Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move (September 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 34 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eulsa Treaty → Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 —

Relisted. Eulsa Treaty needs to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 because all treaty articles need a neutral name. This article about a treaty between Korea and Japan was created with a non-neutral Korean name; but articles about treaties between Korea and other nations have neutral names, e.g., see Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Unequal treaties and Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves --Tenmei (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st listed 8Aug2010 at WP:Requested move.Eulsa Treaty → Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty or 1905 Protectorate Treaty — The name "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty" is used more often ([1] vs [2]) and, IMHO, it is also much more understandable for non-Korean people. Elmor (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2010

  • Support per above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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) After Tenmei's work I'm uncertain of that. Elmor (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia's WP:Five Pillars.
Parsing argument content — acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
* Refuting the Central Point
* Refutation
* Counterargument
____________
Identifying remarks which are unhelpful:
* Contradiction
* Responding to Tone
* Ad Hominem
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 Wikipedia 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" 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" 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 Wikipedia article; and (b) because of its use in other Wikipedia 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
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 --
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.,
This investigative research informs my support for the change proposed by Elmor. --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • 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"-Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia such as Russian Wikipedia (where Elmor is pretty active), German, (where a user who feign to be German distorting Korean history there and Japanese Wikipedia (that is naturally not neutral of course). Wikipedia can not be a reference, so please see the problems that you've made.--Caspian blue 03:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6. The requested reference for "Eulsa" is provided. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
        • 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 gladly accept your criticism if you leave that comment at my talk page. I think your above personalized comment aimed at me is not very helpful for the discussion. As for your assertion of [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], 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 Wikipedia projects and as stated, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia follows Wikipedia 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. My concern about the number three is valid since we should avoid any "personal conclusion" since we are all anonymous users.--Caspian blue 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been notified to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Requested move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty by User:Caspian blue. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

In terms of the most common name, "1905 protectrate treaty" should be used.

  • "1905 Protectorate Treaty"
  • "Eulsa treaty"
  • "Japan-Korea Protectorate treaty"
    • Book 18
    • Scholar 5

However, according to the principal criteria described in Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title, "Japan-Korea Protectorate treaty" is the most preferable.

  1. Recognizability – "Japan-Korea Protectorate treaty" is the most recognizable "to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic" in addition to readers who are not familiar with the topic.
  2. Naturalness – "Eulsa treaty" is derived from the Koran name, while "Japan-Korea Protectorate treaty" has no such background.
  3. Precision – no difference.
  4. Conciseness – no difference.
  5. Consistency – As User:Tenmei pointed out, three of four in Category:Treaties of the Korean Empire use "Japan-Korea ....." style names. This policy explicitly rejects the essay WP:Other stuff exists.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally oppose unless the option is 1905 Protectorate Treaty: Phoenix7777, you seem to be toying with the Wiki guideline. In WP:Name, the most important criteria is about the highest degree of Neutrality. While the current title Eulsa doesn't meet this rule, your choice Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty obviously doesn't help solve this issue too. I'm concerning about the nationalistic sentiments throughout this discussion and I lean to propose "1905 Protectorate Treaty". This option will be the most neutral and keep Wikipedia immune from an endless debates driven by nationalistic sentiments. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation? or
Counterargument?
  • Comment The name should be a name. I'm not sure the usages listed above were intended as names or just explanations. Traditional and historical names don't need to be amended. --Cheol (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation? or
Counterargument?
  • Oppose - Nothing is wrong with it.--Aocduio (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above discussion. As there are many problems, this move is requested. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation? or
Counterargument?
Refutation? or
Counterargument?
Harsh words, as there is no difference in result there when Google-web-links are included or not and as he did not state explicitly that he wants them to see included... --Valentim (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an arguably helpful contribution, I added an mini-icon of the "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement" graphic next to the comments of Cheol, Aocduio, Historiographer, and Valentim.

Is it unreasonable to ask Cheol, Aocduio, Historiographer, and Valentim for another sentence or two showing how these comments are either refutation or counterargument? Alternately, perhaps re-wording might be a way to clarify what seems a bit off-topic? Maybe this will help us move along towards consensus-building?

Bottom line: How can we move forward in a constructive direction? --Tenmei (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said (in other words): First we should talk about how researches on google shall be done (only google books & scholar or with web results?) as both sides use google as source. --Valentim (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis is always consistent with Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title. In the case of Talk:Port_Hamilton_Incident#Move_without_consensus, the result of the Google book search overwhelmed other proposals. And There is no problem with the name "Port_Hamilton_Incident". Hence, no other criteria was necessary. In this case, the Google book search suggests the use of "1905 Protectrate Treaty" over Eulsa treaty. So I added the name to the candidate of the move. Then if I consider to use "1905 Protectorate Treaty", one of the principal criteria "Consistency" comes up. As I said above, the name of other relevant treaties are "Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty", "Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty of 1907" and "Japan–Korea Protocol of 1904". So I suggested the use of "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty" instead of "1905 Protectorate Treaty". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix7777 -- Your diff has three sentences. Please consider withdrawing all but the first sentence.
  1. The first sentence does help to move this thread forward by stating the obvious in a clear and unambiguous way. IMHO, your words are effective in naming the elephant in the room which can be ignored no longer.
  2. Please strike the redundant second sentence. IMHO, your words do not restate; the sentence only repeats what you have already explained. I construe this as evidence of impatience. In Taekwando terms, it is like a yell or shout (ki-hap 기합) without a target. In Judo terms, this sentence suggests an opening for others to find leverage which may muddy or obscure what you have already parsed crisply and credibly.
  3. Please strike the last word in the third sentence. IMHO, "void" is not useful, helpful or forward-looking. I take your point; but I would have expressed this thought differently. In fact, a cooperative strategy of opposition without specific refutation or counter-argument is both noteworthy and suggestive.
The one short declarative sentence becomes a persuasive argument in the context of your other thoughtful contributions to this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the process of identifying the best name for an article, we understand that "there will often be several possible alternative titles." We know that collaborative judgement can be affected by a range of factors.

    Concurrent Google search "hits" are encompassed within this range; and in addition, there appear to be other considerations which still remain non-specific, unparsed and undescribed, but not unnoticed nor unmarked.

    We are forced to take note of what Cheol, Aocduio, Historiographer, and Valentim are unable or unwilling to explain.--Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you concluded that I am unable or unwilling. On what ground you did so? I see you are trying to imporve the article, but you need to learn how to raise an issue and to discuss productively. --Cheol (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Unequal treaties[edit]

Perhaps we should re-examine the name of this one article in the context of all unequal treaties involving Korean here?

In the list below, we find articles about treaties with non-neutral names. Some of the article names are inconsistent WP:Use English. Articles involving treaties between Japan and Korea have been given Korean names, but articles about treaties with other countries have neutral names.

It is reasonable and timely to resolve anomalous article names. For example,

    Treaty of Chemulpo needs a neutral article name, i.e., Japan-Korea Treaty of 1882?

The true character of our problem is clarified when examined from a broader perspective. --Tenmei 17:12, 29 August 2010 --Tenmei (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found similar cases in Japanese unequal treaties such as Treaty of Shimonoseki and Convention of Kanagawa. Could you develop your logic on these names? --Cheol (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting at WP:Requested moves[edit]

This discussion about changing the name from Eulsa treaty to a neutral alternative may be helped by re-listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This venue is described as

  • A. An opportunity to advertise move discussions which would benefit from wider community input
  • B. An opportunity to request assistance from administrators

Opposition to the proposed move has not produced refutation or counter-argument.

A very narrow problem has become plain:

Articles involving treaties between Korea and Japan have been given Korean names; but articles about treaties between Korea and other countries have been given neutral names.

Wider community input may bring out any relevant issues which continue to remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentence from a citation I found at Japan-Korea disputes may help clarify the point not made by the opposing voices -- see
Pak, Chʻi-yŏng. (2000). Korea and the United Nations, pp. 6-7., p. 6, at Google Books; excerpt, "... as a first step towards the final annexation of Korea in 1910, Japan forced the Korean king, Kojong, to accept the protectorate treaty {known as the Ulsa Protectorate Treaty) after Japan had defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), following its victory in the Sino-Japanese War (1904-1995)."
In other words, this citation makes our issue explicit.

The absence of any other data, we are forced to guess that opposition to this modest move has something to do with one or more Japan-Korea dispute topics? --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The naming issues are on Wikipedia, not disputes between the two countries. I could not find anyone who argues for the names of the treaties in real world. This could be a naming dispute in Wikipedia. It's not a real dispute. --Cheol (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to refocus on this treaty name only[edit]

Cheol, User:Tenmei and User:Elmor have risen a good question by mentioning that there are several other treaty articles named by name instead of treaty content [3], [4], [5]. Mentioning this fact is in my opinion valid (due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but despitethat keeping this fact up further will certainly lead us to a dead end as this is not the right discussion page for making this big decission for so many others articles, especially when those people, who are interested in those other treaty articles are not aware or notified about this discussion. Therefore I propose to focus on this article only.

A good method to do so was to show evidences by reserches on google web, google book and google scholar as already done by User Elmor [6], Caspian blue [7], Tenmei [8] and Phoenix7777 [9], and to discuss them further. My question now is: What is the "right" result? What for a search pattern is the appropriate one and why? --Valentim (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far noone has answered to my question. As both methods (Looking by Google web or Google Scholar & Google Books) have its advantages and disadvantages I want to go on with an announcement: I've got a LexisNexis-account. If there is no rejection I'm going to make a research there and present results here soon. Maybee this could help us finding the appropriate article title. --Valentim (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further research will only confirm that the proposed treaty metonymy suggested by Elmor and Phoenix7777 is good, credible, reasonable. These alternatives are conventional and they are supported by published works:
In the absence of either refutation or counterargument from those who oppose the move, we are forced to make guesses, to speculate. For example,
  • Does the opposition arise primarily because of the word "protectorate"?
If so, no amount of research will be sufficient because the invested effort addresses the wrong topic?
What this thread needs -- and lacks -- is not more research but something other than the sound of one hand clapping.
Gojong's analysis of what is identified as the "treaty of 1905"
In the absence of further discussion, a plausible article title is a metonymy which Emperor Gojong did endorse, i.e., "Treaty of 1905."
Also, the name of the parties becomes essential in our Wikipedia context. Our project needs to distinguish this treaty from others which were concluded in the same year -- for example, as contrasted with the Anglo-Afghanistan Treaty of 1905 here.
In other words, a credible treaty metonymy needs to be a neutral name which is consistent with other bilateral treaties, i.e., Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. This is consistent with what the Korean monarch caused to be translated into English, as shown in the image above. --Tenmei (talk)
For notification: Sorry guys, since yesterday I don't feel well. I hope to present statistics from LexisNexis in a few days. Greetings --Valentim (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final straw[edit]

A. This move is explicitly supported by the metonymy of the corollary article in the Korean Wikipedia:

Please take note that the hangul for articles about two different treaties is the same except for the ordinal numbers "1" and "2."

B. For redundant emphasis: The Korean language metonymy in the infobox is not the same as the Korean language hyperlink at the bottom of the page.

C. Our WP:V policy explicitly rejects Wikipedia as a free-standing reliable source; however, the Korean Wikipedia article is relevant in explaining the variance between the infobox metonymy and the hyperlink. In the absence of further comment by those opposing this move, this is the best we can do in putting the real issues of this move dispute in sharper focus. The first paragraph in Korean is followed by the Google Translate version:

제2차 한일 협약(第二次韓日協約, 일본어: 第二次日韓協約)은 1905년 11월 17일 대한제국 정부의 박제순과 일본제국 정부의 하야시 곤스케에 의해 체결된 불평등 조약이다. 체결 당시 정식 명칭은 ‘한일 협상 조약’이며, 을사년에 이루어졌기 때문에 을사조약, 을사오조약, 을사보호조약이라 부르기도 한다. 한국에서는 일본에 의해 강제로 맺은 조약이라 해서 을사늑약 (乙巳勒約)이라고 부르기도 한다.
Convention on the 2nd one day(第二次韩日协约, Japanese: 第二次日韩Convention) of 1905 on November 17 for the imperial government, and not stuffed in the Japanese Imperial Government gonseuke Hayashi,signed by the unequal treatiesare. The official name at the time of signing the Korea-Japan Treaty of negotiations', and vessels, year-to-Protectorate Protectorate Treaty, Treaty of Protectorate 5, Protectorate Treatyis also sometimes referred. South Korea by the Japanese forces by the treaty is eulsaneukyak (乙巳勒约) is also called.

D. In this thread, there are noteworthy diffs which are congruent with WP:RS + WP:V. In the context created by WP:RS + WP:V, the sentences highlighted in yellow become like the straw that broke the camel's back.

E. An administrator who intervenes pursuant Wikipedia:Requested moves does not need to read Korean in order to discern an absence of consensus. However, the failure to reach consensus does not justify further delay in resolving this needlessly contentious issue. --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rewrite the above into simple English? It is unlikely that the majority of the people who are participating here will understand half the words you are using. Even I had to look up a couple of them to make sure I was understanding them. If you can summarize it into two or three sentences, that would be even better. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Nihonjoe -- you ask a valid question; but this is one of the rare contexts in which it is inappropriate. Sometimes "big words" are useful precisely because they summarize a complex issue succinctly -- for example, metonymy. This non-controversial term becomes a short, simple, clear explanation which resists "spin" and "re-framing" -- Metonymy#Conflated meanings. This term also serves to extricate this non-dispute from the Gordian knot which is too well-illustrated by the edit histories of articles like Liancourt Rocks (Talk:Liancourt Rocks).

What sentence, if any, represents a barrier to reaching consensus? What aspect of WP:Burden is construed as somehow unmet or unaddressed? If this "final straw" subsection is deemed confusing, I can strike it out; but the validity and relevance of the argument and proofs remain undisputed. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nihonjoe -- despite my good reasons for responding "no", I comply with your suggestion by editing out all but three sentences which need no rewriting:
B. ... The Korean language metonymy in the infobox is not the same as the Korean language hyperlink at the bottom of the page.

C. Our WP:V policy explicitly rejects Wikipedia as a free-standing reliable source; however, the Korean Wikipedia article is relevant in explaining the variance between the infobox metonymy and the hyperlink.

E. An administrator who intervenes pursuant Wikipedia:Requested moves does not need to read Korean.

These sentences are not difficult. --Tenmei (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is relevant that the Korean Wikipedia article ko:제2차 한일 협약 was changed to ko:을사조약 subsequent to the diff above:
  • diff 2010년 9월 19일 (일) 12:44 Ryuch (토론 | 기여) 잔글 (16,069 바이트) (제2차 한일 협약 문서를 을사조약(으)로 옮기면서 넘겨주기를 덮어 씀: 널리 쓰이는 이름으로 변경) (편집 취소)
  • diff 2010년 9월 19일 (일) 13:01 Ryuch (토론 | 기여) (16,119 바이트) (편집 취소)
  • diff 21:47, 19 September 2010 Xqbot (talk | contribs) m (12,302 bytes) (robot Modifying: ko:을사조약) (undo)
QED. --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for thread-closing administrator[edit]

Restating the main points of this thread in diplomatic language using short words:

Refutation? or
Counterargument?

1. The opposition to this move has zero factual basis. It is a hollow shell which is only possible in our Wikipedia context. In this thread, insubstantial WP:AGF has been wrongly elevated above WP:V + WP:RS + rebuttal + counterargument + QED -- see right.

a. Proof: Those opposing the move are unwilling or unable to present facts nor refutation nor counterargument -- see above.
b. Proof: Those supporting the move are both willing and able to present citation support and reasoned analysis -- see above.
Gojong's "treaty of 1905"

2. In specific, the opposition is shown to be a non-issue by the explicit language sent by the Korean king to the English king -- see right.

3. In general, the "final straw" in this Sysiphean exercise is clarified by the word metonymy, which captures an array of treaty articles, not only this one. For redundant emphasis, the Korean Wikipedia appears to identify Eulsa Treaty as metonymy in the predicate of the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph of the mirror article.

Summary: Sentence #1 addresses our problem using reason. Sentence #2 relies on evidence found within the text of the article itself. Sentence #3 presents proof from outside the context of Eulsa Treaty. Despite the absence of consensus, this administrator-assisted, move from Eulsa Treaty to Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 is justified; and it should be accomplished without further delay. Tenmei 17:52, 18 September 2010 --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (October 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eulsa Treaty → ? — Re-opening, listing the alternative names at the start. Please keep discussion concise.

A research on LexisNexis shows the following amount of saved newspaper articles (english languaged press only):
  • Eulsa Treaty: 57 exact hits / 3 see below
  • Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty: 4 / 124
  • Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905: 0 / 338
  • 1905 Protectorate Treaty: 14 / 141
53 of the 57 articles found by looking for "Eulsa Treaty" (= 93%) are korean newspapers (The Korean Herald and Yonhap) which usually prefer to use korean terms. From the 4 newspapers left using "Eulsa Treaty" one newspaper uses this term in a citation. Therefore subtracting all this leaves only a summ of 3 articles.
Furthermore looking for "1905" somewhere in paragraph and "protectoreate" and "treaty" in the same sentence number of hits rises from 14 to 141. The same for the other two terms (by adding "japan" and "korea" for checking if they could be found in same paragraph).
Based on this research "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" is the title most people would most likely look for.
Nevertheless I prefer the term "1905 Protectorate Treaty" as this title is more specific and people can be assured that the article is indeed about that topic they look for (or not). --Valentim (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse neutral analysis of Valentim --Tenmei (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" or even "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905" as most specific and incorporating the most likely searches for the treaty. I think "Eulsa Treaty" should be included in the first sentence, however, as it is the most commonly-used title for Korean newspapers based on the information presented by Anthony Appleyard. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the most commonly used name in English speaking countries. Oda Mari (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to a descriptive treaty name. I prefer "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty" and I feel "Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905" is too precise. --Kusunose 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you subtract Korean newspapers? And why do you ignore the numbers include Japanese newspaper? Let me know the reason. I don't think it presents POV, it's natural out come of history description. When you count number, is it reasonable to exclude a statistics of a country which has the most frequent referers? --Cheol (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ryuch = Cheol: "Why do you subtract Korean newspapers? And why do you ignore the numbers include Japanese newspaper? [...] [Eulsa Treaty is] natural out come of history description.": That's only partly true. It is only natural outcome in Korean as "Eulsa" is the korean articulation of "乙巳". If someone here had questioned to use "isshi" or "itsushi" (the japanese articulations of "乙巳") I would have exclude japanese newspapers, too, in order to minimize non-natural influence on the English language.
Anyway, even if you don't subtract those newspapers with korean background the title "Eulsa Treaty" will still be the name with the fewest hits (Eulsa Treaty: 57 << Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty: 124 < 1905 Protectorate Treaty: 141 << Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905: 338). --Valentim (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't think so. We have to count names, we must not include descriptions. We could not create our own names from the description, even though we do not quite understand well the name. We have to deal with exact names. --Cheol (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We have to deal with exact names.": Well, we are dealing with exact names, all of the possible alternatives are "exact names". And they all fit to Wikipedia:UCN#Deciding an article title.
"We could not create our own names from the description": Where did you find that on Wikipedia:Article titles? There are many article titles who do not follow your argument. Or did you meant to oppose to Wikipedia:UCN#Deciding an article title in general? --Valentim (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we already have a name. On Wikipedia:Article titles, you can find 'straight forward one is better'.--Cheol (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the so-called discussion which has began in early August here:
A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.
  1. Leave it at its current name?
  2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
  3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
  4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
  5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.
B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.
In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Individual notices mirroring my diff above were posted at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan; User talk:Kusunose; User talk:Oda Mari; User talk:Anthony Appleyard; User talk:Nihonjoe; User talk:Phoenix7777; User talk:Elmor; User talk:Valentim; User talk:Historiographer; User talk:Aocduio; and User talk:Ryuch -- Tenmei (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fork[edit]

  • When I saw the name "Eulsa Treaty" I thought that "Eulsa" would be the place where the treaty was signed, but the article says that it is not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I understand, it has something to do with the name of the year in Korean. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why you could accept a Korean place, but not a year name in Korean. Year name could not have a point of view. It's a just name which is called by whom call it. --Cheol (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you specify to whom your comment is directed to? It couldn't be me as I never said something like "If this treaty name had been derivated from a place name I certainly would have opposed to that moving request". My comment above about "Eulsa" and WP:UCN is bound on the research on LexisNexis which shows "Eulsa Treaty" with the lowest hit quota of all given choices. --Valentim (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anthony wrote he thought that it's a place name. And I want to state again to you, Valentim, the year number has no POV as number has no POV and place has no POV. --Cheol (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this small fork in our thread is off-topic.

My reasoning is informed by Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals. In other words, it does not obviously contribute to the process of consensus-building.

FACT: Anthony Appleyard is participating in this thread for one and only one reason -- to help us move towards consensus; and this fork does nothing to move us towards that goal. --Tenmei (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation is closed? Who were mediators? I hardly agree the renaming. Why did you bring this issue to mediation? --Cheol (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheol -- Please allow me to remind you that you were personally notified at User talk:Ryuch#Mediation -- see here. An embedded hyperlink in the message on your talk page makes it easy for you to access answers to questions like the ones you raise here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to provide the evidence, I did not say you cheated me. The mediation request itself has no problem. I mean the settle down of the mediation is too arbitrary. You just ruled out without enough mediations. --Cheol (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2010
Agree to User:Ryuch|Cheol, but not because it is "too arbitrary", I disagree because Cheol has risen here his reason for his disagreement on the move under mentioning WP:UCN. This argument I take serious and we should take time to check his argument. Later today I will go on mediating about this point, if noone disagrees. --Valentim (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia:Article titles to find proper article title[edit]

Summary: Both partys accepted the statistical result of Google and LexisNexis which shows "Eulsa Treaty" as lowest hit quota and "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" as highest hit quota of all given possibilities. Despite that fact it was said here that there is still an argument due to WP:AT which perhaps could overweight the research result.

@Ryuch: As I'm not a native english speaker I have to guess what "straight forward [article name] is better" means. I think that describes that the objects name due to e.g. a dictionary should be used, not a description of the object, right? For example: Car instead of transportation vehicle or Hydrogen instead of single-protoned atom. If my interpretation is not correct, please provide a definition in simple english as I did above.

Let's start: I decided not to beginn with questions as people sometimes avoid to read lond discussions. I think we can afford here to go directly to the analysis procedure given in Wikipedia:UCN#Deciding an article title. Therefore I will beginn to sum up in two tables where I see we have come so far and where we need to go on with talks. Maybee further talks are unnecessary if the tables shows a overwhelming result wich overweight the other alternative. --Valentim (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables will be shown here within the next hours. --Valentim (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eulsa Treaty Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905
Recognizability (1) no yes
Naturalness (1) no yes
Precision yes yes
Conciseness yes yes
Consistency (2) no no
Straightforward yes no
Conclusion (3) 3 4

(1): Based on Google and LexisNexis research
(2): No consistency on en-wp on thus and similar issue as article titles were decided independly of one another
(3): Summary of all given "yes" in a column

To verify this table let's compare both names directly and see which name is better on a single criteria (ET = Eulsa Treaty, JKT = Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905):

Direct comparison
Recognizability (1) JKT
Naturalness (1) JKT
Precision (4) JKT
Conciseness both
Consistency (5) JKT
Straightforward ET
Conclusion ET = 2, JKT = 5

(4): There can be only one(!) "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905", but as "Eula" is a derivated name of the chinese 60-years-calendar the propability that there will be another "Eulsa Treaty" (or already was?) is not zero.
(5): If there ever will be a systematic on article names regarding treaties the propability of using such Terms as "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" is higher as due to the finit amount of derivated names from location, etc. and due the almost infinitive amount of treaties regarding to both past and future.

Both tables show that article name should be renamed to "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" due to WP:AT. If someone wishes I can also make comperisons to other names, too, but the majority here seem to prefer the name "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905". --Valentim (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core policies encourage us to parse this thread's development applying a four-prong examination. This aspect of our thread can be summarized in a table format.
Talking past each other
Questions Non-support for article name change Support for Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905
1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute? None cited by opposition See diffs above
2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus? Unaddressed by opposition See diffs above
3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited? None cited by opposition See diffs above
4. Are unsourced assertions being used? Yes No
These four questions are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all expressions of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality. I don't see how this can be simplified further.

Those who support changing the name of this article have invested in research which showed pros and cons. Those who oppose have been either unwillilng or unable to present refutation or counterargument. --Tenmei (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valentim, thank you for the analysis. Your approach is really helpful to build a consensus. But I think your metric and evaluation could be more neutral and more effective if one or more mediators could examine. I don't agreed the judgement on recognizability and precision of ET. ET looks fine for me on those measures. I hope one more native English speaker especially who has the knowledge on the history of eastern Asia would help for this mediation. --Cheol (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryuch = Cheol: Oh c'mon, your statement is nonesense on the whole, and I think you know it. You cannot "dismiss" mediators on your own wish nor is it necessary that you personally accept them. Also knowledge on history of Eastern Asia is not necessary. My mediation is the way to collect all facts and to show them to both parties and to find a solution without neglecting thus facts. It is not pursuable that you now beginn to dispute Google and LexisNexis researches and disagree on mathematics.
@all: As far as I can see there is't anymore a valid reason for rejecting the moving request. Both parties had shown there arguments and it definitly looks like "Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905" is the better article title due to WP:AT. --Valentim (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dismiss you. You did your judgement and I acknowledge you as a neutral mediator. I think mediation is not same as arbitration. If there is a possibility both parties could agree, we'd better to try. I don't ignore the numbers you found but the judgement on recognizability and precision could be subjective, so I propose I would accept if we could have more mediators. I think If the mediator have better knowledge, it would be better. But I don't insist his qualification, I believe anyone who has neutral attitude he could help to build a consensus. --Cheol (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, let's wait for User:Anthony Appleyard's statement (he is the responsible administrator for this discussion). --Valentim (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Anthony Aplleyard now hereby as it seems like he was not aware of our request of his opinion. --Valentim (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mediation[edit]

Per a request, I have offered to mediate a naming dispute - please review Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty and express your acceptance/rejection of me as mediator, or mediation there. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?[edit]

The dates in the section about "Treaty Provisions" seem wrong. It mentions, for example, “The provisions of the treaty took effect in January 1885.” How can the treaty take effect years before it is even signed? A few lines later, the date of February 21, 2008, is mentioned, apparently wrong as well. Someone should verify those dates: I feel that somebody changed the right dates in an act of wiki-vandalism that went unnoticed... CielProfond (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan–Korea_Treaty_of_1905&oldid=1207795620"