Amendments

[edit]

I have made the following amendment to this article:

Map is better than nothing. Did you miss the inset showing the relative size, position and locations of Korea and Japan?. It's also free since it's in the system already. It will do until I learn how to request a map and one is generated. --Fabartus12 JUNE 2005

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Further Needs

[edit]

Tans Bill for New Map

[edit]

To see what this is all about and should have taken place herein, see quick links: (My Talk) (Article 11) and (His Talk) (Article 85). See Also: RFC w/r/t Mr. Tan

He's just joking, everyone! Right...? --maru 22:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was pretty vexed, but yeah it was a pointed joke about respecting one anothers time and efforts. I hereby apologize for hasty judgement based on others difficulties with Mr Tan. User:Fabartus 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified

[edit]

Map size

[edit]

I am going to reduce the map size to 200+px, for a very large map on an article isn't very nice to me. I hope Mr Bartus wouldn't object to this change. Mr Tan 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I hope that Mr Bartus wouldn't object to removing the Iki map (I will not do so myself), for this article is specifically saying about the Tsushima Strait, not the island. Mr Tan 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Map Promised

[edit]

Your intention is to make another map that makes mention of Iki, the strait and Tsushima Islands? I encourage that we would have one, but I hope it will not trouble Jon or you too much then. Mr Tan 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need Fact checked

[edit]

I know of Invasions by Japan into Korea, but I do not know of any invasions by Korea of Tsushima or other parts of Japan. Can somebody please verify the resultant paragraph:

"Historically these narrows (i.e. the whole Korea Strait) served as a highway for high risk voyages (Korea to Tsushima Island to Iki Island to the western tip of Honshu) for cultural exchange between Japan and Korea. Japan periodically sent year long 'embassys' to the court of the Chinese, deliberately trying to learn from the great empire to the west (After the Americans and Europeans kicked in their Isolationist minded doors, they repeated this unusual and deliberate process to learn from western nations from about 1860). The straits also occasionally served as an invasion path — in both directions. For example, Archeologists believe the first migrations of the Mongoloid race traveled across to Honshu ca. 700s BC, and Buddhism was transmitted from Baekje to Japan over this strait long before sea going ships were available. Iki to Kamino-shima, the southern end of the large island of Tsushima is about 50 km. Busan (Korea), to the Northern tip of Tsushima, about the same across the western side of the Korea Strait."

In particular, this sentence:

"The straits also occasionally served as an invasion path — in both directions."

Thanx User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 02:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese invaded Korea many times in the past. Check History of Korea for more. Kokiri 28 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have read this too quickly. I'm not aware of any Korean invasion into Japan, either. Kokiri 6 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

į==Nomination to Merge==

I Made a Note in talk:Korea Strait to comment and vote here. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB

This article should be merged with the one called Korea Strait. The Tsushima Strait is simply the eastern channel of the Korea Strait, and everything in this article also applies to the other article. Already there is a fair deal of duplicate information because of the unnecessary split into two articles. As for the scope of the Tsushima Strait, grab a copy of Britannica. It's very simple: the whole Strait is the Korea Strait.
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
The Tsushima Islands roughly are located in the centre, splitting it into a eastern and western channel (north-west and south-east, really). The western channel doesn't have a separate name, the eastern channel is also known as the Tsushima Strait. Kokiri 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

*Agree — Made proposal; see above comments.

Kokiri 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)
Mr Tan 30 June 2005 06:11 (UTC)
JMBell° 1 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Disagree Strongly — see muliple points in next section below. (I refactored/tidied this some)

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Agree to merge for reasons stated below in "'Tsushima Strait' does not exist."--Sir Edgar 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Second New Map AND MERGE comments

These were FrankB comments to Kokiri composed on User Talk:Kokiri, But TOO long for his talk so moved here as they invove this article, This first group is about the above Nomination to Merge. The second group applys to #The New Map and other article business.

Here, the reasoning is even more clear cut for us, to misquote a favorite American colloquialism: 'It ain't broke, so there ain't no need to fix it!'.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you'd refrain from editing my posts and signing in my name. It's interesting to read what you supposedly wrote on my talk page—it seems to have evaporated from the history—, and what I allegedly claimed.

I merely observed that we have two articles about what I thought was essentially the same water. I checked in Britannica before suggesting the merger. Good day! Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Post Duplicated from Kokiri's Talk regarding the above comments.

-
<---- Additional 'Merge Proposal Discussion' above this line Please! -------------->

Old Business

[edit]

NEW(er) MAP POINTS

[edit]
The map is based on free data from DEMIS. Nobody owns an article on the Pedia. HTH. Kokiri 6 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

Merger

[edit]

I have added information from this article to Korea Strait. The result still has gaps, but is much better than a stub. If we're not going to have a merger, then we should remove text only about the Korea Strait from here, and vice versa). Any thoughts? Kokiri 11:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta go. FrankB 14:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of trying to clean up some grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, I had to deal with the incredibly redundant and sprawling first two paragraphs. I tried to simplify somewhat, but I think the real problem is that they are not about the Tsushima Strait itself, but a mix of Korea Strait, Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Strait. I realize this article has been the object of some contention, but as an complete outsider I think it would benefit from some stepping back and refocusing. I'll try to post a revision of that intro section, based on the idea that it doesn't need much detail on the Korea Strait, the Tsushima Islands, or Honshu or Kyushu, which are covered well elsewhere. See what you think, but remember that if the readers need more on those subjects, the hyperlinks are there. —rodii 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had better clarify: I have read the discussion above, and understand the 'inclusionist' point, though I disagree. But I contend that, as an intro section, the all-over-the-place focus makes it very difficult to read. I'm suggesting that first paragraph be more tightly focused. Hope that makes sense. —rodii

Is "mongoloid" racially offensive term?

[edit]

First of all, is it the Southeast Asian people who traveled across to Honshu around the 10th century BCE? Wasn't it the northern asian people? It is more precise to retain the previous edition, because which variation of Mongoloid contributed most to the first Mesolithic migrations (Jomon) is not clear, but at least it is not Southeast Asian people who migrated via Tsushima Strait. To my poor knowledge, Jomon is believed to be consisted of many origins including northern asian, south asian austronesian (so not Mongoloid) and variety of Han Chinese. Secondly, I didn't know that Mongoloid is offensive term. I learned that Mongoloid is the equivalent term of Caucasoid. Is it usual to avoid the term Mongoloid in Wikipedia? At least I don't care. I reverted the page. Please discuss your points here. Isorhiza 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not offensive to me as I understand it to be a scientific term just like Caucasoid, but some people find it offensive due to negative connotations often associated with the Mongols as being "savage" and "crude". There is also the term Mongolism which is an outdated and very un-PC name for the condition we widely know today as Down syndrome.--Sir Edgar 02:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tsushima Strait" does not exist.

[edit]

"Tsushima Strait" and "Korea Strait" are two competing terms for the body of water that makes the narrow pass between Japan and Korea. Because "Korea Strait" is more widely accepted, "Tsushima Strait" has often been used in reference to the Eastern Channel. It has also been used, on occasion, instead of the term "Korea Strait", especially after Japan made a canal dividing Tsushima Island into two.

In reality, the term used should be "Korea Strait" with a Western Channel and Eastern Channel. The insistence of the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" is a Japanese POV that has been adopted to a large degree in the West. However, it is not only confusing, but inaccurate. Simply put, you cannot have two straits in one body of water like that.

Thus, the article should either be entitled "Tsushima Strait" or "Korea Strait". Because "Korea Strait" is more widely used, the use of the term "Tsushima Strait" must be mentioned in the main "Korea Strait" article and not have a separate article. There should also be a statement that "Tsushima Strait" is a misnomer as it is a replacement term for the Eastern Channel of the Korea Strait.

Of course, "Tsushima Strait" is more widely used than "Eastern Channel" and, as a result, deserves significant mention in the article. It should also state that the Western Channel is sometimes inaccurately referred to as the "Korea Strait" and the Eastern Channel as the "Tsushima Strait". There needs to be clarification in a single article.--Sir Edgar 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose moving information here to the "Korea Strait" article. In other words, a merge.--Sir Edgar 00:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on what you're basing your argument that it "doesn't exist"--surely you aren't saying that there is no Sea of Japan since it's just part of the Pacific Ocean? As you noted later, the Tsushima Strait is the eastern channel (a very real place) in a larger strait. I don't believe this is the only case of a single channel in a strait having a name... LactoseTIT 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Tsushima Strait is a misnomer for the Eastern Channel of the Korean Strait.--Sir Edgar 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter whether it is or not, according to the manual of style. What's more, one could just as easily say "Eastern Channel" is a misnomer of Tsushima Strait. LactoseTIT 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Go do some studying. Also, please take a course in logic. You are using "No, you are!" tactics. I won't engage. Sorry.--Sir Edgar 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out how your argument sounded; I'm glad you agree it is not logical. In any case, pay particular attention to the part about the manual of style. —LactoseTIT 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Sea and East Sea

[edit]

Re: [1]. What do you mean, "obscure"? East Sea is the Chinese name for the East China Sea, while East Sea is the South Korean name for the Sea of Japan. These facts are hardly in dispute. In other words, there are more people calling the East China Sea the East Sea than there are people who call the Sea of Japan the East Sea. We do not introduce any confusion by mentioning both, since the primary names of both seas are kept as the article names. In fact, we serve to reduce the potential for confusion. --GunnarRene 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) And before somebody says that the Chinese name is irrelevant, let me point out that Chinese vessels navigate these waters too. We only report the confusion that allready exists. --GunnarRene 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Sea of Japan talk page:

No reference to "East China Sea" in any encyclopedia or dictionary under "East Sea", only Sea of Japan. No usage of "East China Sea (East Sea)", only "Sea of Japan (East Sea)".

History - Battle

[edit]

The paragraph beginning 

But the reason the strait is famous is that one of the most decisive naval battles of modern times,

seems to give way too much detail on strategy for a geography article; it seems to me a single sentence here would suffice. Coughinink 17:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Map

[edit]

In the section about the famous naval battle, there is a reference to missing second map. 

... took place there due east of the north part of Tsushima and due north of Iki Island (shown in red on the second map)

Can someone provide this map, or do we need to edit out the reference?

Carl Gusler (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Description

[edit]

Tsushima strait is an another name in Korea strait. It's not a easten channel of the Korea strait. Arstriker (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I corrected wrong description and eliminated a wrong figure. Arstriker (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Categories