Talk:Korea Strait

Merge Discussion

The merge discussion for the proposal to merge this article with Tsushima Strait Article, is on Talk:Tsushima Strait#Nomination to Merge User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Fact Checking…

The article currently (10:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)) claims "In Japan, it is called the Sea of Japan naval battle." Can somebody make sure this is not a mere word-by-word translation from Japanese? I cannot find anything on the web, except for mirrors of this very page. If it's a translation, this sentence should be removed. Kokiri 10:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a word-by-word translation from Japanese, judging from Battle of Tsushima. I'm not sure why that's relevant, though -- then again, I'm not sure why this sentence is in this article at all. As a general rule, namecruft should go in the relevant article only, IMHO. -- Visviva 12:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Where does the ferry to Tsushima go from? It's unclear from the text. Kokiri 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)]

Lots of online info about the Busan-Tsushima and Fukuoka-Tsushima ferries. If there's one from Shimonoseki, it keeps a low profile. Will update. -- Visviva 12:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What about the section Mongolian invasion? It doesn't read well. Kokiri 08:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Added information/gaps

I've used [1] to add information on the Strait. There are still gaps, such as the geography of the water, or the economic significance. There could also be more on which invasions (when, who, links) took place here. Somebody knowledgeable, plase… Kokiri 11:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese name... Is it "Chōsen Strait" or "Tsushima Strait"?

I have consulted the Japanese Wikipedia regarding the Japanese name for "Korea Strait". I looked up 朝鮮海峡[2] (Chōsen Strait) and then 対馬海峡[3] (Tsushima Strait). Apparently, the Japanese define the area commonly referred to as "Korea Strait" to be called "Tsushima Strait". However, they still translate the name "Korea Strait" (and "Daehan Strait") into "Chōsen Strait".

Yesterday, somebody went ahead and changed the Japanese name from "Chōsen Kaikyō" to "Tsushima Kaikyō". I propose instead to change it to "Tsushima Kaikyō or Chōsen Kaikyō" to include both names. Please build concensus here.--Endroit 18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not the authoritive figure here, but Chosen (朝鮮) Kaikyo would mean Chosun Strait directly while, Tsushima Strait is a name derived from the Japanese Islands. Although this would be biased, Korean Wikipedia states that Chosun Kaikyo is used to call Korea Strait. Anyway, the Japanese Wikipedia's article title is Chosun too, so I think it would be best to leave Chosun and only mention Tsushima inside the article, since it's a less used name. They translate Daehan to Chosun because it's somewhat a historical/old place. I might be really confusing in the statements I wrote above so let me know if you need more things. -- WB 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you WB. I think I had it right the first time....　　First of all, the Infobox was supposed to list the NAMES of "Korea Strait" in each local language bordering the strait (regardless of whether it sounds biased in another language).

Long ago, "Korea Strait" was 朝鲜海峡 (Choson Strait) in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese languages, and everyone was happy. Then South Korea changed this name to 大韓海峽 (Daehan Haehyeop) in their country, due to the Names of Korea, which is fine. But Japan redefined the LOCATION of Chōsen Strait (in their country) to be just the western channel half. Technically, the Japanese did NOT change the NAME of Chōsen Strait to Tsushima Strait, but changed the LOCATION of Chōsen Strait. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we really don't care to explain the Japanese reassignment of the channel locations in detail. And besides, we haven't heard anybody explain the official position of the Japanese government regarding this matter. So unless we hear any official explanation and reach concensus here, the Infobox shall continue to list the Japanese name as 朝鮮海峡 (Chōsen Strait).--Endroit 16:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there is any problem with calling it Chosun and Daehan, since many things have different names in foreign. For example, Korea is called Hanguk in Korea, or Japan is Nippon in their own country. My problem is with Tsushima though... These kinds of things are rather problematic even inside Korea too. For example, naming inside the Japanese textbooks. Yeah, it's best to keep it as Daehan and Chosun, and then mention a note inside the article itself. -- WB 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Japanese name is 対馬海峡(Tsushima strait). When Japanese use the word of 朝鮮海峡, they means the strait between Korean peninsula and Tsushima island. Please check ja.wikipedia(Tsushima strait).ja:対馬海峡

海上保安庁海洋情報部発行の海図では対馬と朝鮮半島との間の海峡を対馬海峡西水道、対馬と壱岐との間を対馬海峡東水道としている。

Above is the text from that Japanese Wikipedia article I am interested in. It says that the map of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency calls the western portion "Tsushima Strait West Channel". And it calls the eastern portion "Tsushima Strait East Channel". That would mean that the whole thing is called "Tsushima Strait" like you say.

Can you please show me where I can verify this information about the Maritime Safety Agency (海上保安庁) and their map? We cannot just reference another Wikipedia article. We must have authentic outside source to reference it to. Please provide this info ASAP. Thank you.--Endroit 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ja:朝鮮海峡 Japanese wikipedia "Chosen Kaikyo(朝鮮海峡)"

The name for the both channels in hydrographs issued by Japanese Maritime Safety Agency is Tsushima strait. The northwest side of Tsushima is west channel and the southeast side is east channel. The hydrograph of this area should be found in W196 and W192. I could only find the samples of Japanese ones from Japan Hydrographic Association but not the corresponding English ones supposed to be JP196 and JP192.

http://www.jha.jp/kaizu/f.htm#W196 http://www.jha.jp/kaizu/m.htm#W192

Thank you for the info. These maps (海図 kaizu) are specified to be Japanese Maritime Safety Agency publications (海上保安庁 刊行 kaijō hoanchō kankō), according to their description page. This proves that the Japanese government calls the strait Tsushima Kaikyō (対馬海峡). I still propose to list both names, Tsushima Kaikyō and Chōsen Kaikyō in the infobox, because different interpretations exist.--Endroit 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

the reference in the reference paper

See, e.g., Choon-Ho Park, The Korea Strait, in International Navigation, supra note 49, at 173; Prescott, supra note 55, at 23-24. One informed commentator has written that the same approach of claiming limited three-nautical-mile territorial seas utilized by Japan and Korea to allow navigational freedom has also been used by “Germany and Denmark, and by Denmark, Sweden and Finland.” Bernard H. Oxman, Applying the Law of the Sea in the Aegean Sea, in Problems of Regional Seas 2001 at 266, 279 (Bayram Ozturk ed. 2001).

This is the reference ^(#74) in the paper being referenced for South Korea & Japan's 3 nautical mile territorial claim in the Strait. I don't know how to format it or if it should be added though, so I'll add it here for now. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorting order of multilingual name infobox

Deiaemeth, if you point Liancourt Rocks, please see also Talk:Liancourt_Rocks#Sorting_order_of_multilingual_name_infobox. I have explained the usefulness of consistent sorting order. Appleby reasoned the Liancourt Rocks is disuted territory and dokdo is more common than takeshima. None of them applies here. The Korea Strait is not disuted territory and those local names are not common in English. Liancourt Rocks is an exception rather than a rule. --Kusunose 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Korea Strait is direct translation from the name 대한해협 or 한국해협 (older usage). Alphabetical listing is not the case here, since the English name itself is derived from the Korean name. Deiaemeth 03:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of two references by Deiaemeth

I agree with battle of Tsushima issue, but the following two links are not broken, confirmed.

1. ^ "Nautical Charts of SE Japan Sea". Japan Hydrographic Association
2. ^ "List of National and Quasi-national Parks, Japan #48 Iki-Tsushima". Ministry of the Environment, Japan

I added above links again. Isorhiza 09:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I thought those links were broken. There are nothing on "battle" here - I just removed two links that I thought were broken. Please re-add those links again. Deiaemeth 09:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I re-added them. Deiaemeth 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Korea Strait, Tsushima Strait, whole or part. naming issue

As discussed above, there is dispute about the naming of the whole strait and west and east channels between Korea and Japan. I would not like to begin revert war here, but I'm really curious which is the most common/official naming among the "English speaking people" in these decades. Koreans and Japanese goverments officially calls the channel differently, that's okay. But how about in US ? Isorhiza 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the US gov't, but Korea Strait is the only term in use by the IHO and for IHO Hydrographic Data Codes see [4]. Major encyclopedias such as Encarta and Brittanica also uses Korea Strait to refer to the Strait as a whole [5] [6]. Tsushima strait is commonly used to refer to Battle of Tsushima, which sometimes refers to the eastern channel of Korea Strait where the battle took place. I don't think there exists as dispute between naming of the strait itself between Korean and Japanese gov't; rather, the actual dispute exists between naming of the basin near Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks. One of the principle cause of the Liancourt Rocks stand-off that happened a month ago between Korea and Japan was because of the naming issue there. The dispute exists right now because both Korea and Japan has not yet officially registered their respectives name for the basin right now, so both names are used quite commonly throughout the world, causing confusion to some degree. Deiaemeth 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph, “also known as the Tsushima Strait (the latter is commonly found in literatures and maps, especially related to the Battle of Tsushima)”, is that it helps people to identify the Korea Strait=the Tsushima Strait without disrupting any knowledge of readers. If Major encyclopedias do not have Korea Strait=Tsushima Strait description, then wikipedia wins the fame of the best description. Actually, I was surprised when I found my world atlas purchased in US is using “Tsushima Str.” and Western/Eastern channels system instead of Korea Str. I also think there isn’t any dispute. The basin issue should be done at appropriate topics, i.e. not here.

Although the Korea Strait is used much widely (about 200:7), you can find many site using the Tsushima Strait as a single term including US universities and Japanese officials and scholars. In addition, some papers such as ref. 1a are actually using both names (and Japan/East Sea). The paper was written by US Navy and a Korean institute. You can also find other papers.[7] [8] (remember, these papers were written after the IHO 23-4th 1986) I think these Korea/Tsushima (and Japan/East) description are common in US Navy maybe for their convenience since Tsushima Strait is also officially used in Japan and the better specification of the position.

In the case of Russo-Japanese war, the retrieved results of "Korea Strait" russo-japanese war and "Tsushima Strait" russo-japanese war were 726 and 692, respectively. Please leave the link to the references even you think it is appropriate to reconsider the description in the parentheses.

Anyway, I am reverting to my Revision as of 05:17, 15 May 2006 version since new information has not been added and I think it is an appropriate one to restart. Jjok

it's easy to find individual examples and counterexamples for most anything, but i think we need to refer to the most widely accepted, reliable references, per WP:NPOV. why do we even have a special section for japanese names? shouldn't there also be a section for korean names, then? also, content specific to tsushima island belongs in that specific article. doesn't the battle of tsushima refer to the eastern channel of korea strait?

• http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761583016/Korea_Strait.html indicates that "korea strait" is the english name, and "Chosen Kaikyo" is the japanese name, tsushima strait is not a recognized english or international name.
• http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046066 shows "korea strait" is the english name, tsushima strait is not recognized.
• [9] and [10] also indicate that the sole name is "korea strait," tsushima strait is not a recognized english/international name. Appleby 16:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

- Here are examples of widely accepted reliable references.[11][12] [13] They show that the sole name is "Tsushima Strait," and no description of Korea Strait. I think Russia actually used the eastern channel (Tsushima Strait, in narrow sense), though the description is obviously referring whole the Korea Strait while it is still confusing. The aka name, Japanese Names section, and the table help identifying the locations and I encourage you to create Korean Names sections to help other people (I heard Koreans call the eastern channel Busan Cannel, is it correct?). The description at the Battle of Tsushima helps understanding the historical reason why Tsushima Strait found so frequently in the literature related to Russo-Japanese War (Korea:Tsushima=about 1:1). It also helps to understand why US Navy and Korean scholars are still using Korea/Tsushima Strait. Since I am also planning to merge Tsushima Strait here, the comprehensive description of each name of strait and channels is particularly useful. Jjok

that and your other citations do not seem to indicate that the tsushima strait necessarily refers to the korea strait as a whole, but rather to the tsushima strait in the narrow sense. there is no confusion in english between the distinct concepts of korea strait and tsushima strait. unlike sea of japan/east sea, there isn't even an official dispute about the english name, afaik.

i think a merger had already been mentioned a while back, & there's a very good reason for having separate articles for korea strait and tsushima straits -- they're different topics.

generally, foreign scripts do not belong in wikipedia articles, except possibly in articles about that topic (so korean/japanese scripts for korea strait (here) and tsushima strait (at that article) are acceptable, but i don't see the need for foreign language scripts, korean or japanese, for various subdivisions and other terms, and definitely not separate sections for each foreign language. this is, after all, the english wikipedia. Appleby 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, Tsushima Strait refers whole strait. "Tsushima Strait, Eastern Channel, 27 May 1905, 1339 hrs."[14]. As I mentioned above, I also have a map purchased in US that describe Tsushima Str. for the whole (probably created based on Japanese Hydrographs. do you need more info about the map?). Korea/Tsushima description helps the users to identify it is the Korea Strait and historical reason. Jjok

as i said, it's not hard to find individual examples for anything. that's why WP:V tells us to rely on widely accepted reference works, & in this case, the major encyclopedias and mapmakers are pretty consistent. WP:V also says significant minority views should be treated as such, so if you'd like a short sentence in the article body to the rare alternate name, that's fine, but it is misleading to treat the small number of exceptions so prominently. since the major publications are pretty consistent & there is no official dispute, the article should reflect that reality by not confusing the reader with prominent treatment of the obscure. Appleby 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi's breaking WP:NC-KO

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) and I are on some kind of probation after I filed his continued following me for on-and-off 10 months to WP:ANI, so I could not revert any of his edit within 5 days (vice versa) However, we're allowed to use talk pages of articles at the same time, so I point out on his game the rule at this time. This article should follow naming convention on Sea of Japan (East Sea) section by the previous discussion between both Korean and Japanese side editors on 2005 (although I don't agree with such old decision). Well, he reverted my edit in support of breaking the rule (does he ever read and regard that rule?). This should be fixed by any editors. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be fixed at all. Seems all fine to me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not a decision maker on the old and established consensus.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, that is why I used the words "think" and "seems" - in order to emphasize that it was merely my opinion. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You reverted because I edited the article. So your excuse on your breaking the rule is not a good one. Besides, this thread is to notify other editors on your change, not you because you breaks the convention. If we're continuing to argue over nothing, well, that is not good for both of us. Theresa said she could take a suitable action to either or both of us if she thinks of any discussion at talk pages of article disruptive. So why don't you wait for other's response?--Caspian blue (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a good idea, Caspian - why don't you stay away from talk pages related to articles that I am editing, and I will do the same, oh and send me an E-mail please, born_of_jackal@yahoo.com - there is something I wish to discuss with you, that is not suitable for a wikipedia talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice, I was wrong. Oh well, I self reverted. I don't often make mistakes, so sometimes I am shocked when I mess up, I guess it is hard being so close to perfection. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong chart

Tsushima strait is an another name in Korea strait. It's not a easten channel of the Korea strait. Please correct a wrong chart. Arstriker (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korea Strait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629131922/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/navalbattles.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/navalbattles.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korea Strait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108194008/http://www.russojapanesewar.com/tsushima.html to http://www.russojapanesewar.com/tsushima.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513204809/http://www.jha.jp/kaizu/f_o.htm to http://www.jha.jp/kaizu/f_o.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070609074111/http://www.kordi.re.kr/atlas/asp/kstrait_1_1_1.asp to http://www.kordi.re.kr/atlas/asp/kstrait_1_1_1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)