Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 9

message: THE EDIT HISTORY OF THIS ARCHIVE CONTAINS THE EDIT HISTORIES OF Archive 7 and  Archive 8 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: # Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

message: Dokdo is used by only Korean people. Japanese people calls the rock as Takeshima. Violating international law, Korean army has occupied the rock since 1953. Because of existing dispute among Japan and Korea, using the name of Korean domestic name for this page will spoil neutrality and reliability of WIKIPEDIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohtokage (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the Japanese people. It's the same guy. Opp2. Look at the history. (Wikimachine 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! It seems like this argument has settled. So... Polleo 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. The article should be Liancourt Rocks, since it would follow international standard rather than Korean standard. At the moment this article is NPOV, since Wikipedia should not take sides on the issue (using the Korean or Japanese name takes a non-neutral stance). It doesn't matter whether the issue is contentious to one person or many, if the person has reliable sources backing up his/her claim, then it needs to be heard. I'm adding the NPOV template. falsedef 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This is a non-argument. The choice about the name is simply determined by what is in use by speakers of English and/or reliable sources. The 'moral issue' of what is the correct name for the islands does not determine Wikipedia naming convention. Few major sources use Liancourt so that is not an option whatever the perceived neutrality of the term. Argue as much as you want about the name but if it isn't within the framework of Wikipedia rules then it's just time wasted. For example Kingj123 uses the following words in his 'argument': ethical, moral, honest, right, neutrally speaking. Very interesting but totally irrelevant. See the topic below Macgruder 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most sources outside of Korea use both names in their articles.  However, since Koreans seem to care about this issue much more than the Japanese, Korean sources have printed a lot of material that uses only the name "Dokdo."  You're right that most English language sources use "Dokdo" than they do "Takeshima," but that's only because pro-Korean sources print more things about this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.1.175.13 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liancourt rocks should be used for the title of this page. 

message: Certain users are using the the Rusk documents article as an indirect way to say "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan in SF treaty by the Rusk documents." I suggest that editors of this page keep an eye on that page as it contradicts information on this page. I have removed a chunk of the worst POV statements. Mainly because the English didn't make any sense. (Felt that the Rusk article was Japanese POV, feel that the name of this article is Korean POV).
In fact, it seems that the Rusk documents article here is a translation of the Rusk documents on  Japanese wikipedia suggesting that that page is POV. 
Macgruder 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that article went too far, you got the worst of it out.  I agree of your assessment with the name here being a KPOV name, the article body there being JPOV in nature (although it's a bit better now).  I suppose it's bound to start a (large) "war," but at some point we'll have to approach the issue of the name here.  I have rarely (perhaps never) seen any outside/independent editor who advocated either solely Takeshima or Dokdo for the article title here.  The editors that do inevitably fall to the "it's ours" syndrome (on both sides), which is plain wrong, since it doesn't matter. Komdori 14:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rusk Document article POV 

message: I see we are having a bit of fun adding tags to the article. I don't understand why the tag needs to be here now when there isn't any serious discussion going on. This discussion basically has been going on since the beginning of this article and we certainly didn't need any tags back then. I don't see why we need it now.
I'm sure people who search for this article on Wikipedia are already informed of the dispute between Korea and Japan. 
The only reason you have given is simply because there is a discussion going on. Hasn't the discussion been all about the title of the article? 
The way I see it, you are putting the tag on to help justify the move to Liancourt Rocks. Good friend100 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct when you say, "Hasn't the discussion been all about the title of the article?" It has.  The tag helps make editors aware that a discussion is going on and we are trying to figure out the best name.  It encourages editors to participate as well as notifying them to keep an eye on the discussion if they have an interest in it. 76.48.197.93 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, but I said that editors that do visit Dokdo most likely know about the dispute already and we don't need it. If this tag was so important, I don't understand why it needs it now than before. The discussion right now is not hot or extremely important. It doesn't require a tag. Good friend100 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys remember, there were many editors who reverted the addition of the tag before. Jjok, you're the same guy who advocated for the addition of the tag last time. There isn't another contestant (LactoseTI also advocated adding the tag before too). Unless some other users disagree with good amount of reason, no tag. Plus Jjok, you never asked for permission. You were like "that means dispute's going on? All right guys. Let's add the tag." Stop pushing around.(Wikimachine 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also would like to add the tag.  It is important in order to flag the article for those interesting in these title disputes.  The tag is simply notifying people this is here.  Why are you so excited on censoring it?  Let's get it all out in the open.  No one has ever addressed the common usage claims, always saying just "it's ours, so we name." Komdori 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Komdori, you're not a newcomer. You were a previous advocate for the dispute. I want a new argument, new dispute, & new users. (Wikimachine 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are the other users who advocate for the removal of the tag (from history). user:Davidpdx,  user:Oncamera, user:Merumerume, user:Ginnre, and user:Kingj123 (--> user:Polleo). (Wikimachine 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here are other users who think that the current title is NPOV. user:General Tiger, user:Oyo321, user:Sir Edgar, user:Janviermichelle, user:Deiaemeth, user:Mr Tan, user:Sekicho, user:Sydneyphoenix, user:Rōnin, user:AKADriver, user:Nihonjoe, user:Zonath, and user:Gurch. 
See Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_4#Requested_move. Thank you everyone. (Wikimachine 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading the arguments here, I doubt they will still believe that.  Even if they do, unless they can ground their argument in the guidelines, their vote frankly doesn't count. Komdori 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a good reason to put the tag up there, when it wasn't needed before. Good friend100 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because unlike the previous poll which was poorly done, we'd like as many editors involved as possible.  Komdori 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous poll was excellent. It was under supervision of several admins, including user:Nihonjoe & user:Zonath. (Wikimachine 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous poll was very poorly conducted.  And Sir Edgar (not an admin) closed the poll hastily, refusing to count any "oppose" votes.  The diffs will show that Sir Edgar closed the poll after the 3 or so "oppose" votes, but clearly excluded them from the count.--Endroit 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like somebody botched the archiving.  I'll have to ask an admin, perhaps User:Philip Baird Shearer, what happened to all the history.--Endroit 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 5 contains edit history around the time of the previous requested move. --Kusunose 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I found it.--Endroit 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This edit at 07:59, 29 May 2006 (by me) shows the poll was still open at that time, with 15 "support" vs. 3 "oppose" votes.  The history will show that the poll was first closed by Sir Edgar immediately after that, although people kept voting.  Anyways, the current count of 14 - 0 is wrong.  There were clearly 3 "oppose" votes that were omitted by Sir Edgar, that happened BEFORE Sir Edgar closed the poll.  In addition, I counted 6 additional "oppose" votes from established editors AFTER Sir Edgar closed the poll.--Endroit 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, there have been multiple polls, perhaps take a look at Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive_3#Requested_move as well, where people who made their votes according to policy seemed to agree on the original name. Komdori 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add that Wikipedia is not an Athenian democracy - "democracy" has come to mark the more specific term "Athenian democracy" where majority rules. But Wikipedia is also a consensus-based democracy. I'm not planning to argue over this or get any net benefit over this topic. I thought it would be interesting to throw that in. (Wikimachine 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to disagree with you on every front, but I disagree with this as well.  It's not a democracy in that sense, either.  If 70% of a group said they feel that this page should be at Takeshima because Takeshima is the Japanese name, and Japan has a moral right to this land, the votes should be discounted as invalid (same with Dokdo votes). --Cheers, Komdori 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant by consensus-based democracy. : | (Wikimachine 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's a bit different than a straight up consensus-based democracy.  In a consensus-based democracy they don't just t?oss out the majority of votes based on their reasoning.  In such a place, the name on the vote matters, not the rationale.  Here, the vote itself doesn't matter much, it's the rationale that counts.  (Heheh all you who voted for presidential candidate B because you thought taxes were too high  Your vote doesn't count :P) --Cheers, Komdori 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Interesting discussion. Komdori is spot on. All 'votes' that are invalid because of reasoning not based on Wikipedia policy should be thrown out - either side whichever side they are 'voting' for. Macgruder 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute tag 

message: Maybe this shouldn't be considered... only 2 reliable online encyclopedias- Columbia & Britannica present articles about the island. Here, and Britannica here. 
*Columbia uses Liancourt Rocks, Britannica uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination.
: Encarta search returned maps of Liancourt Rocks, and has no entries for either Dokdo or Takeshima (not sure if you count Encarta as reliable or not) Komdori 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias

message: I can only expect the editors to continue on the discussion after the data section, so I make a new section here. Let us all state our views here, taking into account what each one of us have said previously. That is... let's not make this section into a debating ground where everything gets disorganized, etc... but simply a place to clarify our objectives/viewpoints/etc. Also, we should call in other editors & make notifications (i.e. Korean template) to target communities, WikiProjects, etc. (Wikimachine 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Discussion Based On Data 

message: I'll begin first. Here are the facts to consider:
*Liancourt Rocks is used least both in the cyberspace & the reliable academia.
*The media has a tie b/w Takeshima & Dokdo (I take my previous comment about the media bias back).
*The websites considered reliable give Dokdo an unnoticeable bit of more usage. 
*Dokdo is more common than Takeshima in web results overall.
*WP: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.
*WP: If neither of these apply, the modern official name should be used
*WP: We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems.
It seems that both Takeshima & Dokdo have settled into the English online & academic world & Liancourt Rocks has fallen out of usage. Google tests clearly (from previous dispute) favor Dokdo, media gives tie b/w Dokdo & Takeshima, and the reliable sites also give slight weight to Dokdo. (If anyone feels contentious about how the data were gathered, do one yourself.) And Wikipedia naming conventions favor official name in case English name is not widely accepted. Japan claims administrative responsibility over Takeshima, however S. Korea has both the administrative privilege & jurisdiction over Dokdo. Furthermore it is my personal view that Liancourt Rocks has been under Korean control for a very long time & only the Japanese occupation has interrupted the control. Wikipedia procedurals also recommend only one name for an article, even at the risk of a compromisory title. Then, when Liancourt Rock is not as widely as used as Dokdo & Dokdo is the name of the nationality that officially controls the island, Dokdo should be used. (Wikimachine 23:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimachine

message: *Liancourt Rocks is the English name
*Liancourt Rocks is used the most in academia  36 vs Dokdo 23 (removing non-English)
*Liancourt Rocks is used in Encyclopedic references and maps including the references in Columbia. Encarta has Encarta and Britannica. The 3 recommended by Wikipedia Policy.
*Dokdo and Takeshima are almost never used in news sources or encyclopedia but are merely referenced ('Dokdo is the name used in Korea, Takeshima in Japan'), and are never used exclusively.
*Korean legal scholar Seokwoo Lee, a professor at Incheon’s Inha University in South Korea and an authority on territorial disputes, states that "The two tiny rocky islets are called 'Tokdo' in Korean, 'Takeshima' in Japanese, and internationally recognised as 'Liancourt Rocks'."
*Google tests are fairly even and inconclusive. A statistically fair search of English pages of Dokdo Korea dispute (28400) and Takeshima Korea dispute (28700) gives almost identical numbers.
*WP: Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names.
*WP: Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name...
*WP: Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
*WP: ( There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages...We recommend choosing a single name...Simple Google tests are acceptable. )
*WP: Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage...if the search includes an English word, like "city" or "river", as well as the placename...the placename. (If this is done with one proposed placename, it must of course be done for all competing proposals.)
Liancourt Rocks passed every criteria. A fair Google test shows both Dokdo and Takeshima having essentially identical numbers if care is taken with the search. Wikipedia Naming Conventions are very clear that foreign names should only be used if there is no established English name. Liancourt Rocks far from being barely used has significantly more hits than Dokdo in Google Books meaning that it is the widely accepted name. There is no official name as both Dokdo is the Korean official name, and Takeshima is the Japanese official name. To say that the official name is decided by the controlling party in a disputed territory is not stated in the Naming Conventions and is therefore POV.
In fact, the use of Liancourt Rocks is somewhat more common compared with Dokdo and Takeshima that a simple hit count suggests. This is because the majority (and essentially all in media and respected sources) of hits counts for Dokdo and Takeshima are simply saying what the names are called in Korean and Japanese. In other words, they are not really being used as such but just being referenced. For example although the BBC has Dokdo about 25 or 30 times, it doesn't once use Dokdo as the name of the island. This pattern is repeated in almost every respected publication.
The argument that Dokdo (or Takeshima) is the English name fails. It is not used in ANY Encyclopedias as the English name of the islands. Thus it fails at the first hurdle.
Furthermore, the contention that Liancourt Rocks is not used in academia is not true. In fact, it is the opposite with Liancourt Rocks being using decisively more in academia with one Korean expert actually stating it as the international name. On top of which it used in maps and encyclopedias, it is clear that Liancourt Rocks is a decisive choice. Macgruder 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macgruder

message: There is a dispute on the current title of the article, Dokdo. There has been a previous poll of whether to use Dokdo, Korean name, Takeshima, Japanese name, or Liancourt Rocks, English name. The vote turned favor toward Dokdo because of its larger Google search number than the other two candidates. However, there are several users who now contest this vote (although some may not be agreeable): 1) Disorganized & poorly conducted 2) Google search is biased due to cyber wars/propagandas 3) The media & the more reliable sources either use Liancourt Rock or Dokdo/Takeshima pair. These users therefore advocate for the move of the article from Dokdo to Dokdo/Takeshima & its variations, modeled after Imia/Kardak, Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab, and Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), or Liancourt Rocks, an English variation. (23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I see similiarities between Dokdo and Senkaku Islands.
Senkaku is not necessarily the more commonly used word to describe the islands. Suprisingly, I don't see "Pinnacle Islands" used, although it is an english word.
*Like the "Dokdo/Takeshima" style, Times uses both names in separate sentences. 
*London times uses both names. 
Korea controls Dokdo while Japan claims it. Japan controls Senkaku while China claims it. Each article uses their names. Somebody on  wrote "I don't believe I've ever seen the islands referred to as the Pinnacle Islands, typically they are labeled as Senkaku, Senkaku/Diaoyutai or some similar variation".
The situation between the two articles are almost the same. Senkaku is not the most commonly used word. It doesn't matter if the US government labels "Senkaku" unless everybody in the United States uses "Senkaku" and that is usually not the case because its almost always used with "Diaoyu". See the similiarity between the two articles?
Yet, you are not pushing for a neutral name at Senkaku Islands. Macgruder said that issues such as sovereignty and neutrality don't apply to geographic names; just English usage. So an article can be POV if the title doesn't apply to geographic names? 
Even more appalling is that Senkaku isn't an English name, as you put it. 
If NPOV is important, then why don't you carry the case to Senkaku? Because "Senkaku" is the more commonly used name? No, it is not. English sources use both names to present a fair view. I wonder why you wouldn't start a discussion at Senkaku Islands to move it.
now don't tell me that I just admitted that people use "____/____" more and we should move this article. 
I am asking YOU why you are not attempting to move Senkaku Islands. I'll make myself clear again, "Senkaku" is not the most commonly used word. Good friend100 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who seems to think that Senkaku Islands is not the commonly used English name, so you should move it.  I believe it is the commonly used English name, moreso than the other terms, so it belongs where it is.  Komdori 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or.... he doesn't have to. Maybe you could. In other words, Good friend100 is asking you why the same cannot be applied in this case. (Wikimachine 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am... If you haven't yet noticed, I am disputing that Dokdo is the most commonly used name, and suggesting we do something to fix it. (Perhaps I missed your intent--obviously me just jumping in and performing the move would be counterproductive.) --Cheers, Komdori 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Senkaku is not NPOV because as per Wikipedia rules the editors of that page have decided it is both the standard English term as used in Britanicca and the most common. etc. If you dispute that go there and discuss it. I myself don't dispute that after checking reference sources. Therefore, Senkaku meets Wikipedia policy. Macgruder 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think Senkaku should be moved because Senkaku is the most commonly used name (though I haven't looked into it in as much depth as this issue).  I think Dokdo should be moved because I know Dokdo is not the most commonly used English name. --Cheers, Komdori 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Liancourt Rocks may be english name for this islets, but it is certainly not commonly used english name for this islets. In old days it might have been as they were listed so in encyclopedia, but in these days it is not as can be seen in some news ot magazine articles quoted above. Ginnre 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any sources to back up what you're saying?  It seems every encyclopedia we can find follows the following rules: a) if there is an entry for this place (sometimes not due to obscurity) it is under Liancourt Rocks (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta), b) if it is mentioned in the context of articles, Liancourt Rocks is generally mentioned as well as the pair of local language names.  If you dispute that encyclopedias do this, can you supply some references? --Cheers, Komdori 14:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody already mentioned that encyclopedias don't tend to update things very often. When we have other things to consider about, encyclopedias don't offer the benefits of those other things such as the media that tracks all current events. Plus, disputes evolve rapidly. (Wikimachine 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dokdo and Senkaku Islands 

message: I think there are still some things left to be hashed out here before we go to a RFM (still some talk about google, etc.), but seeing that somewhere on the horizon, I'd like to propose we hash out the RFM itself here before having someone submit it themselves.  It might go a long way to helping avoid accusations in the future that the wording of the RFM was slanted for one side.
One approach might be to use the position statements that Wikimachine and Macgruder have made so far used as the summary, or initial comments or whatever.  I'm working out my own that I will post soon as well.  Since there are three of us doing most of the contributions to this discussion, unless we all agree in the end on one (I still have hope Wikimachine might throw his weight behind Liancourt Rocks at some point) we can merge the two that are on one side if the lone person feels it's too unbalanced.  
In any case, I think those position statements should be somehow associated with it, at least linked in the RFM.  There has been such an outpouring of discussion here that without a (concise but still somewhat detailed) summary I think outsiders may be discouraged from participating (it would be a pain to read through the pages and pages of text from scratch).  Any thoughts on this?  (Again, I'm not saying we should stop discussing the name issue, I'm just suggesting we think of this in parallel). --Cheers, Komdori 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I like the position statements idea. From now, I won't be making more comments until we do that or something similar Macgruder 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Forward