Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 23

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023
Korea is the owner of Dokdo. 24.47.176.207 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I will not make the change as of now as it will grossly violate WP:NPOV. Shadow of the Starlit Sky   (talk)  21:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Closing this request. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023
Change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea." Sjg036813 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see the extensive headers at Talk:Sea of Japan for why Cannolis (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023
Qwertykeyboardhehe (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Could you change the sea of Japan to the East sea?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no reasoning is provided. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Circular Reasoning
Has Wikipedia ever considered the possibility that Wikipedia itself could be the genesis for the common name for these islands? Specifically, reliable source authors may be consulting Wikipedia to see what name they should use for these islands. I read through WP:COMMONNAME, but I could not find this possibility addressed. If this were the case, then the logic of WP:COMMONNAME would seem to break down due to circular reasoning. Google may also be following the lead of Wikipedia when labeling these islands on Google Maps. Wikipedia seeks to reflect common English language usage, but what happens when Wikipedia itself is the source of that usage? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the genesis of the article title name, the name derives from a French whaling ship. As for the rest of the theory, that is not specific to this page, and indeed rests on the dubious assumption that Liancourt Rocks is actually the common name. CMD (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course I know that the name Liancourt comes from the French whaling ship. I am not talking about the etymological origin of Liancourt. Rather I am talking about how Liancourt has come to be the most common name in reliable English sources. This issue is indeed specific to this page in that the Liancourt Rocks are a relatively obscure topic where Wikipedia itself can have a significant influence on the frequency of name usage. By comparison, no one would argue that Wikipedia is influencing the title of the Myanmar article (as opposed to Burma), since that is a nation of 57 million people, as opposed to a historically uninhabited small outcrop of rock. Westwind273 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That usage out there in external sources may have been influenced by Wikipedia's choice is quite possible, certainly. However, the other side of the suspected "circular" decision-making doesn't really hold: as far as I can see, Wikipedia's choice of "Liancourt Rocks" was never really based on the hypothesis that this name was predominant in external sources, neither when that choice was first made nor on the multiple occasions when it was upheld. These decisions were mostly motivated merely by the desire to avoid the various alternatives, which people were concerned would be perceived as non-neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mainly agree with FPAS about this. I think the main reason why Wikipedia uses "Liancourt Rocks" is to prevent Korean/Japanese POV pushing by changing the names of the disputed islets to Dokdo or Takeshima. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  13:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that I actually endorse that reasoning and motivation; just that I believe that's what has factually driven the consensus-building here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. The naming of this article cannot be based upon neutrality, because that sets up a severe contradiction with naming of the Senkaku Islands article, which would be Pinnacle Islands if it were based on neutrality. The lack of clarity on this point puts Wikipedia on a very dark path, since there is so much emotion about the naming of both island groups. Wikipedia has to remain true to WP:COMMONNAME, which says we should use the name most commonly used by reliable English sources. Therefore, my original concern about circular reasoning remains valid: It is very possible that the original naming of this article 20 years ago may have significantly influenced English usage over the past 20 years. This is a problem that WP:COMMONNAME does not address. This article will forever be bombarded by Koreans wanting to change the article name to Dokdo. If Wikipedia does not acknowledge that it had a hand in making Liancourt Rocks the common English name, then it will be hard to stand against all the pressure to change the article name. I realize this is perhaps a discussion that should be continued over at the WP:COMMONNAME talk page, but the folks over there are not as familiar with the unique situation of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Couple of idle thoughts in response:
 * re. No, no, no. The naming of this article cannot … – I think we'll all be much happier if in this discussion we stick with just explaining how things came to be as they are, instead of arguing once more about what things should be. We just had the latest big Requested Move a few weeks ago; nobody will want to open up this can of worms yet another time so soon.
 * re that sets up a severe contradiction – let's face it, Wikipedia isn't consistent about such things, and never can be. I personally have no idea about whether the Senkaku article is where it ought to be, and I don't really want to have to look into that one just in order to make up my mind about this one.
 * re Wikipedia has to remain true to WP:COMMONNAME – well, I myself argued in favor of COMMONNAME and against application of a "neutrality" criterion (which I happen to consider ill-conceived) in the last move discussion, but if what you suspect is true and the "common name" status of this entity out there has really been influenced significantly by Wikipedia, then that surely counts as an argument against applying WP:COMMONNAME, doesn't it? It's true that this is something the guideline doesn't address.
 * re This article will forever be bombarded … – well, yes, it will. Some people – mostly drive-by guests from outside Wikipedia – will never be happy unless we conform to their national preference, no matter what Wikipedia policies we'd base our decisions on. Most regulars here, I believe, have come to a state where they simply want the status quo to be maintained because they are tired of the perennial debate. Which, come to think of it, is an entirely reasonable stance to take too. There was once someone who formulated what they called the Joghurt principle – the thesis that it is worth fighting out even the lamest article naming war on Wikipedia until, finally, after a few dozen move requests, the One And Only Truly Policy-Conformant Outcome will have been reached, at which point everybody will suddenly come to the realization that this is the case and henceforth stop further move debates. (The classic case of this lamest move war of all that suddenly stopped was, you guessed it, the spelling of "Jog(h)urt".) I'm not a big friend of this principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good comments. I think the key problem here is that if I were a Korean person, I would feel that English Wikipedia is discriminating against me. Why is this article called Liancourt Rocks, but the Senkaku Islands article is not called Pinnacle Islands? This seems to be favoring Japanese people over Korean people. In response to this, the only thing that Wikipedia has to fall back on is COMMONNAME. NPOV fails because it would imply that the other article name should be Pinnacle Islands. Thus I think the only long-term stable option for Wikipedia is to admit that on some of these more obscure articles, Wikipedia itself may be influencing the COMMONNAME, but that this is unavoidable given the nature of Wikipedia. Of course the other options are to either change this article to Dokdo or change the Senkaku article to Pinnacle Islands. Full disclosure: I am an American who lived in Tokyo for ten years; I am fluent in written and spoken Japanese. (Kind of ironic that I am favoring the Korean position :) ) Westwind273 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a case could be made for renaming this article to "Dokdo Islands", conditional that evidence be provided that it is the preferred WP:COMMONNAME for the islands in sources outside of Japan and Korea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Censorship Period
When will it be possible to discuss the topic of the article name again on this talk page? In other words, how long is this censorship period? Thank you. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say at least 3 months from the current date.
 * Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

My argument for new consensus (feel free to disagree) that this page displays a Japanese-centric bias
Before I even start, and before someone closes, I will acknowledge I am universally on the korean side, as a South Korean. I feel like the page is biased by trying to be neutral. My argument is that the NPOV should be around 70% Korean, 30% Japanese, not fifty-fifty like it is now. Maybe this is patriotic bias, but there is substantial evidence that Dokdo has been controlled by Korea since the Silla period. Silla's 이사부 already conquered Dokdo, and even during the Joseon period there is lots of evidence of Dokdo. I hate Japan, so there is bias, but I think I have a point here. Who agrees? (of course you can disagree!) Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm Korean-American myself but I do have to say I disagree about this mainly due to existing WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia policies. Although I myself believe that the disputed islets should be controlled by South Korea, I don't want to put those viewpoints in a Wikipedia article because I don't want this article to be any less neutral than it is now. If as you said "NPOV [is] around 70% Korean, 30% Japanese", the article would put WP:UNDUE weight towards the Korean POV. Plus Wikipedia is not a place to show that certain viewpoint is "the truth" but rather a place to present facts objectively. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sock  11:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shadow Starlit. For my own two cents, it's important to remember Wikipedia isn't here to help solve real world issues—only to record the events involving the issues. Wikipedia shouldn't help figure out who actually owns the rocks nor should it push the issue one way or the other. Masterhatch (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sock  14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that. However, in Korea, any other name other than "독도(dokdo) being used is considered highly offensive. You can argue that is the same in Japan, but you can also compare Japan's other claims (ex. Nanjing Massacre Denial). Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Koreans being offended by the use of any other name than Dokdo has anything to do with the price of beer. Masterhatch (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * wat? Maybe that's some slang that I don't know? Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "What does X have to do with the price of beer" is an idiom expressing that X is irrelevant to a discussion. Which is actually true for "Koreans being offended by the use of any other name than Dokdo". Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)