Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 9

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)

1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
2. 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)

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).

• Japanese and Korean users do not know what is neutral because of their nationality. In fact, nobody knows for sure what is neutral.

Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws and that is why they are passionate about it, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical to just focus on international laws?

• Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo?
• Is UN's way the only right way to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets.
• Is the UN's perspective of Dokdo(Takeshima/Liancourt) always correct?

• Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article?
• And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit?
• Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols?

Kingj123 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Japanese people. It's the same guy. Opp2. Look at the history. (Wikimachine 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Yay! It seems like this argument has settled. So... Polleo 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

Every time I come to this article there is the same old argument about the so-called POV of Takeshima or Dokdo. Could people stop arguing about that because it has nothing do with Wikipedia policy. The naming of physical entities is determined by the common use by English speakers and/or in reference texts. It is not decided by whether a name is regarded by some people as either POV or cultural incorrect. Hence we have Mt. Everest and the Sea of Japan. (the only way the POV/NPOV is connected is that to choose a name for moral issues, say, over the common use is POV as per Wikipedia rules)

"A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy."

"Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should NOT be used to determine usage."

Basically, it comes down to what is the commonly used name amongst English speakers and references. In the case here, since the vast majority of English speakers couldn't care/don't know about this issue and most pages (outside of respected sources) on the web that use one over the other have the agenda to promote that name, thus rendering the Google Test meaningless, the only sensible way to end this dispute is to use what respected neutral references use. For example, recent BBC or National Geographic but not the Yomiuri Shimbun.

This would seem to indicate a slashed name like Dokdo/Takeshima. I have yet to find a recent respected reference that doesn't give both names. Liancourt Rocks would seem to be out too - BBC for example never uses it. Or Liancourt Rocks. This name is used in encyclopedias and referred to in the media.Macgruder 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo center says that Takeshima is universally used in the world than Dokdo.[1] Are there any other authorized research? Jjok 12:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jjok, that is a misread of Korean. The article's talking about how stronger claim on Dokdo won't lead to a stronger claim for East Sea over Sea of Japan. Donghae means East Sea. (Wikimachine 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your correction. It sounds more reasonable. Jjok 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that authorized research? Besides it would appear to be wrong anyway: a cursory glance at major news sites would indicate both are used together. Macgruder 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC mentions Liancourt Rocks occasionally here, for example, but the main article bodies tend to use a slashed name. Except for Japanese or Korean sources, I highly doubt there are significant numbers of legitimate periodicals that use one without the other. In my mind, we could go two ways with that: either we say neither or both are accepted in English. If we say that the disagreement (printing of both names) means either is invalid as a "standardized" English name, we could fall to Liancourt Rocks, especially considering that is the name at least often used by the international community when they want to refer to it in treaties, etc., if not by the common person (since very, very few English speakers really care). The other option would be the slashed name. It seems it's fairly standard to refer to this place as Dokdo/Takeshima; in fact, it shows up that way in many places. Komdori 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Liancourt Rocks is out as it is outdated name. Besides, considering historical background, it is not neutral but rather close to Japan. Regarding Dokdo and Takeshima, it would not be easy to find any neutral source to use either one only. Then, considering that articles about islands with similar situation use names that are used by currently controlling entities, like Senkaku islands, to use Dokdo as the title is the most sensible. It has been repeatedly argued and agreed upon this way up to now. I don't see any point to keep bringing up the same question and answer again and again. Ginnre 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What other articles do is irrelevant. What is relevant is Wikipedia policy.

Could you show me the Wikipedia policy that determines that we "use names that are used by currently controlling entities". I had a look, and I couldn't find anything about it. What I did find however was: " physical entities is determined by the common use by English speakers". This may have been discussed over and over but that discussion is pretty meaningless if it is within a framework of ignorance of Wikipedia rules and policy. We don't just make up rules like "use names that are used by currently controlling entities" to determine something. That is called POV. Macgruder 06:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it's a bit of a mischaracterization to say there were mass agreements to that effect before. It is very clear that the naming of this article is especially contentious--so much so that the media even noticed it and ran an article featuring the fact that Koreans en masse "were winning" by having the name where it is now. It seems that anyone who brings up the naming issue tends to back off pretty quickly due to the high level of emotional involvement here, but sooner or later this issue needs to be face square on. The test that this article falls under is the commonly used one, and I really doubt that you're going to find strong evidence that outside Korea (where they call it Dokdo) and Japan (where they call it Takeshima) that it is called either by itself. Occasionally, Liancourt Rocks is used--a less than perfect name, but the articles often start with, "The issue of these disputed islands, called Takashima by the Japanese and Dokdo by the Koreans, also known as Liancourt Rocks, met with little progress today..." If you had to pick a single most often used name in English, it would probably be Liancourt. If you want the most commonly used pair (which could be argued as a name unto itself since it occurs so frequently), it would probably be Dokdo/Takeshima or Takeshima/Dokdo. Komdori 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ginnre, so you think Gando should be Jiandao, Baekdu Mountain should be Changbai Mountain, Bonin Islands should be Ogasawara Islands, Paracel Islands should be Xisha Islands, Baltic Sea should be East Sea, etc. etc., right?

By the way, this argument means titles in wikipedia articles do not ensure the neutrality and the neutrality should be discussed separately, right? So I restore {{POV-title}} tag to avoid the NPOV issue. Jjok 18:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jjok. Aren't you boiling to put that POV tag, right? Any way to protest is fine with you. Just as much as an having an argument means the title could be POV, the title could be NPOV. The two events are not mutually exclusive. Yes, your reasoning is flawed.

I don't know. Komdori, you supported LactoseTI's claim that he was a professor in some university in NJ. 2~3 users agree that he doesn't sound like one. I do too. I have to question LactoseTI's credibility, and that spills over to you too. Anyways, Liancourt Rock is not the singlemost usedname in English. And it doesn't matter that Takeshima & Dokdo are used in pair. That has to do with the fact that articles want to give respect to both claims & has nothing to do with title usage. (Wikimachine 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Not NJ, NY. Please leave my personal life out of it. So far I've not made much of a point of it and I haven't quoted my own research (yet). "Comment on the content, not the contributor" comes to mind. —LactoseTI^T 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jjok, if you're still active respond. (Wikimachine 19:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

"That has to do with the fact that articles want to give respect to both claims & has nothing to do with title usage" That is your opinion. Besides it doesn't matter why the media uses the two names, all that matters is that they do. The only issue under discussion here is which name is used the most by English speakers and/or respected sources. The Google hits doesn't work here because it mainly returns sites that have the agenda to promote one name over the other. So we are left to look at respected sources. And those use both. Can we stay on topic here? Don't discuss other articles - irrelevant; don't discuss rights to the island, current controlling country - irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is Wikipedia policy and that comes down to common usage. Since the common usage is not determined as the moment, we need to do so. Macgruder 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you for edits on the article. I also think the article should just summarize the documents thought the suggestion in the ja article is coming from "the meaning of the documents" section that has been removed from en version. Anyway, "It is confirmed that Takesima was not included as denouncing territory of Japan in SF treaty" is also strongly supported by Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East and it is OK as long as those articles are used together with some news sources that support/explain the situation. Jjok 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I am neutral and not pro anything...... But the Pro-Japs are really pushing the article...... Koreans annexed Tokdo since 1300's from the Silla era, not the 1900's...... And continued to be recognized by the neighbors such as the Chinese.... Since Japan claims Tsushima while the Koreans controlled it briefly..... What right does Japan have to claim Dokdo for their short 35 years of control compared to the 500 years of control by the Koreans? Its like the Koreans claiming control of Tsushima for controlling it for 40 years...... Its absolutely obsurd...... Thanks (MCASGT 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

You're 'neutral' yet using the pejorative term 'Jap'. It's not for Wikipedia to say whether a claim is 'obsurd' [sic] but simply to report the claims that each country makes. If you have a blog I suggest you use that instead to promote your point of view as it's irrelevant here. Macgruder 03:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One interesting counter argument can be found Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10 that try to clarify Usando=Ulleungdo (Usan-gook is the recorded name of the annexed state and Korean claim Usando is current Tokdo). By the way, 1300's is the year that the record was compiled that describes about the incident during Silla era (AD. 512). Jjok 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow.... sorry bout the Jap, I was trying to make it short..... Any way...... The accuracy of history can never be determined..... But we know that Korea had longer control of Liancourt Rocks right????? and Japan of Tushima..... So as a naiive English speaking boy, I believe that Tokdo should be Koreans since the Tsushima Isles are cliamed by Japan...... wut u guys think??????(MCASGT 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Korea insists East Sea was stolen during she was under Japanese rule, deprived of its sovereignty, and had no diplomatic representation on the global stage. Japan insists Liancourt rocks were occupied during she was under the Allied occupation, deprived of its administration, and had no force to protect herself. Why don't you apply the same standard to either cases? Jjok 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"But we know that Korea had longer control of Liancourt Rocks right". Not necessarily because the history and maps are unclear, so no we don't know that. Besides it's off topic. It's not for us to interpret the history. It's for Wikipedia to report what historians including Japanese and Korean say. Macgruder 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to get things back on track--it really doesn't matter who controlled it when. If most speakers call Korea "Little Japan" (or Japan "Litle Korea"), those articles should have those titles. The test we use is mainstream terminology. All too often the name issue becomes a discussion of who should control it. The two are totally unrelated. The more people that realise this, the easier this issue will be to solve. 128.205.33.79 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow Jjok....... Do u not know that land cannot compare to water?????? Land can be completely occupied while ocean can be drawn only in boundaries..... And if Korea watched so unfairly as Japan renamed The Marginal Sea, why won't u accept that the Koreans didn't get the chance????? So if the allies occupied Dokdo, they occupied Japan as well..... So since Japan didn't have any foreign rights when the Allies occupied Japan...... How can u infer the same with Tokdo?????(MCASGT 20:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

Please stay on topic; everyone tries to assume good faith--but who occupied what when, what's fair and what's not, and what's right and wrong with a territorial dispute doesn't belong on a talk page, especially about naming. Komdori 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

MCASGT, your points don't really make any sense because you are arguing an opinion - Wikipedia reports. I suggest you read Wikipedia policy regarding original research etc. You might want to stop using '??????' if you want to be taken seriously. This is not myspace. Komdori, I suggest you don't continue this discussion as it seems pointless to me. Macgruder 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You people are immature. Its laughable watching this discussion. Good friend100 13:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And what are we to call breaking the rule of 'no personal attacks' ? Macgruder 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

CoughMCASGT Come on Komodor..... The name given to a territory is given by the country that controls it in most cases(Except Korea=Hangook, Japan==Nihon Koku)...... And Macgruder, my statements may seem like opinion but I am arguing a fact...... U know these facts bout korea's inprivelleged past.... and i Like to use lots of question mark cuz I am a writer.... Please reconsider....... Thanks......(MCASGT 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

"The name given to a territory is given by the country that controls it in most cases". But it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy.

You are not arguing facts: "compared to the 500 years of control by the Koreans". This is not a fact. There are disputes about the maps etc. Please make an effort to stick to Wikipedia policy - report cited material. With that, I'm done in this section. Macgruder 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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))

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))

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)

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)

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)

The previous poll was excellent. It was under supervision of several admins, including user:Nihonjoe & user:Zonath. (Wikimachine 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

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)

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)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 5 contains edit history around the time of the previous requested move. --Kusunose 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I found it.--Endroit 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding." WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

As I pointed out below that poll was essentially meaningless because 12 out 14 'reasons' were nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, but irrelevant points like Goodfriend100 not knowing Wikipedia rules and saying: 'Support. Definitely consistency. Also Dokdo is Korean territory so it should be named that.' Wikipedia has rules and they are to be respected. Macgruder 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

That's what I meant by consensus-based democracy. : | (Wikimachine 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

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)

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)

Only way for another disput to be going on is to have new users, different reasons for dispute, etc. Some of you have seem to forgotten the previous vote here. Sorry, LactoseTI, Komdori, Jjok. No dispute's going now. Or if there is, the consensus that the current title is NPOV is greater & to bring up dispute only tests your POVness. (Wikimachine 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

MacGruder also seems to agree. You have a significant number of people suggesting that the flawed vote in the past is not representing the current consensus/following Wikipedia guidelines. Let me get this straight--you're disputing that there is a dispute? Komdori 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

MacGruder agreeing w/ having a dispute or the status quo? Yes. I'm disputing that there is a new dispute. Then, MacGruder better speak for himself. Are you implying that people who voted support for the last vote would easily change their mind this time? (Wikimachine 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Once again, Wikimachine, you don't seem to know the rules of Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding." WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY

This is the main problem with this page. There are determined editors who don't stick to the rules laid down by Wikipedia, who don't justify things like the name of the article by the rules laid down and Wikipedia. It's simple. Wikipedia rules state that the name is determined by the common use in English. Dokdo can be disputed to be the common name in English. Period. The only thing, Wikimachine, that you have said in reply to this issue is 'we had a vote already'. But as I pointed out Wikipedia explicitly says: "They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding."And let's look at some of those support comments anyway from that poll:

Goodfriend100: "Support Definitely consistency. Also Dokdo is Korean territory so it should be named that." Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage. " Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support for consistency with all other contested territories. Double standard in naming the Sino-Japanese disputed island Senkaku while naming this island in some obscure way is hypocrisy." Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support due to various reasons that others have stated." Not even a point made.

There was only one valid point made in all those comments and it was that the person thought that 'Dokdo' was the most common word amongst English speakers. Unfortunately, there was no real evidence given for this. Google search is not really valid here because it only really returns results by non-authoritive sources and/or people who have an agenda to promote the name.

So, thankyou for the 'reminder', but it would be better to remind people of this simple fact: All that counts is Wikipedia policy. Arguments outside the framework of that are meaningless, and I for one ignore them Macgruder 06:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer to both Komdori & Macgruder. Wikipedia is not democracy... so what? Are you questioning the validity of the previous poll? I don't think I said anything to spur you to say that Wikipedia is not a democracy. The last poll was done properly under experienced admins such as Zonath & Nlu, etc. I see more explanations from the "Oppose" votes that are completely off of the Wikipedia standards than the "Support" votes. And if you look, Zonath et al experienced admins, etc. made their vote over right reasons, such as "based on Google search".... I don't know why I should even be arguing this. If you want to dispute, don't make arguments linking to the last poll. This is a new dispute, if you want it. If not, then it's a past dispute already solved.

MacGruder, if you look at the second to the last instead of the last reply I requested for new users with new reasons. That should be the basis for starting a new dispute.

By the way, Macgruder, did you debate on this issue in any way previously? Also, what are your reasons why the current title is not suitable? (Wikimachine 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

The previous poll was conducted poorly, with a poorly constructed description of the issues at hand, and due to its rocky start is untenable. The issue needs to be formulated more clearly, which is what the tag and the discussion is about. Aside from sites trying to push one name or another, the name is almost universally posted as a pair, Dokdo/Takeshima or Takeshima/Dokdo. It appears this way in other articles as well. Furthermore, these same sources often cite Liancourt Rocks as well. Check out the poll I linked to as well for some more reasoning, especially those from disintersted parties. Komdori 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No rub on you, Wikimachine, but you often post in a way which makes it seem like you didn't read the page at all... Try looking at Talk:Dokdo#Naming_of_wikipedia_articles_is_not_connected_with_NPOV_issues to see a few of the issues that have been recently discussed. Komdori 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, were you even there? You simply give reasons like the poll was conducted poorly and that there was a rocky start. I don't see any good reason why that poll is not valid.

I don't understand why some of you guys are so paranoid about moving this article to Liancourt Rocks that it even gets to the point where we are arguing over a poll almost a year ago. Good friend100 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In the section [[2]], Endroit talks about some of the reasons. The poll was a year ago, but the reason it could not be resolved then is because the poll was so messy, very messy. We needed to disengage, and hopefully after a suitable time (now) we can try to discuss again and come up with a clean result. The key is not to be too hasty, but discuss first, and move thoroughly. Komdori 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are completely ignoring whatever happened at the poll and simply talking about how messy it was.

You don't give any reason why its wrong. How is it messy? Because it looks messy? You are simply trying to erode that poll without any reason and instead attempting to start a new one. Good friend100 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, maybe you weren't there at the poll, but I was & I know exactly what happened there. The poll was messy because of all the sock puppets created by both KPOV & JPOV users (as you can see, all the oppose votes shown below the "vote end" green box are sock puppet votes). And the admins were able to clear them out. The admins themselves decided that the poll was accurate enough of to reach a consensus.

Yes I did read that, however, I forgot about it. If that's how MacGruder thinks, I guess we could have another dispute over that... but I think that dispute would be decided on a very trivial matter. That is... MacGruder's reason to contest the current title is very debatable & at the same time heavily dependent upon a very trivial matter. I'm not sure if you should begin an argument just on the fact that Dokdo & Takeshima are used in pair & therefore should be invalidated. That's a very weak argument. (Wikimachine 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, I think part of the argument is that since they are always appearing as a pair, maybe they should be a pair for this article, too. I like this idea for several reasons. One, I think the idea of "military controller gets to name" is not Wikipedia policy, and might lead to some problems. If we get forced to go to International Court, and Japan wins (it is definitely possible), do you suggest we immediately move this article to Takeshima? I think the independent newspapers will continue to refer to it as a pair.

It comes down to, if you think you find some random person (non-Korean, non-Japanese) on the English speaking street, will they be more likely know Dokdo over Takeshima? Takeshima over Dokdo? I think if they know either, they will know both. This implies that either alone is not an established English name. If we use a pair, the article is also more stable because whatever happens politically it can stay here.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves. If someone hears about this in the English speaking world, it's because they hear about the dispute. They'll see the pair of names. Having it under one or the other kind of implies that Wikipedia endorses that name as the "real owner," and if you are honest you will acknowledge that a large number of people who want this under Dokdo want it there because of that implication. The tide can shift, too, maybe more Japanese people come sometime and want it under Takeshima. If we get the pair, which reflects what news stories will quote for the foreseeable future, we're safe, the article will be stable (or the title at least). Komdori 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We used "Dokdo" because it had the most hits on google (although google is not extremely reliable).

Also, we moved the article accordingly to be consistent with Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan, but claimed by China. Another territory issue that involves Japan and China where Japan holds the island but China claims it.

It wouldn't be fair to move this article to a "neutral" name, while leaving that article the way it is. I'm sure the China-side editors there want a neutral name or their native name. Good friend100 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning about Senkaku Islands is both irrelevant and untrue. Irrelevant because if you have a question about the name of that article discuss it there using Wikipedia policy. Untrue, because Senkaku Islands is the more common English name and is the standard name used in the majority of English language references, and has been for sometime. So this is NPOV per Wikipedia policy.You don't name artcles to be consistent with each other. You name articles to be conistent with Wikipedia policy. Good friend100, please learn the Wikipedia policy rules before making your points - otherwise they are irrelevant. Macgruder 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Dokdo and Takeshima (as a pair) occur more often than Liancourt Rocks. The previous poll was really based on this fact. However, the fact also is that Dokdo doesn't appear alone in these cases, something that really wasn't evaluated or taken into consideration.

People against the name West Bank don't share the benefit of your unofficial compromise. In this case, the controlling power doesn't call it West Bank. Each article is evaluated individually, and it should not be tied together. If virtually all Senkaku Island appearances are accompanied by the Chinese name as well (I don't know if this is true or not offhand), then that article is also wrong. Komdori 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you're trying to place a double bind to either use Liancourt Rock or to use both names. However, it's not Wikipedia's policy to both names & you know that. Name one article that has a name like "Dokdo/Takeshima". Impossible. So, are you trying to lead us into using Liancourt Rock? That's a very invalid argument. A more valid argument would be that since both Dokdo & Takeshima are used equally, other considerations, such as the current national administrative status of the islet, would take higher importance. It would be ridiculous if a Korean or Japanese Wikipedia article on a US territory that is disputed with another country (maybe China will dispute over Alaska) even when under US control & US clearly has the right over Alaska from historical point of view... to just put "Alaska/Jinjjang" (stereotypical Chinese phrase, I'm just making it up) or an international language title "@#$%4^". : ) (Wikimachine 02:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

"A more valid argument would be that since both Dokdo & Takeshima are used equally, other considerations, such as the current national administrative status of the islet, would take higher importance." No this is totally wrong. You can NEVER override Wikipedia rules to form your own rules. That is 100% POV. Wikipedia states that the commonest name for English speakers is the only criteria. Period. Full-stop. That's it. Do not make up your own rules. This article is unusual because both names are used about equally commonly in respected sources. (Google hits are meaningless because many those uses are for the POV purpose of promoting the name). Therefore the slashed name makes sense because it corresponds to the rules of Wikipedia (that doesn't preclude slashed or bracketed names, btw. one is an example. Notice the maturity displayed in the comments there too.) Perhaps Dokdo/Takeshima with Dokdo first would make sense as that indicates present 'current national administrative status' Macgruder 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read a nuke impact card or foucault kritik yet so you don't have to fret, MacGruder.

No "double bind" attempt on my part. "Name one article that has a name like 'Dokdo/Takeshima'. Impossible." Here's one. Here's another. I like the slashed idea better than Liancourt Rocks, but either would work. I might add that one problem with your example is that Alaska really is a standard English name, used much more often than Jinjjang, and many people know of Alaska outside of any territorial dispute. The same is not true for these islands, much like the case of the example islands I linked. Komdori 03:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If a slashed name is a viable option, I would much prefer it to any other name, and I beleive most others do feel the same way. --Dwy 09:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend100, Wikimachine. Don't you even read the comments of other people?

"Wikipedia is not democracy... so what? Are you questioning the validity of the previous poll?"

Here is my COMMENT before you wrote that. It clearly says that the poll comments had little to do with Wikipedia policy so of course I'm questioning it:

Goodfriend100: "Support Definitely consistency. Also Dokdo is Korean territory so it should be named that." Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage. " Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support for consistency with all other contested territories. Double standard in naming the Sino-Japanese disputed island Senkaku while naming this island in some obscure way is hypocrisy." Irrevelant. Not Wikipedia policy.

"Support due to various reasons that others have stated." Not even a point made.

"By the way, Macgruder, did you debate on this issue in any way previously? Also, what are your reasons why the current title is not suitable?"

Sorry, I don't have a time machine. Perhaps you could built me one. I have stated multiple times why the title is not suitable. Since you are not bothering to read other people comments but simply evading the issue by referring to polls which Wikipedia expressly states 'may not be treated as binding' , I'll have to repeat them again which is pretty boring for me to have to do:

'Basically, it comes down to what is the commonly used name amongst English speakers and references. In the case here, since the vast majority of English speakers couldn't care/don't know about this issue and most pages (outside of respected sources) on the web that use one over the other have the agenda to promote that name, thus rendering the Google Test meaningless, the only sensible way to end this dispute is to use what respected neutral references use. For example, recent BBC or National Geographic but not the Yomiuri Shimbun. This would seem to indicate a slashed name like Dokdo/Takeshima. I have yet to find a recent respected reference that doesn't give both names.'

You guys clearly need new input from a NPOV Wikipedian like myself. I have removed Japanese POV from Rusk, and am addressing Korean POV about this title. All I see from you two is meaningless references to previous polls that were clearly flawed, disrespectful comments about Wikipedia rules ("Wikipedia is not democracy... so what?"). Simply ignoring the questions. Demonstrating little knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia "Dokdo is Korean territory so it should be named that." and then acting as if those comments are meaningful now even if they were made a year ago. This ridiculous POV of trying to promote your own viewpoint rather than what you should be doing, making Wikipedia a great reference, is disappointing. I even went to Japanese wikipedia and added a non-neutrality notice there for Japanese POV. I doubt you have ever done something similar. Why not just answer the basic issue: the title of an article is determined by the common name in English. This article doesn't appear to match that fundamental and non-negotiable Wikipedia rule. I suggest that we have a new poll and that the reasons given MUST correspond with the Wikipedia rules. I also suggest the Wikimachine and Goodfriend100 familiarise themselves with the rules of Wikipedia. Macgruder 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop bad mouthing others with the same stuff you already said. And I don't care how your so great at being a NPOV hero and doing good things here and there. Good friend100 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaining about bad mouthing is a bit ironic from the person who said this: 'You people are immature. Its laughable watching this discussion.' I had to repeat the stuff I already said because it was asked again Also, what are your reasons why the current title is not suitable and Are you questioning the validity of the previous poll? Macgruder 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I mean by deconstructive, MacGruder. You criticize others & base your arguments on your criticisms. I don't think that it's up to you to decide whether the last poll was poorly done or whether people voted on wrong grounds. I was there on the poll, and I know how the discussion evolved. (Wikimachine 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

• The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.

Seems that Dokdos is the official modern name. Let's not mold down WP: naming convention, which is more general & diverse than you think, to strictly English usage.

• There is no naming rule suggesting that you use a slash when under naming dispute. I'll go & try to overturn all of the articles that you've listed as having used a "/". See [3], and [4].

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have. 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. In the case of the communes of South Tyrol, there is a linguistic survey of the area, by commune, which has the following advantages

(Wikimachine 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

First off it's POV to decide that controlling authority determines official name. The term 'official' is only NPOV when there is no dispute. For example, Republic of Ireland. Secondly, Wikipedia goes onto to say that "Foreign names should be used only if there are NO established English names." There is no way you can say there is no English name. You have implied above that you believe that there is not widely used name. Well, in that case, Wikipedia states we should use the English name that exists and that is Liancourt Rocks.

Wikipedia also states that if the name is used in a English language encyclopedias (with Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, recommended) is can be accepted as being the widely excepted name, but note 'names which fail each by a small margin or single exception are probably widely accepted' so once again Liancourt Rocks is used in Britannica, an Encarta map, and has an article in Columbia, so it can be the widely accepted name, Dokdo or Takeshima is basically never used alone in respected sources. So at every turn we come back to Liancourt Rocks. It is a widely-accepted name by Wikipedia Policy. If we don't agree with that we still use it because we don't use foreign names if there are NO names, Liancourt Rocks again. Macgruder 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, you are misreading the multiple local names section. This only applies when ' local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages' . This is not relevant here, and so your double-name quote doesn't apply. ) Macgruder 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try to eliminate the examples of slashed names if you wish, but those were borne of much deliberation and consensus. You will not have an easy time of it. The islands article is particularly pertinent to this discussion. Komdori 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I might add that Takeshima is just as "official" as Dokdo as a name. That's one major difficulty with a disputed place. Komdori 18:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The nation with the administrative status over the island designates its official name. Also, I'd like to examine those articles further before seeing that they were born out of much deliberation and consensus. One of the articles doesn't even have an archive & on the talk page there was no sign of dispute. (Wikimachine 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Japan also administers the island, with many people designating it as their official residence. The fact is deciding who sets the name is in itself a POV issue in this case. Those articles were discussed on the AN/I board more than in their own discussion, mostly about whether or not it was appropriate (it was decided it was). Komdori 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant jurisdictional status. Japan may press for administrative status, but does not have jurisdictional status. (Wikimachine 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Still POV to say 'jurisdictional status designates its official name' in a disputed territory. Macgruder 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Japan claims jurisdictional status as well, pointedly treating the surrounding area as part of its own EEZ. It even explicitly announces to the media that it does these things to illustrate their jurisdiction over the area. The EEZ area accompanies the islands, and cannot be separated from it. In the end, it is clearly not straightforward that Korea or Japan controls it. All these things are beside the point, though, because when there is such a well advertised dispute, I fail to see how any intellectually honest person will claim one or the other is the one-and-only "official" name. Both Dokdo and Takeshima are just as "official" as each other. Komdori 18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to both MacGruder & Komdori that now I see where you guys are coming from. If I were to disregard several gray areas and conditions, & take a conceptual leap into the possibilities offered by your alternative, it's not too bad of an idea. (Wikimachine 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Not such a conceptual leap. Use foreign name if no English name exists. English name exists :-) Macgruder 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab was moved to Shat al-Arab and then to Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). Mediation is still going on, & I see several convincing arguments from pro-single title groups. I'd rather not use this in the equation for the current dispute. (Wikimachine 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree that this is not an ideal example as it's under dispute.. Imia/Kardak is a much better one. Macgruder 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well one issue with that article actually really illustrates is why slashed names are often (but not always) discouraged. It's also an issue I don't think will pop up here--the issue of which name comes first. Based on the discussions we've been having (for a long time now) I believe that if we establish a consensus for a NPOV name, we can dispense with that level of nitpicking. I haven't seen any indication that anyone would object to alphabetical order. This is more like the island example (not the one you quoted as being a problem). In this case, neither name really has an edge, and non-alphabetical order would draw undo attention to one name over the other. This is an open invitation to anyone who has a real problem with this... if anyone would insist we argue on the order, speak up now.

In cases like this, where a slashed name is really the most appropriate, a lot of times they pick a goofy third name and redirect both there. If we had to, I suppose Liancourt might serve that purpose... and it's not even that goofy, it's really the name a lot of places refer to this in English. This is a topic that comes up in the news a lot lately over the past few years. It would be nice to get a name that wouldn't need revisiting. Komdori 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Japan doesn't administer the island. Simply because 2,000 Japanese people claim it to be their residence doesn't mean that Japan controls the island. Good friend100 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese people who's full time job government includes maintaining these registries and other administrative tasks might disagree with you. The point is it is not clear cut. We need to just stick to Wikipedia naming policy Komdori 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the word 'control' doesn't appear in Wikipedia Naming policy either. They use the word 'official'. Saying 'control' determines 'official' in the case of a dispute is POV. Macgruder 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. S. Korea could claim Alaska & begin administrating the island without control over it. And then the media pour could make Google search pro-Korean. That would make Korea's claim over Alaska official & Alaska is changed to Alesseuca? (Wikimachine 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

This Alaska example is bad for the same reasons as before. Alaska is the well known English name, Alaska being well known outside of the dispute. I agree that parties can try to game Google and cyberspace to have their own name show up (or just because they are talking about the area). That's why Google results aren't that great for one of the POV local names alone after the dispute has been going on for awhile (even though they are about even). The battle for control isn't over the rocks (no one really cares), but they are over the surrounding area, which is routinely used by both Koreans and Japanese as though it was theirs. Neither is able to control this area while it's in dispute. Anyway, back to the Alaska example (so easy to get off target)--since Alaska is the commonly used and accepted English name, and appears in most places alone without the Korean name, that's why we use Alaska. For the same reasons, it's not a good idea to leave this article under one of the POV local names. Komdori 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, don't wade further. S. Korea has control of Dokdo & has complete jurisdictional control over it. You just know the Alaska example, no matter how distant it is from reality, serves its purpose here. (Wikimachine 23:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

You are the one wading from the naming policy; the Alaska example serves absolutely no purpose, except this--if Korea made up some claim to the point that the Korean name was more commonly used than the term Alaska in the English speaking world, then yes that should be the name in Wikipedia. Komdori 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policy states that the official name should be used if it is also an established name. That serves as a buffer to the fact that Google searches might have biases. (Wikimachine 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

(But both Dokdo and Takeshima are the official names. It's POV to state that controlling = official in a disputed territory.) If Korea claimed Alaska and the Google hits showed more Alesseuca it would be still irrelevant. In fact, you have made the opposite point than you intended. Google hits are the last resort after encyclopedias. Encyclopedias would continue to reflect what respected references and the approx. 1,000,000,000 English speakers still say, and so Alaska would continue to be used. Liancourt Rocks is used in Encyclopedias as a title and on maps. Nothing else is. That alone means we should not even resort to Google which is not meant to be used in this kind of dispute anyway. (i.e. The local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages ). There is nowhere else where Google hits should be used according to WP:NCGN. Macgruder 17:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear that for geographic entities that the common English usage/name is what determines the title (despite many commenter's consistent ability not to understand this). Using other criteria is POV. If we think about it these islands don't really have an English name except for Liancourt Rocks. If we go to BBC and other neutral (news) sources actually if we look carefully they tend not to use Dokdo or Takeshima. What these sites actually do is simply report that the islands are referred to in Korea as Dokdo, and in Japan as Takeshima. In other words, BBC, for example, is not actually using either name but simply reporting what Koreans and Japanese call the island. Since the vast majority of English speakers have no clue what the islands are called and don't care (and without addressing the flaws of the Google count for reasons I've outlined before), we are reduced to looking at respected sources. We may find that most sources barely ever refer to the islands as Dokdo or Takeshima, and the few that do use Liancourt Rocks instead. This is a possible way of looking at the issue as well as Dokdo/Takeshima. If we find this to be the case it might be an elegant way to solve the naming dilemma without breaking Wikipedia policy. Macgruder 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... You're wrong. As my reliable news sources data suggest, Liancourt Rocks is almost never used. (Wikimachine 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

It doesn't matter that the term shows up not quite as often, it happens to be the English term. And as neither Dokdo nor Takeshima are solely more often used than the other, we cannot use either. Komdori 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the data also suggest, Dokdo is more used than Takeshima & Liancourt Rocks in academia (Google Books & reliable websites), & there is a tie b/w Takeshima & Dokdo in the media. In Google web test, Dokdo dominates completely. And Wikipedia naming convention states that even if Google web test has its own flaws, it is acceptable. That alone makes all the difference in this discussion. To say that a certain nationality "spams" online as a part of a tacitly organized effort to spread usage of a specific phrase in the cyberspace is.... absolutely racist & absurd. And your interpretation on the "English term..." seems a little flawed. If Dokdo is the most established name in English, it doesn't matter if Liancourt Rocks is also an English term. Also, the usage in itself is what Wikipedia wants, not a specific type of usage in which Dokdo & Takeshima are not offered as alternatives. Furthermore, even if I were to submit to your definition, there is no way of proving that Liancourt Rocks is more used than Takeshima & Dokdo in the media. (Wikimachine 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe the one term comletely dominates the other. I also find it somewhat doubtful when all editors involved here seem to have stated at one point or another that neither term has an edge.

Absolutely racist and absurd? I guess I'm an anti-Korean anti-Japanese Korean racist then. I even linked an article appearing the mainstream media where they discuss the ongoing effort to win terminology on webpages. In addition, let's be honest--both Japanese and Koreans blog in English, and at least some of them are doing it to increase hits on their name. --Cheers, Komdori 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, I'll take my words back. I understood your comment as "only Koreans spam online".(Wikimachine 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

But I still disagree. I already told you why the article you linked you interpreted differently from what it was really saying. The article was just making an observational statement about the widespread usage of the term Dokdo in the cyberspace. It doesn't give any warrants to your current hypothesis that there is a cyber war for the name change - let me add, in Wikipedia. I mean, there is not much reason for people to spam online just to make name changes in Wikipedia. I've never heard of it. The blogs, etc... they all just serve their purpose. Furthermore, we just don't make those assumptions. It's best to assume that neither nationality does anything than to accuse both of doing something... when there's no way of proving it, especially w/ concrete data. (Wikimachine 00:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, this is why I need to deconstruct (but I take your point :-) . Because what you say "As my reliable news sources data suggest, Liancourt Rocks is almost never used." and "Dokdo is more used than Takeshima & Liancourt Rocks in academia" are simply not true. See below. In fact, Dokdo is never used in Encyclopedias other than being referred to in the same way as Takeshima. All the English encyclopedias either use Liancourt Rocks (see links below) on maps or in the name of articles. The one Encyclopedia that does have an article has Liancourt Rocks.

• Encyclopedia Articles Title. Winner: Liancourt Rocks. Draw: Dokdo and Takeshima

• Encyclopedia Maps. Winner: Liancourt Rocks. Draw: Dokdo and Takeshima

• Academia Winner: Liancourt Rocks. 4 times as much as others according to Books Google.

• See Talk:Dokdo#Google_Books. (Wikimachine 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

• Academic references to accepted name: Winner: Liancourt Rocks (see Korean scholar below).

• Provide link to the section below. (Wikimachine 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

• Newspaper articles: Exclusive use of either Dokdo or Takeshima is basically never. Only reporting of what the Koreans and Japanese call the island. Occasionally use of Liancourt Rocks. Occasional beats never so we could argue Liancourt Rocks is the winner here again. Inconclusive, but Dokdo Takeshima is draw.

• Google Hits: Dokdo and Takeshima draw. (Your contention that In Google web test, Dokdo dominates completely is simple wrong when you do in the correct manner.) (see below for the correct results) But since Liancourt Rocks is clearly the winner in the other areas we don't need to resort to Google anyway which is only last resort. (I looked at your Google hits, and you didn't use the advanced search to include only English pages, exclude Wikipedia, and add a couple of English words, as the Naming Convention explains you need to do).

• See data in archive. Dokdo hits more than Takeshima & Liancourt Rocks combined. You don't read what I write. Your search method is flawed. It fails to exclude similar pages. (Wikimachine 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Conclusion.

Major Category winner: Liancourt 4, (Liancourt or Dokdo/Takeshima draw) 1

Minor Category winner (Google hits): Dokdo/Takeshima draw.

This is a decisive rout by Liancourt Rocks. Dokdo doesn't win even 1 category merely sharing the minor Google hits.

Gold Medal: Liancourt Rocks (by a mile)

Silver: Dokdo/Takeshima

Bronze(share): Dokdo

Bronze(share): Takeshima

Macgruder 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be helpful to try to establish a consensus on a simple question. What name is the most common name for these islands as used by English users and/or respected sources? For the most common name used by English users, I think we are agreed that the Google count is both unreliable and meaningless in this case. What we need is verified cited neutral sources for usage (this may not exist), and references to respected sources like the BBC (this should be easy).

My feeling:

Common usage: there is no common usage amongst (a cross-section of) English speakers. (Common Usage: none)

Respected sources: They report that 'Dokdo is the Korean name, Takeshima is the Japanese name'. They tend not to use any name themselves. Liancourt Rocks is less often used. However, when it is used it is actually used, as opposed to the name being reported. (Common Usage: Dokdo/Takeshima as a referral; Occasionally usage: Liancourt Rocks) Macgruder 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "most common name" from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions guidlines does not trump Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. As Liancourt Rocks is a neutral name in the ongoing dispute over the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima, I think that this article should be placed under that name. The guideline Wikipedia:Words to avoid makes a valid point under the section "Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter" to paraphrase "Use of the name Dokdo or Takeshima implies a moral cliam to the island, if one party can successfully attach the label to the island, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its viewpoint." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Philip but you have misunderstood NPOV regarding names of entities. Abiding by Wikipedia Policy is de facto NPOV. Using your own policy is POV:

Read the guidelines carefully:

"A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy."

"Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should NOT be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

However, I agree that Liancourt Rocks is a possibility. The only thing is that Dokdo is probably not NPOV per wikipedia naming policy. Macgruder 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) are the most relevant naming conventions in this case. And a common method suggested by both Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name is to consult other English-language encyclopedias. So let us see what term is used by them. Columbia Encyclopedia has an article Liancourt Rocks. Encarta has Map of Liancourt Rocks (disputed), Asia. Britanica does not have an artile for it but in Korea, Republic of mentions "The first was an argument over the ownership of an island group that South Korea called Tokdo and that Japan referred to as Takeshima (some maps used a neutral term―the Liancourt Rocks)". --Kusunose 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it often pops up, "The islands, called Dokdo by Korea and Takeshima by Japan..." As others have noted, this doesn't imply that these are necessarily even English names. As I quoted, there is another set of disputed islands in almost the exact same situation (no commonly known English name) where after much discussion it landed with a slashed name, and consensus was that this was appropriate. At least in this case there is a somewhat common English name (Liancourt), although the islands truly are obscure. Most editors who want Dokdo admit it is no more commonly used among English speakers. It also clearly has POV issues (even if you believe Korea has a right to this place, or believe Japan has a right to this place, we cannot use this as a naming basis).

If editors are honest, they will admit that this article being named Dokdo gives them a "good feeling." Even the Korean media reports it as an encouraging sign of progress in ownership. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool like this. What's worse, if Japan gets control someday, do we switch? When? The date the court decides? Not until Japanese are standing there? There is a reason who controls it is not the naming policy. In fact, it is explicitly discouraged to use this as a test. Surely we can find a neutral name, we even have two choices, Liancourt Rocks or Dokdo/Takeshima. Komdori 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Japan will take control of Dokdo, Komdori. Actually, I was using a similar reasoning for the Mount Baekdu naming dispute except that the conditions are opposite to this dispute. (Wikimachine 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

(Personal feelings) Quite likely we won't lose it, it's always nice to have more resources, but I'm sure there are a lot of Japanese people who doubt they won't take control, just as sure as you are they won't .:P My guess is that if somehow it gets pushed into the International Court, Korea would lose (for many reasons), but if we can not recognize the court, we will keep it for quite awhile. Anyway, this is all beside the point I guess... the goal should be to get a name that won't be dependent on the political outcome, which could (somehow) change tomorrow. And again the next day.

Another point to bring up is the fact that this set of islands is chiefly important not for the crappy land but for the EEZ. The EEZ is, really, part of the islands. Since Japan regularly plows through the EEZ, even military "control" of the area is really unsettled. Komdori 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Korea would lose at the international courts. There are already too many historical maps and documents that show Dokdo is Korean. The Japanese claim is merely on an economic standpoint, because of the resources around Dokdo. Good friend100 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For naming, it doesn't matter. Besides this is a POV comment. Macgruder 10:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you should tell that to Komdori too, or do you both work in the same office? Good friend100 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's comments are framed around an understanding of Wikipedia naming policy. Don't make assumptions. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese. I think the Korean claim to Dokdo is stronger than the Japanese claim. I also think that the Liancourt Rocks is the correct name for this article. Macgruder 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because I at least tried to make my comment relate to the issue of naming. Komdori 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

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)

Newspapers

I can only re-affirm that American media is pro-Japan.

• BBC: Uses both Dokdo/Takeshima and Liancourt Rocks combination. [5][6]
• CNN: Uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination. No "Liancourt Rocks". [7][8]
• MSNBC: Uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination. No "Liancourt Rocks". [9][10]
• FOX: Uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination. Several cases in which the article favors Takeshima over Dokdo (i.e. word order, "Dokdo" in parenthesis). No "Liancourt Rocks". [11][12]
• USAToday: Uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination. Several cases in which the article favors Takeshima over Dokdo (i.e. word order, "Dokdo" in parenthesis). No "Liancourt Rocks". [13][14]
• ABC: Uses Dokdo/Takeshima combination. Several cases in which the article favors Dokdo over Takeshima (i.e. no mentioning of Takeshima in the article). No "Liancourt Rocks". [15][16]
• Washington Post: Uses both Liancourt Rocks, and Dokdo/Takeshima combination. Several cases in which the article favors Dokdo over Takeshima (i.e. no mentioning of Takeshima in the article). [17][18]

(21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

A lot of these are going to be ap stories; some articles in the Washington Post like this one refer to it as Takeshima without Dokdo in at least some pages. It's pretty clear the majority of them are using the pair, though (saying it's a Japanese and Korean name or Korean and Japanese name, respectively). Komdori 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are affirming that American media is overall neutral :P (And the BBC might not like being grouped in with yanks.) Komdori 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, FOX uses Takeshima as the main title and Dokdo in parenthesis, and/or mentions Takeshima first and Dokdo second... even though it is natural that alphabetical order should bring Dokdo first. (Wikimachine 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

The only reason why newspapers and encyclopedias only give you "Dokdo/Takeshima" is because they want to present a neutral view and not anger anybody. Good friend100 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are trying to placate Koreans, who knows, but...

Actually I think the phenomenon you are experiencing is what is described [here], rather than any Japanese bias. The name Takeshima is actually more commonly used, but online Korea has made great strides to eliminating this (no I don't think we should move it to Takeshima). This article is actually a great reason why this issue really needs attention, when they actually say, "In consideration of the popularity and influence of Wikipedia, the preference given to the word Dokdo demonstrates global Internet users are tilting toward us." This is bad. This goes against the whole idea of NPOV, and if people are coming away with that impression, it's a powerful argument against keeping the name where it is. Komdori 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article long ago, and I don't think that's exactly what it says... (Wikimachine 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

?? I copied and pasted. Komdori 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I read it again just now. That's not exactly what it says. It just made an observational statement that the cyberspace is increasingly embracing of Korean viewpoint. (Wikimachine 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Funny that the article took "Le Liancourt" to be somebody's name instead of the ship... maybe we should change "whaler" to "whaling ship"? Oh, I see somebody already did that. --Reuben 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable websites

• From Google search for Liancourt Rocks[19] to [20] (14 pages of Google)

• Global Security: Title is Liancourt Rocks/ Takeshima/ Dokdo. However, the article uses Dokdo for the rest of the article after the introduction.[21]
• University of Washington: Liancourt Rocks only. [22]
• CIA Factbook: Liancourt Rocks as primary, Dokdo/Takeshima combination as secondary. [23]

• From Google search for Takeshima[24] to [25] (16 pages of Google)

• Stanford University: Liancourt Rock as primary, Dokdo/Takeshima combination as secondary.[26]
• Harvard College: Dokdo/Takeshima combination as primary, Liancourt Rock as secondary. [27]

• From Google search for Dokdo[28] to [29] (29 pages of Google)

• YaleGlobal Online Magazine: Dokdo as primary, Takeshima as secondary, & no Liancourt Rocks.[30]

I might suggest finding a few articles in order to determine a trend. I might also suggest that when we get into publications like Yale Global Online Magazine, we're really getting off the beaten path. As far as Yale goes, we might instead pick something from their East Asian department, like this, where the presenter uses the pair. Komdori 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a go-down-the-Google data. That is... you know what, we should do that to all websites, not just the ones that use only Dokdo. Actually, make a list of reliabe websites first before exploring into them. (Wikimachine 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Just the danger with going through all the sites is then we have to try to pick apart motivations. Your edit comment "Adding yale" almost implies that the university as a whole has this trend. In reality, it's just one guy, Peter Beck. I have nothing against this guy, but if you look at what he wrote for that magazine, it's three articles--"Perilous Journeys: The Plight of North Koreans in China and Beyond," Keeping North Korea from the Brink – Part I", and "East Asia’s Troubled Waters – Part II." Clearly he's writing from a Korean viewpoint, which is going to be more and more common among the smaller sites, when we get into people who were affected in one way or another by the push for the name. It's clear that some people think that whoever wins usage of their own name somehow scores a victory for ownership of the islands. Komdori 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, that statement is not applicable or does not bring you any advantage b/c it would either apply to everyone or no one. There is no net benefit. And don't forget good faith. (Wikimachine 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

I have no doubt you added the link with good faith, I'm sure you did. Good faith does not, however, extend to places outside Wikipedia. We're allowed to question others' motivations. Perhaps you missed my point... the external sites all must be taken with a grain of salt as to their motivations or influences. Komdori 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Times Magazine: Dokdo as primary, Takeshima as secondary, & no Liancourt Rocks.[31]

• Association for Asia Research: Dokdo as primary, Takeshima as secondary, & Liancourt Rocks none.[32]

I'd like to note that this is not necessarily a "reliable" site in terms of naming. The author is a self-described "Korean Nationalist Exile in America," see [here].

• International Herald Tribune: Dokdo as primary, Takeshima as secondary, & Liancourt Rocks none.[33]

I missed that. Sorry. Lee Wha-rang sounded Chinese, not Korean, to me. Wikimachine 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It did to me, too, for some reason. I happened to check on a whim. Komdori 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

International Herald Tribune uses the pair more commonly, ex [here] Komdori 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

and [here]. That example is not a very good one because the writer is styling the article from a Korean standpoint. He starts on a Korean boat and states "Dokdo comes into view". The dozens of other articles using both (really neither) seem to reflect iht policy better.Macgruder 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA factbook (as mentioned before) has Liancourt Rocks, followed by the pair (Takeshima/Tokto on the Japanese site here and Tokto/Takeshima on the Korean siteh here. Komdori 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The first example you've cited you've misunderstood. It mentions Dokdo-Takeshima deal shortly, but that is it. It does not embellish on the details any further. In fact, that is a copy-paste of the section in the article that I've posted giving an explanation of the name usage in Japan & Korea. Furthermore, most of the articles in the Google search are like tat. It briefly mentions the island as part of the article discussing about the larger picture. Although you sound more sensible, take it into account that the article I've posted discusses in detail about Dokdo while your articles mention Dokdo/Takeshima as part of its larger Japan-Korea relations subject. The journalists don't have any more room to offer than their "islets called Dokdo in Korean & Takeshima in..." (Wikimachine 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

• Google Earth and Google Maps might be worth mentioning--they use Liancourt Rocks, with the other terms as redirects (just like what we're suggesting) Komdori 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• globalsecurity.org uses Liancourt Rocks alone, without reference to Takeshima or Dokdo here Komdori 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• US Geographic Names Server here establishes Liancourt Rocks as the standard, sanctioned, official spelling of the islands for government agencies in the US. --Cheers, Komdori 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Books

Dokdo is most common in Google Books.NOTE: MacGruder's search method is flawed b/c it fails to cross out similar pages, as discussed in the previous poll.

• Dokdo: 77[34]
• Liancourt Rocks: 66[35]
• Takeshima: 102[36]

• Note: Takeshima is also used as a name.
• Note: actual count of books concerning the island is 16.

• Data:

• 2 on 1st page[37]
• 1 on 2nd[38]
• 2 on 3rd page[39]
• 3 on 4th page[40]
• 0 on 5th page[41]
• 2 on 6th page[42]
• 2 on 7th[43]
• 1 on 8th[44]
• 1 on 9th[http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&lr=&q=Takeshima&ie=ISO-8859-1&sa=N&start=80
• 2 on 10th[45]
• N/A on 11th[46]

(23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, Liancourt Rocks is still just the most common (although you have a point about some references not being about Liancourt Rocks)

A better search is to do something recent like from about 1980 (dates after this will return very few for all):

Dokdo gives 23 results after removing non-English results. (9 + 6 + 8)

"Liancourt Rocks" gives 37 similarly removing non-English language. (a couple of references refer to Liancourt Rock).

So Liancourt Rocks is still ahead, as well as being the one used in Encyclopedia titles and maps. Macgruder 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Be more precise in what you are talking about & give hyperlinks to each page that you've visited to collect data & describe/explain them like I did. It just seems to me that you're simply lying to confuse outside readers. I get these good results, and you keep saying "I didn't get the same result, LOL." Should I conclude with LOL? (Wikimachine 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia requires good faith. If you go round calling people liars you don't belong here. Komdori has already linked to the encyclopedias and news sites, I've already linked to the Korean scholar who says Liancourt Rocks is the accepted names. I've given you the simple Google links and explained why they work and are part of Wikipedia required policy to add some English words, stick to English pages and to be simple. I can't quite understand why you are complaining about the hyperlinks to each page. They are right there. Click them, and go through the 4 pages if you really want. Wikipedia requires simple counts. The reason I don't get the same results because I used a later date which would make sense and discounted the non-English. The main point here is that the contention that Liancourt Rocks is not common is wrong. They are similar. Macgruder 10:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith policy serves as a device to prevent pre-emptory personal attacks/topic disputes. It does not, however, prevent users from taking affirmative actions against what they perceive as illegitimate or unfair. And that's precisely my reason for accusing you of possibly lying. Why? You say your results do not agree with mine, & conclude with LOL (like you roll your eyes... I was offended by this & felt disrespected). One of us must be lying. The two events are mutually exclusive. Then, since I've shown my data page by page, while you haven't, I assume that you could be lying. Am I wrong? (Wikimachine 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

You misunderstood the LOL :-) It wasn't directed at you, but at Komdori. I was laughing about Komdori's Dokdo, Japan & Takeshima, Korea 'suggestion' which was obviously a bit of a joke. If you look at the indentation, it's not replying to you. But I can see how it could be confusing, so sorry if you though I was laughing at you. I certainly wasn't.

"One of us must be lying. The two events are mutually exclusive." Absolutely not. It's very possible for statistics to throw up different results because we have to make judgment decisions. For example, suppose we decided to see which word was used the most in recent journals, and I decided recent was after 1990 and you decided recent was after 1980. If we got different results it doesn't mean someone is lying it just means that there is a different results based on our interpretation of the word 'recent'.

Now because whenever we do these kind of tests we are getting very similar results, my conclusion is that it's a statistical tie. In other words, it is too close for the statistics to say which is common.

When your tests differ from mine, I certainly don't think you are lying. I'm disagreeing with your methodology (with the Google in particular because Wikipedia requires a simple test and my test is simple and pretty accurate for what it's trying to measure). You pointed out to me that searching for Liancourt + Rocks in Google books gave non-connected results. After checking, I saw that you were in fact correct and acknowledged that and so I tried again and decided to do recent results from about 1980 and then exclude the non-English results as Wikipedia requires.

"Then, since I've shown my data page by page, while you haven't". Since the results were only 3 pages each I didn't feel any need to link to each page because it's easy just to click through and count yourself. I think if you click my links and do actually go through the 3 pages, you'll agree that it takes 30 seconds, and it's not necessary to provide those links. It would have been better for you to try that first , and to note that my results were based on recent publications than throw around a word such as 'lying'.

As you can see I modified my search based on your original criticism. It still give an advantage to Liancourt Rocks. Once again to me this is nearly a tie, but it does mean that Liancourt Rocks is an English name used in Encyclopedia's and respected references. That is all we need to show as per Wikipedia policy.

Remember Wikipedia policy only requires it to be shown that on English name exists. It does not require that this word is the most common when compared with foreign words.

The Wikipedia policy basically requires a three step process.

• Check Encyclopedias to see if an English word exists (Liancourt Rocks is in all three).
• Check respected sources. BBC and scholarly publications also have Liancourt Rocks. At this point if and only if there is no English name do we do the Google count. Well, we don't need to this because Liancourt Rocks is already used. If we do the same check for Dokdo we see it is not used as the name in any encyclopedia (ditto for Takeshima). It is not used as the name in news reports, but simply referred to like Takeshima. Therefore we cannot say there is no English name. Liancourt Rocks is an English name.

The other issue is that Wikipedia Policy distinctly points out that you need to try to read at least some of these returns. As I have said before, many of the Takeshima / Dokdo returns don't count because they are simply reporting : "Dokdo is the Korean word, and Takeshima is the Japanese word". If you remove all of these references then you'd discover that Dokdo and Takeshima become very rare as English usage. Macgruder 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since people have forgotten about these... MacGruder, let me repeat for the 4th time. Your searchc method is flawed. (Wikimachine 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

This talk page is getting huge, and all the comments are recent. Wikimachine, it is up to you, but since you added this table from the archive I might suggest we replace it with a link if possible. We can continue the discussion with the new searches since they are bound to be more relevant. I'm only suggesting it as a means to avoid confusion in the debate. If you think it's still relevant to the discussion here it's fine, just we're approaching 100K added to this page in like two days... --Cheers, Komdori 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is clearly flawed... you can't add variations of the Korean name together when the often appear on the same page. Something's not right here... searching for

"dokdo" -wikipedia korea

in English only pages gives 86,400 pages. And that's not even discounting some kind of similar page you're talking about? That's about half a million fewer pages than you're quoting. If half a million pages have disappeared using that term since the last time it was searched, I don't think we can use old google data :S. --Cheers, Komdori 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For point of reference, ""takeshima" -wikipedia japan" on English only gives us more than 200,000 hits... All of this is kind of beside the point, because it's doubtful that English speaking people will encounter this discussion out of the mass media, and we've discussed to death how neither has an edge there. --Cheers, Komdori 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Here's the way to cross out the similar pages. Go to the last page. Keep clicking at 10, 20, 28, 37, etc. Until the last page. That page marks the last of all websites that contain the search phrase. And that also excludes all similar pages. Got it, Komdori? Got'cha. (Wikimachine 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

And yes, if you read all of the archive, you should know that we even tried "-wikipedia", "-wiki", etc. No, we tried everything - all completely out of your imagination. (Wikimachine 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Someone hasn't actually used google before I guess... it won't serve more than 1000 results (gotcha?) --Cheers, Komdori 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about flawed.

• (1) The searches you referenced in the previous polls with "500,000" results were not even English language pages which Wikipedia states you must do with added English words to give a statistically sensible result

• 'll do that. (Wikimachine 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

• (2) You can't add results. 120,000,000 people in Japan have dark hair. 120,000,000 people in Japan have dark eyes therefore the population of Japan is 240,000,000 - flawed yes.

• Yes you can. A page that uses Dokdo will continue to use Dokdo. A page that uses Tokdo will continue to use Tokdo. An article won't swap between Dokdo and Tok Islets. (Wikimachine 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Not like this then.

*(3) Wikipedia naming policy does not say a Google search can be used in this case anyway. Here is the quote:

First, this does not apply because the local authority does not recognize equally two names. This tends to happen in multilingual areas like Canada, so Google searches are basically irrelevant. On top of which the test must be simple. You are just making the test so complicated to render it meaningless and against Wikipedia rules.

• Stop talking nonsense. At first the searches were simple, as you advocate. However, people like you gave all these reasons why these searches were inaccurate, so I had to remake tests everytime somebody would complain. You complain, too, that some of the searches are in non-English websites.
• Additionally, google test is acceptable in both cases where the local authority recognizes one or two of the names. (Wikimachine 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Which part of Wikipedia policy "Search engine tests should be used with care: in testing whether a name is widely accepted English usage, we are interested in hits which are in English, represent English usage, and mean the place in question. Some of these problems will be lessened if the search includes an English word, like "city" or "river", as well as the placename. (If this is done with one proposed placename, it must of course be done for all competing proposals.) Another approach is to examine the first few pages of hits, and see what proportion of them are false hits. But the only certain control is to count how many hits are genuinely in English, assert English usage, and deal with the place discussed." don't you understand. Sorry in fact this is the opposite of nonsense. You cannot call Wikipedia policy nonsense. the local authority recognizes one or two of the names. Sorry but this is wrong. Read the policy carefully it says the [single] local authority recognizes equally two or more names. My mathematics is a bit rusty but I seem to remember that one is not two or more. So your choice of the word nonsense is wrong again. Macgruder 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant that the "local authority" idea was when you have a place called two names and the local government recognizes both, like the same name in English and Spanish in the US?, or the same name in English and French in Canada. I don't think this clause was really meant to be covering when two different local authorities each recognize a single (different) name. --Cheers, Komdori 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A google search for Takeshima or Dokdo on English language sites with pertinent added words like Korea Japan island and dispute gives this:

Dokdo 15500

Takeshima 17100

This is a simple and clear result as Wikipedia requires. And by the way, single Google searches don't duplicate because in a single search all terms are required, and the number of duplicate count will affect both Tokdo and Takeshima equally. But the fact of the matter is that you are still quoting the 500,000 (1,000,000) Dokdo even though it is totally irrelevant because it was not limited to English language. In other words, the very fact that this result was the one used means the previous poll was meaningless and misleading. Assuming good faith, I guess the person didn't realize that Wikipedia requires that such searches are limited to English language, but it is time to stop using this result as part of any argument. Essentially as shown above it's a statistically tie. Macgruder 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you should talk about that to Danxdan, not me b/c that's what he posted. As you can see, I use search results without similar pages. That reduces everything down to 80~ 100 searches max. (Wikimachine 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Plus, the reason why we searched for uk domain was the fact that there could be non-English sites involved in this. UK domain would serve as a reflection of how English-only sites would show... do it your way with Korea & Japan included.(Wikimachine 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Let me repeat. Takeshima is also used as a name. Most of the search results refer to the name, not the dispute nor the islets. (Wikimachine 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Which is why the search is framed carefully with Korea + Japan + Takeshima + dispute + island. Very few pages will refer to a name in such a specific search. Macgruder 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't make much difference.

What I meant by below was look above at the section archive. I already explained & showed how 80% of all results for Takeshima are names. I mean... what do you expect? There are so many variations for the spelling of Dokdo while there is only 1 way to spell for Takeshima, & Takeshima is also a name while Dokdo is never used as a name. You see what kind of huge disadvantage Dokdo has already? MacGruder, you don't realize. We had to go through all this in the last discussion. (Wikimachine 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I am not sure the utility of this (obviously not simple) search, but just a couple of notes...

* Some of the results are being counted multiple times. For the Korean names, you need to exclude the other variations if you're going to add together (for example, searches of "Dokdo" and "Tokdo" can't be added... you have to do "Dokdo -Tokdo" and "Tokdo -Dokdo" or you get some that match "Dokdo Tokdo" in both results).

* I think we might be slanting it a bit by including "Korea" alone as a search term. How about "Korea Japan island" or something similar?

* I think the results will show (even, they are already showing) that neither of the two variations (Dokdo/Takeshima) have a statistically significant edge over each other. That leaves us with finding a third alternative. Any suggestions besides Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo/Takeshima? I favour the former, but are there any other options? And please no one suggest Dokdo, Japan or Takeshima, South Korea :P (running from the hail of stones from everyone) --Cheers, Komdori 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize but you did that because you didn't know that the simple approach was to use a specific search that wouldn't throw up many names like Korea dispute Japan island Takeshima -wikipedia. I don't find one Takeshima-san etc in there. It's unfortunate that Dokdo has spelling variations but English doesn't. So you need to choose Dokdo or Tokdo because they are not the same word in English. (Or just use Google to make up for that "Korea dispute Japan island Tokdo OR Dokdo -wikipedia". Making stuff complicated just throws in more errors. You can try all you want to look at the figures in different ways but whatever way you cut it every straightforward and logical English search throws up a close dead head. Macgruder 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing suggestion! I'll try. However, I don't think they would make much difference. Talking about Takeshima should include Korea somewhere, at least. (Wikimachine 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

LOL. Added Korea and Japan. Same result. It's just a tie. Macgruder 19:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This time, to account for which name is more prevalent in reliable sources such as CNN, searches on Dokdo only, Takeshima only, and Liancourt Rocks only will be used. That should account for articles in which usages overlap, where usages are singular, etc.

Many of these references are reporting what those names are called in Korea and Japan rather than using those terms. I'm guessing from the news reports that not one of those news sites uses either Dokdo or Takeshima as the name. And the table pretty much confirms what we know. Where one is used the other is used, but neither are actually used as the name in either encyclopedias or academia. Liancourt Rocks is still the only place that is used as the name even if occasionally. But occasionally is better than never. Macgruder 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. I'm not done with this. I just copied & pasted. (Wikimachine 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, the bbc does not have 'many' Takeshima as names. It's basically the same. And it Wikipedia policy also states not to just do a straight count but to actually read what the sites say:

BBC: It is called Dokdo in Korea, Takeshima in Japan and is also known as Liancourt Rocks [i.e. in English]. Therefore BBC states Liancourt Rocks is the English name.

So all you found as in every case is that in a reliable source the names are essentially used together but when these reliable sources do note an English name the name they say Liancourt Rocks like Encyclopedias. Case closed. Macgruder 03:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, Macgruder, I really detest your attitude. Change it & get a new suit & tie before coming back to this discussion. It's not basically the same. Fine, I concede that BBC doesn't use "many" more Dokdo than Takeshima- I probably made a mistake b/c I was hurrying up. There was one article [114]. I'll just subtract one, then. Still, as you can see in CNN, many articles still use Takeshima as a name of an individual or person, not the island. (Wikimachine 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Use words like 'detest' to other users on Wikipedia and you don't belong here. If it is has come down to you counting 3 or 4 instances in a website that has millions of pages then yes it is basically the same. Your assertion has always been the Dokdo is used much much more. Now you are saying 29 vs. 25 is suddenly the deciding factor. As I have pointed out, BBC never uses Dokdo or Takeshima. So those two numbers should be zero not 29 and 25. Because BBC is simply reporting that "Dokdo is the name in Korea, Takeshima is the name in Japan." So in fact it is:

• BBC: Dokdo(0) Liancourt Rocks(12) Takeshima(0)

The reason we challenge is that 2 days ago it was Dokdo was used 1,000,000 times in cyberspace. You can't simply refer to flawed statistics and not expect a challenge on them. Macgruder 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to tell someone whether s/he belongs somewhere or not. Once again, you prove my assumptions about you. Yes, Dokdo is used more. I'm not sure if I ever said Dokdo "has always been...used much much more". I think Dokdo is used much more in the web, and has considerably larger uses in the media & the academia. As you have pointed out, BBC uses Dokdo & Takeshima in pairs? No, as I've pointed out, several articles use Dokdo & Takeshima in pairs while several others use ONLY Dokdo. Got'cha? Great. Plus, As I've pointed out again, Wikipedia policy states that the usage of the either terms Dokdo & Takeshima in itself is what counts, not how they're used. Let me link your advocacy for considering the usage of the terms & their relevance to the naming dispute derived fromtheu sage to your another suggestion that Wikipedia requires simple counts.

Double bind 1: Either we must use simple counts, & Dokdo & Takeshima have nearly 50-50% presence in the media & Liancourt Rocks nearly 0%, and Dokdo ties with Takeshima (if you don't count all variations, Dokdo 480,000...[115] Takeshima 572,000...[116] I won't let it happen :) ), or we must not use simple counts, and (like you claim) Liancourt Rocks has most counts in the media but it still stinks the web results & Dokdo dominates.

Double bind 2: Either we must consider how the terms are used, & Dokdo & Takeshima have nearly 0% presence in the media while Liancourt Rocks has nearly 100%, and Liancourt Rocks & Takeshima suck in web results & Google Books, etc., and Dokdo dominates (b/c you'd have to count all the variations. Remember, we must consider on how the terms are used.); or we must not consider how the terms are used, & Dokdo & Takeshima have nearly 50-50% presence in the media while Liancourt Rocks has nearly 0%, & Dokdo shouldn't include its variations for web & book searches - still much greater usage than Liancourt Rocks, and a near tie with Takeshima.

As my logics suggest, one half of your arguments have 1/2 chance of being true. 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. Assuming appropriate true/false conditions for each of these arguments, my arguments have 1/1 x 1/1 = 1 (100%) probability of being true while yours hae 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 (25%) probability of being true. (Wikimachine 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Wiki, be careful about the civilty. I'm sorry, but it's not really clear that one name is used more than the other in the media from what you've provided. Even rudimentary searches show that the vast majority have both names showing up there. We've pointed out some issues with flaws in your searches--not including enough terms to pull apart the results (eg try adding Japan, Korea, island, dispute), double counting results (Macgruder showed the Columbia Encylcopedia article that shows up everywhere on the web is counted 5 times for Dokdo and 1 time for Takeshima because of the variations they use in it), and besides the point, google is in general used to try to pull apart the case where we have a single local authority with two names, when this is two local authorities each with one. --Cheers, Komdori 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Dokdo has a slight edge over Takeshima that cannot be ignored in our impact analysis. I didn't see MacGruder's talk about the Columbia Encyclopedia & the double count. Yes, I'm going to do the searches again, as you asked, with "-tokdo", etc... (Wikimachine 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

With it being so small, yes, it can be ignored because it is statistically insignificant. I think myself and Komdori has shown that in respected sources one is almost always used with the other, and those instances simply report what it is called in the respective countries. It has not been established that one is the common name in English over the other.

If you are going to do another Google test (and please feel free to do so) it should be kept simple. It's not helpful to add up dozens of different searches etc. You should be able to do a single search for each. You can use the [advanced Google search]. I'm aware that Takeshima is a Japanese name but a focused search and a check of dozens of pages on this search showed only the island use:

[Takeshima Japan Korea island territory] 15100

[Dokdo Japan Korea island territory] 14900

The nature of statistics is that you cannot get a perfect result. You'd have to read every page on the web to do that. What you can do is a fair balanced search. So we are aware of the fact that it is possible that these would include the name Takeshima, however by randomly checking we see that there don't seem to be any in this search or if there are it's very few. Then we might object to the the choices of those words. Well, you can change them and you'll get much the same results. We could even object to the use of Google itself saying it is just a snapshot of cyberspace and so the results are not perfect. True again. But what the above test does establish in a clear and simple way is that both are used approximately equally, and with Liancourt being used in Encyclopedias that is the obvious choice. Macgruder 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the results are statistically significant. Let me ask you this. Are you advocating for Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima?

Moving on. Yes, Dokdo is more common in both webs, media, and the academia.

And no, I'm not keeping my next Google test simple. Like I said, doing more does not do more harm. Doing less may fail to solve the problems of the status quo. Let me say that Wikipedia policies do not limit Google tests to the simple first page estimated total page result. I could even deny that Wikipedia means what you assume as being "simple". Read carefully, "Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems"[117] and this is for multiple local names. "Acceptable" does not exclude other alternatives. "Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)"[118] I dislike how whenever you have disadvantage, you retreat to the most simple & basic dictionary definitions & policies & interpret them in the most surreal ways that even a 3rd grader would laugh at. Komdori, if you agree with Macgruder, umm.... then I don't think I had the right opinion about you. Speak up. Who's right on this matter?

As for the similar pages, look here. In your good old honest man's opinion, do you seriously think that using similar pages would show the actual usage of the term "Takeshima" or increase its accuracy? Now, as a good Wikipedian who wishes for the best for all, I'd say you turn back now & say, "all right. I was wrong about that."

Plus, why do you advocate simple google tests but do a complicated test yourself using "Takeshima Japan Korea island territory", etc?

The nature of statistics is that you cannot get a perfect result. I'm in Statistics right now, and yes you can't get a 100% accurate result. You can, however, get a result that would be true 90~95% of the time. Why would you even say this? This should discredit all of us. There is no net benefit to this statement. Then are you saying that we should not do Google tests? Then what are we going to argue with? I just think you let these phrases think for you. Like... "Things don't happen without reasons."

True again. But what the above test does establish in a clear and simple way is that both are used approximately equally, and with Liancourt being used in Encyclopedias that is the obvious choice.

Umm.... Ridiculous. Do you know about impact analysis in forensic debate? Liancourt Rocks having edge in encyclopedias alone is not a reason to choose the title. When we divide the data into academia, media, and the web, the academia includes more than just encyclopedias. What about the Google Book results? Eh? And even if I concede that only encyclopedias should be considered in the academia section, there's still the media & the web, with Liancourt Rocks having nearly 0% presence in both categories. You just make these terrible arguments. Quit. Already, your evidence are bad. (Wikimachine 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Well we'll see what comes out, it will probably be close to what it is now. The problem most succinctly will be whether or not a small perceived difference will really affect a general English speaker's chance of encountering both words together. I still hope you will consider siding with the possibility of picking a third alternative and having both redirect there. I think it's hard to say that Liancourt Rocks is "totally unacceptable," it is used in a modern context, albeit not as often as Dokdo/Takeshima (probably because the news authors think that two unfamiliar names for an obscure place are enough when the reader is interested in the simple fact that there is a dispute, not exactly what the place is called). You might also consider that many editors will perceive a judgement on the "ownership" of this place based on the name. I think we've pretty much beaten to death that for all intents and purposes, most editors will hit both names simulataneously, and doesn't it seem odd that we'd pick one of those here over the other, implying that it is much more common to call it one over the other when it really isn't? As an aside, I'd like to state that this is my firm belief on how the policy should work. If someone can demonstrate that the disputed names are similarly used (to this degree) on any other article that "sides" with one, if it will help this discussion, I will be more than willing to take the time to get involved on whatever other pages this affects and firmly argue for it.

I agree that encyclopedias might reflect older ideas, but I think that there are basically two places people will see this place: on maps/articles in print encyclopedias or in the news. In the encyclopedias, it will be Liancourt, and in the news it will be both local names, possibly with Liancourt appearing there as well. If we can get this article to one that reflects this reality, I think we will never have to defend against people trying to move it to either Takeshim or Dokdo by themselves. --Cheers, Komdori 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

S. Korea owns Dokdo 100%. Japan's act of disputing does not guarantee ownership. You seem to misread this sentence every time I bring it up. Then, in your explanation, refute my example of S. Korea's claiming over Alaska. Does it make both US & S. Korea's control over the island legitimate? No.

A small difference in what? As my data shows, Liancourt Rocks has 0 usage in many news media & has very low usage in the little that is left.

No. I stand mighty firm with the current name. Mighty firm, indeed.

I'm not interested in what the authors think, and you can't prove your hypothesis.

As I said above, S. Korea owns Dokdo 100%. 100% as in not even 1/infinitity of the pie could be designated to Japan's ownership. Cool.

And yes. Dokdo has much higher usage in the web, much higher usage in the academia, and slightly higher usage in the media. Yes. Dokdo has complete dominance over the other titles.

And no, I don't think people will go to encyclopedias immediately upon finding about Dokdo. I'd say that the viewers who happeend to read about Dokdo on internet news sites, would continue to search on the web and might accidentally step on an encyclopedia article. Most likely, the readers would go to websites that present info about Dokdo. Why, do you think that people who read news on the web would suddenly decide to go to the library & say, "dictionary time. encyclo time. mama, let me go to the library down the streets." No. Cool? I'm cold. (Wikimachine 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

S. Korea owns Dokdo 100% This is totally POV.

Dokdo has zero usage in all media. All media simply says 'Dokdo is the Korean name'

Dokdo has much higher usage in the web No it doesn't. It's equal with Takeshima in English websites. Web usage does not determine English name according to Wikipedia policy unless there is NO English in usage in Encyclopedias and academia, and it is one of at least two names accepted by the [single] local authority

much higher usage in the academia. Not true again. You have to remove English results. In fact, Liancourt has highest usage, and once again all the academic usage simply says "Dokdo is the Korean name" Why do you keep repeating this 'much higher'?

might accidentally step on an encyclopedia article. And unfortunately for your analysis, Wikipedia naming policy says that Encyclopedia are the defining standard of what is English usage.

Liancourt Rocks is an/the English name according to the following respected sources:

• Colombia Encyclopedia
• Britannica Encyclopedia
• Encarta Encyclopedia (map reference)
• BBC
• London Times
• Korean scholar Seokwoo Lee and authority on international disputes
• CIA world factbook
• Nuclear Threat Initiative
• Stanford University
• The UN (yes, that's the United Nations )

Dokdo is an/the English name according to the following respected sources:

• None

How much clearer can it be? There is an English name (Liancourt Rocks) according to numerous respected sources and therefore a Google test should not be used according to Wikipedia Naming Policy. Macgruder 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

Wikimachine

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))

Macgruder

• 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)

Summary

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)

Comments

In my opinion, the best option would be to use the common English name, Liancourt Rocks, with the appropriate redirects. The only other suitable option would be to use both the Korean and Japanese names. As the article stands, it implicitly supports the Korean claim to the islands, which violates NPOV. Parsecboy 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is not common. It is old-fashioned and being less and less used one as Pinnacle for Senkaku. Furthermore, Liancourt Rock has closer tie t Japan for histrocal reasons. Ginnre 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

‘독도=분쟁지역，리앙쿠르 록스’ 세계적 고착화 가속, 국민일보 쿠키뉴스 2006/05/12. Jjok 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Liancourt Rocks is more common than people think. Dokdo and Takeshima are almost NEVER used in media, but just referred to. ('Dokdo is the name in Korea, and Takeshima is the name used in Japan'). Liancourt Rocks is used in a number of encyclopedias and maps (notably Encarta, Columbia and Britannica). It is also the most common in both Google scholar (154 vs 136) and Google books (296 vs 76) which are now the recommended way of checking as per Wikipedia policy.

And quoting Korean scholar Seokwoo Lee, from Incheon’s Inha University in South Korea and an authority on territorial disputes:

"The two tiny rocky islets are called 'Tokdo' in Korean, 'Takeshima' in Japanese, and internationally recognised as 'Liancourt Rocks'."

So it seems that amongst scholars Liancourt Rocks is the established name. Thus it would seem this issue is solved. Liancourt Rocks is the English name and it is established, therefore it is the correct one by Wikipedia naming convention. Macgruder 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I might add to this line of thinking that not only does it fit with the naming conventions, it solves a sticky NPOV issue. The issue is summarized by the quote of a Korean pundit appearing in the news above, "In consideration of the popularity and influence of Wikipedia, the preference given to the word Dokdo demonstrates global Internet users are tilting toward us." This is in the context of an article entitled, "Dokdo Winning Over Takeshima in Cyberspace." Clearly, it's giving some the impression that Wikipedia is siding with one over another. When people know there is a perfectly good, established English name this makes it even worse. Komdori 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The vote turned favor toward Dokdo because of its larger Google search number than the other two candidates. This is not really the accurate description of what happened. Polls were called for Liancourt/Dokdo and Senkaku/Pinnacle articles, based on the argument that “Liancourt/Senkaku” is inconsistent and it should be either "Dokdo/Senkaku" or "Liancourt/Pinnacle." It is apperent that most of those who voted in favour of Dokdo did so because of this consistency theory, but not Google search results.[119]

Some people subsequently questioned the appropriateness of calling for polls linking the two issues, especially as there seemed to be no consensus on how these two issues were actually linked. I have to add that I personally resent the way they closed the polls; the vote here was closed in favour of Dokdo when Pinnacle was leading Senkaku on the other poll, [120]. This embarrasing Dokdo/Pinaccle combination was resolved by waiting for late comers to vote in Senkaku/Pinnacle whilst refusing to count any further votes in Liancourt/Dokdo.--Dwy 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of where the arguments went, many editors including user:Zonath, user:Nihonjoe (these two are admins, by the way), voted support for Dokdo because of the Google search. (Wikimachine 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

This really shows how messy it was. I believe these people might think differently if they had the situation cast in the light we have. I don't think the Google search was discussed thoroughly enough in the past, especially considering the amount of spammed names produced by various countries and citizens involved (both in their news and in personal blogs). Perhaps we should ask what they believe now rather than quote how they responded to a poorly constructed poll a year ago. Before that, there was another poll that said the winner was Liancourt Rocks, and it had admisiters voting for that as well (I believe, I'd have to check). Komdori 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Komdori. You don't understand the chronology of the discussion. It wasn't simply about the Senkaku-combo's, etc. The consensus in the previous poll was that the poll resulting in the Liancourt Rocks as the title was messed up, and discussions after the poll affirmed that the last poll was a very well done poll. (Wikimachine 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

No, Wikimachine, I understand the chronology. In any case, the point is that right now it seems there is significant doubt that the previous poll represents consensus, and goes against the Wikipedia naming policy. I really hope a few more outsiders join in the RFC, so far we've had one (who happened to side with what I'm saying), but we really need some more people to stop by. --Cheers, Komdori 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. There were many reasons for the support of Dokdo, not just the Senkaku thingie. Also I doubt that there is doubt that previous poll represents consensus. If you do, I'll consider it, but I also have a bigger pie on my right hand that the admins giving oversight to the poll decided that the consensus was that Dokdo should be used. Let me add that Wikipedia policy states that if a title has been used for long enough, then it should remain. 1 year, in my opinion, is a very long time. (Wikimachine 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes I do. At risk of degrading further into the "No you don't, yes I do" argument, I know my understanding of the issue more than you know my understanding of it. I never said Senkaku was the only problem. After the arguments raging on this page, you are going to actually sit there and say there is no doubt that the previous poll represents consensus? I'm sorry, but if you are that stubborn as to blind yourself to the group of editors, including all the outside editors so far, who are disagreeing with you, there is little to be gained from discussing it. Of course add to this that it has not been stable over the past year (one admin called it the "move from hell"), and that discussions have constantly popped up, and that an admin suggested scheduling a poll to take place 6 months after the previous one was over... well, that doesn't really seem like that was a stable consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a search using Wikipedia Policy of adding English words excluding 'wikipedia' and making both added English words the same is a dead heat: Dokdo Korea dispute (28400) and Takeshima Korea dispute (28700). These numbers are so similar as to be statistically identical. As I've pointed out that survey had 12 out of the 14 comments outside Wikipedia Naming Policy too. So now that we know that Liancourt Rocks is common in academia and Encyclopedic references (see above), recommended by a Korean expert, the only English name, (nicely a neutral term), there is no winner in the Google stakes, in line with Wikipedia Naming Policy, are we now done :-) Macgruder 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

MacGruder, look at the archives. The archives contain a more accurate Google search data than what you've just posted. You ignore the fact that those numbers account for similar pages more than the individual sites. (Wikimachine 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

You mean the more accurate one that doesn't limit the search to English language pages and add up the results which is a statistical fallacy. The similar pages issue affects both searches equally so is not an issue Macgruder 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Read below. There's no harm in doing more, but there is harm in doing less. (Wikimachine 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, this is not necessarily true. Wikipedia requires a simple test. Doing many tests and adding up the results especially if the tests have not been conducted in an unbiased manner introduces more possibility for error. A single simple but well-constructed Google test for cyberspace is sufficient. Macgruder 10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the archives seem to be off by more than a half million hits now, so clearly somethings a bit wonky. As I mentioned before, though, that the vast majority of English speakers who encounter these names will do so through the English language mass media where it appears every so often. We have already seen there is no edge for either name ther (so it shouldn't sit at either alone). If we are looking for an alternative, Liancourt Rocks springs to mind, as it's often quoted as being the "English name" for the place. --Cheers, Komdori 15:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you not listen? Exactly, you don't understand the chronology of how the past discussion went. The people in the discussion, including the admins, confirms Dokdo had a much more significant amount of hits than Takeshima. Yes, MacGruder's method is flawed & we'd be smarter off assuming that the last discussion involving more than 15 editors is right than to give more weight to the 2~3 editors in the current discussion. MacGruder's search method fails to cross out the similar pages. (Wikimachine 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, for the 4th time (since your counting) those searches weren't English language searches and quite how you were crossing off similar pages with your '500,000' search results would be interesting. Anyway, as I keep saying the duplicate page issues does not make the result flawed because it affects both searches equally. What makes your search flawed is that it wasn't English language. Why not give us a direct link to a Dokdo search with half a million hits. Simply parroting the idea that my clear and simple (as required by Wikipedia naming rules) Google search is flawed does not make it so. Macgruder 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I have my 500,000 search results. I'm guessing that what you mean by "it wasn't English language" is that I shouldn't add up all these variations of Dokdo, Tokdo, etc? Wow. Don't you get that 80% of results for Takeshima are Japanese name, not the island? Didn't I explain already thoroughly? Umm.... yes the similar pages gave Takeshima too much advantage. See how Takeshima and Dokdo are nearly tied when similar pages are included, but Dokdo wins clearly when they're not? (Wikimachine 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

I listen just fine, it seems you are the one with a severe lack of understanding (both of what happened before and what I'm saying now). By the way, even though I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the search results, it's tough to argue since we can't search google of a year-ago anymore. Let's do searches now, not try to interpret what bad searches were like a year ago. In any case, I showed with a simple search that the search you quoted was off by at least half a million hits when compared to now... doesn't seem very likely to still be valid. --Cheers, Komdori 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I might add that out of the outsiders who are responding to this RFC and elsewhere in the page (admins and otherwise), none seems to share your opinion. --Cheers, Komdori 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Last discussion also had Rfc, I think. Or at least we tried to move in outsiders for comments. Anyways, why don't you post your theory at where MacGruder & I've already posted? (Wikimachine 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Rfc is for comments from outsiders, so let's keep it down to the minimum here. (Wikimachine 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Macgruder disagreed with keeping article naming consistent. Now we are trying to move this article to model after another disputed article.

We certainly cannot find any way to see whether Senkaku or Diaoyu is more common. I could not find any article on the Senkaku Islands on Britannica.

Yet, Macgruder said that "Senkaku" is more common? How do we know that? You have stated that we cannot use google to find out what is more common.

If we can model after other disputed articles then this article is much more analogous to Senkaku Islands which differs only in the fact that Japan administers it while China claims it.

So, if the decision is to move this artcle to "Dokdo/Takeshima" then I should be able to move Senkaku Islands to "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Good friend100 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No brainer. However, I don't think Takeshima is as widely known as Dokdo. It is just on the Japanese wish list. Why should that be considered here? Ginnre 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta use "Senkaku Islands". --Kusunose 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britannica mentions Senkaku but it seems they treat both Chinese and Japanese name as local name, same as Liancourt Rocks. --Kusunose 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kusunose, your ref merely reflects once powerful japanese influence on the naming of relating objects in the western world. It is not any more the case. It was biased in old days and they have been being just reproduced. Your ref does not reflect current status-quo. Ginnre 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice circular argument. 'Show me a ref' --> 'OK. Here we go'. --> 'That ref doesn't agree with my opinion therefore it is not valid'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This page is for discussions on Dokdo/Takeshima. Discussions on Senkaku do not belong here. If Good friend100 believes that he should be able to move Senkaku Islands to Senkaku/Diaoyu, he should raise the matter in the discussio page of Senkaku Islands.--Dwy 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dwy, your comments doesn't help this article, either. If you believe the title of this article should change but you don't care about Senkaku island, you just admit that you want more Japan-favorable presence in english WP, no more than that and no less than that. Are you acting on good faith? Ginnre 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My my, Ginnre, isn't that a little condescending? Dwy only suggested we stay on topic, and not get off on a tangent. Remember to assume good faith. Let's also not pretend you don't show obvious bias yourself. Parsecboy 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I answer your question, Ginre? If you already doubt my good faith, I cannot think of any answer that may stop it. I can only humbly request you to assume good faith as the guideline of Wikipedia dictates.

OK, let me put it this way. For the purpose of discussions here, any argument calling for the move from Senkaku Islands to Senkaku/Diaoyu will not help defend Dokdo (if it is moved to Senkaku/Diaoyu there, this article have to be Dokdo/Takeshima). So people who want to keep the current article name will probably be better off if they stay away from changing Senkaku name, but keep their arguments focused on the matters here.--Dwy 06:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ginre, you have got it wrong. We care about Senkaku Island but that article is called that because the editors decided it was the common name in English as per Wikipedia naming convention. If you disagree with that argue about it there. Dokdo is not clearly the common name in English. It's nothing to do with Japan presence - it's simply what is the common English name. That is what we are discussing. You are confusing the issue by linking controlling country with naming. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia Naming Policy. I suggest you read there to help you understand Wikipedia Rules. Macgruder 12:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Macgruder disagreed with keeping article naming consistent." Wrong. This is Straw man. Article naming needs to be consistent with the Rules of Wikipedia. How many times do I have to repeat this. Senkaku Islands is used because the editors of that article have decided it is the common name in English. If you think that Senkaku Islands is not the common name in English GO TO THE SENKAKU TALK PAGE, and make your views there. It is irrelevant to this article. Stop saying that the Senkaku Islands article is called that because of the controlling power. This is false. It is named that because references such as Encarta etc. use that term, and the editors of that page have agreed to that name within the Rules of Wikipedia. Articles that are consistent with the Rules of Wikipedia are automatically consistent with each other. Macgruder 09:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm comparing the dispute at Senkaku Islands and Dokdo. I'm not trying to move Senkaku Islands to Senkaku/Diaoyu. Why would I?Good friend100 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So am I. Both article need to use the English name. Senkaku Islands is the English name there; Liancourt Rocks is the English name here. That is consistency by Wikipedia Naming rules. Macgruder 14:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to repeat myself again (unlike you, who like to call out to the world how Goodfriend100's comment 1 year ago shows that he is uninformed). Articles that state "Dokdo/Takeshima" is to present a fair view for both sides. This is true for probably ALL neutral sources. Even if they don't label something as "___/___", they will mention other names, unless the sources are heavily biased. I'm sure Korean and Japanese sources state both names even if Korea supports Dokdo and Japan supports Takeshima.

The only thing we need to do is write down Takeshima and Liancourt Rocks in bold in the first paragraph and the language box to keep it fair. People that search for this article will most likely know that the article is already in dispute. The tag and the lock against new editors and bolded names is a fair compromise. Good friend100 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The maps are all labeled with both names. The article is fair as it is. The readers will know that there is a dispute. We don't need to study what sources use what names. All neutral sources will write both name and thats a fact for most disputed issues. Good friend100 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that counts is Wikipedia Policy. And Wikipedia Policy clearly states that you use the English name for a title if it exists and/or the common name. Other reasons are irrelevant because they are not Wikipedia Policy. Dokdo is the Korean name, and Takeshima is the Japanese name. Wikipedia naming policy clearly says: Use the English name if it exists and check reliable sources to see that it exists. Liancourt Rocks is that name. (Sorry, I'm going to refer to your comments as uninformed if you continue to argue outside Wikipedia policy. This does not mean you, yourself, are uninformed). Senkaku Island has been decided by the editors of that page to be the English name. If we decide that Liancourt Rocks is the English name then we are being consistent by Wikipedia Policy. I haven't found one respectable source that uses either Dokdo or Takeshima exclusively. We have pointed out Encyclopedias and a Korean expert on this issue who use Liancourt Rocks. By refusing to address the issue of what is the English name you are avoiding Wikipedia policy and this makes your comments not relevant. So please show me a majority of respected English sources that exclusively use Dokdo and I'll agree with you. Otherwise, this article should be using Liancourt Rocks for consistency with Wikipedia Naming Policy (and therefore with Senkaku Islands). Macgruder 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that Dokdo/Takeshima are used to present a fair view from the source. And it will almost all the time be like this for almost all disputed issues.

There is really no point looking for good sources that state only one of the names because the writers are trying to be fair to both sides and the article is usually about the dispute itself.

Also, I don't see a lot of sources that use "Liancourt Rocks," unlike what you say. They simply call the islands "disputed islands" or something like "...these rocks are called Dokdo (by Korea) and Takeshima (by Japan)...". The NY times calls it "islets". In most cases, not one name is exclusively used by itself and all the names are usually included. Therefore, you cannot use that to your argument that "Liancourt Rocks" is the most common name.

And Liancourt Rocks is not even an English name. Oh yes, Laissez-faire and genre are French words too, but Liancourt Rocks itself is not that common either. Do english users simply use "Liancourt Rocks" without mentioning "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" with it? Do many english users even know about the dispute? No, Liancourt Rocks is not very common simply because it looks "english" or sounds "english".

• Check Times [121]

• Check BBC [122] - BBC has numerous articles on the dispute.

The best compromise is to bold all the relevant names for this article and add the language box template for all the names. Users that search for this article usually know enough that there is a dispute going on. The name dispute tag clearly shows it and the edit lock shows how there is edit warring going on (or likely). Good friend100 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Since you admit it shows up with both names in both places, you are on board with the group that realizes it has to move back to the original article title. We can then follow your (and others') suggestion by having all local names bolded. We have a choice--to the mix of the local names that virtually always appear together, Dokdo/Takeshima, or to the most commonly used standard English name (if we discount the local names), Liancourt Rocks. Surely you aren't suggesting there is another English name? Of course it's not that common because few people know of this place. Leaving it at just one of the local names not only violates the naming policy, it violates the NPOV ideas as well. Komdori 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Friend, the problem with your argument that "Liancourt Rocks isn't even an English word" is that half of the English language as it is today is French (if not more than half). Regardless, Liancourt Rocks is the name used in many English sources, as Macgruder has pointed out, such as Britannica and Encarta. WP naming policy clearly states that if an English term exists, it should be the name used. This really isn't up for discussion. There's the Wikipedia way, and then there's the highway. Parsecboy 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is not used in all the english sources. I pointed out that it is not used in BBC or NY times.

And I'm not advocating "Dokdo/Takeshima". The sources that I find don't even use that kind of style to describe the rocks. Liancourt Rocks is NOT the most commonly used name. You cannot simply consider a couple encyclopedias alone.

I don't get how you are simply disregarding my compromise. Bolded names and the language bar templates are enough to show that there are other names. The disputed title tag helps that even more.

Parsecboy: I like your name, it makes me laugh every time I read it. Good friend100 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend, check out the BBC links above, which shows them using the combination and using Liancourt Rocks. The NY times uses Liancourt Rocks here alone, without using either Dokdo or Takeshima. In reality, the majority of the media uses phrases like in the Times of London quoted here: "Roh Moo Hyun, the South Korean President, said that his country would never make concessions over the islands, which are called Tokdo in Korean, Takeshima in Japanense and the Liancourt Rocks in English. South Korea has occupied the islands since 1954."

The disputed name tag can't stay on forever, and if you recognize that is only one side of the issue and equally used in English, we can't leave it there. What justification do you have under the naming policy to pick only one of the local names in a hotly contested dispute? Komdori 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since people already know that there is a dispute, there is no point in moving the article. All we need is to mention the other names on the top paragraph and add Liancourt Rocks to the language bar. The map caption reads "Dokdo/Takeshima" and so does the one below it. Are we going to change every "Dokdo" in the article to "Dokdo/Takeshima"? No. There is enough NPOV in the article itself. Good friend100 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So you would have no problem/see no reason to move the article if it was sitting at Takeshima alone? Would you say this is an acceptable name? Neither is acceptable because neither is a more commonly used English term. Can you say why Takeshima is bad, but Dokdo is ok? Try to stick to the Wikipedia policy, and you'll see that neither is all right. Komdori 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Dokdo is under Korean control. You could apply the same thing to Senkaku Islands. And don't start making things up about how the people's attitude at the polls were "because its under Korean control it should be Dokdo". You were not even participating in the polls. You have no right to judge it and call it bad or unreliable with reasons that don't make any sense. Good friend100 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Go to Senkaku Islands and make a case, then. The reason it is there is not because Japan currently controls it. It is there because it is more commonly used in English. If you disagree it is more commonly used in English, go there and complain, don't try to make an exception to the naming policy here. The naming policy is universal. And this is English Wikipedia. Trying to bind articles together under some homemade and unused exception would make it impossible to move either. Komdori 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo is now controlled by Korea, and Korea has far longer history over it. It is actually populated, politically administered, and militarily defended by South Korea. This has been so for thousands of years, except for a brief period of Japanese colonialization during World War II. Korea and Japan do not have "equal" claims to it. It is and has been Korean, but Japan is "claiming" it as a memento of a lost war.

CNN and New York Times do not use "Liancourt Rocks" and BBC uses Dokdo/Takeshima three times as often as Liancourt Rocks. In other words, in most of BBC's articles about Dokdo, there is no mention of the name Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is a name pushed by Japan to dilute the Korean claim. It is not an established English name.

Of Dokdo and Takeshima, which are the two names usually used by the English media, both should be mentioned, but Dokdo is primary because it is under actual Korean control and its residents call it by that name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.28.23 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, many probably thought the idea that "because it is under actual Korean control" was an all right idea, but this is not the way the policy works. The Japanese who have it as their place of residence call it Takeshima, the Koreans call it Dokdo. The media is generally reporting some event about the happenings there, they aren't talking about it in general. Unless you can show that the Korean term Dokdo is used more than the Japanese term Takeshima in the English speaking world, it doesn't belong there. Komdori 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, again, Korea has complete control over the islets & Japan doesn't.

• That Japanese call it Takeshima... Koreans... Dokd, & that media report some event happenings there... so.... where in here do you talk about "how the policy works"?
• The previous poll's Google web search, Book search, Scholar search all proved that Dokdo is used more than Takeshima & Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I strongly suggest you change "proved" to "suggested," in which case I would simply disagree with you. As an observational statement, I find it somewhat surprising that you suggenly change from saying they are both used equally to your preferred name is used more.

One aside I would make is that due to the extreme obscurity of this place outside the news, an English speaker is almost guaranteed to first encounter this place through English news media. As we've discussed at great length, in there it is surely about a dead heat between the two local POV names. --Cheers, Komdori 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand affirmative w/ "proved". These were all proved at the last poll. (Wikimachine 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Then, you are more than simply incorrect... --Cheers, Komdori 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me also repeat "And your interpretation on the "English term..." seems a little flawed. If Dokdo is the most established name in English, it doesn't matter if Liancourt Rocks is also an English term. Also, the usage in itself is what Wikipedia wants, not a specific type of usage in which Dokdo & Takeshima are not offered as alternatives. Furthermore, even if I were to submit to your definition, there is no way of proving that Liancourt Rocks is more used than Takeshima & Dokdo in the media." (Wikimachine 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Finally, the reason for the fact that Google web search is used as a dominant factor in name choosing is that all your assumptions about "I'm sure English readers"... are all impossible to prove & can be refuted very easily. Then the discussion evolves under a yes no yes no dynamic. (Wikimachine 15:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, that was a non-English specific web search so doesn't count. Wikipedia requires English page filtered searches. Macgruder 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But Dokdo isn't more used than Takeshima. Try to take a giant step back from your whatever your motivations are for the Korean name here and just try to answer this question honestly: Do you believe that an English speaker, in their daily lives, is more likely to encounter one of the local names than the other? Based on the media results, and your knowledge of the very obscure nature of this area outside the dispute, if you're intellectually honest, you'll admit they'll see both names together. --Cheers, Komdori 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. What can you say? The news talk about the dispute w/ Dokdo & Takeshima. Almost never w/ Liancourt Rocks. Anybody knows about the dispute would learn about it from the news--> they'd never know about Liancourt Rocks. You make the assumption that English readers would know about the island as Liancourt Rocks more than Dokdo or Takeshima just because Liancourt Rocks is in English (really from French). That's pretty wrong. (Wikimachine 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm not comparing Liancourt and Dokdo/Takeshima for a moment. I'm trying to say that the odds of an English speaker encountering Dokdo alone or Takeshima alone are virtually nil. They will encounter them as a pair. That gives us a choice. The people who decided on Imia/Kardak picked it because neither name had an edge in English and there isn't a settled English term for the island besides. That's one alternative. The other alternative is to pick a third name (people in the past in "slashed name" arguments have suggested that even somewhat "goofy" names are okay for this), and redirect both terms to the article there. One strong example is Fixed-wing aircraft. As a term, fewer people use Fixed-wing aircraft than Airplane or Aeroplane. However, since neither Airplane or Aeroplane have an edge in English, this rather strange choice is the article title. We can employ the same logic here, and pick Liancourt Rocks which is clearly a standardized English term referring to the islands. That's our other choice. We don't really have a choice to pick either Takeshima or Dokdo if a mainstream English speaker is just as likely to see either one. --Cheers, Komdori 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we use Encyclopedia references primarily which give Liancourt Rocks. The English reader who was sufficiently interested would pursue the matter further and she would check Encyclopedias and perhaps search newspaper articles more deeply. She may even go to a Library. And at every turn what would she learn: the English name for these islands as marked on maps, and stated in academia is Liancourt Rocks. Not once would she find a respected reference that said it was Dokdo or Takeshima. (Wikipedia precludes counting itself as a respected reference in discussion). All respected roads as usual lead to Liancourt Rocks. This is why we don't just count, but look at what is said. Macgruder 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I really have know idea on what you want. I thought you wanted the name change to Liancourt Rocks & Komdori wanted it to be Takeshima. Like I said, Wikipedia naming convention concerns only with the usage in itself, not how it is used. The act of mentioning Dokdo & Takeshima guarantee spread of the terms. More mentioning of Dokdo & Takeshima, whether individually or in pairs, guarantee that their usage spread more. Furthermore, I already proved to you that even within reliable sources Dokdo have more results (i.e. if Dokdo has 7 while Takeshima has 4, that means that while 3~4 articles may use Dokdo/Takeshima combo, 3 more articles still use Dokdo alone.) Finally, Wikipedia does not recommend double,triple names. And "/" is even less recommended, as implied by the rule banning any pattern or hierarchy in article names. (Wikimachine 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Initially I was for a slashed name, but after looking more carefully at policy and encyclopedias etc. I discovered that actually Liancourt Rocks is the best name: (1)Liancourt Rocks, (2)Dokdo/Takeshima (3) Takeshima/Dokdo (4)Takeshima (4=)Dokdo . No (1) is way ahead in my mind though.Macgruder 09:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is why leaving the article as it is and adding all the relevant names is the best choice. Good friend100 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish we'd get a Japanese person to respond every time you make a comment like this saying they agree, but they suggest it get moved to Takeshima and have all relevant names be added in the main paragraph. I would be just as unhappy with that (read, very unhappy) as I am with leaving it where it is. --Cheers, Komdori 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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. [123]

• London times uses both names. [124]

Korea controls Dokdo while Japan claims it. Japan controls Senkaku while China claims it. Each article uses their names. Somebody on [125] 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)

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)

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))

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)

I am asking you why you are not trying to move Senkaku Islands to an English name that is NPOV. Again, it doesn't make sense how Senkaku is an NPOV name while Dokdo is a POV name. I'm really curious why you are not discussing at Senkaku.

And I can't move Senkaku to a neutral name like Pinnacle. There has to be a discussion and consensus first, or you guys will parade to my talk page and start gluing warning tags all over it. Good friend100 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I repeat myself, this page is for discussions on Dokdo/Takeshima. Discussions on Senkaku do not belong here.

Comparison with an allegedly “analogous” case will not serve any useful purpose, as you can always dispute whether it is really analogous; it will only make this already very long discussion page even longer.

Anyway, if you want to defend Dokdo, you only have to demonstrate that certain criteria should apply to the naming of this article, and the name of this article must be Dokdo according to such criteria. It is totally unnecessary to argue that the same criteria apply to another article, or according to the same criteria the name of another article must be so and so.--Dwy 05:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's simple. Wikipedia says the most common/only/etc English name be used. If (note the if) Senkaku meet that criteria and so does Liancourt then the articles are consistent with each other and Wikipedia rules. We discuss whether Liancourt is the most common here, and whether Senkaku is the most common there. If you dispute that the editors decision that Senkaku is the most common issue go to that page. The Senkaku editors may not be reading here, so to repeat again, Senkaku discussion does not belong here. Hopefully, this will put an end to this discussion. Macgruder 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

I don't get how many times I have to clarify that "Liancourt Rocks" is not the most commonly used name. Newspapers don't use "Liancourt Rocks".

• Times [126]

• London times [127]

• BBC [128] - mentions Liancourt Rocks, but only as a sidenote, while the article simply calls Dokdo as "the islands" throughout the article.

• Another BBC [129] - no Liancourt Rocks Good friend100 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't use Dokdo or Takeshima either. "Known as Dokdo (Solitary islands) in Korea, Takeshima (Bamboo islands) in Japan. Also known as Liancourt rocks"

You are just counting. They are saying "it is called Dokdo in Korea". This is not using Dokdo but reporting that Dokdo is used in Korea. So in fact, you have shown that Liancourt is used sometimes and Dokdo is used essentially never (only to refer to the Korean name, but it is not used by the paper itself. Your London Times link is one exception but that too refers to Takeshima. Don't just count. Read. Macgruder 09:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From the naming conflict policy:

   * The most common use of a name takes precedence;   * If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;   * If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. [130]

Here, the most common names are Dokdo and Takeshima. Liancourt Rocks is far less common.The common name Dokdo is the official name; Takeshima conflicts with the official name.Dokdo is the common and the official name, and the subject, the residents of Dokdo, call it Dokdo.

From the geographic naming convention:

1. When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. [131]

Here, it is obvious that there is no widely accepted English name. Dokdo and Takeshima seem to be used with similar frequency, but Liancourt Rocks is clearly not a widely accepted English name.

2. If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. [132]

Here, the local official name is Dokdo. Dokdo's inhabitants are exclusively Korean, the island is exclusively administered by South Korea, and official Korean spelling is Dokdo.

3. Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority. [133]

Seems pretty clear to me that Dokdo is the right name for this article. 88.198.14.249 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1) "no widely accepted English name"? Liancourt Rocks is standard for all English encyclopedias, and standard for all government agencies in the US. It's not limited exclusively to the US, either.

2) There are two local official names, both Dokdo and Takeshima. The island is also administered by Japan, which has government offices tracking people whose residence is on the island. Korea also tracks people who's residence is on the island. The island is not truly "inhabited" anyway--there is only a military presense and a single couple placed there by the Korean government to try to prove a political point. There are no towns, villages, etc., it is a very small, obscure, and tiny place.

None of that really matters, though, because there is a widely accepted name. No one disputes that Liancourt Rocks refers to that island. It is used by all major encyclopedias and appears somewhat regularly in the media as well. I agree that the pair Dokdo and Takeshima appear more frequently, but it is specifically against Wikipedia policy to side with one of those names over the other due to "rights" to the land by one country or another. --Cheers, Komdori 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone whose residence is registered as being on the island is not the same as someone who physically lives there. --Reuben 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but they are worth mentioning since there are no permanent residents of the island (we can hardly count a single couple there for the express reason of tilting discussions like this one, and sponsored by the Korean government for that task). --Cheers, Komdori 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the clarification. --Reuben 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, Japan does not have jurisdiction over the island, and that's what decides who's the keeper. The mere act of dispute does not guarantee equal level of ownership. These things should be obvious, but you constantly make leeways this way and that way. (Wikimachine 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

They do have jurisdiction over the area, and continually make use of their jurisdiction by persisting in doing whatever the hell they want in their claimed EEZ. While you can say "Korea has a moral right to this land," it's explicitly disallowed to make this argument under the naming conventions. --Cheers, Komdori 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard for government and standard for encyclopedia? If "Liancourt Rocks" is common as it is, how come few newspapers use "Liancourt Rocks"? And even if they do, "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" are almost always added.

You were leaning toward "Dokdo/Takeshima" but with the above person's refute, now you are favoring Liancourt Rocks. I already showed several english newspapers that don't mention Liancourt Rocks at all.

"Administered by Japan"? Japan administers Dokdo? Japan doesn't administer the island, Korea does. South Korean guards camp out on top of the rock and there is a Korean controlled radar system and helicopter pad. You are simply making up claims that are coming from nowhere. The article says that Korea administers the island while Japan claims it.

You are too ambiguous. "It's not limited exclusively to the US, either." Who else uses Liancourt Rocks?

"None of that really matters, though, because there is a widely accepted name." I guess Japan can't prove much of a political point on Senkaku then, since they don't even have a military presense there.

What happened to the loud "Wikipedia policy" that you say is the most important? And Liancourt Rocks does not appear "somewhat regularly" on newspapers. You are twisting things to make your point when someone else uses Wikipedia policy to refute your argument. You and Magruder have said that only Wikipedia policy counts in Wikipedia, yet you are making comments of things that are "not supposed to count" such as eyebrow raising stuff like "Japan adminsters the island too".

Lets say Japan occcupies Dokdo right now and Korea is the claimer. If I commented that "Korea administers the island too so we have to use both names" you would refute it saying its not Wikipeda policy. Simply put, you are jumping around, making funny statements to avoid contradicting yourself. Good friend100 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I notice that someone introduced the POV idea that Japan doesn't administer the island, but it does... there are several full time employees at the office who track registrations and other paperwork to do with "Takeshima," dealing with thousands of individuals. Why do you keep going back to Senkaku and bringing it up here? It's totally unrelated, go there and complain if you don't like where the article is. I browsed over and someone is already replying to you, go ask for more info if you need it, there is nothing about having control that decides the issue per policy. --Cheers, Komdori 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The style of the article's naming and relevant stuff. I am not interested in moving the page.

As for administration, "administration" is which country occupies and controls it currently. Anybody could "administer" it, in your definition. We could write that Russia and the United States administers it if they simply "tracked paperwork regarding the islands". Japan doesn't administer the island by occupying or controlling it. Good friend100 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you won't let me help your English, try the dictionary: here. "to manage the affairs of a business, organization, or institution"--the Japanese are managing the affairs of Takeshima (the registration, property, geological surveys, oceanographic studies) just as much as the Koreans are managing the affairs of Dokdo. Both protest the others' presense constantly, and both treat it as if it is part of their EEZ.

One side is not going to stop administering it because that would be seen in a certain light internationally. We have to stay away from this political pandering when we name articles.

Even if they were the only ones who administered it (which they are not), there is no Wikipedia policy that says they get to name it here. There are countless articles stationed at places which are not the names their government gave, especially in cases where there are two names used often. Did you look at the Fixed-wing aircraft page? That's what needs to be done here. --Cheers, Komdori 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, Dokdo and Takeshima are essentially NEVER used as the name by any Encyclopedia or by respected media. They simply say: "Dokdo is the name of the islands in Korea, Takeshima is the name of the islands in Japan". This is not using the name. The only name that is ever used is Liancourt Rocks. controlling/administer IS NOT official. It is POV to say controlling/administer is official. The official name is disputed by the 2 countries. That is the whole point of a disputed territory. It's disputed in ownership and therefore official name.

If a person searched respected references and news sources to find the English name they would find one name: Liancourt Rocks because ZERO respected references use either Dokdo or Takeshima. Therefore, there is an English name and therefore it is the name by Wikipedia policy. You keep on saying there isn't an English name. There is. That is what Encyclopedia's are for. For people to find that out, and ALL references use Liancourt Rocks, and ZERO references use Dokdo or Takeshima (other than to report what the names are called in other languages).

This is the key element of WP:NCGN:

Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places do have established English names.

Liancourt Rocks is the established English name in respected references, and is used in media occasionally. Some > ZERO.

Macgruder 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you show me any media reference that "Liancourt rocks" is used? Good friend100 22:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's one http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article707166.ece --Kusunose 05:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question, Good friend100. Here are a few:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4352923.stm (Stating that "Called Dokdo in Korea, Takeshima in Japan, and also known as Liancourt Rocks" [i.e. in English])
• London Times via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/05/02/south-korean-beekeeper-pr_n_20245.html "the islands, which are called Tokdo in Korean, Takeshima in Japanense and the Liancourt Rocks in English."

Non-Media but scholarly publications

• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/liancourt.htm globalsecurity.org
• Then we have other respected publications such as [| The Standford Journal of East Asian Affairs] , http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
• http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/skorea/index.html ; Wikipedia info about The_Nuclear_Threat_Initiative
• Then finally, we even have an internationally respected Korean scholar Seokwoo Lee, from Incheon’s Inha University in South Korea and an authority on territorial disputes:

• "The two tiny rocky islets are called 'Tokdo' in Korean, 'Takeshima' in Japanese, and internationally recognised as 'Liancourt Rocks'."

We don't need to show a that Liancourt Rocks is used the most. Wikipedia policy just states to check Encyclopedias, scholarly publications to see whether there is an English word in use. With its use in 3 encyclopedias, scholarly publications and media we have shown that. Wikipedia policy only allows you to do a 'Google test' if no English word can be found.

It's not really relevant but we can wonder why Liancourt Rocks is not used in every article in the BBC or media. The articles are talking about the dispute and therefore they explain what the islands are called in Japan and Korea. Since the islands are so tiny and of little interest to English speakers outside the dispute between Korea and Japan it's not necessary to use Liancourt Rocks. On the other Encyclopedias do need to use the standard English name and so Columbia has Liancourt Rocks as its title, Encarta has Liancourt Rocks on the map, and Britannica explains that the island is also called Liancourt Rocks in English. This is a decisive result. Macgruder 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to better known newspapers. The BBC article that states Liancourt Rocks (btw, that is the only BBC article I could find that mentions Liancourt at all), is simply put in a section to mention another name, it is not used in any other part of the article itself. I mentioned this while commenting about several sources, but you probably didn't through my comments at all.

The Stanford journal seems to be using "Liancourt Rocks" to mention the islets to not upset anyone. They still add the Korean and Japanese names for this island. I remember reading it before, a while back. Ironically, its an English source that supports Dokdo.

The Korean scholar seems to mention "Liancourt Rocks" as another name for the islands, not because he supports it.

And you are right, Macgruder, we don't need to use Liancourt Rocks. The islets are too insignificant to English speakers and when they talk about it, Dokdo and Takeshima are always mentioned. If no name can be shown to be widely used in English speaking countries, then use the official local [[134]]. Good friend100 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is clearly an accepted English name, as it appears in all the major encyclopedias and maps, and does pop up in the media these days from time to time. In fact, the very fact that we argue about using the various transliterations for Dokdo implies it isn't a standardized English name, but a transliteration of a Korean word. The official local names for this place are Takeshima and Dokdo, both equally likely to appear, so picking one is tantamount to siding with that country's claim. --Cheers, Komdori 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)