Talk:Tsushima Island

Archives

Earlier discussion on this page has been archived:

• Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 1

This page was rearranged. For the previous version, see [1].

Page title: Island or Islands?

対馬島 refers to an island, not islands. Geographically, Tsushima is a single island just like Eurasia and Africa are a single continent. Tsushima's Suez is two canals constructed in the Edo period and Meiji period. --Nanshu 05:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are islands around it.

But it is split into two main islands now! Furthermore, that Dokdo call 群島 or 諸島 instead of 島 despite the fact that it is made up of many islands? No right?-User:Mr Tan

Again, almost all islands have islets around them. Do you think Taiwan is islands rather than an islands?

And canals don't count. It is something like calling Jutland an island (or islands?), not a peninsula, because it is separated from the continent by the Kiel Canal!--Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Almost all islands have islets around them. If geographers want to include them, they would call them 群島 or 諸島 instead of 島. --Nanshu 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, explain why you moved this from Tsushima Island to Tsushima Islands. Tsushima as a region consists of one major island and some small islands around it. The Japanese term 対馬島 obviously refers to that single island. --Nanshu 02:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will move this article back to Tsushima Island. --Nanshu 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

See the map for yourself [2]

It is Islands. Also, how deep is the canal? I believe that it is more of a bay or something like a river. Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima are two seperate islands from the map.

If you still don't believe me, use yahoo or google and search for Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Island. For me, I follow the majorty.

Tan 00:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried 
Google.com  Islands 37,000 / Island 24,000.
Yahoo.com  Islands 29,400 / Island 19,900.
Mr.Tan, Did you really checked google/yahoo? I can't believe your sayings. Poo-T 21:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan is wrong. See the official site of the Tsushima city. http://www.city.tsushima.nagasaki.jp/foreign/where/english.html Tsushima is refered as an island.16:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima is an island. You don't use "shima" (島) to refer to a group of islands in Japanese. This article should be renamed back to "Tsushima island" Hermeneus 17:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put this question to the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard [3][4]. According to it, there is no standard for counting islands regarding artificial waterways but its 1986 survey treated Tsushima as a single island.

P.S. Google doesn't work for this case because "Tsushima Islands" also covers "Iki/Tsushima Islands" etc. --Nanshu 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See ""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). of the [5] for the Island(s).

And we do not care what the Japanese write. We are talking about the present, not the past! Also, see Islands of Singapore for comparison. See the Jurong Island for example--even though they are reclaimed to merge into one island from many islands? Why is it Island, not Islands? If people still could not understand why it should be Islands, I would suggest a reality check. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. From the very beginning, we are aware of the two artificial waterways. I'm tired of hearing your parrot like repetition. --Nanshu 15:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima is officially recognized as an island by the government of Nagasaki, Japan: "Tsushima is the third largest island in Japan (excluding the Okinawas)." [6] It cannot possibly be "the third largest" if split into two or more smaller islands. The official data on the area and the population of Tsushima are all of an island. You cannot find such date for the alleged upper and lower islands of Tsushima individually becuase they are not recognized as individual islands. Encyclopedia Britanica entry of Tsushima also recognizes Tsushima as an island: "between Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait n.w. of Kyushu; made up of large island Tsushima, separated into n. and s. portions at high tide, and three small islands; total land area 269 sq mi (697 sq km)." [7] Hermeneus 16:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TO Mel Etitis. Could you explain the reason why you change to "islands"? And who decide it is "correct"? Baru 00:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Mel Etitis moved the article without discussion. And such a dirty trick [8] isn't welcomed in Wikipedia. --Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My arguments are summerized as follows:

• The government bodies (the Japan Coast Guard and Nagasaki Prefecture) treat Tsushima as a single island.
• The Japanese term 対馬島 (administrative and uncommon term) refers to an island. Otherwise, geographers would apply 諸島, 群島, etc.

--Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what the Japanese think; I do not care about their error. So long as Tsushima appears to be two seperate islands on the map as of today, I do not care what they say, but rather the atlas. Mr Tan 04:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's is his own personal opinion and Wikipedia is not the place for original research, whereas the recognition of the island by the Japanese government is official and merits reference on any credible encycropedia. Hermeneus 05:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My research has its sources; and I have already stated all of them in my previous comment at [9].

I don't know the scope of "today" in your definition, but Tsushima had already had two canals in 1986. Of course, the authority of marine surveys was fully aware of them, and treated Tsushima as a single island. The same is true of the Geographical Survey Institute [10]. We don't have to take account of artificial waterways in the case of counting islands. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name change

When changing article names, could people make sure that they also change the text in accordance with the new title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is Islands, not Island, see [11]. I will go over and attend to it now.

Mr Tan 13:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Talk page was a mess, and wherever the reasons for moving the article were originally placed, I (and, I suspect, others) missed it. In any case, having given your reasons, it's best to wait until agreement is reached before moving the article. Now that the discussion is in the open, as it were, we can assess the grounds for moving or not moving.

Mr Tan's reasons for "Islands" are largely specious at best (on his argument, we should rename the Rhode Island article, as the atlas tells us that most of it isn't an island at all. Names don't necessarily describe (see also the Holy Roman Emperor who, it has been pointed out, was neither holy, Roman, nor an emperor). Also, the idea that it's irrelevant what Japan says about part of Japan is peculiar to say the least.

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., [12], [13], [14], [15]), The Japan Times, other relevant Wikipedia articles, Wikitravel, and many reputable Japanese and foreign sites (such as [16], [17]), 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)

"it's best to wait until agreement is reached before moving the article."

The general rule no one would object. But we deal with Mr Tan. Do you really think we will reach consensus? I've alreay presented what I needed to say, and Mr Tan only repeats himself. What's next?

And yes, there are not a few sources that adopt the plural. But as for "authoritativeness," they cannot compete with the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard and the Geographical Survey Institute.

Small islands around the Tsushima Island dropped out of the discussion in the very early stage. No doubt Tsushima-jima refers to the main island. In addition, most islands have islets around them, but there are many singular island articles in Wikipedia. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should stop the arbitrary selection of a default status. Your version is a product of Mr Tan's madness that is full of errors already pointed out here. Now that the talk page is arranged in accordance with the article, you should concretely specify your disagreements instead of abstract objections if you disagree. Everything is up to you. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, You reverted. Then, you proposed suspension of reverting. Good tactics. Baru 12:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an inadequately argued-for, and non-consensus change. I then suggested that people discuss the issue. If you have a problem with that, you might be in the wrong place. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seems to be too lazy and self-righteous to propose suspension. You said that change to island is inadequately argued-for. But, as far as I know, the only person who changed the title with no reason is you, Mel Etitis. And you declared "islands" is correct and change to "island" didn't get consensus. Who decide that "island" is wrong and "islands" get consensus? Are you the judge of wikipedia? Baru 12:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Your message is nonsensical, bearing little relation to reality, and is thus impossible to respond to sensibly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Langbox

We don't need Korean pronunciation table because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Officially, South Korea uses 쓰시마 (phonetic translation of Tsushima) instead of 대마도 (Sino-Korean reading). --Nanshu 06:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why the Japanese? What we want is the Korean name, not the Korean pronouncations! Even Dokdo has the table of names, which pronouncation is needed to be accompanied. Hangul is a script, not pronouncation! Tan, 14:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the name table according to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/name table. For your information (you seem to know nothing about the situation), Japan and South Korea use phonetic translation for each other's language. For example, South Korea calls Tokyo 도쿄도 instead of 동경 and Japan calls Busan プサン instead of ふざん. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name you stated above is a Korean translation of the Japanese name. What we want is the original Korean name, which would otherwise be written differently.

Tan 18:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean by "the original Korean name?" We don't need a Korean name for the Japanese place name because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. And if we don't need a Korean name table, we don't need that table since we decided not to put a Japanese-only table (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/name table). So I deleted it. --Nanshu 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think we need to put a hiragana Japanese name of the Korean Peninsula on its article since it also was a Japanese terriroty in the near past.

See the name table of Liancourt Rocks for yourself and try to analyse what I'm saying. Tsushima is another sensitive issue for Korean-Japanese disputes, after Liancourt Rocks. Both Japanese and Korean names should be there, Japanese first, then Korean, for Japan controls Tsushima. The reverse applies to Liancourt Rocks.

Tan 21:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Korean government is not pressing such a rudiculous claim on Tsushima unlike the Liancourt Rocks. Saintjust 10:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not forget that the Koreans have significantly contributed to Tsushima's history as well! So, since the Koreans have a great part in retrospect to the islands, I feel that the Korean name should be up, partly as a sign of honoring their contributions.

Tan 13:34, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

We're not in the business of honouring people, but of writing an encyclopædia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Korean name should be added for "Daemado" is widely known to the Koreans since time in memorial. I still could not understand Nanshu's resentements.

Mr Tan 11:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On May 30 2005, North Korea officially broadcasted that "Great Korean ancestors created the first missile system (military rocket)". It's clear that they didn't contribute to any progress about rocket. Then, Why should we not edit Rocket with Hangul? :P) Also, I hope to rewrite Texas, as Spain and Mexico contributed to Texas development so much. Why no Spanish writing?Poo-T 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we would take Mr Tan's logic, we have to add the Japanese and Chinese name of South Korea to the Korea page. Baru 20:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about the Karafuto on Sakhalin? The Japanese name is there despite the fact that Japan no longer claims Sakhalin! Mr Tan 07:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ypacarai's objections

I have noticed that he strongly opposed to have the Korean name: He says that no other country claims Tsushima besides Japan. But the Korean name is widely known to Koreans since ancient times, but he has been removing it. See his [[:User talk:Ypacara%ED|talk page]] for more details; but just because Koreans do not claim Tsushima as its territory in national level-scale does not amount to have it removed.

Mr Tan 04:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Korean name has been known to Koreans is irrelevant; the French name for England has been known to the French for centuries, but the article on England doesn't have a multilingual box. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case on England and France in retrospect to Korea and Japan to Tsushima is different. While the Koreans has a long-standing claim on the islands (intermittently), it would be relavant to add the Korean name than not to do so.

The French and English, is not so, even though I have heard that England conquered part of France, or France conquered part of England, the conquest, or claim, apply only apply to a small part of England or France. But when Korea conquered, or claimed the Tsushima, the claim, or occupation, include the entire island(s), partially to its smaller land area.

Mr Tan 11:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to jump in here, Tan, but those two references you tagged as Additonal Reading directly address this point at length - after repeated investigations by many parties, Japan's claim on the Islands goes back well before the 240s.

Those dates are rock solid as they are based on MULTIPLE references in the KOREAN court that document the Island in Japans possession and the historian commented on the clear lack of any counterclaim. There are further references that are unsupported by multiplicity even farther back, but I don't recollect a date, one may not have been given. Both the authors I cited address the matter, since the Tsushimas played an import role in the cultural ideas and peoples migration path into Japan. It is very clear that the small boat technology made voyaging risky, and that such traffic was sporadic and minimal. In general, the Chinese Culture came across at various stages, but it is also clear that Japan ruled the south of Korea for a time before that date. Historic records on both sides of the Korea strait refer to a Queen holding a big chunk of southern Korea and much of Southern Kyuso, but the verifiable historic record doesn't say a lot more... The next clear references are those in the 240s. I may have some of that jumbled, as I wasn't reading for a test, but the FIRM CLAIM in the 240s is something I'm posative I read and have right - I'd have to read about the Queen again if it matters. (And it seems it shouldn't - Japan ceded any claims on Korea 60 years ago.)

By Contrast, Englands claim to the French Throne date from the 1300s (iirc off the top of my head), and no credible authority would assert that England still claims Normandy.

In Sum, Any group today claiming Korean ownership pretty much has to be of the Wacko Fringe Variety, right up there in credibility with People claiming "They Saw ELVIS" (Presley) somewhere. (Elvis has suicided in the 1960s) Such people are not quite dangerous enough to be institutionalized, but not safe enough to be easy with as a neighbor either.

If you can't produce at least one credible historian asserting such a claim, you really have no legs to stand on and are wasting peoples time. If you like, I can cite page references, or scan the book pages and email them to you. As I wrote in my 'long' message yesterday, the best thing to do here is make the revert yourself. Fabartus 13:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot make out very clear what you are trying to say--but if I'm not mistaken, you must be refering to the fact that Koreans rarely placd Tsushima as part of its territory see this page--[18]. I cannot see where I said that Japan did not place Tsushima as its own territory before 240.

Do you mean the section "Further reading"? If you like, I can change back to "References", but changing the name is merely my taste, for I believe that this may encourage enthusiastic readers to buy the books, which in turn, may give some help to the article.

By the way, the Korean claims can be seen at the Japanese wikipedia [19]. Also, for the Korean claim by Syngman Rhee, (and other claims on Tsushima), please go to [20].

However, the people who first introduced the territorial claims facts are not by me. I did mention about the map case, and I have provided a link on this very article itself.

I would like to say that I cannot find any reason to why the Korean name should be removed (is that what you are refering to?) While the French has a transliteration of the English name, this applies that Tsushima has a transliteration in Korean, which is "쓰시마 섬". But the case of my added Korean name is different: I add "대마도", a translation of the Japanese "対馬島", also known by its Korean transliteration ""쓰시마 섬". Had the Korean name of Tsushima only had a transliteration, I would have not bothered to add it.

For the benefit of Mel Etits, you say that there is no need for the Korean name on Tsushima. Then how about the Portuguese name "Formosa" on Taiwan?

Furthermore, the Korean name was already in Tsushima long before I added the Hangul characters--see [21], [22]--the Revised Romanization of the Korean name was already there. What I added--the Hangul, Mccune Reischauher (Hanja was added by User:Jong) was a follow up from there. If anybody wants to have a removal, please ask both of them. I do feel that it is brings more harm than good--readers will have a disadvantage if they wonder if Tsushima has its own Korean name.

I apologise if part or all of the message content does not correspond to Mr Bartus' question, for I am a bit confused on what he is saying. I will be happy if he is willing to explain more clearly again. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the recent Korean claims on Tsushima in retrospect to your question "In Sum, Any group today claiming Korean ownership pretty much has to be of the Wacko Fringe Variety, right up there in credibility with People claiming "They Saw ELVIS" (Presley) somewhere. (Elvis has suicided in the 1960s) Such people are not quite dangerous enough to be institutionalized, but not safe enough to be easy with as a neighbor either. ", I would like to point out that there is one claim from the municipal council of Masan claim Tsushima to be Korea territory. Although technically it is not a "Wacko Fringe Variety", neither it is a officially recognized as "disputed", so it is in between. If you are looking for sources, I would suggest that you proceed to Ypacarai's talk page for links.

For the Syngman Rhee claim, I have already mentioned in my previous comment. Thanks.

Mr Tan 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Ypacarai

I think that adding the Korean name will be relavant; for Korea has a significant role in Tsushima's history. In contrast, please see Taiwan for example--the portugues name "Formosa" is stated there as well. (The historiical postition of the Portuguese in Taiwan is similar to the historical position of the Koreans in Tsushima) If you still have objections, see the section on top "Ypacarai's objections". Mr Tan 02:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that Ypacarai is behaving like User:Nanshu; he relentlessly removed the infobox without taking active participation in the case. I have already explained, and held out for a day, but he seems to be uninterested in responding, stating in his summary as "unnecessary infobox". To me, his summary is absolutely lame; for what his does is merely for his own taste which will subsequently disbenefit readers. Mr Tan 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sick to arguing with you. Well, another name of taiwan, formosa is named by a portugues saylor (or pilot) on a dutch ship. Did you really read that article? It says "The Portuguese made no attempt to colonize Taiwan." Do you see any stupid bilingual infobox there? Please notice that your claims are totally lame, not mine. --Ypacaraí 14:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment: I do not ignore people's questions or comments unless necessary, even though their comment may not be at all be comprehensible to me. And that is the way I communicated with Mr Bartus. Mr Tan 15:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The info box is merely for organization of the article structure. Also, I do not care the meaning of Formosa or Daemado as in Taiwan to Tsushima, so long it is not a transliteration of the same name. As I have pointed out, Tsushima in Korean is transliterated into 쓰시마 섬, and 대마도 is the translation Tsushima.

If you are still not satisfied, may be you should look at Sakhalin; the Japanese name Toyohara and the Chinese name are put up, even though they have not made any official territorial claims for a very long time. While the names are displayed on the page; they are even transliterated. So long any foreign people who play a significant role on a piece of foreign land, it is the norm to have the foreign language name put up. Mr Tan 15:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can I be satisfied with your childish argument? --Ypacaraí 10:26, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

I do not care whether my arguement is childish, or not. If the Korean name cannot be put up, just because Korea does not claim Tsushima at a national level; how about Sakhalin? The Japanese name "Karafuto" is stated on Sakhalin.

And like the Koreans in Tsushima, the Japanese have significantly contributed to Sakhalin historically. And your fuss over the Korean name Daemado is childish; I have so far not seen any objections on the Japanese name of Karafuto. And if you cannot even understand with the difference between 쓰시마 섬, and 대마도, ask a Korean. And if 대마도 had never existed, or not widely used by the Korean people, I would not even bother to put up the Korean name, and this applies to how the French call England. I do not care what Daemado or Tsushima means. Mr Tan 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. How long will you continue the fuss? Japan renounced the souther portion of Sakhalin but doesn't approve the Soviet's (and thus Russia's) sovereignty over it. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not care whether it has renounced its claims, or soverignity over Sakhalin. What I'm saying now is the Korean name on this article.

Take a step further: While the Japanese currently does not claim Sakhalin; the Japanese name Karafuto is on the article and there is no objections on the removal of the Japanese name. The same applies to Tsushima; South Korea currently does not claim Tsushima; so why is there resentement among you Japs on having the Korean name shown?

I want to make this point clear: The Japanese have historically contributed significantly to Sakhalin; and the Japanese name has its rightful place to be stated. The Koreans have historically contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name has its rightful place to be stated. Objections? Mr Tan 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In view of the fact that our Japanese clients do not have any more reason to counter-argue to why the bilingual infobox is "needless" within a time span of approximately one day, I shall reinstate the bilingual infobox. However, new objections are still strongly welcome to be posted. Mr Tan 03:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add comment here because your claims are nonsense and not worth discussing. Noone will agree your lame theories. --Ypacaraí

• I made no claims; comparison yes. The infoboxis merely for name comparison and its own historical sentimental purposes like Sakhalin and Karafuto. Mr Tan 07:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And your reverts are simply insensitve and insensible. If you want think that bilingual infobox is needless, it is mere sentimentalism. Why don't you do on Karafuto instead? The Japanese name is there, and Japan no longer claims it, and it is Russian territory. Or do you simply hate Koreans?

Also, you removed the copyedit and the move article templates, and this is vandalistic. Mr Tan 07:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why do you cling to me? Noone supports your bilingual infobox. Nanshu doesn't, Fabartus doesn't. Paste here links for articles on territories those got such bliningual infobox. Till then, I'll keep removing YOUR infobox. No other such article have bilingual infobox because there are no rules to add such bilingal infobox in an article of territory that's not under international territorial dispute. --Ypacaraí 08:37, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Sakhalin, Russia (formerly no infobox, but has Russian, Japanese and Chinese names). See its history before I edited: [23]
• Atlasov Island, Russia, Japanese name Oyakoba showed. Japanese did not claim Oyakoba also.
• Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (city), Japanese name Toyohara displayed. Japan does not contest to soverignity over Toyohara as well.

You notice that the name of the Island in three languages are there before I edited? Also, this article already had the Korean name in Tsushima province, before the content was shifted here!

And what's the harm in Sakhalin and Tsushima? Sakhalin is no longer contested by other countries (Japan), like Tsushima is no longer contested by South Korea! The infobox is for organization, and what we are concentrating is putting up names of the island in more than one language. Why? I did this (User:Kjrocker did that first in [24]). Hello, Like Sakhalin, Atlasov and Toyohara, It is also for highlighting the significance of historical reasons! Opininons? Mr Tan 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another admin removed your infobox. There, snap at him. I simply can't keep up with you and your lame logic. --Ypacaraí 11:14, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I have already explained why, but whether you are convinced or not I cannot do anything further than this on you. Mr Tan 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's "this"? reverting? Please don't do it. Ask user:SlimVirgin why she(he) removed your infobox. --Ypacaraí 12:36, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I have dropped her a message concerning this (and another seperate) issue, but whether she reply to it is up to her. If she remove it again, I won't do so immediately. And my previous edit is not revert, if you observe. Mr Tan 13:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained, and even dropped SlimVrgin a note, but she is not interested in this issue. You just couldn't seem to cooperate, and you are very stubborn to removing the infobox. Neither you can explain further, and you have been very stubborn here. The map you stated says "island", and this is not compatible with the current article which states it as "islands".

I am reverting your change, for your change is certainly vandalistic. Unless you do not revert anymore without good reasons, dispute resolutions may have to be taken against you.

And please note that Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger just by removing the infobox. Please don't do that any more. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ypacarai, I am telling you for the last time; what is the big deal about not having the infobox? Unless you have good reasons, it is already becoming vandalism. Please stop your insensitive removes. Mr Tan 16:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again. Japan doesn't approve Russia's sovereignty over Southern Sakhalin while all the coutries do approve Japan's sovereignty over Tsushima. The situation is completely different. --Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the following explanation which is to be put at the section of "Territorial claims" would suffice:

South Korean ultranationalists call Tsushima as Daemado (Sino-Korean reading) instead of Ssusima (transliteration from Japanese).

--Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You are partially wrong. During the Joseon dynasty and even before that, Tsushima was known as Daema-do. And I do not care whether it is Sino-Korean or what so ever, so long it is not a transliteration, it is a seperate name like Sakhalin and Karafuto. Who knows? The meaning of Karafuto could be the same as Sakhalin! Mr Tan 06:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you show proof that Japan does not approve Russia's soverignity on Sakhalin? If they do not recognise Russia's soverignity, they would have claimed Sakhalin. But they do, and Japanese maps show Sakhalin as Russian.

I understand your second point. However, I have mentioned that 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. Opinions? Mr Tan 04:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Korean historical impact on Tsushima is very significant, just like the Japanese on Sakhalin. See [25] for more information. Mr Tan 05:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Southern Sakhalin, see maps made by the Japanese government: [26][27]. Again, the situation is completely different.

And yet again, I put information on the term Daemado in the section of "Territorial claims". That suffices.

P.S. The langbox on Sakhalin should be deleted. Langboxes are used for chaotic Korean romanizations. Other languages in these boxes are only for the sake of NPOV. --Nanshu 07:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Today, Tsushima is part of Nagasaki prefecture of Japan.

The word Japan should be in one of the first two paragraphs. I shouldn't have to read half the article to known which country it belongs to if the word Nagasaki doesn't tell me. (Maybe there's a Nagasaki Korea for all I know.) 4.250.168.145 17:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the dawn of history, Tsusima islands has been part of Japan. --Ypacaraí 22:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I partially object. At least during the Joseon dynasty, Tsushima has been colonised by Korea. More evidenced is provided (in Korean) abot Baekje connections with Tsushima.

Tan 12:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Oei Invasion? Do you think how long the colonization lasted? --Ypacaraí

Yup. The So clan submitted to Korea, rather than to Japan, until the Seven-Year War by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. A hundred to two hundred years, I think.

Also the links that I have provided on Talk:Tsushima Islands#Baekje connections? Have a look. But I doubt if you could ever understand as they are in Korean. I cannot put up the Baekje paragraph for I was unable to translate it into English.

Tsushima was a dependency of Silla, and politically it may be controlled by Korea. [28]

Tan 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lords of So Clan often cheated both Korean and Japanese authorities in order to avoid war and keep profit from international trade. They sometimes acted as a subject of Joseon Dynasty, but at the same time they were subject of japanese ruler. --Ypacaraí 07:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I understand, but during that period, the main political power is vested in Korean, not Japanese hands.

Tan 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you kindly show me reliable source ? --Ypacaraí 11:19, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Ask User:Jong, for he maybe able to help, or follow these links (They are in Korean):

Geography

Strait

Echo of Korea BB Posting RFI

• I'm echoing here the request for info on Korea Vs Tsushima Strait I posted on The Korea BB -Click for Talk, as is geographical, some of which should also be in this arty. This from the Korea BB:
  • == Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified ==

• Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the Tsushima Strait article, I suspect because of the double use (and somewhat opposing usages) regarding the term Korea Strait. (My Bad, iirc). Without a definative resource, this should be let alone pending term clarification.
  • As I wrote Mr Tan this morning, the scope and exact meaning of that term needs researched and defined, and he is in a great seaport to research such in chandlers shops where current nautical charts are available. I'm sure we can count on him to clarify that, as well as get the relative breadths (widths) of each channel passing along the length of Tsushima Islands.
  • I have asked him also to run down what the north and south island are called as well, as historical references available to me are using clear references to both such as 'Opposite the southern Tsushima Island', etc.
  • A clear reference to Iki Island and their respective relative distances and bearings would also be desirable in the arty.
  • 'Needful' in this arty a few reference notes about the channel dividing the original monolithic island, with it's name and some reference (estimate) to the distance it saves on the the trip from the naval bases in the Inland Sea and destinations on the Korea Strait side of the Yellow Sea. 24.61.229.179 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've posted a request on the Korea Notice board directed here to see if another can research these as well. 15:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TBDL

Historical Adds

• TIP: Try Dictionary.com for quick checks.

I added to the arty a moment ago, splitting history and adding references for my changes viz political imperative behind splitting the island.

Someone like you User_Talk:Mr Tan or User_talk:Mel Etitis with an interest in the article proper should chase down the names for the south and north island. It boggles the mind that they aren't individually named by now. These are stubbed 'TBDL01' and 'TBDL02' (from "To Be Determined Later").

I didn't do any true copy editting yet, though I've been asked to... I just got here this morning as I was writing a note to User_talk:Mr Tan. (which is not finalized, being in another window!) Sigh - I guess it's the way of a Wiki. Fabartus 12:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

050616 Edits

• • I would suggest the TBDL be put up in the geography section in bracket form---tells people that the northern and southern islands have an alternative name. Post objections here. Thanks.

• Also, only the Iki and Tsushima Islands make up the Iki-Tsushima quasi National park, not the entire Nagasaki prefecture. Thanks.

Mr Tan 03:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• This from Tsushima Island history compare, My last to Current Versions:

Tsushima covers an area of 262 square kilometres, and has two main islands, which are divided by a deep sound, the Aso Bay (浅茅湾) and joined by a causeway. The two main islands are called Kamino-shima (North Island) and Shimono-shima (South Island), also known as TBDL01 and TBDL02 respectively.

• • What are the TBDL terms? Another Language? If so, did I GUESS correct about the N-S relationship?
  • You dropped the All part of the Nagasaki prefecture which needs to be asserted for the ALL THE ISLANDS - I put that in specifically because of references to Iki, but it is needed to logically tie in the smaller islets.
  • If you are going to leave an equivilents table, this one is certainly inadequate. All the geographical features (4 Mountains, two Main Islands, the Channel, et al. should logically be in such a table. I have no position on this other than if it's used, it should be used across the board for everything. In that case, the TBDL's I mentioned above need not and should not tag that sentence, but be relagated to the table. Or am I missing something - isn't the table a three way translation? English Mapped to Japanese mapped to Korean?
• After browsing some of the above, I really want to stay out of the language thing, but I spotted this:Fabartus 13:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean relagated to the table? I don't know, but I have no objections in whatever orientations you may use on the article concerning the TBDL code names. And it is you who first mentioned the TBDL thing. I found it useful, so I suggested to have it up, with TBDL01 for Kamino-shima, and TBDL02 for Shimno-shima. Thanks. Mr Tan 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and culture

I removed the following passage:

The present inhabitants of the islands are culturally and ethnically Japanese, speaking Japanese dialects. Contributing to intermarriages with the Koreans, the local inhabitants did share some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture, especially in the celebration of the Tsushima Arirang festival. [29][30]

We don't need a section of demographics on this article unless it contains population and other information. It isn't worth noting that Japanese people lived in an island of Japan!

I request Mr Tan to provide evidence of "intermarriages with the Koreans."

It can be evidenced in their language and culture. -User:Mr Tan

And we cannot demonstrate "some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture" with the "Tsushima Arirang festival" because it started in 1988 as a tourist attraction. --Nanshu 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and see this article from sashi: (I cannot provide the link)

The news article here was deleted. Thank you and sorry, but a full quote violates copyright. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article by rofessor Cho.

See what it says!Tan 14:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that article, but what's your point? I found nothing worth noting at this encyclopedia article that can be deduced from it. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? --Nanshu 04:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's slightly laughable to assume that no intermarriages exist on the island. After all, Japanese/Korean intermarriages have been taking place for hundreds of years. Heck, probably all Japanese have at least one Korean ancestor (and vice-versa). --Zonath 07:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• it is recent intermarriages among the people. Tan 15:50, Apr 17 2005 (UTC)

An individual case proves nothing. If you believe the intermarriage rate in Tsushima is significantly highter than in the rest of Japan, you need a stat that prove your belief. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, you need a stat. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, did you withdraw your strange opinion about the Tsushima Arirang festival? --Nanshu 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, you are playing Chinese whispers. The last message you wrote doesn't resemble to the original one. Why don't you examine original sources? In this case, here are the official sites of these festivals. [31] and [32]. By browsing them, you can grasp the true nature of these new festivals. --Nanshu 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was corrected by Mel Etitis, I think. It is true indeed, that Korean influence is stong in Tsushima. Also, the passage I gave which you deleted also mentions the Chingu festival. I cannot read Japanese, I'm afraid, for I'm an ethnic Chinese.

Tan 11:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

So you are talking about things you don't know. It means nothing but a nuisance. --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan gave me information on this description (please see my talk page) and I understood. I changed his description a bit from an objective point of view. --Corruptresearcher 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic influence?

Mr Tan, you have to prove linguistic influence from Korean that is worth nothing in the article. A single word doesn't sufficient. Actually, you can find a couple of Korean terms in Japanese slangs (mostly dirty words) such as パチギ (박치기) and タンベ (담배). --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For the Tsushima dialect, see:

• Horii Reiji 堀井令以知, Tsushima hōgen 1950 nen no chōsa kenkyū 対馬方言1950年の調査研究, Kansai Gaikokugo daigaku kenkyū ronshū 関西外国語大学研究論集 No.73, pp. 171-187, Feb. 2001.

We can conclude that compared to its geographic closeness, the influence of the Korean language over the Tsushima dialect is veri little. We can only find a couple of words of Korean origin.

For Korean influence, see:

• Ogura Shimpei 小倉進平, Kokugo tokuni Tsushima hōgen ni oyoboshitaru Chōsen goi no eikyō 国語特に対馬方言に及ぼしたる朝鮮語彙の影響, Hōgen 方言 Vol.2, 1932.

But Ogura's work mainly focused on historical translation materials such as 捷解新語 and 交隣須知. --Nanshu 02:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Check Korean resources. Little is not the same as none. The Tsushima dialect has features similar to Korean as well, not necessarily the vocabulary.

User:Mr Tan\Tan 21:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to prove that. --Nanshu 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have edited what you say---at demographics and culture.Mr Tan 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion

This needs fact check.

Buddhism is the most widely followed religion, although Shintoism and Korean Shamanism have some following among the local people. Of late, one can also find a small Christian community made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.

--Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There is also a small Christian community, made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.

I don't know whether this is correct, but it's not worth nothing here because the demographic ratio of Korean is only 0.124%. --Nanshu 01:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Korean signs

Around the islands one can also see Korean signs in addition to the Japanese signs, mainly to assist Koreans visiting the Tsushima Islands.

This isn't worth nothing. Fortunately or unfortunately, we can find Korean signs along with English and Chinese (Mandarin in simplified Chinese) in most tourist sites. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw pictures of signposts of Tsushima on the net. Go and see for yourself.

Tan 00:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, you don't understand the point. This is "Demographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) By the way, "I saw something on ňDemographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) By the way, "I saw something on the net somewhere" means nothing.

Check external links first. Mr Tan 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aritayaki

Mr Tan, you are really hopeless. You know nothing about this topic and stubbornly insert to the article craps, the product of your mistaken interpretation of fragmentary information and your imagination. You edited this article even though you didn't know what "Tsushima Province" was. This time, you are talking about Aritayaki without knowing what it is.

What's Aritayaki? Aritayaki is a type of pottery made in Arita. So where is Arita? Is it located in Tsushima? No. It is in Saga Prefecture (as explicitly stated in Cho's article). Cho's article [33] consists of three parts. He talks about Tsushima in the first part, then shifts his focus to northern Kyushu, and put a conclusion. What you referred to has nothing to do with Tsushima! --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologise then, for my misunderstandings. But take note, (for Mel)

Together with Iki Province they make up the Iki–Tsushima Quasi-National Park.

The province no longer exists, what it pertains to is the island itself!

Tan 21:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this case revealed fundamental problems on Mr Tan's edits in addition to his low reading ability. I said above, "To write an article, we need a ten times larger amount of knowledge in background. But Mr Tan's knowledge is less than half and he fills the gap with his good imagination." He demonstrated it! He used a single source and put an illusion that wasn't based on that source.

We should check multiple sources to write an article. If he had done, he wouldn't have made such a silly mistake. I didn't think I need to say this, but Mr Tan seems to have a different policy.

Quote from his version of the article:

Of late, the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists.

Then read Cho's article. Does he say, "the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists"? No. He doesn't associate Aritayaki with tourists at all! This means Mr Tan's statement isn't based on his source (aside from Mr Tan's misunderstanding about Aritayaki).

I think these problems are fundamental. Unless he change his editing approach, he will repeat such absurd remarks. --Nanshu 06:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

I have removed the transportation section; for it makes no mention of the transportation neither in Tsushima, Nagasaki nor in this article. Unless a short paragraph is mentioned concerning the transportation system, I would suggest that it will be removed. Mr Tan 02:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economy

Tsushima's economy is largely dependent on fishery and agriculture, although in recent years tourism has also been a supplement to the islands' economy.

I removed the economy section because it seems to run counter to the truth. [34] --Nanshu 07:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct it then, please. Or at least help me translate what the webpage is saying (I understand little Japanese)

Tan 21:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Done..There goes the proper ammendments at Tsushima Islands#Economy/

Tan 19:14, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

History

Early history

Sanguozhi

According to the Wei chronicles (魏書), Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C, later setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.

The source isn't the Weishu. Mr Tan mixed it up with 三國志 魏書. See 三國志 魏書 倭:

始度一海，千餘里至對馬國．其大官曰卑狗，副曰卑奴母離．所居絕島，方可四百餘里，土地山險，多深林，道路如禽鹿徑．有千餘戶，無良田，食海物自活，乖船南北巿糴．

We cannot confirm from this souce "Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C." --Nanshu

Go and see [35]-User:Mr Tan

I saw that. So what's your point? --Nanshu 04:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you still mixed up things. (I'm here not to lecture you but to create an encyclopedia!) Sanguo Zhi and the Wei chronicles that you mentioned are the same book. If unspecified, 魏書 refers to a history book, not a volume of Sanguozhi. (Or can you find the corresponding passage from 魏書? [36]) --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Mr Tan's version still claims, "Archeological evidence suggests that Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan from the Jomon period to the Kofun period." Cite your sources. --Nanshu 07:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsuikai kingdom?

According to the Sanguo Zhi, there were 1,000 families in Tsushima, setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.

The terms of 對馬 and 對海 depend on extant manuscripts of Sanguozhi.

But where was the pseudo-Japanese pronunciation of Tsuikai taken from?

Also, why did you translate 國 as kingdom? Sanguozhi only states:

其大官日卑狗 [*piko]、副日卑奴母離 [*pinamori]

Obviously they correspond to Japanese hiko 彦 and hinamori 鄙守. Adn these terms indicate that Tsushima was under the control of 邪馬台国. --Nanshu 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.K. I'll give another lecture.

It is always difficult to reconstruct non-Chinese terms from Chinese characters because their phonetic value vary by region and time. But even if you use modern Japanese pronunciation for convenience, the phonetic velue of 對海 should be Taikai, not Tsuikai. (again, the terms of 對馬 and 對海 depend on extant manuscripts of Sanguozhi, so we have no problem with "對馬") The principle for handling Chinese words in Japanese is to apply 漢音 unless 呉音 or conventional readings are established. The sound value of tsui is conventional, and as far as I know, is used only for tsuiku 対句, ittsui 一対, nitsui 二対, etc.

FYI, examine the original phonetic value of 對馬. It needs careful study as amateurish methods for historical linguistics are a hotbet of tondemo. So don't take my word seriously. The problem in correspondence of 対馬 with つしま is the pronunciation of 対. (馬 is, and was, pronunced ma, or its consontal ending was considerably wakened if there was.) In Nara-period Japanese, つしま was probably pronunced *tutʃima or *tudʒima. In the meanwhile, the Chinese reading of 對 of the day is controvertial as it is 去声. According to a traditional theory, it had consonantal ending -d. An alternate theory says that 去声 had a extra contonant in addition to that of 入声, most likely -s. So the value of 対 would be *tVd or *tVts (V=vowel). They looks much closer to つしま than that in Middle Chinese (something like tu∂i-ma). --Nanshu 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think that this may be the answer to ypur pending questions [37].

Tan 00:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Baekje?

Since the early 7th century, Japan has claimed Tsushima as her province under the name of the Tsushima province, as the Koreans rarely placed Tsushima as part of Korean territory prior to the Joseon Dynasty. However, some of the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of the fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century.

I request Mr Tan to bring primary sources that record Korea's claiming Tsushima prior to the Joseon Dynasty. Also, provide evidence that prove "the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of the fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century." (Who believes this?) --Nanshu 07:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not gurantee, it is just believed. Also, the royals fled to Japan, the nearest spot that they would land is Tsushima, which is near Korea, right?

They might have passed through Tsushima. So what? --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can see that Baekje fell during the 7th century. Also, this news stated that Silla controled Tsushima [38]- User:Mr Tan

Huh? Do you really think a 20th century book have any historical value? I have no time to lecture you on the art of historical deduction! --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone can believe everything. If you want it to be included in an encyclopedia, you have to present sufficient envidence. BTW who believe that? --Nanshu 04:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote from the edit of Mr Tan 20:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, Baekje subjects could have colonized the island while some stopover in Tsushima, as evidenced in the fact that Baekje subjects fled to Japan upon the fall of Baekje. You should also not remove Silla, but the history of Tsushima conflicts between Korea and Japan, as evidenced in the fact that Syngman Rhee claimed Tsushima in 1950 touting to its relations with various kingdoms of Korea.

Again, 19th and 20the century sources are of no value as historical sources. Your claim is unsubstantial and thus is to be removed from the article unless you cite your primary sources such as Samguk Sagi and Shoku Nihongi. --Nanshu 03:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Tsushima Islands#Baekje connections? for yourself.

Tan, 00:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Refugees at Tsushima caused by the downfall of the Baekje

After the downfall of the Baekje, many refugees came to Japan actually and can be seen in Japanese history books, such as Nihonshoki. It recorded as follows:

• 664: Prince of Baekje was settled at Naniwa (currently in Osaka Prefecture).
• 665: About 400 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province (current Shiga Prefecture).
• 666: About 2,000 refugees from Baekje were settled at the eastern part of the mainland.
• 669: About 700 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province

However, no settlement at Tsushima could be found in record. If there was significant settlement, such as hundreds of refugees, it must be recorded in the same way as above mentioned. The Baekje was an important ally of Japan so the refugees were treated politely and they do not need to stay such a small and remote island. If someone wants to insist that there were refugees at Tsushima, please show us the source. An original analysis is not welcome. --Corruptresearcher 04:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Baekje connections?

Concerning about the paragraph that I have typed, (During the downfall of the Baekje kingdom, many fled to Japan, and it is believed that many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century.) it is actually an inference from the paragraph (Some of the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century.) from the article of Tsushima province, and for a time the content of Tsushima province was shared with Tsushima Islands, after my decision to move the page. However, if you notice from the history of Tsushima province, the paragraph was originally typed by User:Kjrocker, not by me. Under pressure from User:Mel Etitis, I had to further elaborate on my points.

Anyway, for your information, I have found Korean resources concerning on Tsushima-Baekje connections. Have a look at these links.

1. http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?f=j_s&n=200407220321 2 .http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/source/ka-3.htm 3. http://www.sgt.co.kr/Service5/ShellView.asp?TreeID=1052&DataID=200504081855000333 4. http://www.naeil.com/weeklynaeil/naeil/news/327/32728.htm 5. http://www.dapsa.co.kr/?menu=daemado 6. http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062901/K=%EB%8C%80%EB%A7%88%EB%8F%84+%EB%B0%B1%EC%A0%9C/v=2/SID=w/l=CP/SIG=1206odudo/EXP=1116579076/*-http%3A//kr.blog.yahoo.com/suby911/959326.html 7. http://www.megapass.co.kr/~hsg1000/a190d-1.htm

Tan 19:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand Korean so would you please point out the very text which describe about the historical evidence of Baekje refgees at Tsushima and also please summarize it in English as I did from Nihonshoki? Thank you in advance. --Corruptresearcher 11:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked User:Kjrocker's edit [39] just now. His expression was not favorable for Wikipedia because he did not mention "who believes", as your expression in Tsushima Islands. This is one of the reasons why his expression was deleted, I believe. If you want to mention about the Tsushima-Baekje connection in the article, you should make clear 5W1H for it. --Corruptresearcher 11:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I afraid that I could understand little Korean, and all I understood was that Tsushima Baekje did have some sort of connections. I would recommend if you can find a Korean and help me in translating some of the content concerning about Baekje, so that I can understand better what they are saying about.

Also, I have already elaborated on the point of Baekje in my paragraph that I have typed and show you just now. I hope that you no objections about having it back up again.

Tan 20:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have objections on your expression. I cannot understand why can you discuss this issue without knowledge of Japanese nor Korean. I was supprised that you could understand only little Korean. Why did you show us Korean source then? How did you understand the Baekje refgees at Tsushima is true? Now I am understanding why everyone wants to block you. If you do not change your stance, I will support to block you. --Corruptresearcher 13:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Specific problems include what is meant by "downfall", and who it is that believes "many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century" — the vague passive is, as has been repeated ad nauseam not good enough. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You have shown mistakes in your statement that I do not know Japanese. To be honest, I can understand a smattering of Japanese and Korean, having the ability to comprehend a passage roughly, but not amounting to translations. I found the sources (partially by coincidence) by typing the Korean words "Baekje" and "Daemado" getting them in cached versions, and seek for these two phrases that coincides in the same page.

Anyway, in the donga page, I think that the following

• 대마도의 원주인은 백제계 유민?

리아스식 해안으로 둘러싸여 호수처럼 잔잔한 아사우(淺海)만은 요즘 한일 양국의 프로 낚시꾼들이 즐겨 찾는 유명한 낚시터이지만 오랜 기간 왜구의 소굴이었던 천혜의 요새다. 조선 태종 때 이종무 장군도 아사우만 일대에 한 달간 머물며 왜구를 소탕했다.

이 일대에는 667년에 백제 유민들이 나당연합군의 침공에 대비해 쌓은 백제식 산성인 ‘가나다노기’(金田城)가 있다. 백제와의 인연은 13세기 중엽까지 대마도를 지배했던 ‘아비류’(阿比留)씨 가문의 혈통에서도 더듬어볼 수 있다. ‘아비류’는 ‘아사달’ ‘아직기’ ‘아사녀’ ‘비류백제’ 등과 어원이 같은 백제 계통의 성씨인 것으로 추측되기 때문이다.

gives the answer to the Baekje connections. Meanwhile, (either you or me), seek help from a Korean wikipedian who is able to translate this text into English so that I can incoporate more content into the history section. In the meantime, I will not put it up again, until we find a translator.

Tan 00:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, can you please explain about your reverts? While you are reverting at the expense of reverting the good ones (I'm sure you can spot it out), I am begining to suspect that your reverts are caused by sentimental factors against me. If you can prove where I'm wrong, then show me at least one or two mistakes here. Otherwise, I see no reason in your mysterious reverts.

Tan 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because, as usual, you made a mess of the English. The very first edit was: "It was witnessed that Tsushima experiences an aging population." What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Well, aside from the peculiar passive, I imagine that you meant something like: "Tsushima has an aging population" — but the passive is the real problem.

You then deleted the section on Economics, and made a change from "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the". Leaving aside the spelling mistake, what was the point of this?

I've reinstated the two edits that seemd reasonable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, you told by yourself that you do not understand Japanese in the previous discussion. If now you say you can, it's OK. Anyway, please read history books, not the articles on the massmedia. I read the article on donga.com through a translation site. There were only guesses without evidence and a name of the researcher who proposed it. I know Korean massmedia is now proposing such groundless inference. I believe we should not edit Wikipedia based on the articles on massmedia because it always makes mistake (Japanese massmedia also do so). Imagin the Wikipedia article which include many expressions such as "Korean massmedia believes..." or "Japanese massmedia insists...". It is very awful. --Corruptresearcher 22:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Corruptresearcher:

I do not have any history books containing information saying anything about Tsushima, irrespective whether they are stating the history in the Korean or Japanese POV.

Can you please tell me the translator site you used to read the page (or using translation through other means)? If there is, does the translator you use has the Korean-English/Chinese feature?

It seems that you are too lazy to read the other links that I have provided. The donga page is not the only one stating the Baekje connections. See for yourself in [40], a tourism page talking about Daemado/Tsushima. I have also found the relavant excerpt to the answer:

金田成(금전성:가네다 죠) 한반도의 남부지방이 바라다 보이는 아소만(淺　灣)위 城山(죠우아마)에 위치한 한국식 상성. 663년 白江(하꾸우스키노애)전투를 끝으로 백제 부흥운동은 실패하고 백·왜 연합군과 유민들은일본열도로 건너갔다. 그러나 전쟁의 성격이 동아지중해 국제전적 성격 을 띄고 있었고, 이미 전쟁수행능력, 즉 해양능력이 성장하여 일본

열도는 나당연합군의 침입에 대비하여야 했다. 따라서 4년부터 방어체제 구축에 들어갔는데, 664년에 대마도·일기도 등에 防人(앞에서 지키는 전위부대)를 두는 등 방어체제를 구축하였다. 그리고 65년에는 큐슈에, 667년에는 대마도 金田成,나라의 高安城(다끼야스죠우)등을 쌓았다. 한국식 산성을 쌓은 사람들은 장군 憶禮福留등 백제 유민들이다. 일본열도내의 한국식 산성들은 당시 유민들의 주도하에 축성된 것이다.

To Mel:

It seems that your "blunt" wits have made people getting irritated, I'm afraid. I won't mind having the old and aging population.. sentence omitted, for it seems very strange to me as well. Anyway, I'm just trying to incoporate content from Nanshu's [41] partially having the reason to please him.

Dear Professor, I'm extremely astonished that you do not consider this as an English mistake, and that maybe partially the factor for your chronic everts on Zanskar. Do you realise, that "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the" is merely not only improving the English in the sense that using flowery and dynamic words will enhance the mood of the article, but also the way of expression so as not to confuse people? If you say made it part of, can incoporation of a foreign land into another country's land be said made it part of? The meaning may almost be the same, but if you say made it part of, it is a form of expression that can only be used for colloquial daily life expressions. In the case of political factors, acrolectal english should be used instead.

Neither do I see any fault with having an economy section. Like the Liancourt Rocks section, Tsushima should also have an economy section, even it meant to be short. I will not tolerate on holding back on any objecions.

Tan 11:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Nanshu's statement

I read the pages you listed, but I cannot find evidences that support your claim:

During the downfall of the Baekje kingdom, many fled to Japan, and it is believed that many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century.

Cite primary sources such as Nihonshoki, Shoku Nihongi and Samguk Sagi. It is the best and easiest way to ground your claims. --Nanshu 06:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Mr Tan tries to mix things up with the vague term "connection". I demand evidences that support Baekje people

1. found refuge in Tsushima,
2. exerting political control over the island

during the late 7th century. --Nanshu 06:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I explain your false logic about Kaneda Castle.

Quote from 日本書紀卷第二十七 天智天皇六年

是月[十一月]、築倭國高安城・讃岐國山田郡屋嶋城・對馬國金田城。

This is all we can find in literature. Archeological research suggests that it is classified into what archeologists call 朝鮮式山城 (see Mizuno Seiichi 水野清一, etc: Tsushima--Genkai ni okeru zettō, Tsushima no kōkogaku teki chōsa 対馬 : 玄海における絶島,対馬の考古学的調査, Tōa Kōko Gakkai 東亜考古学会, 1953), but we cannot determine from historical sources who constructed this castle.

The article you cited misunderstands about 憶禮福留. Quote from 日本書紀卷第二十七 天智天皇三年

秋八月、遣達率答[火本]春初、築城於長門國。遣憶禮福留・達率四比福夫於筑紫國、築大野及椽二城。

He was sent to construct Ōno and Kii Castles. We can find no relationship between Kaneda Castle and him.

It seems that you misunderstand that they

• came directly from Baekje, and
• resided there.

By whom and from where were they sent [遣]? The imperial court of Japan sent them possibly from the capital region. And they seems to get back after their duty. Nihonshoki proves that 答[火本]春初 stayed in the court in 天智十年 (671). --Nanshu 06:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

References

Request for Comment on Section Title

• Request for Comment:
  • This morning I added two book references under Reference Heading, since changed to Additonal Reading.
  • The update/add that I did was on the socio-political background of the recent history of the Islands. Which Heading is more appropo - my references do indeed NOT deal with Tsushima specifically, BUT DO deal with the political-economic climate at the time in chapter length detail.
  • At this time, I also acted boldly and changed the Heading from Apologies, which is of NARROW UTILITY Fabartus 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General topics

Major edits

Please everyone, given the problems on this article, could you discuss major edits before making them? Nanshu, deleting the infobox, and changing the summary definitely come into that category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Abandon the ignore-comments-not-placed-at-the-bottom policy and see Talk:Tsushima Island#Large-scale edit. --Nanshu 10:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is simple good manners to place your reasons for edits where people can see them, and not to expect other editors to trawl through a long and often convoluted Talk page in order to find the places where you argued for the different bits of your position. When I did follow your link, in fact, I discovered only a set of further links to other places, and some un-Wikipedia comments about me not editing articles on subjects in which I'm not expert. It's not necessary to be expert ina subject in order to understand Wikipedia policy and to see when it's not being complied with. If you don't think that your edits are important enough to warrant you making the effort to place your arguments for them here so that they can be assessed by your fellow editors, then why should we consider them important enough to stay? I'm not convinced by those arguments you've given, especially as some of them involve waving your hand vaguely at documents in Japanese which you can't be bothered to translate.

Note, incidentally, that you can't justify a unilateral edit on the basis of an MoS Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessary to be expert ina subject in order to understand Wikipedia policy and to see when it's not being complied with.

Huh? Wikipedia policy? What are you talking about? I said we have to have minimum necessary knowledge about the topic to join discussion. We are not expected to teach ABC.

Now, as I made clear references to current issues, you cannot excuse yourself for reverts without discussion.

P.S. I always welcome your comments on my remarks, but unless you specify the part you question, they are just personal attacks against me. --Nanshu 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

How to discuss

I spent more than two years in English Wikipedia, but I've never seen such a dishonest guy as Mel Etitis. He archived discussions in which the last comment was added just ten minutes before! It is clear that by my repeated notices he knew that discussions are in progress there. (otherwise he cannot handle MediaWiki properly. So I recommend him to desysop himself.) This means that he intentionally tried to force out discussions that are not presented as he like.

I don't see why he is so reluctant to admit this theme goes beyond his ability. Whitewashing my comments may be the only way to avoid to have his pride hurt. --Nanshu 05:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

What kind of gibberish is this?

"Tsushima experiences an aging population."

How in the world can this be a proper sentence? JMBell° 10:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."
2. I didn't notice that someone had added a comment to a long-dead discussion. My experience is that such comments are rarely noticed by anyone. Still, I apologise for my error; anyone who thinks that a discussion was wrongly archived is at liberty to bring it back; that would be more useful than using it as an excuse to attack a fellow editor. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the article

I see that the article is now filled with what's little more than gibberish. The very first sentence: "The Tsushima Island (対馬島 Tsushima-tō, or simply called Tsushima) is a island lying in the Tsushima Strait, between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula." has at least three obvious grammatical mistakes, not to mention the fact that it contradicts the article's title. I don't see any way round this but to revert the whole thing and ask people to make their edits collaboratively. I and others have spent considerable time copyediting this article, and taking it from poor to decent English. Although Mr Tan is the main culprit, Nanshu seems to have adopted his approach. I've just about given up on the former, but if the latter would calm down, perhaps we could improve the article collaboratively, instead of insisting on this edit-war approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Begun, the Edit War has." - Wikimaster Yedit

Honestly, I don't see the point in unleashing all your annoyance on your co-editors when that will only lead to an uncooperative atmosphere. I've said this before, and I don't want to say it again - Mel and Nanshu, put your personal arguments aside and don't find fault with the other's work or we will NEVER get finished!!! JMBell° 15:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what that was about. My comments had nothing to do with a personal disagreement, but arose purely out of the sudden transformation of a reasonably clear article in correct English to an almighty mess, with broken syntax, internal contradictions, etc. If anything, my comments concerning Nanshu offered the hand of collaboration instead of indivdualistic edit-warring. I still hope that Nanshu will stop personally attacking me (as he has done in a number of places, accusing me of dishonesty, etc.), and start co-operating on editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Nanshu has also been removing relavant information, despite the fact that this particular talk page has most, if not all, the answers to his quests. Even the sources are stated. Hopefully he will not revert anymore into the original old state. Nanshu, I will access the questions to you later.

Tan 00:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My Edits

I do not understand why Prof. Mel Etitis has

• Reinstating
  • The blog that Ypacarai removed (added by an annoyomous user)which has no relation to the Tsushima Islands topic
  • The name of the strait: Korea or Tsushima? I feel that Korea, rather than Tsushima, is better. Since the Tsushima Islands are stuck between the Western and Eastern Channel (also known as Tsushima Strait, Korea strait should be the appropriate name used, unless you mean to say that even the Western channel, which the northern part of Tsushima faces to, is also known as Tsushima strait.
  • After explaining the grammatical errors in Talk:Tsushima Island#Baekje connections? Mel Etitis still persistently reverted the edits, without giving any reasons in the first place why this is bad, good, etc

Tan 19:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The blog was tucked into a string of edits; when the page is unprotected, we can remove it if necessary.
2. Your musings on the name of the strait sound like personal research again; do you have a reputable and neutral source that supports your contention?
3. Your 'explanation' of the problems was disputed by more than one editor, and your final comments were incomprehensible in places, contained a personal attack, made a number of claims about English style that don't stand scrutiny, repeated and re-repeated the misspelling of "incorporated", and included your usual arrogant statements of what you would or would not tolerate:

   "To Mel:

1. "It seems that your "blunt" wits have made people getting irritated, I'm afraid. I won't mind having the old and aging population.. sentence omitted, for it seems very strange to me as well. Anyway, I'm just trying to incoporate content from Nanshu's [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsushima_Islands&oldid=14017622) partially having the reason to please him.

1. "Dear Professor, I'm extremely astonished that you do not consider this as an English mistake, and that maybe partially the factor for your chronic everts on Zanskar. Do you realise, that "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the" is merely not only improving the English in the sense that using flowery and dynamic words will enhance the mood of the article, but also the way of expression so as not to confuse people? If you say made it part of, can incoporation of a foreign land into another country's land be said made it part of? The meaning may almost be the same, but if you say made it part of, it is a form of expression that can only be used for colloquial daily life expressions. In the case of political factors, acrolectal english should be used instead.

1. "Neither do I see any fault with having an economy section. Like the Liancourt Rocks section, Tsushima should also have an economy section, even it meant to be short. I will not tolerate on holding back on any objecions."

1. I rest my case. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Which blog are you refering to?
2. For the Tsushima/Korea strait naming, I could only suggest an atlas for proof. Or better, check a few atlas, rather than a single one.
3. What do you don't comprehend? Where is the personal attack you are refering to? Tell me where.

There is little problem with my english styling. I have explained on the above text that you have cut and pasted. If you insist on where is my problem, tell me further. If you also insist incorporated is wrong, what is the correct spelling?

Tan 13:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Page Protected

Edit-warring is not good, ok? Cool down, take a walk in the park, sort yourselves out first, and look up editing 101. Then come back and do it right. :-) Kim Bruning 11:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources with brief info

[42] [43] [44] [45]

Sources with a lot of info

[46] [47]

Tan 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, hey, I can't read those written with Hangul at all. Even though I can see any of them are not reliable. those are only personal webpages.--Ypacaraí 11:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

No, they are news websites, not personal websites! News reports are often true, as they are reported from reliable historians who have done proper research. You can trust them, especially the donga-ilbo, for it is the name of a widely accepted newspaper, or newsletter in Korea. Too bad if you can't read them; I've provided to the best that I could. Tan 21:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"News reports are often true", therefore "You can trust them"? Even if this were good reasoning (which it clearly isn't), newspaper reports often get things right, but at least as often they get things wrong. In matters of fact, they oversimplify and often misunderstand detailed and careful research, and politicall they're often biased one way or another. The idea that an encylopædia should get its information from a newspaper rather than vice versa is astonishing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This also applies to some history books, even archaic ones as well! Yes, we can trust news reports written by newspaper organizations that are widely accepted, not any tom-tick-n-harry newspaper organizations. If you are so peculiar even about the content of widely accepted news reports, I doubt that you can even trust old history books; for news reports (though occasionally is biased to some extent) contain updated facts; old history books like Samguk Sagi may also be biased, say, if the person hides the terible secret of a certain emperor and thus omit the atrocitis that he has done? Thus news reports accepted by a large number should be accepted as well; in addition to the outdated researches of old history books. Tan 8:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I'd like to interject here (belatedly as I work through the history of this issue on June 18) we are working on an encyclopedia -- Web sources should be used to generate general research directions, not as definitive sources. Published sources with high editorial standards (not newscycle driven needs) like professional journals, official governmental sites of archieved PREVIOUSLY PRINTED materials, and books are reasonably good sources. Web sources are virtually all suspect, excepting again, those dupicating archieval materials like universitys posting said materials. It doesn't take a lot of extra time to follow up leads in a good library, but it is NECESSARY to proper scholarship and writing. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]]

Yes I may trust BBC or Reuters about such far east int'l problem, but never korean newspapers nor their websites. --Ypacaraí 01:36, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

You are too calculative. BBC or Reuters will rarely write reports on topics which concerns about minor geographical islands like Tsushima, for they consider it as too insignificant. If you say that you can not trust widely-accepted Korean sources, are you trying to say that Koreans cannot trust your Japanese news reports? To me, Asahi and donga are good enough; and many of my sources come from there. Your Japanese sources may be biased to the Japanese side; while Korean sources will be biased to the Korean side. If we accept information from both sides, the biasness can be moderated. If you are too calculative, you will achieve nothing; this is a piece of advise. Furthermore, many sources state about the Oei Invasion, not just one. Tan 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so suspicious, Mr Tan. I did refer BBC and Reuters just as examples of reliable media and didn't intent to say you must search on those for backups of your opinion. Generally media of the countries concerned the dispute aren't reliable. So those korean news websites can't be reliable. --Ypacaraí 10:48, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• So long a considerable amount of websites support this claim is allright; but I'm afraid that BBC and Reuters provide little sources on Tsushima, as I have tried and searched throughly. I did not get the information from a single source; in fact, I got it from many sites. For Yi Jong Mu, see the Oei Invasion (But it seems to be written according to the Japanese POV). Anyway, just open up your mind and tally with Korean and Japanese sources, so long you know that they do not say anything that Tsushima is Korean territory--then this is unreliable. If they are merely providing information, it is good enough to be trusted. Otherwise we will have very information on Tsushima if we constrict ourselves to tightly---just follow the guideline that Korean article says nothing that Tsushima belongs to South Korea will do.

After all, see the Liancourt Rocks as a matter of comparison--which side to believe? Tally the news sources of Takeshima/Dokdo with Japanese, American (and other neutral countries) and Korea. The difference in terms of historical info is not very different in terms of description.Tan 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What is "Yi Jong Mu"? Name of korean person? However many source from korea may support your oppinion, they belong the country directry concerned the dispute. So in this case number of source doesn't matter. Please understand. About Liancourt Rocks, Japanese government proposed to commit the problem to Internacional Court of Justice but Korean government refused. Why? They know that They have no chance to win.--Ypacaraí 14:16, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Yi Jong-mu is a Korean general. I would not care about your complains, for you, a Japanese, seems to be very biased towards the Japanese POV. I'm not Korean, I'm Singaporean. In fact, how do you know that Korea will lose in the ICJ (International Court of Justice) on Takeshima? In fact, I'm confused about the background of Takeshima, for Korean and Japanese sources say different things, but it is up to your own judgement to neutralise the dispute by fusing the information from both sides, and this is what I'm trying to do on Tsushima. To me, any sources that are accepted by many, irrespective whether it is Donga (Korean), or Asahi (Japanese), I accept both.

Since you so peculiar about Korean sources, can Japanese sources be trusted, for like Tsushima Islands, Takeshima has Japanese sources? Are they reliable then? Please answer me. I"ll rest my case.Tan 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

When did I say japanese media are reliable? Never. I'm telling you your claim about tsushima is nonsense and requesting to show me reliable sources. Also we are discussing about Tsushima and not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks Btw if you aren't a korean, why do you understand and refer korean media?.

After all, I participated and voted in the dispute on title of the article but never claimed about belonging of the islands. --Ypacaraí

Get to the point here. Any sources, irrespective of Korean or Japanese sorces (so long they are widely accepted), are reliable enough. The sources above are reliable enough. Can't you understand? Check out Japanese sources as well on Tsushima. I have already told you that western media rarely gave information about Tsushima! This article must have sources from Korean and Japanese sources as well (If you are bothered to find out). Tan 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Again? Don't refer to korean media (nor Japanese ones) any more. Try to find among media of neutral countries e.g. singapore, philippines or Australia. --Ypacaraí 08:02, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Yes, journalists always get facts wrong. Hey, I'm a journalist, so I guess I can make fun of myself!.84.154.69.45

Yes, but don't feel that you have to — there are plenty of people who are willing to do it for you... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's advice (note spelling) would be more helpful if we knew what on Earth he meant by "calculative". (Note, incidentally, that it's "Tom, Dick, and Harry" — and his claims about newspapers don't stand up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

fabartus copyGrouped the above Section into something those of us trying to catch up can assimulate. Can't say the name calling and comments on another users command of the language were helpful or professional. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Do not revert

Please do not revert the changes, for I have done proper ammendments. Scan the talk page first, for the answers of my reasons of the edits all come from there. If still in doubt, feel free to raise your objections, but let me answer them first before reverting, so as to prevent confusion.

Tan 19:07, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

You pestered admins to unprotect the page because there were no more disputes, and as soon as the protection was lifted you dived in with a series of edits, many of which are very controversial. That's not acceptable. I'll ask User:SlimVirgin to replace the protection until you've learnt to behave. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem not to have understood the point. I made the necessary edits, and all the answers are found in the talk page itself. Please, ask me, what are your doubts and questions. I do not want you to hold back on your doubts; for your doubts are my doubts, and to me, if a person does not answer my replies, I have to assume that he agrees on my point; and this is where you made my life very difficult when you twist your point here and there. Can you please get straight to the point? Otherwise, the page will have to be unprotected and reverted if you persist in such deviant behaviour, or not answeing questions exceeding three days.

Tan 23:11, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

1. Much of the time I (and other editors) are simply unable to understand your messages (as indeed I don't understand the last part of what you say above), and at other times are unwilling to go over the same old ground again and again.
2. Your edits were objected to by a number of editors and many of them (as usual) turned good English into bad. When you add uncontroversial new information, other editors are happy simply to clean up your English and leave the information (as I did today at Lee Kuan Yew). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just only because of correcting english at the expense of obilterating my contributions? Why did you do that? This is vandalism. I'm also unwilling to revert your edits that you have done on me for no good reason. [48]
• Define and highlight all the points on where I turned english into bad english. I do not welcome explicit explanations without definitions.

Tan 23:11, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

I have done this, in detail, on numerous occasions, and you've never responded. I don't intend to waste my time doing it again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see where I did not respond to your messages. It would be appreciating if you show me where are the unresponded messages, and I will be very keen to reply on your questions now. However, you never replied any of my questions either.

• Fine, if you are so reluctant even to give a proper explanation on this issue. This comes to a point that you must not revert my edits, for you did not explain why, but you can copyedit. Simple as that.

Tan 01:27, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No more comments? Somebody unblock the page and revert to my last edit. Mel has not replied, so I have to assume that he agrees on my point.

Tan 02:49, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that you think that I have nothing to do but respond to your demands, but believe it or not it's possible not to answer for an hour or so wihtout having left the debate. On Talk:Zanskar and elsewhere I have, in the past, responded to your demands for detailed explanations as to where your English was poor (this was when you were still insulting other people for their English, and claiming that yours was perfect). In every case, your response was to ignore what I said, and to carry on insisting that you were right and everyone else wrong. You've done the saem to others, as the RfC against you brings out. Not one person tried to defend you; every editor who contributed agreed that your behaviour was unacceptabele — and still you behave in the same way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did give detailed explanations, but upon me explaining on my behalf of the explanations, you did not argue back, in fact, changing the topic and threatening arbitration in Talk:Zanskar.

All right, let's come to my boasting of my english. Around two to three months agp, I "acknowledged" that my English was perfect. However, didn't you see me apologising time and again for this mistake? My foresight is wrong. Yes, my English may not be the best, as I have stated time and again, especially in Talk:Lee Kuan Yew. But that doesn't warrant you to do reverts at the expense of the contribution of my new content, just because by saying that my English is not good! Worse, you did that in a dash-around manner without explaning why, and I have to prompt you to explain, and this is suspicious behaviour. Even when I ask you, many a times you refuse to provide me with the things that will clarify my doubts. One minute per-revert? [49] And leaving me in a state holding plenty of doubts? This is ridiculous!

The problem that lies with me is that I have yet to shed light on your all your bad edits and poor attitude against me. Coming back to this case; many a times you have refused to ask questions, and I'm here, frankly, asking what doubts you have in your mind. Look here, I do not want to waste time quarrelling and fighting with a person like you. And deviating away topics like this is not a proper behaviour for a wikipedian. So what even I spent one hour discussing with you? You are very impatient and want to do things at your accord, by quitting discussions halfway! This makes me assume that you have agree on my point.

I'm asking you one last time, please ask me if you have any doubts on my new edits. Do not deviate the topic to another topic. If not, I will assume that you have agreed on my content, and you may do whatever copyediting as you wish.

For your convinence, most, if not all, I assume, that the pending questions of yours are found at this very talk page.

tan 11:12, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No questons? Good. I"ll ask for an unprotection soon and then go back to the old version. Even then, the article is open to copyediting and contribution of new content. If in doubt, feel free to look up the talk page or ask questions. Thanks. tan 21:27, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No, you won't. In fact your attitude is, if anything, getting worse — you're becoming more instead of less arrogant in your dealings with me and others. Until you give reasons for your changes, especially the grammatical ones, they shouldn't be made. See above for numerous objections to what you want to do. The onus is on you to defend your proposals. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I show you some of my reasons onmy edits first:

• For the Korea Strait and grammar, see [50]. I have already explained "incoporated" is a better word to replace the phrase "made it part of", for the former stresses political significance.
• For the Kaneda castle, see [51] on its history of Korean evidence.
• Why did you rever the change on ko:쓰시마 섬 back to ko:대마도? The former is a redirect!

Feel free to ask me if you have any more doubts. I have already clarified your doubts, and unless you have anymore objections, I see no problem in unprotecting the page.

Tan 23:28, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

1. Even if you had spelt "incorporated" properly, it's not at all clear that it's better than "made it part of"; there is no difference between them in terms of political significance.
2. What you had written was: "Other features include the influence of Korean architecture of the Kaneda Castle." It wasn't clear what features you were referring to, and the grammar was obscure. Having read the source, it now seems that you meant to say something like: "Korean influence can also be found in the architecture of Kaneda Castle."
3. "the So clan, exerted control over these islands, who governed Tsushima until the late 15th century" reads as though it's the islands who governed Tsushima; what was there (to which I reverted) makes sense, where your "correction" doesn't.
4. It's unclear what the status of a "Municipal Government" is; "city" is much clearer.
5. Much of the rest of what you added was oddly phrased at best (for example, "Tsushima experiences a subtropical climate, contributing to its influence of the monsoon winds"); while it might be replaced, it will need to be put into clear, correct English.
6. When the protection is lifted, if you're prepared to collaborate instead of rushing in and making changes, the article might improve. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration? Of course. My edits were not intentional to introduce vandalism. And Masan is often refered as Municipal, see [52] for example. I will revert the changes, and do the appropriate re-ammendments from there you stated. I do not tolerate violent reverts from you, but copyediting is ok. Incorporated a better word than a phrase, for a word is better than a phrase. Use advance English if possible.

tan 00:06, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that you've changed neither your fractured English nor your willingness to lecture other editors on their use of English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't I have a breathing space concerning the freedom of speech? Please make yourself understood on the above descriptions or ask me if you don't. I do not want you holding back your doubts anymore.

Mr Tan 11:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)tan

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather with the way you like to lecture others on grammar. If you were a professor, I'd understand, but you're not, so let the good ol' Professor do the lecturing around here, okay? Listen to my advice, for Heaven's sake, and you'll be better off, I assure you. Problem is, what goes in one ear goes out the other. Earplugs won't prevent our words from escaping. JMBell° 12:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But nobody is totally imperfect, or perfect. We can be peers, or foes, if Mel decides. In my decision, using a word "incorporate" would be better to replace a phrase "made it part of". I am not very good at explaining in my opinion, I am more inclined to the sixth sense. I understand his motives, but he still could not get me clear why this is not appropriate. To me, the English teacher says that usage of words to replace phrases are better, provided if the change do not alter the phrase. I sincerely want a thorough explanation on your/his POV if you say I'm wrong, but he didn't do so clearly.

Mr Tan 15:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan

Unprotected

As discussion seems to have dried up, I have unprotected this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I am going to place the previous version of mine into this article, along with some ammendments. The purpose of this is merely adding information, and especially in retrospect to User:Mel Etitis, I would gladly appreciate if you would stop reverting and come straight to the point if you still have doubts in your mind. I would also be very pleased if anybody have doubts and come straight to me and ask his or her questions. Thanks.

Also, please feel free to add information or copyedit if anybody wishes to.

Mr Tan 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted it, yet again. All the old problems were there, including both disputed changes and spelling mistakes that have been pointed out ("Korea Strait", the misspelling of "incoporate"). In other words, as soon as protection is lifted, you ignore everything that has been said on this page, and make all your changes again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not like reverts, for it can really be confusing. Can you please specify the problem of the "Korea Strait" and list out your other problems? If you are trying to mean that there is a defect in the spelling, just look up the page itself--Korea Strait, not Korea Straits. If you are doubtful why I added "Korea" and not "Tsushima", please check the atlas and the information in Korea Strait to analyse my reason.

I will never know where are your problems if you do not tell me, but I will do ammendments to those you highlighted. Anyway, some of the questions which I believe that may solve the problem is on this very talk page. I'm happy and willing to attend to all your doubts but not so with immediate reverts. I'm sorry to say that, but that is where I find it offensive. Thanks.

Mr Tan 11:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit, which you marked as minor, and whose edit summary was "tidying". This was actually a substantial edit, much of which had already been discussed (and opposed) here. In other words, your claim that it was minor and merely tidying ws a lie. Don't do that again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologise--I am a bit sleepy now, and forgive me of my error.

Mr Tan 13:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert first. Please sort things out first, and I do not want immediate reverts. And please ask questions if you really have to---I see no reason in reverting the economy section at all. Besides you, I do not find any other opposition parties in contrast to my introduction of new facts.

Mr Tan 12:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have again made extensive edits, including controversial ones, and labelled your edit minor. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Mel Etitis

I do not like reverts, for it can really be confusing. Can you please specify the problem of the "Korea Strait" and list out your other problems? If you are trying to mean that there is a defect in the spelling, just look up the page itself--Korea Strait, not Korea Straits. If you are doubtful why I added "Korea" and not "Tsushima", please check the atlas and the information in Korea Strait to analyse my reason.

I will never know where are your problems if you do not tell me, but I will do ammendments to those you highlighted. Anyway, some of the questions which I believe that may solve the problem is on this very talk page. I'm happy and willing to attend to all your doubts but not so with immediate reverts, and things can get very confusing and complicated. I'm sorry to say that, but that is where I find it offensive. Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy if only Mel Etitis can stop his habit of reverting immediately after posting his messages. This is where he has infurated me, and I hope that he can only revert at least ten to twelve hours of posting his last message, for things can go head-wire if he goes on like this.

Mr Tan 13:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etits:"You have again made extensive edits, including controversial ones, and labelled your edit minor. "

Look here, I cannot see the point of you saying "controversial" again and again; unless you get to the point here by listing your doubts and questions, I cannot just let you revert and revert again. I have already made my point here, but you couldn't just seem to understand.

And if you keep doing this, getting more and more ignorant like this with your unelaborated reverts; I may have to list you on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress.

Nor did I label my edit as minor, just go and check the history. I have already made my point on my revert.

Mr Tan 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I have checked, and I've also read Tsushima Strait. The only reason that I can see for your change is political, not geographical. Would you explain here why you made the change, not simply wave your hand vaguely at other articles and tell us to work it out for ourselves?
2. Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the Korea Strait and this sentence:"The strait has a depth of about 90 metres and is split by the Tsushima Islands. While the eastern channel of the Korea Strait is also referred to as Tsushima Strait, the West Channel is simply refered as the Korea Strait." If you use Tsushima, and not Korea Strait, for Tsushima Islands are wedged between the Eastern and Western channels of the Korea Strait. If you put Tsushima Strait, it solely refers to the eastern channel. Then how about the Western Channel?

Nor I see what's the big deal in pointing mistakes repeatedly. What's the big deal about it? I like it, for it clarifies one's doubts better!

And all the discussion at [53] is stalled without a clear-cut conclusion; so I have to take it that you have understood, since you did not post anymore messages in contrast to those doubts. Is that all the questions you want to ask?

Mr Tan 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And please be helpful by not posting your discussion together with reverting. I have already made my point clear in this very section here. Opinions?

Mr Tan 15:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already held out for several hours, waiting for Mel's question. Looking at the situation, I know Mel Etitis is very sure not going to post his comments concerning his doubts if he does not post one within a few hours anytime between 10:00-22:00 (UTC) in accordance to my observation of his editing behaviorial traits.

I am reverting now, but please do not counter-revert and then ask at the same time, especially for Mel Etitis. And this is making the problem from bad to worse.

Do feel free to do ammendments, contriubte or copyedit if anybody wishes so. Please list out your doubts and drop a comment on my talk or here if anybody objects to the new factual edits or doubts. Thanks.

Mr Tan 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objections to Mr Tan's edits

If anybody who insists on plain reverts without making his explanations (clearly), I should see no proper reason in my new introduction of edits [54].

Again, if anybody who has objections, please state so, preferably in the form of a list here. If there is nobody placing his objections, or doubts here, I will revert in three days' time. All I need is attention and full co-operation. Although no rush is needed, the matter cannot remain stagnant. Thanks.

Mr Tan 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, I am aware of the objections that Mel Etitis posted on [55]. I suspect that the main factor is the word "incorporated". I have made an attempt to change the spelling, but the changing from "made it part of" to "incorporated" in one of the sentences, but I cannot see why Mel objected to this change. The Korea Strait, on the other hand, I have already explained in [56], but so far, Mel has not posted any objections. I really find him increasingly mysterious.

Mr Tan 11:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Messages by JMBell

If waiting for response, please leave page in original version, i.e. version used before editing was started. Is to prevent confusion by othor editors and readors. Thank yo. ring a bell? 19:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How long can I wait? I have a bad viewpoint on Mel Etitis; He has the tendency of freezing discussions in midway. And many a times I can neither go up nor down, so the best is to have a quick response, or drop by a message that he will respond later. I"ll wait for three days--hopefully he will respond, before I revert. Opinions?

Mr Tan 02:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When will this be over? Mr Tan only leave trash and Mel Etitis cannot deal with the content. Bring the unproductive conflict to a quick end first, please. --Nanshu 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Righto. There is more garbage than users to clean it up, and so the litterbug must be brought to justice! But he will not listen! JMBell° 12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not treat me as if I'm dirt. I'm not a litterbug, and I'm here to contribute information. I do not tolerate people using vulgaraties. If you really object, explain why, but you all didn't! This is why I cannot understand.

Mr Tan 00:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, am I treating this guy like dirt? Did I even come close? I really think he should reread everything we wrote to him - he seems to have forgotten all our objections! This I cannot understand. JMBell° 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"ll reread everything–just please do not use crude language. Thanks. Mr Tan 12:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's comment

Did you look at my final reply? Also, did you tabulate the differences between the Korean and Japanese sources? For the economy, I see no reason in why Mel Etitis reverted; see [57]. I had corrected it, and use data from that source.

What are my misunderstandings on the Oei Invasion? Check Korean sources to tabulat your facts.

See ""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). of the [58] for the Island(s). I want to include this fact, but I fear Mel Etitis.

Mr Tan 11:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan

• post objections here.

Mr Tan 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zonath's comment

You asked for a couple tips about the Tsushima Island article, which I found strange, considering I have not been active in maintaining that article for a couple months, so am a bit out-of-date as far as the edit history goes. Concerning the Korea Strait issue: The information in the Wiki article on the strait would certainly go towards placing the islands within the Korea Strait -- I would look for a difinitive source (such as the UN) one way or the other. You might just write that the island lies between the Korea Strait and the Tsushima Strait, since it basically acts as a divider between the two. As for the island/islands thing: I am not going to step into this one, much less unilaterally changing the name of the article when there is still an active discussion going on about that very issue. Not that I'm overly concerned by a very minor naming issue. Korean culture on the island: A gloss of this with references would probably be more useful (and more encyclopedic), since we don't really need to have every single instance of Korean influence on the islands listed. I would personally just mention somewhere in the culture section that the culture of the islands contains some Korean influences (perhaps even to a greater level than Japan as a whole) due to the closeness of the island to Korea. However, this is already a very large article on a very small island/group of islands, and adding every Korean influence on the island (like signposts in Korean) does not lend much to its readability. Anyhow, I'm staying out of this one, since I value my sanity a bit too much.

Zonath 01:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Found the definition of incorporated in [59]. I apologise for trouble created. I think that made it part of, the original phrase, is better. I hope that Mel Etitis will not revert anymore, for I believe that this is the source of his reverts. Also, if anybody has objections in contrast to the content, feel free to post your objections here. On the other hand, I have made the statement of the location of the Tsushima Islands (with advice from User:Zonath in a way that I hope it will suit everyone.

Mr Tan 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

I think this page needs to be refactored. --Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to replace this page with PlanA. Any comment? --Nanshu 02:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do it in accordance to date arrangements. Thanks.Mr Tan 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Nanshu 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable sources, please!

Mr Tan, bring verifiable sources, or your edits will get reverted. Here verifiable sources means books and webpages that are themselves primary sources or cite them with critical analysis. A bunch of trashy webpages bring nothing. Since we cannot check their accuracy, they only cause futile labelling, "reliable," "unreliable," etc.

One may fear that demanding verifiable sources for everything can be a kind of DoS attack that imposes extra works on editors. So I demonstrated with an example that we cannot trust Mr Tan's edits without verifiable sources [60]. Based on websites that lack references to historical sources, Mr Tan presented an absurd argument. The burden of proof was on Mr Tan, but I proved with historical sources that his argument was wrong. But he still believe there are so-called "Korean sources" that actually don't exist. --Nanshu 06:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, I have already explained why the Korean name "Daemado" should not be removed in retrospect to Taiwan with the Portuguese Formosa. I do not know how many people receive this message, but I am getting more and more irritated at such behaviour, mainly because people who revert seem to be very deaf at the message.

I shall not revert for sometime, until I did not reveive any comments for a reasonable period of time. Also, I cannot understand your wholesale changes--all the sources are in this talk page itself. However, if you want the sources so badly, but you are a bit too lazy to find, I shall present some of them again, notably the Economy section, which comes from here [61].I shall provide two other Korean sources which I think it is useful and reliable: [62], [63], but the time constraint prompted me not to give more, but I can do so if you are willing to find me. Mr Tan 07:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because you've given your reasons doesn't mean that people have to accept them. You seem to think that all you have to do is give your orders, and the rest of us will fall in line; it doesn't work that way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand; but what I want is a definite conclusion on a specific discussion, but they if are not replying, so, how you want me to do if a person is not going to reply a message when you ask for opinions? It just so happens that you are one of them (in other discussions)

And you notice is Ypacarai is Japanese and perhaps Nanshu; Japanese traditionally tend to look down on Koreans and they despise Koreans, and it is natural for Japanese to reject Korean materials. The reverse applies to the attitude of The Koreans in contrast to Japanese. Mr Tan 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a conclusion — but you keep posting the same questions and demands, to which adequarte answers have been already been give.

As for the vaguely racist comments about Japanese and Korean editors, I'm not interested. I treat individuals as individuals, not as members of a race or culture. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that is my statement from my observation of their behaviour; just a trival matter, feel free to post your comments if you have any objections or new opinions. Thanks. Mr Tan 14:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan behaved just as I feared. We are not talking about whether we believe in a religion or not. All we need is verifiable sources.

But it may be only waste of time to discuss with the guy who still believe a 19th century book has historical value for the study of ancient history. --Nanshu 07:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment: I do not ignore people's questions or comments unless necessary, even though their comment may not be at all be comprehensible to me. And that is the way I communicated with Mr Bartus. Mr Tan 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

FrankB 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: [64] 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 [65]; 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., [66], [67], [68], [69]), The Japan Times, other relevant Wikipedia articles, Wikitravel, and many reputable Japanese and foreign sites (such as [70], [71]), 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: [72]
• 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 #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 [73][74]. "

• 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) [75][76] 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) [77] 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 [78], 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 [79][80]. --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: [81]

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! [82] 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. [83] 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 [84], 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)

---

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)

---

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 [85]. Mr Tan 13:24, 19 Jun 2005 (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 [86], 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 [87], 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 [88] and [89]. 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 [90] 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 [91]. 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 [92], [93] and [94]. 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 [95] 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 [96]. 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[97]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 [98].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 [99]. 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:[100]), 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:[101]. 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 soley 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)

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 [102]. 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. [103]
• 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 [104]. 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)

• Mr Bartus is wrong---the entire Sakhalin belongs to Russia today, and not contested by any countries.

More to come... Mr Tan 07:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)