![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Korea is the owner of Dokdo. 24.47.176.207 ( talk) 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea." Sjg036813 ( talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qwertykeyboardhehe ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Could you change the sea of Japan to the East sea?
The following discussion 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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Korea is the owner of Dokdo. 24.47.176.207 ( talk) 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea." Sjg036813 ( talk) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Liancourt Rocks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qwertykeyboardhehe ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Could you change the sea of Japan to the East sea?
The following discussion 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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)