Talk:Sea of Japan

Shouldn't this be added? Jishiboka1 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an entire section on the matter. CMD (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should be, no other article says “see below” instead of listing an valid alternate name 97.113.57.76 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Baltic Sea is known as the East Sea in Germanic languages and the West Sea in Finnic language, but its article doesn't begin with "the Baltic Sea, also known as the East Sea and West Sea". That would be silly. Meeepmep (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn’t be silly because this sea is in fact, sometimes known as the east sea in English 97.126.89.248 (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact, only Korea is known as the East Sea in English. US and UK officially use the name Sea of Japan. Incidentally, this sea is also called Sea of Japan in Chinese and Russian. 36.2.103.212 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the first part of this sentence:

The sea is called Rìběn hǎi (日本海, literally "Japan Sea") or originally Jīng hǎi (鲸海, literally "Whale Sea") in China

to this:

The sea is called Nihon kai (日本海, literally "Japan Sea") in Japan, Rìběn hǎi (日本海, literally "Japan Sea") or originally Jīng hǎi (鲸海, literally "Whale Sea") in China

Reasoning: Under the Names section, the second paragraph includes the name and pronunciation in China, Russia, South Korea, and North Korea, but not in Japanese. The Japanese name IS shown correctly in the infobox, so I propose we include that bit in the text as well.

There may be a neater way to arrange things so the wording isn't so repetitive, but that is not my strong point.

Thank you, Christa Hanson Wonderbunny (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done -Lemonaka‎ 17:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This sea is mainly between Korean peninsula and Japan because it is when the term is mainly used to refer to the area in between. CoOLGUY1248 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The preference for the term "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan" is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and geopolitical considerations. The term, "East Sea," is advocated since it holds historical and cultural significance predating the colonial era, emphasizing a more inclusive regional perspective. Countries like South Korea view the use of "East Sea" as a means to assert their national identity and diminish the dominance of the "Sea of Japan" name, which is linked to a contentious colonial history. The parallel lies in the potential to evoke historical grievances and sensitivity; just as certain war criminal flags, such as Nazi flag and rising sun flag, may carry a contentious historical legacy, the naming of geographical features can be a source of geopolitical tension, reflecting deep-seated historical issues. Both situations highlights the need for nuanced discussions and diplomatic approaches to navigate complex historical narratives and foster understanding among nations. The choice of terminology is also seen as a way to navigate geopolitical sensitivities in the region, reducing potential tensions associated with historical disputes. Proponents suggest that adopting "East Sea" contributes to a more balanced and neutral international approach to the naming of this body of water, reflecting diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of historical narratives. In essence, the naming debate transcends mere semantics, becoming a symbolic representation of identity, diplomacy, and historical consciousness in East Asia. 73.132.144.47 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to make judgment calls on historical and cultural consciousness and sensitivity. These choices are made by the reliable sources which Wikipedia relies on. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the most common usage among reliable sources. In essence, your argument is with those reliable sources, not with Wikipedia. Westwind273 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Masterhatch (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)