@Spartaz: I'm sorry, nationalist bickering? What? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatGirlTayler: Please go read the archives for this page, and you'll quickly understand what he means. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what joe said. Go read the archives. That will probably explain why so many admins watch this page closely, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo. Whatever the pros or cons of "Liancourt Rocks", the other options only bring headaches with them,and both terribly fail WP:COMMONNAME—which is a WP:POLICY far too often misinterpreted to mean WP:MORECOMMONNAME. COMMONNAME should under no circumstances ever be interpreted to mean which title gets numerically more hits, but should be applied only when one name is unambiguosly, overwhelmingly more common than the other (Ringo Starr vs Richard Starkey; Down syndrome vs Trisomy 21). This is most emphatically not the case, and changing the title to either will only draw nationalist fire. Screw both sides. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Status quo per ThatGirlTayler and L3X1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question have there been recent discussions about this issue which failed to reach WP:CONSENSUS ? Siuenti (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will remind editors of this:

Before starting the process

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

• Siuenti (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo. ...international consensus on the name may [emphasis added] have changed. Unless there's some sort of evidence that this may be true, this RFC is pointless. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dokdo - The arguments for claim to the islets can be divided into 1) international law 2) historical evidence. South Korea has stronger case in both per its de facto control of the islets and the 1965 Normalization Treaty with Japan, as well as historical evidence - both Korean and Japanese - pointing towards Korean ownership of the islets. International experts, including Japanese scholars, agree that Korea has a stronger claim. A web search is not a reliable evidence of stronger claim, and the act of disputing does not automatically grant Japan the same status as Korea on the claim towards the islets. (Chunbum Park (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

US experts call on Japan to renounce Dokdo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunbum Park (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian Institute for Policy Studies (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

"The third and final part argues that...Korea establishes a superior claim to Liancourt than does Japan."

Japanese scholars slam Tokyo on history (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The Korea Times is generally not an unbiased source, though this particular article does appear to try for a fair presentation. The Asan Institute for Policy Studies is clearly a pro-Korean site, though I will say they seem to be less adamant about things than other sites I've seen. The paper by Benjamin K. Sibbet for the Fordham International Law Journal seems to be trying to present a fair picture at a quick glance. The AsiaOne article is a reprint of an article for the Korea Herald, and it is clearly a very biased article. However, these articles do nothing to support one side or the other when it comes to the currently-unused title possibilities. The one that comes closest is the Fordham paper. Others are welcome to evaluate these sources, too, as it will help the admin(s) who close the discussion to have some review of them to start with. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this is not how things are determined on Wikipedia. Whether country X has a better claim than country Y is not for Wikipedia to determine, only to report on what the various sources say. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Italy probably has the strongest claim to sovereignity over Rome, Naples and Venice but Wikipedia doesn't refer to the as Roma, Napoli and Venezia Siuenti (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty is relevant. Most people around the world are unaware of Dokdo/Takeshima, and only experts and scholars know about the island; therefore, a google search should not be a reliable measure of name usage. (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The average resident of Korea and Japan is well aware of the islands and the dispute, and a large chunk of them are English speakers (even native English speakers). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo. Changing by vote and striking my earlier vote, on new evidence and further consideration. It seems there a lot of sources are of the nature ""Dokdo/Takeshima" or "Takeshima (Dokdo)" and we don't use that kind of format. So status quo is the only good solution. Also in the interests of Wikipeace. My former comment follows. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Takeshima, as that is the most common term in English books, according to this Google Ngram -- by a considerable amount, although Dodko is climbing fast (Liancort Rocks seems to be going nowhere from a low base). This counts published books (that Google has scanned, which I believe is most books); it includes atlases, but AFAIK gives no more weight to prestigious atlas than to a cheap novel. It does not include magazines, newspapers, and journals, except as bound in books. (Also -- if there is another use of Takeshima or Dodko, that would skew this result and render it less useful or fully useless.) All that being said: Takeshima. Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yay, evidence:) It seems that another thing that might skew the result is if people associated with a country published lots of books about it. Siuenti (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, Korea has stronger claim to the islets. And the very Japanese historical maps that say Takeshima designate the islands as part of Korean territory. It doesn't make sense to have an islets to which Korea has much stronger claim, named in Japanese. Makes no sense. (Chunbum Park (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Makes sense per WP:COMMONNAME. WP:COMMONNAME knows no fear or favor, no storm or speech, no army or parliament. It considers English language sources and only those. It is just a simple machine and renders a neutral opinion.

That being said, WP:IAR can trump anything, and if people are going to be at each other's throat over this... maybe status quo is best after all, in the interests of Wikipeace. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. Korea has stronger claim to the islets, and Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks is mostly unknown topic in the English language, anyways. Whatever search result you brought up must be skewed or erred in some way. (Chunbum Park (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Also, Japan is a bigger country with three times more population and landmass than South Korea, with a much more active academia that also publishes more frequently in English. This search result is not valid. (Chunbum Park (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Good point. I suggest it would be good to look at recent, neutral, prestigious reliable sources and see what they say. Siuenti (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Chunbum Park, User:Siuenti, it's a terrible point. "Japan is a bigger country with three times more population and landmass than South Korea, with a much more active academia that also publishes more frequently in English", if true, describes a very good reason to use the Japanese name. See WP:COMMONNAME. For goodness sake, we are not here to redress grievances, but to present the name that will be most readily recognized by the greatest number of English-speaking readers. Period. Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy of respecting NPOV Siuenti (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is practically no common name in English for Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks because very few people recognize it. Your insistence that "the name that will be most readily recognized by the greatest number of English-speaking readers. Period." is pointless. (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

It's interesting that approximately the same number of people read academic journals as BBC news articles. Siuenti (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I understand it, each new Japanese academic article attracts an approximately equal number of people who don't already recognize the name. Siuenti (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whut? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently having a much more active academia that also publishes more frequently in English'", if true, describes a very good reason to use the Japanese name because we are here to "present the name that will be most readily recognized by the greatest number of English-speaking readers.". We looked at the N-gram which goes up in proportion with the number of Japanese academic papers. Since each new paper makes an equal contribution to the N-gram, it follows that each new paper is introducing the word to the same number of people. QED Siuenti (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid (though inadequate) argument, and your reductio ad absurdum does nothing to invalidate it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• About that Google count: Herostratus, I'd like to suggest there may be several distorting factors here, if you look at the actual search hits. First, it appears "Takeshima" is indeed also a personal name, and a considerable number of hits are references to people of the name. Second, the "Dokdo" side is probably underreported because that name has several competing transliterations in English (Tokto, Dok-do, Tok-to, Dok island, Tok island …), which your search doesn't include. Third, and most importantly, very few of the books in question appear to be actually using "Takeshima" alone. Except for items that are written from within a purely Japan-oriented POV context, almost every one that I looked at was indeed pairing both names, with phrases like "Dokdo/Takeshima" etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the analysis.

This updated Ngram shows minimal use of "Tokto" and "Tok-to", while "Dok-do", "Dok Island", and "Tok Island" don't show up at all; nothing substantial is changed by adding those terms.

As to constructions such as "Dokdo/Takeshima" and "Takeshima (Dokdo)"... yes, a quick look shows that these are common, but then, wouldn't "Dokdo/Takeshima" count as one entry for each? (Not sure how it works... does Ngram count "Dokdo/Takeshima" as one unitary word or whatever...).

But yes, I see that "Takeshima" is also a personal name. The first two pages of Google Books results give me 18-3, the island over the personal name. So if that ratio holds (who knowns?) subtract about 15% from "Takeshima". It's still ahead, although not by as much.

Still, point taken -- this certainly reduces the Google Ngram argument (which itself is a blunt instrument, simply counting instances without regard to notability). Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first two pages of Google Books, how many of them only use Takeshimaa? And why did you choose those two pages?Siuenti (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo. The good sources generally use a / or () approach which we dont do. And even if we did, the nationalists would just argue over which version got top billing. Heres to another 7 years peace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. L3X1 (distant write) 14:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Status quo English Wikipedia uses english names. Vienna is not in disputed territory, its local name is clearly Wien. So, we name the article "Vienna" and made "Wien" a redirect. Just as we are doing here at this article. The same goes for Japan, Nippon, and Nihon. Ditto for Korea and Hanguk. Wonderful consistency! Scr★pIron^IV 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what Wikipedia:Article titles seems to like is:

1. Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
2. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
3. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
4. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
5. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

It doesn't talk about WP:Neutrality but maybe it slipped their minds. Siuenti (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Siuenti (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is, but Wikipedia:Article titles takes precedence. WP:AT may not mention neutrality, but WP:NPOV applies to all material including titles, I assume.

Of the Five Virtues of titles, I think we can in this case dispense with Consistency, and probably Conciseness, as being not really applicable here. Recognizability, Naturalness, and Precision, in this case, I think largely turn on a single question: what is the WP:COMMONNAME? If one can be established, we should use it (I argued above that there it appears there might be one, and it is Takeshima). And if there's no clear WP:COMMONNAME, it comes down to a coin flip really. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the nationalists

Anyone know how "Liancourt" is supposed to be pronounced? Kinda French-sounding? Silent T? Siuenti (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be pronounced lee-an-coor (the French pronunciation, which is the pronunciation the Jpaanese version of the article gives), but everyone I've met who's said it out loud in English has pronounced it lion court. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the lead sentence really need all of this:

(Korean pronunciation: [tokt͈o]; Hangul: 독도; Hanja: 獨島, "solitary island") in Korean, and Takeshima (竹島/たけしま?, "bamboo island")

How about putting the Hanja, translations, and either the kanji or the hiragana into a box somewhere. Then you could really go crazy and add the Revised Romanization and phonetic hangul and the kunrei-shiki and the katakana and the French pronunciation of Liancourt and the English one if we knew what it was... Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We use modified Hepburn and never kunreishiki as a pronunciation guide on Wikipedia—and never hiragana, which is utterly pointless. The different scripts could certainly be handled better—perhaps shunt them to the end of the lead, or even into the body? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a number of people use the pronunciation of lee-an-cort. Not uncommon for Americans to mispronounce French words, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Go to google books.
2. Search for "Takeshima"
3. Look at a result.

   If it's about some islands and you find "Takeshima" without "Dokdo" that is support for "Takeshima"

   If you find the book has both, that is support for the status quo.

4. Now try "Dokdo"
5. Let us know what you find.

Siuenti (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti: The RfC serves the purpose of providing a place to link to whenever another nationalist shows up demanding the article be renamed. Nihonjoe almost certainly realized the result would be status quo and was unlikely to be aiming at an actual article name change. Please stop doing this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He asked me to do research for him because he thought "international consensus on the name may have changed" while he "almost certainly realized the result would be status quo". Hmm. Anyway, as I was saying I think this thread would be a good place to link whenever another nationalist "nationalist" shows up demanding the article be renamed. Siuenti (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding renaming of the article does not necessarily make one a nationalist, especially if the islets are indeed Korean! The act of disputing does not automatically grant Japan the same level of claim to the islets as Korea, which has stronger claim per international law and historical evidence, as well as geography. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry I should have put "nationalist" in quotes, I just like repeating what other people have said. Siuenti (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you and Turkey can echo each other's false claims all you want, but you are wrong. (Chunbum Park (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

If I echo it in quotes it means I don't really mean it. I'm not saying you are a nationalist. I don't know if you are a nationalist or not, and I apologize again for carelessly saying that you were one. Siuenti (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if @Nihonjoe: would like to confirm or deny that he "realized the result would be status quo" Siuenti (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I lack psychic ability, I have no way to "realize" what the outcome would be. I can always guess, but then, so can anyone else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having RfCs every 7 years, just in case international consensus has changed, can we not use one of the tests we have recently been applying to allow people to check any time they like that international consensus hasn't changed? I believe that the current tests have demonstrated that uses of both names simultaneously like "Dokdo/Takeshima" are far more common than uses of either one without the other. While that remains the case, we don't really need any more RfCs or long discussions, we can say "come back when Name A is clearly much more common than (Name A and Name B together) + Name B by itself. This will take much longer than seven years in my opinion. All we need is a test that can't be cherry-picked. Do we have a test like that now? Siuenti (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such test. It would likely require a bot or a person to review a specified set of accepted reliable sources on a periodic basis to determine if anything had been changed. And we don't have to do this every seven years. That just happened to be the time frame this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask people who think it should be changed to perform the test. If they do and it's not anywhere near 50% they will presumably give up. If they come to you and say "oh look it's much more than 50% now", and that seems plausible, you'd have to double check. Siuenti (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this: "If you are expressing an opinion that the article should be moved from the current "Liancourt Rocks" title, please provide multiple, reliable sources that support the change. Sources will be reviewed closely to make sure they are reliable and not just propaganda for one side or the other."? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a test that cannot be cherry-picked Siuenti (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing. Any test can be cherry-picked. That's why the admins who close the discussion have to review whatever evidence is presented when they are determining consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How confident are you of that statement? Is there some way you could double check yourself? Somewhere you could ask? Siuenti (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you are completely confident, I request that you double check if you can think of a way. Siuenti (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm positive. I also think that anyone who thinks it's possible to create such a test is deluding themselves. If someone else wants to chime in on whether it's even possible to devise a test that can't be gamed somehow, they are free to do so. I've answered the question, and I don't think it's productive to keep telling you the same thing over and over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you are positive and undoubtably competent to make this judgement. I apologize for making this somewhat self-deluding suggestion. Siuenti (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]