Jump to content

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Add (East sea)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to add the suggested text to the article at this time. (non-admin closure) ——Serial # 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Should the alternative name "(East Sea)" be added in parentheses after the first mention of "Sea of Japan" in the lead sentence of this article?

According to the WP:NC-SoJ, Korean article should use Sea of Japan (East Sea), but this article only use Sea of Japan, Dokdo has controversy between Japan and S.Korea, but Dokdo is include in Korea. So I think this article should follow Japan/Korea and South Korea articles at WP:NC-SoJ#Sea of Japan (East Sea) this regulation. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 06:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not the article about the sea, so has no obligation to use its alternative names, which belong in the article that is about the sea. Requests to change the name should be made there, accompanied by sources that verify that English language use has changed. Britmax (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What are the proposed texts? This is confusing and does not follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief​. Can you reformulate? AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a more explicit RfC question above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It is true that the guideline page at WP:NC-SoJ prescribes that the parenthetical "(East Sea)" should be added to the first mention of "Sea of Japan" in articles like this. However, I would question whether that is still a valid, enforceable guideline today. As far as I remember, it was created back in 2004 or 2005 or thereabouts, based on a "vote" of a handful of contributors, and it has become thoroughly out of touch with the general development of naming policies on Wikipedia since then. The actual policy we should follow, as outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), is simply: Use English. The English name of that sea is "Sea of Japan". I am not aware of any evidence that English-language publications (outside Korea) ever use alternative names to any significant extent. That's all that matters. There used to be a feeling among Wikipedia editors that it would be somehow appropriate for our naming practices to reflect the political preferences associated with article subjects, such that in an article about things related to country X, things should be named the way people in country X prefer; or that in an article touching on both country X and country Y, alternative names preferred by X'ians and Y'ians should be given equal visibility in order to strike some political balance. That has, in reality, never been a valid criterion for doing anything at all on Wikipedia, and considerations of that sort should play no role whatsoever in what we do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
And also, if this article cannot follow WP:NC-SoJ this, but this article should include (East Sea) like this. According to the this regulation. Here is English Wikipedia, not USA or British Wikipedia. So, this article can be seen by Korean people. And I am also Korean. But if this article only include Sea of Japan, I think it can make controversy. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 13:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The non-mandatory naming suggestion is only a guideine and having last been agreed by only eight people 15 years ago and the descision was a binary Sea of Japan/East Sea or East Sea/Sea of Japan it doesnt really reflect the consensus on articles such as this which is to link to the relevant article currently at the Sea of Japan. As it has been said before if that article name changes then we can change the link here. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
What is the procedure for getting this wrong-headed guideline erased? --Khajidha (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean altered? First, alter the title of the article Sea of Japan. To do that, you will have to find some references that say the common name there (in English) has changed. Once you use that to persuade the editors there that this is the case, the title there will change, and so will the links to that article from here and any other article it links to. Another way would be to persuade editors that we should use the Korean name here in the English Wikipedia, also in the Sea of Japan article. Good luck with that. Britmax (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Who are you responding to?--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to indent. Britmax (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still confused. I was asking how to get this crazy "we have to mention the Korean name(s) all over the place whenever the Sea of Japan is mentioned" stipulation. The article is titled Sea of Japan because that is the common English name, so that is the form that should be used in English texts. The details about the Korean name(s) don't belong anywhere other than the Sea of Japan article and the actual article about the naming dispute.--Khajidha (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd say, open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean), point out how the current stipulation is not in line with the regular naming policies, point out how the current discussion here demonstrates it's no longer matched by consensus in practice, and propose removing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd also make sure it gets noted either on the Village pump or added to the Centralized discussion to make sure a wide variety and large number of people come participate in the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how to do that. --Khajidha (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, here is English Wikipedia not American or British Wikipedia. Think about if Korean people see this article and what they reaction. We should follow WP:NPOV. And I didn't say change Sea of Japan to East Sea. Just include (East Sea) this. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 06:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is an English Wikipedia not an American or British Wikipedia. However English speaking countries like New Zealand, Australia ,Canada and Singapore never used "East Sea". Korean nationalists reaction is nothing to do with WP:NPOV.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't required that change Sea of Japan to East Sea. I required just include (East Sea) or (DongHae in Korea). If it only include Sea of Japan, Liancourt Rocks is can be seen as Japanese territory. But Liancourt Rocks is Korean territory. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 07:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you also confused by the fact that Padre Island (part of Texas in the United States) is in the Gulf of Mexico?--Khajidha (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 02:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean the fact that the Liancourt Rocks are in the Sea of Japan doesn't mean that the islands "can be seen as Japanese territory" any more than the fact that Padre Island is in the Gulf of Mexico means that it must be Mexican territory. The name of the body of water has nothing to do with what country owns or controls any islands in that body of water. --Khajidha (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I know that area has no dispute about territory. But you know that Liancourt Rocks has dispute between Korean and Japan. So, I think it can be problematic to mark only certain areas of water in conflict. So, I want to change Sea of Japan to Sea of Japan (East sea or Donghea is Korea). --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You aren't making any sense, "it can be problematic to mark only certain areas of water in conflict" would be a reason not to list both names here. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that include Sea of Japan (Donghae in Korean). --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, assuming the guideline is unchanged (uninvolved editor) – this should be a straightforward application of the WP:NC-SoJ guideline. And that guideline states clearly that the first mention in South Korea-Japan articles like this one should include the parenthetical. Every one of the !votes above that tries to argue for the merits of one name or the other should be given no weight by the closer, since this RfC does not have the scope to modify a guideline. I have no objection to a discussion that might result in the modification of that guideline, but the process needs to be followed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I can see where you're coming from, but I think you've still got it backwards as far as the process issue is concerned. The argument here has not been that this or that name is preferable, but that the guideline itself is invalid. A guideline is invalid (a) if it can be shown to contradict another, more general guideline backed by stronger project-wide consensus, and (b) if it can be shown to lack consensus support by the editing community in actual practice. This article is one piece of evidence for just this finding, and as such, the present discussion is a legitimate part of the process that will eventually also lead to overturning the guideline. You might have had a point if there had been a stable situation of the article following the guideline and somebody was suddenly trying to change it now – but the opposite is the case. Editors at this article have consistently, for years, chosen to ignore the WP:NC-SoJ guideline in favour of the more legitimate WP:USEENGLISH rule, and the present discussion is about to confirm this consensus. And I dare say the number of editors who have contributed to shaping this "local" consensus here and to upholding it in this discussion is already higher than the number of editors who were ever involved in shaping WP:NC-SoJ (as I said, unless my memory fails me it was a very small "vote" a very long time ago, and the guideline talkpage is largely inactive these days), so you can't really discount this consensus on grounds of "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Until the worldwide community decides that a name other than "Sea of Japan" is preferable, which would therefore cause that new preferred name to be used more regularly, there's no valid argument for changing it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, NC-SoJ stands, we must accept the proposed edit.
Thank you @Leemsj2075: for bringing this matter into the light. As aforementioned, it does very clearly state in the Naming conventions guideline WP:NC-SoJ that "for all Japan/Korea and South Korea articles use: Sea of Japan (East Sea)".
There's been a challenge to this guideline that it could be invalid, but this is not the page to question this. It would be advised that the argument be moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean) should there be any disagreement.
It could be argued that there is a contradiction between WP:NC-SoJ and WP:USEENGLISH, but I respectfully disagree. WP:UEIA, which is within the page WP:USEENGLISH states that we should include the alternative in the first usage, which exactly matches what Leemsj2075 is suggesting.
I understand the case that it's simpler to leave it as "Sea of Japan", without the parenthetical recognition only at the start; this is the English Wikipedia, and it is true the "Sea of Japan" is the current international standard, but we should note that the nomenclature of "Sea of Japan" only became popular in the colonial and imperial era (the 19th century); way before that, the "East Sea" was dominantly more commonly used. I'll keep it short. Although the Sea of Japan is now more common, this nomenclature is only legally binding only the 1953 version of the publication S-23 – Limits of Oceans and Seas of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), which was 70 years ago, when Korea was not even a member of the organisation then and didn't have a voice (Korea joined in 1957). The IHO is scheduled to update this report in 2020 (this year), and it is anticipated that both nomenclature is included. After all, it's only writing "East Sea" for the first usage and not continuously throughout the article. A Google search will show that there is a heated dispute of the nomenclature, countries such as Israel in fact oppose the usage of the "Sea of Japan", and WP:DIVIDEDUSE stands.
Before I end, I'd like to take the opportunity to apologise as a Korean for any vandalism and damage caused by others with regards to this naming dispute. Koreans feel very passionate to correct the past, especially as it is seen as unjust and unfair. It seems the actions were prompted as a release of strong emotional distress in a negative form which caused harm to our Wikipedian society, and I hope this will be reduced with the recognition on the page that a dispute exists through this edit.
Overall, once again, the suggested change Should the alternative name "(East Sea)" be added in parentheses after the first mention of "Sea of Japan" in the lead sentence of this article? by Leemsj2075 should be upheld. It's merely about acknowledging that the island and the sea is disputed, only one time at the very beginning.
I hope we can agree and come to a consensus soon. Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the WP:UEIA guideline you referred to above. The suggestion to "include alternatives" is only for the lead section of the titular article (Sea of Japan, in this case). It's not about other articles that merely refer to it. And no, naming choices are not, and should never be, about "acknowledging" that something is "disputed". Naming choices are about what is common in English, and only that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, this [1] was a very ugly act of POV canvassing. Don't ever do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I respectfully disagree and am disturbed by the clearly ad hominem response. I will keep this short. Please restrain from personal attacks and comments that could be considered uncivil. This is not the page to do so. WP:DBN WP:COOL WP:AAGF WP:ADHOMINEM Thank you Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in what I said was an ad hominem (please look up what that word means before you throw it around at random). Nothing in it was uncivil or a personal attack either. If you don't want to be called out for your misbehaviour, don't misbehave. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you must be good behavior first. Why did you erase one's opinion? There was no personal attack. You can send your opinion, isn't it? Don't behave like this. --Leemsj2075 (Talk | Contributions) 07:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the last I will engage in this argument, as it would be preferable that this discussion stay focused on the main question at hand. I would like to clarify that labeling [2] as "a very ugly act of POV canvassing", I deem is mistaken. The post simply asks people to join this debate and participate, with absolutely no railroading. It would be advised that the administrator be more welcoming and supportive of suggestions, especially by new editors who work to improve Wikipedia with good faith. Instead of reverting, please provide a valid and informative explanation; it is incivil and violates Wikipedia's fundamental policies WP:ROWN, WP:REVEXP. Please do not continue fill to this talk page with comments unrelated to the matter of including East Sea parenthetically in the first usage--please instead move over to another talk page should you wish to continue this conversation. Ericgyuminchoi (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. On almost all modern maps, it is written "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". Only recently, I looked how German maps handle it in recent years and it is hard to find a map where "East Sea" is not added. --Christian140 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
What do German maps have to do with English usage?--Khajidha (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure when you look at English maps, it will be the same. But I do not know American, Australian or British publishers of Atlases. I followed some Wikipedia links, but most of them are dead. But these two still exist [3], [4] (bad map). And everyone knows the Google Maps situation, showing Sea of Japan when closer to Japan and East Sea when being closer to Korea. While Bing shows both, but switches which name is used first. When closer to Korea, East Sea comes first, when closer to Japan, Sea of Japan comes first. But actually, I think it is better to have a look how big publishers of offline maps and atlases handle it. They probably would also have some maps on their websites. --Christian140 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica uses "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" in articles related to Korea, e.g. South Korea, and uses "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on it's maps, e.g. in the article for Japan. --Christian140 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Per WP:NCUE, Wikipedia must use the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources, and that name is Sea of Japan. Alternate names should be included in Sea of Japan, but not elsewhere. By including "East Sea" to this article, or any Korea-related article, we are shifting undue weight in favor of the peninsula's political position. If you support this position, then you should logically support the inclusion of the name Takeshima in all articles that mention the Liancourt Rocks. Something tells me that's not the case. ƏXPLICIT 06:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. Liancourt Rocks is the neutral term, while the Korean name is Dokdo and the Japanese one is Takeshima. Also, the name is not disputed. But Sea of Japan is directly disputed and East Sea is the neutral term. Moreover, yes, it would be good for some article to mention Dokdo and Takeshima alongside Liancourt Rocks. --Christian140 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Christian140: Can you explain how you conclude that East Sea is the neutral term? --T*U (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No per WP:COMMONNAME. The commonly used name in English is "Sea of Japan". It is true that many modern maps (but certainly not all) use both names as in "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", but that has very little to do with the question discussed here. No-one is proposing that the "East Sea" name should not be mentioned when talking about the Sea itself, and in the article Sea of Japan the name "East Sea" is duly mentioned as an alternative name. But this article is not about the Sea, but about the island group that in English is called Liancourt Rocks. In this article we duly mention the alternative names "Dokdo" and "Takeshima", and if someone wants to follow the link to "Sea of Japan", they will get the alternative name "East Sea" there. Similarly, in the article about Japanese sea lion, we find the sentence The last credible documentation was made in 1951 on the Liancourt Rocks reporting 50 to 60 animals., linking to this article. We do not say "... was made in 1951 on the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo, Takeshima) reporting 50 ..." or even "... was made in 1951 on the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo, Takeshima) in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) reporting 50 ...". --T*U (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The versions that would incorporate the double naming are obvious examples of bad writing, and any rule, policy, or guideline trying to impose bad writing is void. --Khajidha (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location

Setting location to "Sea of Japan" is misleading. IHO already agreed to name with numbers instead of Donghae or Sea of Japan in their upcoming new version S130. This wikipedia too should name with other neutral name instead of misleading, biased name "Sea of Japan." It could be East Sea, Sea of Far East, etc. Liger0530 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No one cares what the IHO says. No one cares what Korea thinks. No one cares what Japan thinks. This is the English language Wikipedia, we use the commonly used English names for things. For this body of water, that is "Sea of Japan". --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dokdo

This article needs to use the correct name of this island, which is Korean Territory.61.223.65.242 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Whose territory it is isn't important. We call it by what it is commonly called in English. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

Hello, I am a middle school student in Korea. Wikipedia articles are very helpful to me. As a member of VANK, I am working to correct errors in the Republic of Korea. 

I saw that it was written incorrectly about Dokdo. Dokdo is located in the East Sea. However, the site indicated that it is located in the sea of ​​Japan.
If you read this article, I hope you change it to the East sea. Thank you for always sharing your knowledge with people.
I am sending this article to share correct information about Korea with people all over the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehdbkdy (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to correct, as there is no error. We use the commonly used English terms. Neither "Dokdo" nor "East Sea" fit that criterion. The English terms are "Liancourt Rocks" and "Sea of Japan". --Khajidha (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

220.85.149.200 (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Instead of Sea of Japan, we would rather call it the East Sea.

 Not done: see above. Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description

@Britmax: Regarding this: Woudn't it be more useful to have the two alternative names of the rocks in the short description rather than the name of the sea? Short descriptions are for helping readers find the right articles. Sandstein 15:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Short descriptions" are about what something is. Alternate names are about what something is called. What something is called is more properly handled by disambiguation notes and by the text of the intro. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Emilydancerahn1 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) This is wrong the name is not Liancourt Rocks it is just Dokdo. The territory is not Japan it is South Korea. The claimer is not Japan it is claimed from Korea. Change this right now

 Not done: Please see the notices at the top of the page. casualdejekyll 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

리앙쿠르 암초 문서의 제목 이동

이 섬은 분명 대한민국이 실효지배중이고, 일본은 독도가 대한민국의 섬이라는 증거가 많음에도 다케시마라고 우기는 중입니다. "독도"(Dok do)로 문서 제목을 변경 요청합니다. --밀크맛 우유 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

1) This is the English language Wikipedia, you need to make any requests, suggestions, or edits in the English language. 2) As the English language Wikipedia, we use the name commonly used in English language sources. --Khajidha (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Put through Google translate, that last request is: Move the title of the Liancourt Reef article This island is clearly under the effective control of the Republic of Korea, and Japan is claiming that Dokdo is Takeshima even though there is a lot of evidence that Dokdo is an island of the Republic of Korea. Request to change the title of the document to "Dok do". --milk flavored milk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britmax (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: Please see the notices at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No if it is changed to that it will be biased Jukeye (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

North Korea

As North Korea also claims these geodes, which (North Korean) province does it consider it to be part a of? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Change title

Change the title to Dokdo because this title just feels like an article by westerners thinking that they are superior to Easterners. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How about we change it to Takeshima? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 Not done See the templates at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I know, I was just being facetious. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A critical error on the oldest map depicting Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) under the "History" Section

There is a critical error under the History section of Liancourt Rocks about the oldest map depicting the island of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). The oldest one existing at the moment is the "PalDoChongDo" from 1530 (source: Source), NOT "Matsushima Ezu", 1656"

(PalDoChongDo-The map of the entire 8 province of Korea) The map was made in 1530. This map shows Dokdo is located in west of Ulrengdo. Even though the location is not quite accurate; however, we can see that Korean ancestor’s awareness of their territory Dokdo and Ulrengdo. Please correct the wrong information Smoonjungs (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

These islands belong to South Korea. Japan's claims are actually offensive and don't make any sense.

South Korea controlling the islands being contested by Japan is actually ridiculous. Japan got it in 1905, but Japan's annexation of Korea should be considered illegal, and Japan's claims that it was not illegal are wrong. It feels like Japan almost got a free pass for their war crimes. This claim is actually offensive due to the atrocities commited, but Japan also denies them which is actually wrong. And, these Islands are also formerly controlled by Silla, which was one of the three kingdoms of Korea. And Japan handed back all the territory, and yet still claims these islands. And also, even if some treaties say that they belong to Japan, these islands belong to South Korea. Jishiboka1 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's Dokdo, not Takeshima, and it's the East Sea, not Sea of Japan.

Dokdo is an island that was designated as a natural monument in 1982 as a state-owned land owned by the Korean government. Dokdo has been recognized and used as an island attached to Ulleungdo since the Three Kingdoms Period, and it is still a Korean territory with about 52 Korean residents. Therefore, it is not right to describe Dokdo as Takeshima or Liancourt rock. Also, it is not right for the sea where Dokdo is located to be listed as the East Sea, which is located in the east of Korea, as a Sea of Japan. 222.104.206.172 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Except that this article is written in English and those are the standard English names. This has nothing to do with who controls it. You want to use the Korean names? Go to the Korean Wikipedia. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please write down East Sea with Sea of Japan together since it is disputed.

I believe that Wikopedia aims an encyclopedia, which provides clear and good knowledge. 124.50.158.99 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We do. That's why the dispute and the various names are already in the article. However, we also aim to write in English. Following the usage in actual English language sources. Those sources are overwhelmingly in favor of the name Sea of Japan. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Title of article is inconsistent with the naming convention of other articles that are about disputed islands

Based on the naming convention of other articles about disputed islands, why is this article titled Liancourt rocks instead of Dokdo Islands?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands Territorial dispute between Russia and Japan. Japan refers to the islands as the Northern Territories. The island is under Russian administration and is referred to as the Kuril Islands in Russian. Title of the article is Kuril Islands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands Territorial dispute between China, Taiwan and Japan. China refers to the islands as the Diaoyu Islands. Taiwan refers to the area as the Diaoyutai Islands. The islands are under Japanese administration and is referred to as the Senkaku Islands by Japan. Title of the article is Senkaku Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is administered by South Korea. South Korea refers to the islands as Dokdo. Therefore, this article should be titled Dokdo Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We write in ENGLISH. In English, they are called the Liancourt Rocks. This has NOTHING to do with what they are called in Korean or Japanese or who controls them. As for your example of the Kuril Islands, the article is at that name because that is what they are called in English. What they are called in Russian or Japanese or any other language doesn't matter. I'm not familiar with the Senkaku Islands but, again, it is English usage that matters, not that of the disputants.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
What the islands are called in different languages does matter. Each island have different names under different languages, and have been Romanized for an English speaking audience. Senkaku, under the administration of Japan, has been Romanized from the kanji characters " 尖閣" (pronounced Senkaku). Western sources (I guess this is what you're referring to when you say "English") call the islands the "Pinnacle Islands". Yet, the title of the article is titled Senkaku Islands.
Kuril Islands got their name from the Ainu language. according to the article, Russia calls it the Kuril Islands, while some Japanese sources refer to them as the Thousands Islands.
There seems to be inconsistencies between all three of the articles, if we were to use your naming convention. LilAhok (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No, other language usage is irrelevant to English language usage. What these islands are called in Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or anything else is no more relevant to what they are called in English than what words those languages use for any other word. Looking over recent news, I find articles from CNN and the Guardian that use "Senkaku". That is a pretty good indication that that is English language usage. The convention is to follow modern English usage. Our titles seem to match that. The fact that this does not line up with what the islands are called by the people that control them is irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No. There is no evidence that majority of English speakers call the island "Liancourt rocks". In fact, majority of English uses "Dokdo" or "Takeshima".
Dokdo(Liancourt rocks) is the territory of Korea. So official name of the island should be "Dokdo". Stjjh980 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is not a WP:COMMONNAME

It seems like Liancourt Rocks does not actually satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, considering Google ngram search result shows that Dokdo or Takeshima is more frequently used than Liancourt Rocks.

Considering that 1. "takeshima" also refers to name of people in Japanese language, and 2. neither "Dokdo" nor "Takeshima" holds sway over each other, I think title of this article should be changed into "Dokdo/Takeshima" (in alphabetical order, which is used by number of WP:RS[1][2][3]) -- 61.73.153.122 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Snyder, Scott A. "South Korea-Russia Air Incident: What to Know". cfr.org. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  2. ^ "Profile: Dokdo/Takeshima islands". BBC. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  3. ^ "South Korea starts drills at Japan-claimed islands". Deutsch Welle. August 25, 2019. Retrieved September 13, 2022.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea" Amydylee (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is clearly a contentious naming issue, and therefore consensus must be clear before an edit request can be completed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Please change'form a group of islets in the Sea of Japan between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.' to ' form a group of islets in the East Sea (Korea) / Sea of Japan (Japan) between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.' 

   'East Sea' has been used by Koreans for more than 2,000 years, and this fact can be confirmed in various Korean historical materials and old maps, including the “Samguk Sagi”,"tombstone of King Gwanggaeto the Great", and “The Map of the A-guk”.

On the other hand, it is claimed that the name 'Sea of ​​Japan' was used for the first time in Matteo Ricci's "Konyeo World Map" in 1602, but various historical sources prove that the Japanese themselves did not recognize the name of the East Sea area as the 'Sea of ​​Japan'. The fact that a number of maps produced in Japan at the time, such as Yeojijeondo (1844)”, indicate the waters of the East Sea as the “Sea of ​​Joseon,” which includes the name of Korea’s old country, Joseon, indicates that the name “Sea of ​​Japan” was established even in Japan. showing that it was not 

   Geographical names for features shared by two or more countries are generally determined through consultations between the countries concerned, and if the names of features cannot be agreed upon, the geographical names used in each country are written together. These general principles of mapping are confirmed in the resolutions of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN).
   International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) Resolution 1/1972 (1974)

If two or more countries share a feature with different names, try to agree on a single place name, but if a common place name is not agreed, it is recommended to use each place name unless it is impossible for technical reasons.

.United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names Resolution III/20 (1977) It is recommended that, as a general principle of international cartography, it be made to accept all different geographical names in case the parties cannot agree on a single place name for a feature that is under the sovereignty of two or more countries or is divided between two or more countries.

Accordingly, the names of the East Sea and the Sea of ​​Japan must be written together in this document. The dispute over the name of the East Sea and the Sea of ​​Japan is also a very important dispute between Korea and Japan, along with the Dokdo (Takeshima) dispute.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea Homepage Foreign Policy Category Kr.tjoo (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. @Kr.tjoo: See the top of this discussion page. If you're on mobile, go to Template:Liancourt Rocks probation. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight晚安 06:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks → ? – No. There is no evidence that majority of English speakers call the island "Liancourt rocks". In fact, majority of English uses "Dokdo" or "Takeshima". Gerçois (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks does not actually satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, considering Google ngram search result shows that Dokdo or Takeshima is more frequently used than Liancourt Rocks.
Considering that 1. "takeshima" also refers to name of people in Japanese language, and 2. neither "Dokdo" nor "Takeshima" holds sway over each other, I think title of this article should be changed into "Dokdo/Takeshima" (in alphabetical order, which is used by number of WP:RS[1][2][3]) Gerçois (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose because renaming the article Dokdo or Takeshima will inherently make it less NPOV. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shadow of the Starlit Sky i propose dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because it is neutral Gerçois (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
But then, doing that can lead to some believing the Korean POV is more important. I just wanted to note that in the past people have switched around Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo/Takeshima to WP:POVPUSH and make WP:DISRUPTIVE edits, and I don't want any of that happening here. Not to mention that writing all those slashes while saying "Dokdo/Takeshima" will reduce readability. Thus, I oppose. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want proof I can provide some diffs if needed. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shadow of the Starlit Sky yes please Gerçois (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've found a few diffs of POV edits (not only switching around Dokdo/Takeshima, but some of them also show people switching around East Sea/Sea of Japan)
[5] (not really dokdo but more east sea/sea of japan)
[6]
[7] (this one is an especially good examples of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing via removing Takeshima)
[8] (Sea of Japan)
[9]
Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Most of other disputed islands and boundary dispute use name for its current effective occupier, such as Falkland Islands and Senkaku Islands, and it perfectly follows current norm for WP:COMMONNAME, which is not violating NPOV. Because simply it is 'real' common name for calling. Look at authority files for librarians. Almost ALL of renowned national libraries and institutes uses name of islands along with its occupier, including the Library of Congress.[4][5] Is their any reason why this specific article should follow particularly different norm or rule? Which is not aligned to any of naming consensus for English Wikipedia? - SCMBD (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that "Liancourt Rock" isn't really the WP:COMMONNAME in English (it quite likely isn't), and I'm generally of the opinion that we should firmly base our geographical naming practices on "common usage", and in doing so discount all catering to national sensitivities and preferences or balancing between them (which is often misunderstood as a matter of "neutrality"). So, if it was indeed shown that some other name (say, "Dokdo") was indeed a lot more common, I'd be all for changing the name to that, and "neutrality" be damned. The problem is just, in this particular case it is exceptionally difficult, quite likely impossible, to demonstrate such a common usage. It certainly can't be done with simple Google searches or ngrams. Reasons include:
    • "Dokdo" has multiple name variants difficult to search for ("Tokto", "Dok Islands", "Tok Islands", "Dok do", "Tok to", etc.).
    • "Takeshima" is frequently used for different referents, mostly personal names.
    • A large proportion of the web hits for "Dokdo" come from partisan sources – including multiple "patriotic" Korean websites actively created for the purpose of *promoting* the use of that name. All of these ought to be discarded from any reasonable search for what actual common usage in English is.
    So, to serve as a basis for a well-informed move decision, we'd need a careful, qualitative analysis of high-quality independent sources in English that deal with the islands in contexts independent of the naming/sovereignty dispute. Such an analysis should ideally be provided before a RM is started. The bare link to a single ngram as given in the nomination statement here isn't really that.
    As for the option of using a double name ("Dokdo/Takeshima"), I wouldn't exclude that in principle, if it really could be shown that that in fact comes closer to a "common name" usage, i.e. if reliable sources really used this or similar double references as a matter of routine. We had that solution in "Imia/Kardak" for a long time until recently, where I believe the case for such a "common name" status was much stronger than here, but it was changed to simple "Imia" recently, so reintroducing that solution here would probably be another uphill battle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    Comment But then, the problem is, some disruptive editors might just switch Dokdo and Takeshima around to subtly shift the POV and put WP:UNDUE weight on the Korean/Japanese POV. Putting "Dokdo/Takeshima" implies that the Korean claim is more correct while putting "Takeshima/Dokdo" implies that the Japanese claim is more correct. I just don't want disruptive editors to target this article, that's all.
    Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    That is not a justified reason to prevent a rename of the article. There are many articles that receive even more attention than this one, but that doesn't provide an encyclopedic reason as to why Wikipedia should consider one name over another. If such repeated vandalism occurs, the solution should be to protect the page, not to alter the name of the page. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
    Comment I don't agree with the premise of your comment that the ngram results were influenced by "patriotic" Koreaan websites since Google ngram results are exclusively based on printed sources. Google ngram is even officially named "Google Books Ngram Viewer." [6]
    Corpus linguistics research is a systematic and neutral method of researching language usage, and Google ngram viewer at least provides a starting point. It would have been more preferable if there were other high-quality sources that meets requirements you suggested; But I believe that raising the standard of proof to such a high level, in absence of counter-evidence, requires a separate argument for it. 아이서울유 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    Just to respond to your point about Google ngrams being based on books: that's true – but even in a book search, the two first pages of search results are flooded with items such as "Everything You Need To Know About Dokdo", "Dokdo: Korean Territory since the 6th Century", "The Story of Dokdo Residents", "Dokdo is Korean Territory", "Dokdo in Korea: A Story of Dokdo Island, a Korean Territory", "Dokdo in Korea: a story of Dokdo Island, a Korean territory", "The Dokdo Story", "A Story of Dokdo Island: A Korean Territory", "Love You, Dokdo: Historical Trip to Dokdo with a Mentor". All of this is essentially propaganda spam. Incidentally, almost all the other, serious-looking items on the search list are written by Korean authors or at least have Korean co-authors. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that is in itself an exclusion criterion, I do believe that too should make us quite wary about any assumptions regarding regular English usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    There are indeed political pamphlets written with intention of advancing a certain viewpoint, while I'm certainly sure that political pamphlet, slogan and phrases are part of ordinary English corpus as well as non-political one, the problem is "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" is still significantly more frequent than "Liancourt rocks" at least from late 2010s even if we exclude half of results from both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima". Both of them are more commonly used than "Liancourt rocks". The discrepancy is simply too large.
    Again, there is no reason to exclude "propaganda" materials from English corpus, since WP:COMMONNAME is mainly about ordinary usage of English language, regardless of political background. "Kyiv" would be a good example of such case.
    While I indeed believe there are merits of argument against the move based on WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME does not provide such merits anymore. 아이서울유 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    The main reason why specific term "Dokdo" looks like specifically promoted by Korean patriots in internet, is that term is brought out from Revised Romanization of Korean after year 2000 to call "Korean: 독도", when there was already ongoing fierce dispute by patriotic internet users between Japanese and Korean. The English term for "Korean: 독도" before year 2000 , by McCune–Reischauer style, is "Tokto".
    Another important point is that English users does not normally uses geographic term in foreign language, such as 'field', 'mountain' or 'island'. For example, the famous mountain in Japan "富士山" is read by Japanese as "Fujisan" or "Fujiyama" yet it is called Mount Fuji by English, as the "Fuji(富士)" is designation of the mountain and "san(山)" or "yama(山)" is just Japanese term meaning mountain. Likewise, English users does not call Korea's famous southern island "제주도" as "Jejudo". English users rather call it as Jeju Island, as "do" is just Korean term meaning island, while "Jeju" is distinguished designation for that island.
    In this manner, it is quite surprising that English users have to choose headline for this article's islands between "Dokdo" or "Takeshima", because Korean 'do' and Japanese 'shima' is just a noun meaning island. More natural headline for English users would be "Dok Island(Korean term)" or "Take Island(Japanese term)". And as I explained in above paragraph, most of librarians actually uses term "Tok island" for this article's islands,[4] as the Korean designation of the islands "독" is romanized as "Tok" in old McCune–Reischauer style, while new Revised Romanization of Korean uses "Dok" for "Tok".
    Then what would be natural conclusion for this all argument? I suggest we use "Tok Island" or "Dok Island".
    (1) Simple search result for both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" term is harshly contaminated by patriotic Japanese and Korean internet users, so those results cannot be preferred ground for designation of this article. And also, they do not follow real English usage, as Fuijsan is Mount Fuji and Jejudo is Jeju Island in English Wikipedia.
    (2) While search result for google in "Take Island" makes no sense, search result for "Tok Island" makes perfect sense, as it is the real common term widely used by intellectuals, including librarians, in English world for calling this article's islands.[4] - SCMBD (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but its this reply that makes no sense. Dokdo and Takeshima are far more commonly used in English than "Dok Island"/"Tok Island"/"Tok to"/"Take Island"/etc etc. (which are all outdated anyways) Whether or not to include the island suffix is a completely case by case situation, based the on English usage in that specific situation. If you want previous precedent, see Ulleungdo. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no clear and neutral common name in English. That's why Liancourt Rocks is used. Masterhatch (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Masterhatch I propose dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because Liancourt rock is no the a common name
    reliable sources such as the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19207086 and DW https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-starts-drills-at-japan-claimed-islands/a-50155334 use dokdo/Tekeshima Gerçois (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    "dokdo/Tekeshima" doesn't work because wikipedia doesn't like those slashes in article names. So, keeping status quo is still the best option at this time. Masterhatch (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Masterhatch I'm i didn't understand is it a technical problem or a rule because there are a lot of article that use the slash such as /pol/ Gerçois (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    It's not a technical issue. It's style. When there are two relatively common names for a subject, generally speaking, both names are not used with a slash between them. One name is chosen. With both Dokdo and Tekeshima being very hot button names, a more neutral name has been chosen (Liancourt Rocks). I would be more open to a debate about renaming this article either Dokdo Islands or Tekeshima Islands than I would about using both names with a slash. Masterhatch (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Masterhatch i understand, I think we should leave it as Liancourt until dokdo or Tekeshima become more used, because right now they are used equally as much it we'd be biased to choose dokdo or Tekeshima Gerçois (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Gerçois I suggest "Tok Island" instead, as it is more normal English naming style. You can find many reasons why I support this alternative plan from my reply for @Future Perfect at Sunrise in above paragraph. SCMBD (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. While I agree that neither Korea nor Japan prefers "Liancourt rocks" over "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" respectively, "Liancourt rocks" does not strictly fall under "neutral" point of view because official position of Korea is that there is no dispute at all.[7] It's more of an outsider point of view. It's akin to Taiwan. Both "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "Taiwan, province of China" favors a certain POV, but it does not automatically mean that "Taiwan" is a neutral name.
    Since "Liancourt rocks" is neither a neutral nor common but outdated name shortly used during early 20th century, I guess there are three options:
    • Dokdo, which obviously favors Korean POV but is consistent with other articles using a name preferred by administering state. (Falkland islands, Kuril islands, Senkaku islands and etc.)
    • Dokdo/Takeshima, which contains both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima", reflecting a practice of using both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima, which is common in English literature, in alphabetical order, which is also a common way of ordering words, phrases and sentences in English language. Putting a simple explanation in FAQ section that following alphabetical order does not mean Japanese POV is more illegitimate should solve NPOV problem. "D" simply comes first.
    • Status quo, which is neither common nor neutral but the title of the article remains same, like Republic of Ireland except that there is no WP:ARBCOM order in this case. 아이서울유 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly support move to Dokdo As has been previously discussed, having an article title with both names is not an acceptable solution (ie. Dokdo/Takeshima or Dokdo or Takeshima). It has also been discussed that Google Ngram information on "Takeshima" is unreliable because of its use as a common Japanese name and also because of its use as the name of Takeshima (island) (not to mention that having parenthetical disambiguation is discouraged when not necessary). Two points that have not been brought up yet are:
  1. "What are the islands called outside of the context of the dispute?"
  2. "What is the island called in the most cited academic literature on the topic?"

I have gathered references on the two questions below:

All[8] English-language[9] academic sources[10] on the islands with 20 or more citations[11] found through Google Scholar[12]

Sorted from greatest to fewest citations

Uses "Liancort [sic] Rocks/Tok-do/Takeshima Islands" once when referring to the islands, but no further mentions are made.
Primarily uses "Takeshima" in conjunction with "Takeshima (Tokdo)" (for the contemporary situation) or "Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks)" (for the historical situation). The article discusses the historical background behind the Treaty of San Francisco with regards to Japan, as well as contemporary issues it raises in Japanese politics.
Primarily uses "Dokdo". Introduces the terms "Takeshima" and "Liancourt Rocks" by stating "These islets are called Dokdo by Korea, Takeshima by Japan, and the Liancourt Rocks by various Western explorers and colonial writers". The article discusses the islands from the perspective of international law, concluding that "Korea’s claim to sovereignty over Dokdo is substantially stronger than that of Japan".
  • Dokdo Cited by 75 Mitchell, Douglas A.; Watts, David Randolph; Wimbush, Mark H.; Teague, William J.; Tracey, Karen L.; Book, Jeffrey W.; Chang, Kyungil; Suk, Moon-sik; Yoon, Jong-hwan (2005-06-01). "Upper circulation patterns in the Ulleung Basin". Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 52 (11–13).
Primarily uses "Dok Islands". Mentions the term "Takeshima" once as "Dok (Takeshima) Islands" with no further context. Article discusses findings regarding wind patterns in the area.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The two articles discuss varieties of bacteria collected off the islands.
Solely uses "Takeshima". No other terms are mentioned. The article discusses the islands in the context of Japanese normalization of relations with South Korea.
Uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands while using "Takeshima" (with quotes) in the context of Japanese colonial racism or "Dokdo/Takeshima" to refer to the conflict.
Solely uses "Dokdo", with the exception of use of "Takeshima" in quotes or to refer to the "Takeshima Movement" The article discusses the political nature of the islands with respect to the historical and political backgrounds of both countries.
Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" to refer to the islands and is the article currently used to cite the claim that the island is called the "Liancourt Rocks" by neutral observers. It mentions "Tokdo" and "Takeshima" as the Korean and Japanese names respectively. The article concludes that South Korea has a stronger claim to the islands in every respect.
Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" to refer to the islands, does not use the terms "Tokdo" or "Takeshima" outside of in quotes, and provides very little contextualization for the two terms. The article discusses the islands with regards to international law, concluding in a judgement favoring South Korea.
Primarily uses "Takeshima" to refer to the islands, while introducing "Dokdo" as the Korean name. The article states "Since this paper is devoted to analyzing the Japanese side of the dispute, the Japanese name will be used throughout the text. This is done, however, solely for purposes of convenience and should not be interpreted as an expression of support for Japan's claims." The article discusses the island with regards to the establishment of "Takeshima" in Japanese national identity, such as through "Takeshima Day".
Primarily uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands, while introducing "Takeshima" as the Japanese name. The article discusses the island in the context of tourism to the DMZ and the islands.
Primarily uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands, while using "Dokdo/Takeshima" when discussing the Korean and Japanese contexts. The article discusses the impact of the islands on South Korean domestic politics and states that its use of the name "Dokdo" "in no way suggests a political stand on the legitimate sovereignty of the islets and is purely for the sake of simplicity."
Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" with "Takeshima/Tok-do" in parentheses. It mentions the islands once in text and twice in maps. The article discusses sovereignty disputes regarding islands.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article uses measures of conductivity, temperature, and depth to analyze the hydrography around the islands.
The island uses both names in the two instances the islands are mentioned. The article discusses the Senkaku Islands dispute with regard to Japan's relationship to China, and brings up the islands to compare and contrast the two disputes.
Primarily uses "Dokdo". The term "Takeshima" is introduced by stating "Japan's claim to Dokdo, which it calls 'Takeshima'". The article discusses the islands with regards to international law, particularly with regards to the Treaty of San Francisco. The article concludes that the treaty does not strengthen or weaken any claim and is irrelevant to the issue of the islands' sovereignty.
  • Dokdo Cited by 31 Ryu, Shi-Hyun; Jang, Keum-Hee; Choi, Eun-Hwa; Kim, Sang-Ki; Song, Sung-Joon; Cho, Hyun-Jin; Ryu, Ju-Sun; Kim, Youn-Mi; Sagong, Jin; Lee, Jin-Hee; Yeo, Mi-Yeong; Bahn, So-Yeong; Kim, Hae-Min; Lee, Gil-Seong; Lee, Don-Hwa; Cho, Yeon-Sik; Pak, Jae-Hong; Park, Jin-Soon; Ryu, Jong-Seong; Khim, Jong-Seong; Hwang, Ui-Wook (2012). "Biodiversity of Marine Invertebrates on Rocky Shores of Dokdo, Korea" (PDF). Zoological Studies. 51 (5).
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article examines the biodiversity of marine invertebrates on the island, as the article title succinctly states.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article reports the results of two population studies on two varieties of kelp on the island.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article compares the characteristics of Sea Cucumbers on the island to those on Ulleung Island.
The article primarily uses "Dokdo", but includes in parenthesis "Liancourt Rocks" during the first mention of the islands. The article discusses the post-colonial and ethnic identities of South Korea by examining their relationships with Japan.
While the article primarily uses "Takeshima/Tokdo", it states that "Takeshima" is not an admissible name for the islands, preferring "Tokdo". The article is a discussion of the historical understanding of the islands in Japan, the etymologies of both words, the legal background over the islands, and a general discussion over the islands themselves. The article concludes that Korea has a stronger claim to the islands.
The name "Liancourt Rocks" is provided once and no further discussion of the islands outside of one mention of its existence as a territorial dispute. The article discusses potential instability in the Asia-pacific region from a U.S. foreign policy perspective.
The article primarily uses "Dokdo", but mentions Takeshima once in the second paragraph where it states "Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (hereafter Dokdo)" and in the image captions which state "Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)"
The article generally uses "Tok-do", although it alternates frequently with "Take-shima", and less commonly with "Liancourt Rocks". The article discusses territorial disputes in Northeast Asia with regard to the potential petroleum found in those areas.
The article uses "Dokdo/Takeshima" in the two times that the islands are mentioned. The article discusses various of aspects of Prime Minister Koizumi's government up to the 2005 Japanese general election.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. That article discusses the genome sequencing of the sole fern species on the islands.
Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks", while using "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" to refer to the islands in the context of history/politics in South Korea and Japan respectively. This section of the doctoral doctoral thesis primarily discusses the rise of the modern-day political significance of the islands.
Primarily uses "Dokdo/Takeshima", whilst noting that the islets were once referred to as the "Liancourt Rocks" by Western explorers and colonial writers. The article argues that Japan and Korea should resolve the dispute in order to resolve other disputes that the two countries have with China and Russia.
This was the only source I was not able to get access to, if anyone else has access, it would be much appreciated. From the search function on Google Books, it appears that the book primarily refers to the islands as "Dokdo/Takeshima", but mentions "Liancourt Rocks" once as an international name.
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article is a discussion of measurements of the sea floor around the islands.
The article primarily uses "Dokdo/Takeshima", while dismissing the "Liancourt Rocks" name as false neutrality. The article discusses the rise of the islands' political status in Japan since the early 2000s and various efforts by the Japanese government to gain international recognition.
The article primarily uses the term "Dokdo", but does mention Takeshima, by stating "the islands of Dokdo (known as Takeshima in Japan)". The article discusses the persistence of the issue and concludes that there is little likelihood of the dispute being resolved without a "critical rupture".
Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article discusses a phytoplankton community around the island and its response following a windstorm.

Special cases

  • Cited by 136 Sumi, Robert; Yasseri, Taha; Rung, Andr´s; Kornai, Andr´s; Kertesz, J´nos (2011-10-09). "Edit Wars in Wikipedia". 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing.
This article discusses edit wars on Wikipedia and mentions this article (and thus the islands) once in this context.
The article discusses discarded revisions on Wikipedia and provides this article as a case study of an edit war.[13]

Given this evidence, several conclusions can be drawn.

  1. "Dokdo" is by far the most common name used in the English-language academic literature on the islands. In addition, in articles examining the islands from an international relations perspective (as opposed to that of domestic politics), it is disproportionately the name of choice, and when discussing the islands outside of the context of the territory dispute, the term "Dokdo" is practically universally used.
  2. "Liancourt Rocks" is an uncommon name for the subject and several references use it solely as a dated historical name for the islands. The name has sometimes been used in academic literature, but its use is surpassed by "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" by large margins. Its neutrality has been disputed by a number of articles and the last publication which has seriously considered "Liancourt Rocks" as a name for the islands has been more than a decade ago. In general, most of the usage of "Liancourt Rocks" dates back to the 1980s and 1990s, with the most recent source that seriously considers the name being O'Shea (2012).
  3. There is also evidence that suggests that this Wikipedia article's name has influenced the popularity of the "Liancourt Rocks" as a name for these islands.
    • (Ekstrand and Riedl 2009) and (Sumi, Yasseri, et al. 2011) both mention this article in highly cited conference proceedings analyzing Wikipedia edit wars. The articles both use the name "Liancourt Rocks", citing the title of this article, to refer to the islands. I find it highly believable based on this that it is not unlikely, that Wikipedia's use of this article title has played a minor, but significant role in supporting the legitimacy of the term "Liancourt Rocks" in recent years.
  4. I would also go further to argue, as expressed in (Cho, Kim, et al. 2009), Wikipedia's usage of "Liancourt Rocks" does not provide a neutral POV,[14] as this name provides legitimacy to far-right (a)historical scholarship that would count under WP:FRINGE. In addition (Cho, Kim, et al. 2009) further states, "Furthermore, since 2000, Japan has taken active measures to list the islet as Liancourt Rocks in the publications of foreign governments, and international organizations. As a result, currently the US CIA World Factbook, Wikipedia, and the Netsaber site all use the term, Liancourt Rocks, to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima."
Sorry for the long message. Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise Is this what you had in mind? :3 F4U (they/it) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Could you explain the far-right thing?—blindlynx 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
(Sakamoto 2011) Mirroring the post-1990s historical revisionism, netto-uyo exhibit xenophobia towards immigrants, depict Korea and China negatively, and uphold revisionist history, justifying and glorifying Japan’s wartime actions...They became visible through a number of Internet-generated controversies that erupted around 2002-2004 such as those over the World Cup Soccer hosted by Korea and Japan, 'Hate-Korea' comic books, the so-called 'Nanjing Massacre comic book' and Dokdo/Takeshima, to name just a few.
(O'Shea 2012) The net effect of all this was to fundamentally change the Japanese discourse on the rocks, making them into a major issue for traditional right-wing conservatives and for the new 'youth nationalists' (they were always a major issue for the far-right ultranationalist).
(Hunter 2013) However, the release of the 'New History Textbook' draft in 2000 (claiming the islets as Japanese territory) and the pronouncement of 'Takeshima Day' in Japan on 22 February 2005 have rekindled the controversy. South Korea and China are particularly sensitive to these acts as signs of postcolonial aggression, given Japan's imperialist past.
(Oh 2009) The fierce political disputes between South Korea and Japan were ignited again in April 2005 when the Japanese government approved, as available choices for Japanese schools, textbooks that described Dok-do as islets belonging to Japan and glorified Japan's colonial past more cunningly than ever before.
(Cho et al. 2009) The expanding Japanese empire forced Dokdo under its sovereignty while curtailing Korea's diplomatic rights in 1905. Japan eventually annexed the whole Korean Peninsula in 1910.
For articles discussing the issue on a broader scope, see (Bukh 2014), (Fern 2005), (Van Dyke 2007), and (Choi 2016). Pretty much all of the scholarship above that discusses the dispute also concludes that South Korea has a stronger claim to the islands and that Japan's dispute over that claim generally has to do with influential domestic right-wing nationalist groups and a fear over domino effects on the Sea of Japan/Senkaku Islands disputes. The scholarship above also generally concludes that the annexation of Dokdo by Japan in 1905 is a part of its colonization of Korea, and not a separate event. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Another comment, this ngram also shows that Dokdo / Takeshima is also a demonstrably more popular name than "Liancourt Rocks". A slash does reduce the suitability of the article's title, as detailed in MOS:SLASH, however, it doesn't outright rule it out and I think this is in the end, a far better solution than using "Liancourt Rocks", which as I have stated is not a common name for the rocks. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Snyder, Scott A. "South Korea-Russia Air Incident: What to Know". cfr.org. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  2. ^ "Profile: Dokdo/Takeshima islands". BBC. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  3. ^ "South Korea starts drills at Japan-claimed islands". Deutsch Welle. August 25, 2019. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
  4. ^ a b c "Tok Island (Korea)". id.loc.gov. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
  5. ^ "VIAF ID: 6144647636484443387 (Geographic)". viaf.org. VIAF. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
  6. ^ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
  7. ^ Shin, Maeng-ho (25 October 2012). "Why we refuse to seek legal recourse on Dokdo". koreatimes. The Korea Times. Retrieved 17 March 2023. "Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea does not recognize any dispute concerning the territorial sovereignty over Dokdo"
  8. ^ For a total of 35 articles and 3 special cases outside of the scope of this move.
  9. ^ One Indonesian-language source and a number of Korean-language sources were disqualified under this criteria. (1: I had originally set the threshold of citations to be 10, but quickly realized that there would be too many sources for me to reasonably go through, thus I increased the number to 20. Combining the sources I had disqualified before increasing the threshold and those I disqualified afterwards, a total of 24 Korean-language articles were rejected. 2: These rejections were the result of Korean-language journal articles frequently publishing English-language abstracts without a corresponding English-language body).
  10. ^ One news article was removed under this criteria.
  11. ^ Citation counts are per Google Scholar.
  12. ^ I searched the terms "Dokdo", "Liancourt Rocks", and "Takeshima island(s)" (without quotation marks) into Google Scholar and included every result (with the exception of usage which does not refer to the islands) with 20 or more citations from other sources, until I reached 10 consecutive search results with no results that met the criteria. Articles that use an alternative spelling of Dokdo (ie. "Dok Islands" or "Tokdo") have only been included as a result of searches for "Liancourt Rocks" or "Takeshima". Please inform me of any mistakes or omissions.
  13. ^ The fact that this Wikipedia article has been discussed twice in this context by highly cited academic literature is unimaginably funny to me.
  14. ^ I've seen some terrible claims in the archives discussing how the article needs to provide both "KPOV" and "JPOV", when this is a discussion about territories that have been generally accepted to have been illegally annexed as part of the brutal Japanese colonization of South Korea.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_22&oldid=1146886186"