Talk:Liancourt Rocks

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

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)[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 because renaming the article Dokdo or Takeshima will inherently make it less NPOV.
(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
(talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want proof I can provide some diffs if needed.
(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]
(talk) 04:22, 18 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. (
      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
      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,
    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
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

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

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

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

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]

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]
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"