Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 25 August 2010

Korea Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

Japan Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:45, January 6, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 be renamed and moved to Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Eulsa Treaty → Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty — The name "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty" is used more often ( vs ) and, IMHO, it is also much more understandable for non-Korean people. Elmor (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• support per above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- because the Google result is simply missing many things and Elmor inaccurately presents the actual statistics. As you look into the result closely, "Eulsa Treaty" or "Ulsa Treaty" is more prevalently used than the suggested name in the suggested links and references. Also, the suggested name is used as explain the meaning of Eulsa Treaty just like Taft–Katsura Agreement or Treaty of Shimonoseki (don't expect people in the English people all know Shimonoseki means what). People outside the world who must study and learn the pertinent subject (such as Americans, Japanese and Chiese of course) don't know what Taft-Katsura or Shimonoseki mean, but learn the meaning by reading the explanation following the title as well as the other example. To accurately test with the Google, just simply add "" to the name that Elmor favors, and then you will see the magical number is all gone but its appears with much belower numbers (more than 1/2) than the current trick.--Caspian blue 07:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see that the current name is more popular. Can I close the request myself or should it be an administrator? Elmor (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons outlined by Caspian blue. The Google result presented are invalid results. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: In the interests of a priori clarity, the text of Eulsa Treaty explains that "in the Korean calendar, eulsa is the Sexagenary Cycle's 42nd year in which the treaty was signed." There is no citation support for this credible assertion, nor for the following: "In Japanese, the treaty is known under several names including Second Japan-Korean Convention (第二次日韓協約, Dai-niji Nikkan Kyōyaku), Isshi Hogo Jōyaku (乙巳保護条約) and Kankoku Hogo Jōyaku (韓国保護条約)."

The issue at hand is divorced from these two sentences. Rather, the issue is determining the best title for this article based on Misplaced Pages's WP:Five Pillars.

The article name should be changed for three distinct reasons.

A. The strategy of Elmor is elegant in attempting to avoid the wiki-gamesmanship which attend this subject in our Misplaced Pages context. The effort was inartful, but it was not inappropriate or unhelpful. A search of Google books reveals a stark disparity in the usage of "Eulsa treaty" and "Japan-Korea treaty" across the array of published reference sources which have been uploaded to the internet as of August 2010.

A closer examination of these books reveals no early evidence of the Korean term "Eulsa" in the international records which confirm this treaty's existence. The "Eulsa treaty" is a modernism which evolved in English-language texts in the late-20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. Research informing this restatement follows:

Google search term — "Eulsa treaty"

Google "hits", about 129 results

Note that in this Korean-government published book, the term is set off with quotation marks to indicate it is an "also-known-as" title.

• Taehakkyo, Sŏul and Haengjŏng Taehagwŏn. (1995). The Korean Journal of Policy Studies. Seoul: Graduate School of Public Administration, Seoul National University. OCLC 19841320; excerpt, "Accordingly, the treaties such as the 'Eulsa' treaty, the 'Cengmi' treaty, the Korea-Japan annexation treaty are the ones that must be nullified, and it does not stand to reason at all that the Japanese Government still argues ...."

Google search term — "1905 Japan-Korea treaty"

Google "hits", about 28,200 results

Note that these books summarize the cumulative records of multiple, credible international sourcebooks.

• Clare, Israel Smith; Hubert Howe Bancroft and George Edwin Rines. (1910). Library of universal history and popular science. New York: The Bancroft society. OCLC 20843036

Inline citation format. <:ref>Clare, Israel et al. (1910). Library of universal history and popular science, p. 4732., p. 4732, at Google Books</ref>

• United States. Dept. of State. (1919). Catalogue of treaties: 1814-1918. Washington: Goverment Printing Office. OCLC 3830508

Inline citation format. <:ref>United States. Dept. of State. (1919). Catalogue of treaties: 1814-1918,p. 273., p. 273, at Google Books</ref>

• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law. (1921). Pamphlet 43: Korea, Treaties and Agreements." The Endowment: Washington, D.C. OCLC 1644278

Inline citation format. <:ref>Carnegie Endowment (1921). Pamphlet 43: Korea, Treaties and Agreements," p. vii., p. vii, at Google Books</ref>

B. The renaming of this treaty in English-language books and other publications has gained expanded usage on the internet (a) because of the title of this Misplaced Pages article; and (b) because of its use in other Misplaced Pages mirrors. This metastasis is demonstrable. It is illustrated by its effects in skewing the Google-"hits" argument which was presented in "A"-above. Wiki-hyperlilnks which inform this paragraph follow:

Korean calendar as treaty name

• 23 2005 April, ko:제2차 한일 협약
• 29 July 2005 en:Eulsa Treaty
• 1 March 2008, no:Eulsatraktaten
• 22 December 2008, nl:Eulsaverdrag
• 20 June 2009, fr:Traité d'Eulsa
• 27 June 2009, it:Trattato di Eulsa
• 29 May 2010, zh:乙巳條約

The use of Eulsa Treaty as the article title is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and WP:Use English; and for these reasons, it should be changed in the ways which are illustrated in the Russian and German Wikipedias. Wiki-hyperlilnks which inform this paragraph follow:

WP:Use English --

• 24 April 2008, ru:Японо-корейский договор о протекторате (Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty; translated from English Misplaced Pages)
• 15 June 2009, de:Zweite Japanisch-Koreanische Übereinkunft (Second Japanese-Korean agreement; translated from English Misplaced Pages)
• 5 January 2004, ja:第二次日韓協約 (Second Japan-Korea Agreement)

C. This article was explicitly created in order to further the POV of one side in the on-going Dockdo controversy -- here.

This does not mean that the article should not exist nor that this subject is not noteworthy; but it does provide insight into the motivation and intentions of the originator of this article title. This becomes relevant in addressing the post hoc ad propter hoc reasoning which is put forward in opposition to this modest, but necessary name change.

The names of other articles in Category:Treaties of the Korean Empire make plain that this name is an anomaly, e.g.,

• Eulsa Treaty?
• Japan–Korea Protocol of 1904
• Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1907
• Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty

This investigative research informs my support for the change proposed by Elmor. --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Very lengthy, Tenmei (not easily inclined for me to read this "very long" argument).
  • 1. As for the "Eulsa", I want Tenmei to explain why Oei Invasion is being used instead of a more neural title to explain Korean military squashed Japanese pirates in Tsushima Island since you've edited the article and contradictory argument in the example. I want you to be consistent for your own insistence. As such, the title of "Eulsa" and "Oei" implies that the names are more closely linked to the territory where people lived and suffered. I want him to present counter theory to Oei Invasion.
  • 2. Tenmei, if you want to criticize my objection to Elmor's presentation with the inaccurate google hits, than you should resolve it first. The correct google hit number for ("Eulsa Treaty"-Misplaced Pages) shows 4030 hits after clarifying the "" to the original method that Elmor has used. That is the doubled number of "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty" -wikipedia which is only 2000 hits.
  • 3. I want to ask him to explain for the claim. As for The "Eulsa treaty" is a modernism which evolved in English-language texts in the late-20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. If he were not a scholar or historian, please remind of Misplaced Pages:No original research.
  • 4. Tenmei, look into your google book hits, and you can assure that there shows no exact form of ""1905 Japan-Korea treaty" phrase as you insists.
  • 5. Tenmei's claim for using WP:English or WP:NPOV is seriously lacking of its logic as he examples with the title in non-English Misplaced Pages such as Russian Misplaced Pages (where Elmor is pretty active), German, (where a user who feign to be German distorting Korean history there and Japanese Misplaced Pages (that is naturally not neutral of course). Misplaced Pages can not be a reference, so please see the problems that you've made.--Caspian blue 03:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 6. The requested reference for "Eulsa" is provided. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • To be fair, Caspian blue, using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument in point one is not very helpful, and I've seen you shoot down other arguments which used that as an argument simply because it was used. If there are concerns about the title of that article, they should be brought up there, not here. Also, I don't understand your point number three as Tenmei provided very clear citations for the books in which he located some of the information he is arguing. As for point number four, making generalizations about the trustworthiness of other language Wikipedias is not useful or helpful to this argument. Tenmei isn't trying to use Misplaced Pages as a reference in the article, but as an example of how other related articles are named in other language Wikipedias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Nihonjoe, in my understanding of your role as one of Tenmei's mentors approved by the Arbitration committee, you're supposed to help the air of any discussion between Tenmei and others. Of course, if you have concerns about my presentation skills, I would be gladly accept your criticism if you leave that comment at my talk page. I think your above personalized comment is not very helpful for the discussion. As for your assertion of ], the method is already used by Tenmei with the three non-English Wikipedias. I'm bit worried that you don't see that. Everyone can challenge the trustworthiness of Misplaced Pages projects and as stated, Misplaced Pages is not a reference. How can you prove that the argument that the title used in the three Wikipedias are more neutral and usage of WP:ENGLISH based on what? We don't know where each title at each Misplaced Pages follows Misplaced Pages naming convention rules correctly. I think the mention of Oei Invasion is a good comparison for Tenemi to see how he treats similar subjects differently. Also I totally disagree with your view on the Tenmei's mentions the non-English Wikipedias.--Caspian blue 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Korea-related articles
• Unknown-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Requested moves