Talk:Liancourt Rocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RFC on changing the title[edit]

STATUS QUO:
  • Summary: Consensus exists to keep the status quo.
  • Reason There is a strong consensus among the comments to keep the title as "Liancourt Rocks". If, in the future, it can be shown that, per WP:COMMONNAME, there is another primary title then the issue should be revisited at WP:RM. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am creating this request for comments because it has been about seven years since the last real discussion and international consensus on the name may have changed. To this end, I see three possible outcomes:

  1. Leave the article at its current title of Liancourt Rocks (status quo)
  2. Move the article to a new title of Dokdo
  3. Move the article to a new title of Takeshima

I have no opinion on which option should be chosen.

To facilitate this discussion, the following rules should be adhered to:

  1. Please note that discretionary sanctions apply per this Arbcom ruling. Please closely adhere to these sanctions.
  2. 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.
  3. The numbered "Suggested Rules of Engagement" at the top of this page will be enforced during the discussion. Please follow them.

This discussion will continue for 30 days from the timestamp of my signature. Thank you for participating and for your cooperation regarding the rules for the discussion. I look forward to seeing what you decide. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

  • All of the administrators listed in the "Suggested Rules of Engagement" section of the notice at the top of this talk page have been notified (I even notified myself, just to be consistent). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to emphasize that this is not a vote. Opinions must be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the most relevant one being WP:COMMONNAME. Simple votes will be discounted when judging consensus and votes coming in because of off-wiki canvassing may actually hurt your "cause" as Wikipedians, including admins, take a very dim view of such practices. --NeilN talk to me 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Please post your opinion for Status quo, Dokdo, or Takeshima, followed by any supporting comments and sources. Please use standard external link formatting to link to each source.

  • Status quo Leave as is because this is the en.Wikipedia not ja.wikipedia or ko.wikipedia. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question what happens if "Liancourt Rocks" has fallen out of current usage but the other two have approximately equal cromulence? Siuenti (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    For example are Takeshima/Dokdo or Dokdo/Takeshima possibilities? Siuenti (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    It is extremely unlikely that two will have equal "cromulence", and is therefore equally unlikely for that to be an issue. In general, enwiki does not name articles in the fashion you suggested. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note the use of the word "approximately". Are you saying that if one of them was a tiny bit more cromulent than the other, we would be able quantify that and choose the article title on that basis? Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    Whichever admin (or group of admins, if it goes that route) closes the discussion will make the determination at that time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    OK I oppose choosing the title based on tiny little differences in cromulence. If one of them has say twice as much then ok. Otherwise use a A/B title or keep Liancourt Rocks. Siuenti (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
sidelined discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • That's not the question at hand. There are three options given above, and those are the only three being discussed here. Decisions on enwiki are often made based on small margins. Also, opposing me doesn't do anything as I have no opinion on the outcome. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    You have an opinion about how the title should be decided, I oppose that system. The fact that decisions on enwiki are often made based on small margins doesn't imply that it's a good idea in this particular case. Siuenti (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    Then take it up with WP:CONSENSUS. The closing admin(s) will consider everything when determining consensus. Since that discussion is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however, there's no need to continue this further.
    Seriously? the question of whether whether making a decision based on small margins is a good idea in this particular case is something that should be discussed at WP:CONSENSUS not here? ...Anyway hopefully the closing admins will take into account my opposition to your preferred method of determining the outcome, as well as the fact you haven't actually explained why it's a good idea. Siuenti (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
    It's not just my preferred method, but a policy accepted by all of Wikipedia at large. WP:CONSENSUS is how decisions are made here, and (as I wrote above), "Whichever admin (or group of admins, if it goes that route) closes the discussion will make the determination at that time." They may note your opposition to determining a result by consensus, but whether they choose to give it any weight is up to them. The community has overwhelmingly made WP:CONSENSUS the way we decide things here, whether you like it or not. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

OK sorry. I thought WP:CONSENSUS and "we have to decide issues by tiny differences in fuzzy qualities" were not the same thing, but I stand corrected. Siuenti (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Status Quo EZ. TGT is right, and no reasons to change names. The redirects of Dokdo and Takeshima take care of any possible conclusion. Off topic, I don't get why so many admins/cops watching this place…"While South Korea controls the islets, its sovereignty over them is contested by Japan" if SPA, socks, and IPs are bickering over this, full and forget. And if full is disliked so that POV (N or otherwise) can be pushed, deliver it unto PCR so I can write "unsourced change" on the revert notice. Same effect. And PROK's hilarious claims don't warrant a mention in this article. Fussing over an islet, shame on ROK, Ja. and edit warriors for having nothing better to do. It's a C class article! L3X1 (distant write) 18:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I shall be watching but not participating in this discussion. It will not be permitted to degenerate into nationalist bickering. I hope i have made myself clear. Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Spartaz: I'm sorry, nationalist bickering? What? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Status quo per ThatGirlTayler and L3X1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Question have there been recent discussions about this issue which failed to reach WP:CONSENSUS ? Siuenti (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 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.

sidelined discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Siuenti: Yes, we are all aware of that. You, however, seem completely clueless when it comes to the history of this page. I suggest reading through the archives. Go ahead. I'll wait... ... ...all done? That's why we are having an RFC: because it's been discussed to death, and we still have nationalist whiners coming here and demanding it be changed to one or the other of the possible titles mentioned in the opening of this RFC. If they present any "evidence", it's always propaganda from one of the score or two of propaganda websites set up by individuals or governments which can not be used as reliable sources regardless of how you try to stretch things.
    So, we are having this RFC. Now please, instead of nitpicking my wording to death, how about actual participating on a valid level and presenting information to support whatever your position is? This is a discussion to decide whether the title of the article should be changed. If you aren't here to discuss that, but instead want to discuss whether WP:CONSENSUS is a good thing, or whatever else you're trying to say, please stop and go elsewhere. We're trying to be productive, and you are not helping in that regard. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    "I am creating this request for comments because it has been about seven years since the last real discussion" "That's why we are having an RFC: because it's been discussed to death" Siuenti (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since international consensus "may" have changed and this is a vitally important issue to at least one person who can't be bothered to look for himself, I had a look. I searched for "dokdo" in google news articles whose sources were not closely associated with Korea, to see if they used them in preference to Takeshima. The first four articles I found either used "Liancourt Rocks" or something like "small islands - called Dokdo in South Korea and Takeshima in Japan". [1] [2] [3] [4] This is quite strong evidence that change is unnecessary. There is no actual point to this Rfc unless someone both thinks change is necessary and can be bothered to look for evidence to support that. Consider withdrawal. Siuenti (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    There is, in the context of this WP-talkpage, a (sort of) point in having a recent "strong" rfc to refer to when this issue is brought up again and again and again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    Since you are familiar with the history of this talk page, can you find me a couple of recent discussions please? Siuenti (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Also it seems to me that if you get consensus that it won't be changed without strong evidence of much more common use, you will have less to discuss than if you say "we will change it if you can show that one of them is the tiniest bit more common that the other" as @Nihonjoe: proposes. Siuenti (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Siuenti: I have proposed no such thing, so please stop trying to make it seem like I have. I am not the one who will determine consensus here. You know that. Your repeated attempts to imply that I am the one who will be determining the outcome of this discussion are disruptive. Please stop now. How about presenting any information you have to support whatever position you support? I know, it seems crazy to actually participate in a meaningful way, right? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    Question what happens if "Liancourt Rocks" has fallen out of current usage but the other two have approximately equal cromulence?
    Answer: It is extremely unlikely that two will have equal "cromulence", and is therefore equally unlikely for that to be an issue.

    I have a position on what should happen if they have approximately equal cromulence, it should be Liancourt Rocks. I have seen no evidence that there is any great difference in cromulence. And since you seemed to want evidence but you couldn't be bothered to look for yourself, I looked. Siuenti (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    So express a "status quo" opinion. I'm not the one wanting change. All I did was start the RFC to alleviate all the nationalistic whining for at least a little while. I have expressed no opinion on which option I prefer (and if you really want to know, I couldn't care less which is selected as long as it's by consensus). If you need eveidence before expressing an opinion, then you (not me) need to look for the evidence to support whichever option you want or think is best. Again, I don't care which option is selected. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    How will we know if international consensus has changed if we don't look at evidence? Siuenti (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Siuenti and Nihonjoe, can you please end these meta-procedural squabbles? As far as I'm concerned, Siuenti has expressed a perfectly legitimate and pertinent opinion, let's just let it stand and continue listening what others have to say. No need for animosity over it. (Personally, I'm also not quite sure it was the best course of action to open the RfC like this, out of the blue; it might have been better to first wait and see if there's really a significant impetus for change, and most crucially, if there is anybody who'd be willing to do the legwork of collecting and presenting the actual usage evidence that could form the basis for a change. But now that it's been open, there's no harm in letting it run.) Fut.Perf. 08:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    There is harm in letting it run because it's asking people to go out and check if international consensus has changed. Stop asking us to do that if you don't really want us to. Siuenti (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    I do want people to provide evidence that there has been a change, if there has been one. Since it's been seven years since the last formal discussion (though there has been a lot of requests since that time to change the title), I think it's perfectly fine to create this discussion to see if those supporting either of currently-unused options can present evidence that the international usage has changed in that time. As for Siuenti's question, yes, it's perfectly fine to ask it. I'm not disputing that. The question has been answered multiple times, however, and Siuenti refuses to accept the answer that the consensus will be determined by the closing admin(s). I suspect that the decision-making process will go something like this:
    1. If international usage has been shown to have changed, the article title will change to whichever one is in common usage.
    2. If no change in usage can be shown, the article will stay at the current "Liancourt Rocks" title.
    3. If enough reliable evidence has been presented showing that both of the currently-unused options are in approximately equal usage internationally, then the closing admin(s) will have to make the decision on which currently-unused option to go with, or to leave it at the current "Liancourt Rocks" title. If this scenario plays out, I find it unlikely a dual name will be selected (Dokdo/Takeshima or Takeshima/Dokdo) just because that is not generally done on enwiki.
    Regardless of which way things end up, it will be decided by an admin (or admins) other than me, so this constant harassment over what will be done is ridiculous and needs to be stopped. I am not making that decision, Siuenti. Therefore, please stop your harassing and nitpicking. It is not productive. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    You do want people to provide evidence that there has been a change, if there is one... why do we have to look, are you incompetent at googling? Siuenti (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    I am not expressing an opinion either way. I am merely facilitating the discussion. Please stop being disruptive. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)
sidelined discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Since it's been seven years since the last one (as I mentioned in the first sentence of the RFC), and since nationalist whiners have been repeatedly trying to get things changed, I figured it would be good to have a formal discussion again to settle things for the next while. It's very possible international usage has changed significantly since the last discussion, so here we are. It's not pointless. Thank you for participating. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
      I note that you told us "I am creating this request for comments because it has been about seven years since the last real discussion and international consensus on the name may have changed" and you didn't tell us "since nationalist whiners have been repeatedly trying to get things changed, I figured it would be good to have a formal discussion again to settle things for the next while" Siuenti (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
      • If you aren't going to express an opinion on which option you prefer, go somewhere else. You're just wasting everyone's time otherwise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I repeat: unless there's some sort of evidence that this ("international consensus on the name may [emphasis added] have changed") may be true, this RFC is pointless. "Looking at a calendar" is NOT evidence or even justification, nor is anybody's whining about anything. --Calton | Talk 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Change the wording of the question. The goal is not actually to see if "international consensus has changed", it is to provide an answer to "nationalist whining". You could answer this "whining" by saying "the community has decided to stick with Liancourt Rocks unless one side has obviously a great more usage than the other." Ask people to vote for that Siuenti (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 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))
US experts call on Japan to renounce Dokdo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunbum Park (talkcontribs) 16:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The Asian Institute for Policy Studies (Chunbum Park (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC))
"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))
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)
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)
This, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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))
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)
  • 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)
    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)
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))
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)
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))
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))
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)
@[[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)
Wikipedia has a policy of respecting NPOV Siuenti (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
Whut? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
Aye. L3X1 (distant write) 14:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 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! ScrpIronIV 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Status quo ... while there is evidence that usage of "Liancourt Rocks" has fallen out of favor, I don't think either of the alternatives has gained enough of a predominance to out weigh the other. At least not yet. English language usage seems to be in flux at this point... usage is changing, but has not settled down enough for us to say what it is changing to. Re-examine in another five years. Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liancourt Rocks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liancourt Rocks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)