Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Liancourt Rock)

Requested move 15 March 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Oppose move. We are not dealing with this again. The page is where it is because of the naming dispute, and "Dokdo/Takeshima" gives theoretical precedence to Dokdo. O.N.R. (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose unless someone has another good neutral name this is going to end up being a trash fire—blindlynx 19:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blindlynx I dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because Liancourt rock is not a common name Gerçois (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Shadow of the Starlit Sky i propose dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because it is neutral Gerçois (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you want proof I can provide some diffs if needed. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shadow of the Starlit Sky yes please Gerçois (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)
[1] (not really dokdo but more east sea/sea of japan)
[2]
[3] (this one is an especially good examples of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing via removing Takeshima)
[4] (Sea of Japan)
[5]
Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise Is this what you had in mind? :3 F4U (they/it) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the far-right thing?—blindlynx 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Inconsistency in Japanese names[edit]

I'm wondering why there appears to be an inconsistency in the Japanese names given for the individual islands themselves. In the "Geography" section of the article, the islands are noted as "Ojima" and "Mejima" whereas in the second map drawing at the side, the islands are noted as "Otoko-jima" and "Onna-jima." If the names on the map are correct, then the article text should be modified to reflect this; if the names in the text are correct, then perhaps an explanatory note could be added below the map. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both are valid readings of the underlying kanji. Unhelpfully, the Japanese wiki does not seem to suggest a preferred reading, but JP govt sources like this seem to consistently use Me/O.Jpatokal (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

naming issue[edit]

The article name should be Dokdo as Korea administers the territory and is no less commonly used in English than Liancourt Rocks 97.103.129.121 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

en.dokdo.go.kr appears to have been replaced with dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng . Can someone replace inline citation 4 and the three related references? https://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng/introduce/location.jsp includes the relevant information except for the distance between islands which I cannot find a proper source for. DA39A3 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2024[edit]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo – Liancourt Rocks isn't WP:COMMONNAME and the islets are administered by the Republic of Korea. Furthermore Dokdo, along with Takeshima, are the actual English common names used in tandem (Dokdo/Takeshima) but as they are actually administered by Korea it is more in line with WP:NPOV consistency used in virtually every Wikipedia article regarding territorial disputes between two parties to use the place name as provided by the actual administration unless an English common name is already established. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Ngrams. Remsense诉 11:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
somewhat more relevant Ngrams Jetsettokaiba (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you think this slashform name is acceptable, then it should clearly be your proposed move. However, that seems not to be the case, so what are we going to do here? I'm genuinely not sure. Remsense诉 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't nor am I advocating slash names however I laid my case for the use of Dokdo in the original request. Furthermore I don't think Google Books Ngrams is the end all be all of term usage as its pitfalls are well documented and compiling "Takeshima" in English includes surnames and multiple other islands in Japan rendered as "Takeshima". I suppose consensus building would be the next step. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, far be it from me to say Ngrams is perfect. To be clear, I don't know what the right solution is, but yours is probably at least the second most viable. I am not familiar enough yet to say. Remsense诉 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ngram with "Dokdo/Takeshima" is a misunderstanding. It doesn't show how often "Dokdo/Takeshima" appears, but rather how often "Dokdo" appears divided by how often "Takeshima" appears. To search for a phrase with /, you have to enclose it in [ ]. Here is a fixed Google Ngrams search, but it doesn't have results for "Dokdo/Takeshima". SilverLocust 💬 18:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Some sort of potential notational error crossed my mind briefly, but that's too funny. Remsense诉 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but as I think we can all more or less agree, Ngrams shouldn't in and of itself be used to establish wp:commonnames in particular with words that are transliterated into English. I however do argue that both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" in the relevant context are used more than "Liancourt Rocks". Jetsettokaiba (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think those Google Ngrams searches actually show how common each name is (though I don't know what transliteration has to do with it). They certainly exaggerate how common the current title is because they show results for "Liancourt" instead of just "Liancourt Rocks" (here is yet another Google Ngrams search), as there are other subjects with Liancourt in their name (French places/people). The other two names are probably also a bit overcounted, but I think "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" both mostly refer to this and usually don't include a second word in the name (like Takeshima Islands or Dokdo Island). SilverLocust 💬 03:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, generally agree that reflecting actual reality is NPOV, but this isn't a question of administration but of English name and we have never used administration to proxy for English naming. CMD (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're basing your oppose on wp:commonname grounds if Im understanding you correctly? Jetsettokaiba (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Korea, and WikiProject Japan have been notified of this discussion. Remsense诉 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I oppose both using a slash name (wow, imagine the can of worms that would open up!) and renaming this article Dokdo. Neither Takeshima nor Dokdo are head and shoulders above the other in English usage (nevermind that neither of them are English). Anyways, Liancourt, while not perfect, seems to be the best name. Masterhatch (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with pretty everything you're saying, the only area of disagreement is that I fundamentally believe that maintaining "Liancourt Rocks" despite it not being wp:commonname and despite ROK administration over the islets for the sake of perceived impartiality at this point is itself arguably against the norm of wikipedia naming conventions for disputed territories. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. The name "Liancourt Rocks" was chosen for this article to not favor either nation's view over the other's. O.N.R. (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think perhaps that can best be maintained by upholding wp:commonnames which "Liancourt Rocks" simply isn't and upholding wp:npov which seems to favor the administrating power in terms of placenames in virtually every other territorial dispute on wikipedia. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth explicating that there's a discussion pinned to the top of this page: since it seems like the consensus from last year has largely been maintained so far, do you think there are any additional arguments the earlier discussions haven't covered? Remsense诉 18:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it does seem like it is the same people making the same arguments I think that its both healthy and necessary to regularly collect consensus on controversial issues like this especially when contemporaneous norms shift at an accelerated rate and, in my opinion, it seems that the Dokdo/Takeshima issue receives markedly different treatment than virtually every other contemporary disputed territory article on wikipedia. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose actual control isn't automatically npov—blindlynx 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stop opening the can of worms that will lead to another edit war. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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&oldid=1218916811"