Talk:Tsushima Island

In the Wikipedia context, controversy is sometimes highlighted -- see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.

In the future, it may make sense to create Tsushima Island dispute. This article could accommodate new additions and outline the dispute's chronology. Will this mitigate a small problem, or will it make things worse?

This practical step was mentioned favorably in a reliable source -- see Hunt, Pete. "China and Japan's Wikipedia War," Foreign Policy (US). February 5, 2013; excerpt, "excessively detailed sections that soon took up the bulk of the article. One editor wisely created a new 'Senkaku Islands dispute' page in October 2010 to accommodate new additions and outline the dispute's chronology." --Ansei (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd be fine with the creation of a separate "disputes" page. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the controversy here as significant and widely supported as the Senkaku Islands controversy? Or, a different way of putting it is, is there so much more information that it could not comfortably fit here? Right now, we've got only 3 fairly short paragraphs, so it seems to fit well on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian -- Your analysis overlooks that this POV issue is not validated by any government.

As background: Eirikr's edit here caught my attention. It caused me to take a closer look at Tsushima Island#Territorial claims and disputes. I understand why the revert was reasonable; however, the edit summary of the reverted diff was also persuasive reasonable.

Please review the first paragraph of WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight. It explains, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also" to an article about those specific views." This next step follows the pattern at Japan-Korea disputes#Geographic disputes

• Liancourt Rocks dispute
• Tsushima Island dispute
• Sea of Japan naming dispute

A closer look at the cited sources will show that this is not ROK policy. In an article which is primarily about the island, undue weight is given to disputes. --Ansei (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see; you're arguing that by including it here, it's giving undue weight to the small minority of Koreans that "claim" the islands. In that case, if we did move it to another article, we probably shouldn't call it a "dispute", but rather something like Korean claims to Tsushima Island. Because, as you say, there is something compelling about the edit summary, in that neither Japan nor Korea actually, as a whole, dispute the ownership.

But wait. I just looked at the article, and I realized that the section itself is actually mislabeled. Only the first paragraph actually talks about an ownership dispute; the latter two just seem to be generic anti-Korean racism. That is, the Japanese nationalist groups weren't talking about ownership of the island, they were saying they wanted all of the Koreans to get out, period. So maybe what we really need to do is to change that section title to something like "Incidents"; then each of these is actually being given somewhat due weight--they're things that happened on the Island that got press. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dispute" appears to have become conventional or generic Wikipedia usage. For example, see its usage in articles like Japan-Korea disputes, etc. --Ansei (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any benefit in having Tsushima Island and Tsushima, Nagasaki as two separate articles. There is no clear division of material between the two, and quite a lot is duplicated or overlapping. 86.179.115.158 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The merge tag was in place for almost a year with no discussion. I've removed it, as the articles have grown independently of one another, with less overlap as time goes on. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Article 1 (Purpose): This regulation's purpose is to declare Daemado is a territory of the Republic of Korea and to secure the sovereignty of the Daemado.

@Phoenix7777: I couldn't find Tsushima anywhere in here. So, please stop the edit warring. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It says nothing about a naming dispute at all. It just says that Tsushima is called "Daemado" in Korea. Please provide a reliable source that support "there is an actual naming dispute".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It only says Korea which calls the islands Daemado. So this isn't about a naming dispute. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you admitted that the source does not say about a naming dispute. What do you mean "It only says Korea which calls the islands Daemado. So this isn't about a naming dispute." Does this statement say "the source says there is a naming dispute"? If you cannot explain properly in English, please do not edit English Wikipedia.

Also, The source does not support "The Changwon City in South Korea promoting the appellation Daemado." As I said above, from the source, what we can say is that Tsushima is called "Daemado" in South Korea.

That said, how about adding an infobox like this instead of the long sentence?

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "If you cannot explain properly in English, please do not edit English Wikipedia"? Maybe you want to use my own words to attack me. I think you (and me) need to try a WP:GOODFAITH about little different opinion.

This edit is my alternative. How do you think about this? Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an assignment for my linguistic class to find an article and give a feedback. I found that this article says people in Changwon city in Korea call this island 'Daemado' but most people in Korea call this island as 'Daemado'. An article referenced in this article seems too old. It is from Junganilbo in 2002, over 10 years. Other than these, most of them looks neutral and reliable. --Irue3 (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Tsushima have belonged to Korea in history. 2001:4430:41B7:8C31:2AF3:3A75:5A0:B4C6 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)