if you are doubtful about the infobox.

And Hangul is not enough, for Hanja and the romanizations are needed to cover the vagueness of the Hangul script, which focuses on the Korean pronouncation, and one Hangul character can have several Hanja characters, and that is why a name table is needed as well. You must understand the structre of the Korean language first before you can oppose on the infobox. And now, there is only one Hangul, which is a bit too vague. Thanks. Mr Tan 30 June 2005 05:57 (UTC)

No. I think "Daemado"(not bold) is enough. --Ypacaraí July 1, 2005 00:18 (UTC)

The Tsuikai and Tsushima province are in bold. Daemado is the Korean name of Tsushima, and it should be highlighted. You have even removed the lone-standing Hangul name now, which everybody agrees to this "minimmum" reqiurement".

Then how about the Korean names? I would greatly appreciate if only you can give a reply on this topic. Mr Tan 1 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Feel free to remove those bold symbols. And please don't mess up my talk page with your <censored> again.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)== Singular island ==

Singular Island

Then again, the German translation (which goes under the name of Tsushima and is a stub) refers to the islands as an island. However, the article is just a stub, so would this support the proposals of moving the articel to either Tsushima Island or Tsushima? JMBell° 1 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Mr Tan provided us with new evidence that the name ought to be singular (in line with Wikepedia naming conventions) as some noted in that debate above, and since he's now claiming policy applies as he interprets it... See his evidence on Talk:Tsushima Islands#Ammendments (About four browser pages above if the link fails.)

• PAST Time to Archieve, I Think!
  • 
    Does anyone object to archieving everything above the Votes and Comments.?

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

---

On the naming variations, inline: (excerpt from Mr Tans/Temp page example):

Since the early 6th century, Tsushima has been a province of Japan, named Tsushima province (対馬国) or Tsushū (対州). The Koreans periodically considered Tsushima as part of Korean territory before the rule of the Joseon Dynasty but after they (the Joseon Dynasty) colonized the island, Korea asserted her claim more strongly. The discovery of a book by American missionary Homer Hulbert has been taken by at least one modern Korean historian to show that the ancient Korean kingdom of Silla took Tsushima as a dependency, though it is not known whether actual control was exerted over the island. In this context, the Koreans refer to the island as Daemado (Hangul:대마도, Hanja:, 對馬島, Revised Romanization: Daema-do, McCune Reischauher: Taema-to).

• For my ignorant eyes, one character in asian languages looks just like another. Assuming (for the moment) that Mr Tans POV that each variety is indeed necessary, instead of tagging them with labels like the above example, why not put a one line explaination that where applicable Korean names are given in the order (Hangul / Hanja / Revised Romanization/ McCune Reschauher) and use " " spaces to surround each slash, all inside a single pair of parenthesis? It unclutters the in line foreign noise to us ingnorant english-only readers, yet for gifted multilinguals like Mr Tan presents a neat compact appearance like: "In this context, the Koreans refer to the island as Daemado (대마도 / 對馬島 / Daema-do / Taema-to)."

btw Mr Tan, Reischauher of McCune-Reischauher is the same Reischauher of one of those references I told you about. He certainly would agree that the islands were stepping stones of cultural exchange between mainland Japan and Korea into antiquity. Unfortunately he totally avoids petty little distractions like wars and ownership in favor of culture and language drift, technology and archeology, not Shoguns and Kings. Perhaps that's because his brother was killed by Japanese Imperialists in 1937, or perhaps instead, he truly thinks that such do not matter. That ideas will win out, not guns and kings. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

If it were appropriate to include all the details, this might be a solution — but in fact it isn't. Mr Tan has had it explained to him many times by at least three or four different editors that including all the details of the Koran name is inappropriate here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

What do you mean by inappropriate? You had stated earlier that the Korean name in the history section was "okay", but after a series of explanations, I do not understand why you said that it is inappropriate. Honestly I am feeling that what you are talking is partially ridiculous. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to include all the naming variations; the inclusion of "Daemado" is merely a compromise. Don't push us too far - our patience is only limited. If you want to know all the exact details, I suggest you look for them back in the other sections. We will not repeat what has already been repeated. Period. JMBell° 3 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

I need explanations--it has already evolved into debate, I and Heremenus rebutting each other. In the process, we argue against each other why we feel that the opposition is wrong, and in the end, it is either I or he will get convinced on the opposition's explanations. You should appreciate that I have the courtesy to settle down and look into this matter thoroughly. And some repition is always needed, because certain new arguements will always contained argued points. And unless it is an exact repition, and the repition is not directly the point of the arguement, you should have the courtesy to ague, or rebutt my arguements. Because I still do not totally understand why, you all opposed to the arguement. And arguements have always have to be harsh, but reasonable and civil.

And after an arguement, either I or the oppositions will get convinced. Because if neither party is fully convinced about the situation, (not amounting to personal tastes, but rather in accordance to debates based on wikipedian policies and guidelines), it is merely a lame thing. On the other hand, if the arguements do not proceed wthin a reasonable period of time, say, up to five days, either another person picks up the arguement and continues or the person who has the final say will go according to his plans. Why? 1. Because if a person, or nobody does reply within a certain period of time, the arguement is supposed to be considered void and the person who makes the final arguement will go accordingly. 2. A person cannot wait for too long, but the waiting time must be reasonable. If a person who does not reply beyond that reasonabkle period of time, it is logical that he will not reply. You cannot ask a person simply to wait and wait but receive no reply. And official policy always overrules consensus.

Please be patient while I get all the facts clear and right, and I will wait for Heremenus' reply. That's all I have to say for this. Concluded. Mr Tan 3 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

This argument has not evolved into a debate between you and Hermeneus. You had not accepted our replies, and when Hermeneus intervened, you tried to use your tactics on him and say that you were having a debate with him, even though we were included. We argue why we feel we are right, but in this case, your arguments are very weak and easily overruled; still, you refuse to accept this and feel that if given enough time, we will reluctantly side with you. Well, guess what. We are not your parents and whatever siege tactics you use on them will not work on us. This is real life, not a playground where you get everything you want. What Hermeneus is saying is what we have reiterated over and over again redundantly, that the Korean names are inappropriate. If you even comprehend what we're saying, you'll understand why all of us are opposed to your wishes.

And no, it doesn't work that way. The person who has the last say does not get want he wants. What the majority has decided, and more importantly, what is right is what's done. You cannot wait for a month and say "Oh, Hermeneus hasn't answered, maybe I'll push through with my plans." The other people have already said that your plans cannot be done, so it's still not possible. And when does policy overrule consensus? Tell me. I'd like to know. JMBell° 3 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

• I have to make things clear. I need to know the reason why. Yes, the rebuttals are the replies. How do you expect me to reply then? It is not personal attack, and I have the right to reply in anyway I like, so long it is not personal attack and relavant to the point in anyway. I did not treat it in anyway as a playground.

• It is not a matter of wishes. It is probably misunderstandings. And they have to be entangled, and it is not wrong of me to defend myself on my proposals. It is you who insists over and over again that I have misunderstood, but I did not made myself misunderstood because I made a comment relavant to his comments!

• I did not say that you are excluded, but what I like is one at a time. I do not want to answer multiple users in a single debate, for I do not want complications, unless Heremenus did not comment in a few says time.

• Official policy on wikipedia always ovverrules consensus on wikipedia--policy is strict enforced rules but consensus is a voting done by a smaller group of people. On the other hand, official policy is also established through consensus, but from a much wider audience. You cannot challenge a meagre consensus with an official policy. And I am discussing based on the guidelines of official policies. And since I am establishing myself claiming on official policy, imagine if Heremeneus does not answer for a long time, naturally I will go ahead with my plans, unless mine is an independent arguement. Even then also the person who laughs last always laughs best. And this scope is not solely restricted to Heremeneus. If Heremeneus has not replied my comments within a reasonable period of time, I will be very happy to accept new debators until the case is solved and a stable conclusion is drawn.

• And also, I would like to have the colons removed because infoboxes do not have colons in the Wikipedia:Infobox. Do it if you must, however, there should not be any colon in it. The "hyphen" I claimed meant the "colon", because I got things a bit mixed up. But please do not be nasty and personally atatck me by saying nasty, our goal here is to relax here, right? Mr Tan 3 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

1. Official policy doesn't always override consensus, because consensus determines policy. More importantly, though, there is no relevant policy in this case — something that has been explained to you by a number of people, though you insist on ignoring them and repeating your misunderstanding like a mantra.
2. You have also been told many times that you can't dictate how a discussion is conducted; if more than one editor joins in, that's the way that things work. You yourself have been perfectly happy to interject comments when two other editors have been discussing an issue.
3. Nobody was being nasty, and there were no personal attacks. You should, however, be more careful with your edit summaries; the last one referred toa non-existent hyphen, the latest claimed that you were reinstating a colon when in fact you were removing one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

1. There are some consensus that exists which goes against official policy, more or less, in other places. For those who do, they tend to go on personal tastes. Yes, official policy is established by consensus, but there are cases of consensus that goes against the established policy in someway or another.
2. I only made a request to make a one-to-one discussion, I did not forcefully demand it at all. You did not make any request not to tell people to interfere with your one-to-one discussions.
3. Bell claimed said that I was "stubborn". I consider it as being nasty and a sort of minor personal attack. Anyway, I already said that I mistook the colon as a hyphen! If you really want the colon, I will not interefere, but I never see a colon added in any other Infoboxes. Please see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) on an example of an infobox, there is no colon used at all on the title "XXX name". Mr Tan 4 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

1. You have again confused "consensus" with "majority vote." Those are entirely different things. Policy overules voting, but not consensus. If you disagree, provide examples, please.
2. If you want a one-to-one discussion, do it per email, or on your talk pages. Article discussion pages are for the public, not specially reserved for two or more privileged speakers.
3. I was commenting on your behaviour. Since when did a comment on your behaviour become a comment on you?
4. All right, you've proven your point with the colon. James Bell 4 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

• Yeah, policy overrules private voting. But what do you exactly mean by consensus? I'm beginning to suspect that I'm a bit lost now.
• True, but my e-mail is spoilt, I want to expose the discussion so that everybody understands the situation, but I prefer one-to-one because I do not want to answer so many users in one shot; it can be very stressful. And I have little time to spare on wiki.
• My behaviour has something to do with me. That simple.
• I have proven my point on the colon, so what's your point here? I would rather to have it removed, after explanations. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

1. Mel Etitis explained the whole thing already: Consensus is another word for "official agreement" which governs all our dealings in the world. When the Board of Trustees agree with each other, that is consensus.
2. It is true that multitasking can decrease your IQ and raise your stress, but in the modern world, it is inevitable. You just have to learn to cope or take a break.
3. That is exactly the misconception I had before Hoary corrected me.
4. Yes, you've proven your point, so what's the big deal? Why the big fuss? James Bell 4 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

I've lost count count of the times that Mr Tan has called me stubborn (and worse) — see Double standard. Also, the point about the colon hasn't been proved so far as I can see. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

No, no. I refer to Bell calling stubborn, see the history, [52], he said that "I see no hyphen. I see a stubborn user stubbornly removing a colon.". Now, may I know when did I call you stubborn?

• And by the way, Bell, what do you mean by proving my point on the colon then? Please elaborate. Mr Tan 4 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

No, no. Mel refers to you calling stubborn, see the comment, he said that "I've lost count of the times that Mr Tan has called me worse.". Now, may I know why you're making such a big fuss?

• And by the way, Tan, what do you mean by "proving my point on the colon" then? Please elaborate. James Bell 4 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

• I'm asking you a question, can you please don't ask me to ask you a question, how do you expect me to answer you when I'm asking you? Mr Tan 4 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

• Did I ask you to not ask me a question? No, you're asking me to not ask you to ask me a question, but you asked voluntarily, so I didn't ask you to ask me a question; you asked me a question, which I asked, but you asked me to not ask you yet because you were asking me, but I asked you because I had to ask - I couldn't understand what you were asking. Do you? Ask, ask, ask away. (And btw, does anyody know where "ask" derives from? Now that I think of it, it sounds particularly venomous - like "asp". Wierd. And why is it spelled that way? Aaaaaaa, etymology...) James Bell 4 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

• Since neither sides can get the point, I'm going to remove the colon after explanations, because asking for what you are asking about what do you mean by "Yes, you've proven your point", and I assume that you agree. If you disagree strongly, please explain. Mr Tan 5 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)

I don't know what the colons are all about, but taking three days off for a holiday sure generated a lot of text getting nowhere.

• If you don't like 'stubborn' to characterize your behavior, try the word incorrigible, Mr Tan. Bottom line, Mr Tan, you don't seem to grasp an arguement made to you unless it can be turned to come at you from four or five different directions. In particular, you don't grasp chains of arguements very well, such as the lengthy patient (and commendable) attempts made by Hermeneus above over and over. You cite 'Free Speech', but what that means in American terms is that you are free to publish what you want. It does not mean you can compell people to read it, nor to stand stil',ml while you spot from some soapbox. Wikipedia:Is Not A Soapbox is guideline with which you seem unfamiliar. I advised you over an over in the past month that you should leave this article for greener pastures, for various and diverse good reasons. But whether you prefer 'stubborn' or 'incorrigible', the one thing that is plain to me is that you simply do not understand when to stop fighting and go along with the majority. That not one person is jumping in to add their arguements to yours in agreement should tell you books and books of things. But you just don't care. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Since Mr Tan has no sense of being in error or of bad reasoning, perhaps we should reverse the problem, and pledge to finish this article despite him, and ignore everything and anything he says. Then perhaps he will get a sense of how frustrating it is to talk to a stone wall instead of someone that thinks about what we are saying. There must be eight or ten of us to revert anything he does outside the guidelines we agree on. He'd likely get into 3RR trouble the first day or two. Any takers? User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Seconded. Mr Tan has a bad habit of not listening to us, and when not listened to, complains of "injustice", "suppresing freedom of writing (or voice)", or "stubbornness." It's about time, we do the same to him. After all, Experience is the best teacher. James Bell 6 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

Final Words to Mr Tan

Remember this— it's barely got dried ink - posted on the 27th! Why do you consistantly not see that everyone BUT 'Mr Tan' — understands just fine' , and it is 'ONLY Mr Tan' who does not understand why his personal POV is not welcome in learned discourse? Do you realize how ARROGANT that COULD seem to others, that do not know you well? (Okay — I can answer myself: Perhaps Lack of experience? Lack of training in schools, training which will in time to come teach analytical thinking, uncoupling personal viewpoints, proper research, critical analysis, self-criticism, planning of edits, fundamentals of debating, and many other things it is NOT the job of the Volunteer editors here to teach? But when will you realize that when you get arguments from other editors, strong actions (reverts), or clearly cause frustration and unfriendly comments that your point is perhaps one that wouldn't be made by someone with such training, and so is something you should take as a signal to drop the wish, YOUR WISH, and that it is time to move on to a new article where you will not be 'stealing time' from other editors who are far better qualified to judge what is and is not appropriate? Why do you not get such blatant hints? Or direct statements — I advised you at least three times last week to get yourself out of this article. The ONLY reason I am here is trying to help you to realize just that — you are unwelcome here, becasue it is very difficult to make you understand things you have yet to be trained in, and that 'obtuseness' is costing other people dearly, and alienating them so that they might stop working for Wikipedia all together — which is why you need to leave, or the ArbCom will make you do so, and you will have to leave anyway. The bottom line: 'You are ill equiped to 'complete' any article'. ESPECIALLY one edited by others at the same time, and that makes YOU an issue, because you don't have the training to handle issues of fact and content appropriately. You do not yet know when an arguement is 'empty and inappropriate', or POV; neither do you yet exercise self-criticism to sufficiently check your sources, or demand that they be of high quality. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you no longer have any business in an article this far along, especially, as your participation is wasting others time.

• I don't want to see you hurt or crushed, but you've got to learn that arguing the same point when others demolish your arguements, or just feel they have, requires either bringing new evidence to the table or conceding the battle gracefully. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Tsushima move

There seems to be a ton of discussion about the name of this article, which is good, but I'd like to close it and finally make a decision. It would seem that Tsushima is the favoured choice, so I plan to move it there shortly. If there are any strong objections to this please add the below. This isn't, of course, another vote. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you could make anything sensible out of all the above; how long did it take? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Quite a while, definately, and I'm still not sure it's quite right! violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

There are two votes, one of which says Tsushima Islands --> Tsushima, and another is Tsushima Islands --> Tsushima . I have asked about the second vote, and says that it is legitimate. If you move to Tsushima, it won't be fair to Tsushima Island because both votes have a majorty. It will be unfair in either way, because both votes have an at least 2/3 majorty support. Mr Tan 5 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Right, in the interest of making a clear decision I have created the final approval vote below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetriga (talk • contribs) 11:59, 5 July 2005

I am strongly opposed to holding this final vote. Because:

• This vote is equivalent to the first and second votes where we have the same choises.
• These three choises are not equivalent. "Tsushima islands" and "Tsushima island" automatically give the answer to the singular/plural issue. However, "Tsushima" give nothing to the issue.
• We don't have enough discussion on move to "Tsushima". Baru 5 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

It's just an approval vote, anyway. No problem there. James Bell 6 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

You'll still have to describe "Tsushima" either as an island or a group of islands in the body text, most notably in the very first line of the article. Then some of the exisitng descriptions wouldn't be possible if Tsushima were to be treated as plural, like the statement that Tsushima is the third largest island in Japan, as well as such basic data as area and population, the numbers of which are not available for each part, or the small islands that are supposed to make up "Tsushima." Hermeneus (talk) July 6, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can hold these two votes simultaneously and as if they are inseparably linked. The argument for moving the page for "Tsushima" is that someone is most likely to be refering to this when they say that, rather than the one of the three cities. It's like how tree is about a biological organism, not some other thing like a family tree. If "Tsushima" always (or just about) refers to the island(s) and never (or just about) to the city, then that's okay; but if this idea came up as a compromise to a move to singular, and that's how people see it, then such a change is unacceptable - it is completely against everything disambiguation is.

Because I don't edit this article, I won't vote, but please remember what primary topic pages are for. They are for the primary topic. They are not there to avoid the addition of "island" or "islands". They are not there for compromise. For this page to be at "Tsushima", I should be able to ask anyone, anywhere about Tsushima and have them go on about the islands with no reference to the city (given that they know the place). If that's the case, then by all means, use "Tsushima". Otherwise, choose between island and islands.

I'm sorry to add a comment during the final vote, but I am concerned about the direction this move is heading. Neonumbers 7 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

RECAP w/o COMMENTS OF (way) ABOVE VOTES

(For original, see Talk:Tsushima Islands\Temp... (FrankB) This is an attempt to compress and make clear the votes on the talk:Tsushima Island page, there is so much verbage, I want to just distill out the votes. Please leave for Mel Etitis to delete when he feels it necessary. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

• I was careful to get everyone, and the only slip up was I accicdently erased my own original votes signature, leaving the content. FrankB

COMPRESSED VOTE HERE ON MOVE

Requested move: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island

Requested move: Tsushima Islands → Tsushima Island. --Nanshu 06:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an explanation, and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mr Tan 18:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hermeneus 02:42, 18 Jun 2005 (U
• Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Baru 18:34, 19 Jun 2005 (sign added by Tokek)
• Conditional Support. —Tokek 16:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of Tokek's proposed compromise. JMBell° 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. JMBell° 23:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Same reasons with Hermeneus. --Ypacaraí 22:47, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Support. Baru 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Unconditional SUPPORT... Great- I cut my own signature cutting Tans noise! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB
• Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ken304

Regarding the Vote on the proposed Move: 'Tusshima Islands' ---> 'Tsushima Island'

I count 5 Support and 3 Oppose, with one explicit abstention, and a number of implicit ones. Can somebody please check my count and sign after me that you have done so. Thanks. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) /

Now I see: 6 Support 5 Oppose 1 Abstains User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

COMPRESSED VOTES ON THE Proposed COMPROMISE

Tsushima → Tsushima (disambiguation) & Tsushima Islands → Tsushima

According to counts by Google, the singular form is by far more common than the plural form on the web. Also "Tsushima islands" can also refer to the group of several nearby islands instead, so the plural phrase over-counts.

"Tsushima Island":

• 3,480: "Tsushima Island"
• 6,030: "対馬島" (Japanese pages only)

"Tsushima Islands":

• 642: "Tsushima Islands"
• 63: "対馬諸島" (Japanese pages only)

The singular form beat the plural form in academic and governmental websites as well. ... SNIP SNIP ... by having the article named not Tsushima Islands, not Tsushima Island, but simply Tsushima, and simply have the Tsushima disambiguation page moved to Tushima (disambiguation). The whatever-you-want-to-call-it is very often referred to simply as Tsushima.—Tokek 16:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This is creating confusion; SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP... Mr Tan 03:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support either way — revised vote from:Conditional YES [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Septentrionalis 17:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support - it seems Tsushima is ...JMBell° 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My new vote is down below. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Revised vote: In that case, I change my vote to Oppose for the reasons stated by Neonumbers and Mr Tan. JMBell° 23:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vote withdrawn. JMBell° 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Final approval vote

This is an approval vote to decide the name once and for all. Please choose which of the following you would find acceptable (you can accept more than one). Voting closes towards the end of the 10 July 2005. Votes only, no comments. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Voting session closed. Please DO NOT VOTE ANYMORE. Thank you. James Bell 23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands (current name)

1. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

Tsushima Island

1. Hermeneus (talk) July 5, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
2. James Bell 5 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
3. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)
4. J-ka 6 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

   J-ka (talk · contribs)'s first and only edit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

5. Mp623 7 July 2005 0:30 (JST)
6. Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
7. Atsi Otani 7 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)
8. Calton | Talk 7 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
9. Don Diego 8 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)
10. Wellmann 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
11. Nanshu 21:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima (with that page moved to Tsushima (disambiguation))

1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
2. James Bell 5 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
3. Visviva 6 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
4. Ypacaraí July 7, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
5. Zonath July 7, 2005 01:37 (UTC)
6. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 7, 2005 07:33 (UTC)
7. Philip Baird Shearer 7 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
8. Septentrionalis 8 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Change moved down, to preserve fidelity of autonumbering
#User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC) (Runoff Preference) FrankB 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments On the Final Approval Vote

Results: 1/11(-1)/9 | The name of the article will be "Tsushima Island". (Even if we disregard User:J-ka's vote, the total votes for Tsushima Island outnumber the "Tsushima etc." choice by one.)

Could we wait a little before rushing to judgement? First, I took this not be a majoritarian poll in the style of Western pseudo-democracies; Wikipedia strongly discourages those. Polls are for trying to gain consensus. It appears that there's no consensus, with opinions almost exactly divided between two options (somewhat oddly, I must admit, given that – as the long preceding discussion brought out, the references to the place were similarly closely divided, but between options 1 and 2). Secondly, the person who set up the poll, violet/riga, should close it. We've waited this long; an extra hour or so won't hurt. I'll contact violet/riga with a reminder.

My own preference would be to rule out option 1, and ask those who voted whether they'd be prepared to change their votes in order to get us closer to consensus. Given that the normal procedure in the case of lack of consensus is to stay with the status quo, that might be incentive enough to compromise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to come over and close it when I saw that I'd been beaten to it. I don't like the fact that the vote was so close, and would like to see a better consensus. However, the discussions have gone on for such a long time that I am not too convinced that extra time will help sort it out. That's the best option we have right now though, so unless there are any objections I will soon reopen the poll. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Having a Runoff makes sense to me, and I would infer Hermeneus, who forsaw this problem first (way up after violet/riga opened the 'Polls')...
  • apparently Baru never got an answer from violet/riga on his protest, which was on this very point (confirmed on my Talk this morning) and Baru didn't vote at all, apparently expecting the courtesy of an answer.
  • Should we just delete a double vote, and so just select between the last two, or What? It bothers me that { Tsushima, Aichi / Tsushima, Ehime / Tsushima Maru / Tsushima Yuko / Tsushima Yuji } all have nothing to do with the geographical locus, and would thus be disabigulated through an layer potentially leading to confusion by the casual reader. FrankB 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Decision

It's been a long time coming, but I think it's time to settle this debate once and for all. There was virtually no support for Tsushima Islands, the name during the vote, and so it was clear that the name must be changed to one of the other two options. Tsushima Islands was the favourite, albeit not by much, and so the article should remain there. I would now recommend that all this discussion be archived in a naming subpage, with the comment tag remaining at the top of the page. violet/riga (t) 10:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing, I'm afraid; I think that your attention wandered. In any case, I have a worry about the whole business of a poll (somewhat belatedly; I have mentioned this before, but then it got lost in all the fuss). Wikipedia naming conventions state clearly with regard to disputes over names:

• Side X wants to call it A
• Side Y wants to call it B

Since this is the English-language edition of Wikipedia [...t]he chief guideline should be:

• what is the most commonly used name in English — tempered by the principle of least astonishment.

In this case, the main argument for "Tsushima Island" is that it's the name used by the Japanese government (other Japanese sources are split about 50:50, with academic papers favouring the plural). English-language sources based in English-speaking countries, on the other hand, favour the plural form by some considerable margin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You're quoting a proposal that was create two weeks ago. Wikipedia:Naming conflict, created by the same person around the same time, has a slightly different way of handling things. The "How to make a choice among controversial names" section gives one method of fixing the situation, and you may wish to try the points system. But we're supposed to work by consensus here too, and you were voted down 11 to 1, so clearly that shows that the interpretations of which should be used favours the singular. violet/riga (t) 13:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I voted for the compromise. But yes, I noticed shortly after I wrote the above that there was another proposal. The one in the proposal from which I'm quoting, though, draws on what's said elsewhere in naming policy though. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not emotionally committed to any name (though I believe that the one it now has is the worst of the three in Wikipedia terms.

I also wrote the above before I noticed that the change had been made. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No Big Deal

??? Has there been a determination to accept the first two votes above to resolve the 'S' issue with respect to 'copyedit needs' per the below posted efforts to copyedit? In other words, the article text content still refers to 'TI' and/or to 'TIs' many times besides the article title even if Proposition Three Carries the Day over the other (first) two propositions for the article title. If that third case is the selected alternative, the English language tenses still need fixed up... relative to The 'Second Place' Winner in the two other Vote categories, I would hope? Which at the moment, would be Singular tense by a 7:1 tally (unless 'User:J-ka' vote is counted).

• If you're going to oppose that logic, let's have it below, now, please! FrankB 8 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

<----- Comments Opposing Logic of using Tense as implied by winner of 1st two options --------->

• People aren't choosing between the first two, but between all three. There are many votes for the third proposal alone; we don't know which of the first two those people would have chosen. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)
• That is indeed the problem or potential problem, which is why I raise it as something for all to look at and think on. I want to see what was intended by whomever kicked this form of voting off. FrankB 9 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

<------------------- Post such above and between the lines please ------------------------------>

<---Neutral--->

• As far as I can see, the third option does not require any choice as to the phrasing of the article. Whether it wins or not, much of the article can be written using "Tsushima is", which has no relation to whether Tsushima is an island or two islands or whatever. After all, Japan is four major islands (plus many others). 19:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions re copy and substantive editing

I started editing it before I saw what a long piece this talk page is, and all the arguments regarding ... well, everything. And now that it's clear that there are decisions over whether Tsushima should be singular or plural islands, that also changes the copyedit big time, as trying to cement it into one or the other is important for grammar and continuity's sake. Since the title read "Islands" rather than Island, I changed the mix of plural and singular to all-plural. This would need to be changed again in another edit. I'm on neither side as far as who or what Tsushima belongs to, whether it's plural or not, and it's likely that many of the readers will be in the same boat. They just want to know in short what the major issues are, and they're the people we're providing Wikipedia for, correct? So, there are some vague bits in the article that should be slightly expanded by someone who knows the controversy and history a bit better.

• For instance, Homer Hulbert's book is mentioned, as proving one theory, but the actual theory is not put forward in any substantive way. The article just claims he wrote a controversial book.
• "One modern Korean historian" is alluded to, but not by name, thus not allowing the reader to actually research this further and make up their own mind.
• Additionally, a professor at the beginning of the article is mentioned by name, but not by university or any sort of affliation. Perhaps someone in Korea or Japan can easily find this Professor's work, but a person from the English speaking world would have more trouble following this up without an affliation.

• Also, "primary industries" are described in plural, but only fishing is described. "Primary, secondary, tertiary" industries are described but in vague terms, without explaining what they are.

Also, I keep finding errant URLs that seem to point to nothing - including one that insists Tsushima belongs to Korea. That stuff really belongs at the end of the article in a link section, which could show the pro/cons of both sides, doesn't it?

User_talk:Noirdame/User_talk:Noirdame 18:36 (UTC) 7 July 2005 (Sig added by FrankB)

Copyedited

Just copyedited this. Must say, I've learned more about the Tsushima Island(s) than I ever wanted to know. :P Think I got everything, but planning on going over it tomorrow when my eyes aren't burning quite so much. Will then be quite bold and take down the copy-edit notice... unless there are objections. Oh, yes. Bold. And I'm sure everyone will trust the copyediting abilities of one who can't seem to be bothered to use pronouns. ;) --User:Jenmoa 8 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

It's pretty country. Maybe someday you'll get a chance to go there! Thanks for the editing. Fg2 July 8, 2005 05:35 (UTC)

Okay, I know I said I'd go over this again. But I'm far to befuddled by the singular/plural issue, so I shall leave it alone at least until that's settled. X) --User:Jenmoa 8 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Revert by Jen

...Well, spend a couple of hours copyediting the thing and suddenly I'm all attached. Saw earlier that an anon's (4.23.83.100) edits had been reverted. Because I'm curious, I took a look. Saw a bunch of deletions that messed up the grammar and such of the article, plus some re-wording. The anon just made most of those changes again. I left a note on his talk page, and after considering it a bit, I reverted his changes. I figured, the grammatical errors and awkward wording had to go, and most of the other re-wording didn't change the meaning a whole lot, except to slant it. So... that's my justification. --User:Jenmoa 9 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

<amends edit summary> Actually, it was entirely an rv. I had meant to change something or other but changed my mind. --User:Jenmoa

• I just partially reverted this talk— the file apparently doubled all sections. The top (older) was cut out into Archieve 'A'. FrankB 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Tsushima Island INSTEAD.