Talk:Tsushima Strait

Amendments

I have made the following amendment to this article:

• The removal of the map--It doesn't clearly shows the strategic location of the Tsushima Strait, unless anybody can show a better map. --Tan 20:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• We need to add relative and absolute sizes of the Tsu-Shima strait and Korea Srait. One historian mentioned the Korea Str. as circa 64 nautical miles - near a degree of Longitude, and as I recall, the Islands are offset more towards Korea. I was skimming rather than purusing, so should be able to run that down sometime very soon. Would rather have geographer or navigator input instead of historian, but he's likely to be close. Someone also dropped the hyphen as is used by British historian Richard Hough ("The Fleet that Had to Die"). My principle focus is on the Russo-Japanese war +/- a couple of decades. Drop me a note if the map bugs you enough to request a replacement! ttfn --Fabartus 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tans Bill for New Map

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

• Ok Mr Tan, here's your new map. Now for my bill...
  • $480.00 - Four hours of talk with Admins about you
  • $120.00 - An Hour-plus generating a map blowup
  • $180.00 - Another hour+ getting around upload problem
  • $350.00 - Use of my son's expertise and software (1 hr) (see -- I'm only a humble consulting engineer, so I come cheap.)
  • ========
  • $1130.00 - Since you're a special friend and all, you can just pay me back one lost day, or $565.00, your choice for not respecting other people's time. --Fabartus 22:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the 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.
  • While not 'needful' in this arty as much as in Tsushima Islands, a further nice addition would be a reference to the channel dividing the original monolithic Island, with it's name and (Now known to be just a 'Canal'. See Talk:Tsushima Islands Discussion to Move Article ca 17-25 June 2005 User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 02:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)) some reference 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. 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map size

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)

• If you want to delete the whole thing, a blank page looks nice too. YOU put the phrasing in about the nearby Iki Island. The second map clearly shows the relationship between that and the Tsushimas, and gives the reader a perspective on the bounds of the Quasi-National Park as well. Siteing and scaling the maps takes a lot of time and testing. Why do you insist on undoing anothers work? Can't you find something fresh to work on? I see your changes to the lower map have the same effect, so NBD (No Big Deal); I'm not an experienced HTML or Wiki-MUL editor, so that I can use the diff to learn something. Thanks, save you need to suppress urges to make unnecessary changes. I'll probably see if Jon can generate a good map with Iki like the top one, and evolve it to a single map article, but having two maps helps fill up the page for such a short arty, and that counterbalances the urge. Maybe we should put it on the Village pump or something for comment.
• The changes you made look fine, save your second minor edit was wrong in a minor way. In that context my phrasing (without 'The') is better sentence construction. I don't remember what the acedemic eggheads call dropping the definite article 'The' in such a case, but it's effect is to push attention to join 'Nearby' to 'Iki Island' making the noun 'Nearby_Iki_Island' for the verb 'lies'; the meaning of the phrase 'The nearby' makes no sense. The action goes to the following term 'Iki Island', where it belongs. Revert that, and leave well enough alone. I need to get shaved showered and dressed! Find something new to worry about. Editing and re-editing the same things has got to be getting a little boring! At least it is to me! Fabartus 15:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Map Promised

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)

• YES, but not a hot issue. I have to find some time to learn paintshop pro as I need military maps to compose battle discription text against too. So I added it to my 'ToDo' list on my user page. I'll get it done eventually. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 16:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need Fact checked

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.

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)

• agree.

Mr Tan 30 June 2005 06:11 (UTC)

• agree— Not sure. I've encountered many links that point to one article and lead me to a totally different one. I've even encountered one that took me to a redir that directed me to the original article I was reading! Now if that is efficiency, I don't know what isn't...

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)

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.

• With respect to the merge, there are a lot of English Language References, both historic and geographic, that don't recognize or use the Korea Strait as the principle name, or as any name at all. Those works use Tsushima Strait for both sides.

• Worse, you're fighting references in innumerable western history books referencing the Battle of Tsushima such as most here: Click, so I think the two should stay distinct inasmuch as there are atlases (as well) that use Tsushima Strait, but not Korea Strait.
• There are probably some that do the reverse, but I'd like to see them. So Kokiri, along that same line of reasoning since you cite an encyclopedia, please post the edition, copyright, and ISBN for the one you cite above the 'disputed' template; I simply find it hard to believe that such an edition will call the Battle of Tsushima, the '''Battle of Korea'''.

• Fame, and reference 'prominance', 'by which I mean How Often from how many publishers use a name', matters quite a bit on this sort of case.

• Bottom line, I'm going to always fight to stay compatible with published reference works. My references to the prominance of the term 'Tsushima Strait' are given in the link two paragraphs above. Two of those listed probably do not, the topic was not within their scope, the others do. That collection makes a significant body of well researched and referenced literature that uses the name of this article.

• The Mergests need to focus on POP events, people, and such, not historical/geo-political 'Hard' articles. While I'm sympathetic to the philosophy, one of the problem with a lot of wikieditors is that they are so young that they have only been exposed to the newer 'Politically Correct' naming, which does nothing to help someone trying to cross-check information from older pre-eighties literature — a huge body of work, most of which will not see the internet for years if ever.
  • That does not make it obsolete or even obsolescent. We at wiki just need to do a better job in articles identifying equivilent places, and making sure there are redirects that reach the right new topic name.
  • A related problem created the mergest philosophy is 'shoe-horning' a historical province into the boundaries of a new modern one. This is actually easier to handle when they are the same name and is proper to merge them; the problem is when someone takes something like the Kwantung Leased Territory and tries to cram in into something like Liaoning Province.
• The two 'do not equate' leaving out large parts of Jilin and Heilongjiang . I ran into the similar problem when someone mistakenly took the provincial district of Lushunkou, a county level governmental district name, and applied it to the place once called Port Arthur which is still the PRC town of Lushun.

• Clearly a misunderstanding of the scope and meaning of the terms, and yet another reason to avoid merging in place named articles. The original reading had trasported Lushun into downtown Dalian, forty nautical miles away. This has yet to be fixed totally, though I've drawn the distinction in the current article. In time, someone needs to seperate the article on Lushun/Port Arthur from the governmental article Lushunkou.

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.

• Don't know where I signed your name, but if I did, I was merely trying to make the thread obvious.
  • If I didn't post to your talk, and thought I did, then I started to, and used a link from the same talk page in 'preview', or perhaps my 'contributions' or watchlist, to visit and edit something else, and didn't back down in the browser to the original unsaved already worded 'Post' to your talk and finish submitting it. i.e. No matter how it happened, I thought I had.
• Sloppy, so sorry, I do try to avoid that; Sometimes I end up doing two or three things at once, which I do try to avoid as much as possible. The other possibility is that I went off to get a link to post on your page, and the same ending came about. Humble apologies either way, 'my bad'. FrankB 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• I agree with merging for convenience. But how to merge is a problem. Both Tsushima Strait and Korea Strait have many references. In many scientific papers (not only those written by japanese scientists) Tsushima Strait is not merely the eastern channel. I think that Wikipedia is not the suitable place to determine which name is preferable, because participants especially who can vote here is a kind of minority. Perhaps, as many scientific papers do, Tsushima/Korea Strait or Korea/Tsushima Strait is the temporally best choice here.Isorhiza 09:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• -
• -
• -

-

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

Old Business

• Your comment above on Talk:Tsushima Strait#These Facts Need Checked are off point to the question. (My bad! I should have made a distinction, as the Japan Invasions of Korea are well known.) This is the sentence in question:
  • "The straits also occasionally served as an invasion path — in both directions. " (Emphasis added for the point in question). User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

• . I also struck out researched and settled issues above, please review the remaining comments on need for data and see if you can help settle those points. Strike out things which are clearly done. My effort in that respect is partial at best. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB

NEW(er) MAP POINTS

• The new map does not address the yucky second map showing Iki, and replace both with one nice map per the section #New Map Promised above.

• The new map does not do justice to Tsushima Island. It is OK for Korea Straits, since so much emphasis is given that name, I can't help but wonder whether it's generation is rooted in nationalistic POV. In particular, the uncharacteristic lack of comments by the normally loquacious Mr Tan, makes me wonder that twice over.

• The Tsushima Strait map is almost as good as the new one I put in just two weeks ago on the 15th! (Just kidding. Yours is prettier, but doesn't show the wider geographic scope, though it does a better job of showing that than the first map I put in here. Then you cover up the island, and for an article on Tsushima Strait, it highlights AND EMPHASIZES the 'Korea Strait'. Huh? That's seems not to be subject level editing.)

• Do you have the original file, so you can make changes? I need to look at it again but in the main, if you can fix the text smashing the island, and place the inset onto one corner, I do think it would be a better map. In particular, if your copy is editable it would make a better map for Tsushima Islands than the ugly one in there now. (I trust your 'ok' on Copyvio grounds?)

• We can send you the inset, and you can overlay, or I can steal your image, edit it here and reupload it; your call. What're your preferences.

• btw- the map sizing on Korea Strait is 'sickly', I'd upsize it. Lastly, in line with the above, the two maps should be dissimilar, with Iki, Honshu and Kyushu clearly delineated on the Tsushima Strait Map, plus the big island off to the Southwest.

• Lastly, I don't think we can replace the older map until Mr Tan pays the Bill posted above. <G> (Just Kidding) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

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

• Never said otherwise. ALL THIS NAME STUFF is counterproductive bullshit to me. My sole interest is that historical references need to be cited by Wikipedia. Most people who bother to read, don't read on line. FrankB 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Merger

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)

• I tend toward the 'inclusionist school' on geography and historical references... so I see no harm in duplicating material, especially where in this case, the more modern name is likely to be 'the Korea Strait', or so I would assume.
• The Chauvenists of yesteryear probably didn't care all that much about what the people in a non-power called such (just as in the 'East Sea' controversy, Wiki should remain above the frey and have both articles clearly state the relationship to one another) and it is not our role as Wiki-editors to decide these matters either.
• Without looking at something authoratitive like nautical charts issued from several sources, I couldn't begin to suggest how the question of 'When is Tsushima Strait used today' might be resolved. So being a cowardly inclusionist, I woulsn't worry much about duplication of material, so long as the factoid was definitely applicable to each channel. e.g. Are the warm southern currents into the Japan Sea/East Sea present in each channel? If yes, then put that in. Is the West channel the same distance from Iki Island? Obviously not... Iki is in the East Channel alone. (This seems to be your sense too, if I interpret your point about moving stuff applicable only to the Korea Strait.)
  • Two historical items for Korea Strait:
    • Admiral Togo in the fall of 1903 took the Japanese fleet off of Masan to a secluded harbor called 'Sylvia Basin' in historical references.
    • Togo and the Combined Fleet would have traversed the Korea Strait Proper the day before the Battle of Tsushima, where they lingered, barely making steerage way, overnight north of Tsushima; i.e. they waited in ambush in the Korea Strait. The battle itself started inside the east channel (Tsushima Strait) ENE of the island.

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

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)

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?

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)

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)

"Tsushima Strait" does not exist.

"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)

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)

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... LactoseTI^T 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tsushima Strait is a misnomer for the Eastern Channel of the Korean Strait.--Sir Edgar 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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. LactoseTI^T 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. —LactoseTI^T 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

East Sea and East Sea

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)

From Sea of Japan talk page:

• American Heritage Dictionary: Japan, Sea of (East Sea) [2]; East Sea: See Sea of Japan [3]
• National Geographic: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [4]
• Rand McNally: Sea of Japan (East Sea) since 1997
• World Atlas: Sea of Japan (East Sea) [5]
• Encyclopedia Britannica: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [6]
• Encarta: East Sea: Japan, Sea of, [7]; Encarta Dictionary: East Sea: see Japan, Sea of [8]
• Columbia Encyclopedia: Japan, Sea of, or East Sea [9] [10]; East Sea: See Japan, Sea of [11] [12]

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

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)

Missing Map

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)

Wrong Description

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)