Jump to content

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

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

RFC on changing the title

STATUS QUO
*Summary: Consensus exists to keep the status quo.

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)

  • 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

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.

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)

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)
    • 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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! Scr★pIronIV 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

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.

It has been an issue couple years ago about how the ocean Dokdo-island/LiancourtRocks/Takeshima is named as "the sea of Japan" when that isn't the true name. It is known to be the Sea of Japan only because Japan took faster step in English. The real name of the ocean is the East Sea. There should be two names for this, however, currently, dokdo-island is under South Korea. Therefore, it's a disgrace and undergrading South Korea to say that it is in the Sea of Japan. Anyone who doesn't know of the situation would automatically think that it is an island in Japanese territory. I hope to edit it for that reason. WeonKim (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See "Rules of Engagement" at the top of this talk page, particularly #4. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:13, 30 October 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.

The name Liancourt Rocks has to be changed to Dokdo.

Dokdo is a right name of Liancort Rocks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pear rabbit (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Takeshima is a right name of Liancort Rocks.--Mochimkchiking (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not know where you are from (probably Japan), but Dokdo is the right name for Liancort Rocks. Source: http://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng/dokdo/reason.jsp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phong20 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

While South Korea controls the islets, its sovereignty over them is contested by Japan. This statement isn't true because sovereignty doesn't belong to Japan TYK7 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- HindWikiConnect 02:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

I need to change that Japan is owning Dokdo because Dokdo is in possession of Korea, not Japan. and the sea of Japan is officially named "East sea", which hereby means it is no longer in possession of Japan. So, I would like to change the first paragraph. Ynl946818 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see the "Suggested Rules of Engagement" at the top of this page, specifically point number 4: The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this. --Calton | Talk 01:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Even there are Dockdo down side, the headline's name is Liancourt Rocks In Dockdo, there are lots of Koreans leaving and Korea had recognized it before 1500 centuries. However, Liancourt is a boat of France that has discovered our Dockdo. And if this cite puts Dockdo as Liancourt rocks, it will cause big confusion towards foreigners traveling to Dockdo. It will be my pleasure, if the head topic is changed to Dockdo, which is our national pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.231.74.47 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea of Japan - maybe we should mention East Sea?

Every now and then someone tries to add East Sea somewhere here. Maybe we could add a footnote to the Sea of Japan first use in lead, one that would mention an alternate name exists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently we actually have a naming guideline, based on some ancient "vote" (from 2005, about as ancient as that on Gdanzigk) that says we should use parenthetical "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on first mention in an article of this scope (see WP:NC-SoJ). We used to follow this convention here until some time ago, when User:Kintetsubuffalo removed it with an edit summary of "MOS" [5]. I'm not sure what MOS rule he/she was thinking of; maybe there are conflicting rules states somewhere? In any case, I personally would call into question if that old vote is still valid and in line with actual naming practices. As far as I can see it is simply not true that there are "alternative names" – at least not in normal English, outside the wishful thinking of Korean nationalists. I might be proved wrong, but as far as I can see, except in the context of humoring the antics of people who wish to change a language that isn't even their own, the actual name in English seems to be quite overwhelmingly and exclusively "Sea of Japan", and using anything other than that in Wikipedia seems little more than a symbolic act of bowing down before the POV demands of a national faction. But of course I won't object to somebody restoring that parenthesis, if that indeed turns out to be current state of guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this article could be helpful: http://korea.prkorea.com/wordpress/english/2012/03/13/how-to-name-the-sea/ -HUSTLEDOOSAN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Dokdo Island location notation to East Sea

Please read the many notices at the top regarding this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:46, 29 October 2018 (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.

In Wikipedia, Dokdo is located in the Sea of Japan, not East Sea. Dokdo is the territory of the Republic of Korea and there is historical evidence about it.In the history of the Republic of Korea, in the year 512, when King Ji-hyeon was in his custody, the General of the Shilla dynasty wanted to make the Umbrella (now Dokdo and Ulleungdo) into Shilla territory, and the Isabi cut down trees to make lions, The people of the Uri Party surrendered, scaring the people in the area, and from then on, the Umbrella (Dokdo, Ulleungdo) became the territory of the Republic of Korea. But today Japan is making a ridiculous claim. For example, it is claimed that Japan used Dokdo as a place to fish near Ulleungdo since the 1600s, which claims Dokdo is Japanese territory. But as I said before, Dokdo is the territory of the Republic of Korea.The illegal fishing in the 1600s is blatantly referred to as Japanese land.Japan, which was decisively defeated in World War II, signed the San Francisco Strengthening Treaty with the United States, Britain and China in 1951. It is said that the Treaty gives back the land of the Republic of Korea that Japan has forcibly taken away.However, Japan is categorically stating that there is no such statement in this treaty as returning Dokdo.But then the logic is not right.Dokdo is also a land of the Republic of Korea, and the territory of the Republic of Korea, which Japan has forcibly taken away, includes Dokdo.However, since there is no statement that Dokdo will not be returned, Dokdo should be acknowledged as the territory of the Republic of Korea, which is the territory of the Republic of Korea, which Japan has forcibly taken away. Now Wikipedia is marking the location of Dokdo as 'Sea of Japan'.This distorts the history of the Republic of Korea.In this regard, Wikipedia asks you to mark the "Sea of Japan" as "East Sea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.218.20.200 (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2018 (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.

Why Dokdo is Korean Territory!

Dokdo is an integral part of Korean territory, historically, geographically and under international law. No territorial dispute exists regarding Dokdo, and therefore Dokdo is not a matter to be dealt with through diplomatic negotiations or judicial settlement. The government of the Republic of Korea exercises Korea’s irrefutable territorial sovereignty over Dokdo. The government will deal firmly and resolutely with any provocation and will continue to defend Korea’s territorial integrity over Dokdo.

http://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng/dokdo/reason.jsp — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancescaRoh (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sejong Sillok, Jiriji (1454) (Geography Section of the Annals of King Sejong’s Reign The two islands of Usan [Dokdo] and Mureung [Ulleungdo] are located in the middle of the sea due east of the hyeon [Uljin county]. The two islands are not far apart from each other and are visible on a clear day. They were called Usan-guk or Ulleungdo during the Silla period.

Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (1531) (Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea)Usando [Dokdo] and Ulleungdo They are also called Mureung or Ureung. The two islands are located in the middle of the sea due east of the hyeon [Uljin county]

Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770) (Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea) Usando [Dokdo] and Ulleungdo are two different islands of these two islands, one is Usan… According to Yeojiji [Geography of Korea], it is said that Ulleung and Usan are both territories of Usan-guk and Usan is what the Japanese refer to as Matsushima [old Japanese name for Dokdo].

Man'gi Yoram (1808) (Manual of State Affairs for the Monarch) Ulleungdo is located in the middle of the sea due east of Uljin. According to Yeojiji [Geography of Korea], it is said that Ulleung and Usan are both territories of Usan-guk and Usan is what the Japanese refer to as Matsushima [old Japanese name for Dokdo].

Jeungbo Munheon Bigo (1908) (Revised and Augmented Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea) Usando [Dokdo] and Ulleungdo are two different islands. Of these two islands, one is Usan. They have now become Uldo-gun (add.)


The Republic of Korea holds legislative, administrative and judicial jurisdiction over Dokdo.

First, a Korean police force is stationed on Dokdo, patrolling the island. Second, the Korean military defends the waters and skies of Dokdo. Third, various laws and regulations including those specific to Dokdo have been enacted and implemented. Fourth, a lighthouse and other government facilities have been established and are in operation on Dokdo.view Fifth, Korean civilians are residing on Dokdo.

The government of the Republic of Korea will continue to protect the territorial integrity of Dokdo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancescaRoh (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You dont appear to be proposing an improvement to the article, also please read Liancourt Rocks dispute to get a neutral viewpoint. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, there are multiple communications in the 1950's by US officials confirming that the Liancourt Rocks are part of Japan. In fact, these officials refer to the islands as "Takeshima". --Westwind273 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

Please change the image 'Location of Liancourt Rocks' to 'Location of Dokdo'. I've inserted a link at the bottom.

'Liancourt Rocks' and 'Takeshima' is a wrong name of Dokdo. The explanation why dokdo is Korean territory and isn't a disputed islands is well described above. There isn't any reason for a territorial dispute on Dokdo. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo_Map_Eng.png User-kr (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done. See the conclusion here. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The English version of Google Maps refers to these islands as the "Liancourt Rocks". That pretty much says it all. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

new related article in need of cleanup: Dokdo Volunteer Garrison

If anyone's interested, this needs cleanup, from grammar to NPOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Kim Sung-do death date

The current article states Kim Sung-do's death as being in October 2019 instead of October 2018. Due to the protected nature of the page, I'm unable to edit it, so mention it here. Kobukson (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

change sea of japan to east sea or sea of japan

When you heard of sea of japan it feels like the sea is own by japan but it is not. it is a sea of the world. also we haven't stilln chose the name yet. so i want someone to change sea of japan to east sea or sea of japan 한승준화이팅 (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Any request to change the sea of japan requires consensus and that needs to be taken to the Sea of Japan article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

Content: "The Liancourt Rocks[a] are a group of small islets in the Sea of Japan."

Please change "Sea of Japan" to "Sea of Japan/East Sea" because the content is one sided. It is only favorable to Japan and this information has caused many people to believe that Dokdo is Japan's when it is actually not. In history, Liancourt Rocks have always been Korea's. People think that Liancourt Rocks belongs to Japan because Japan colonized Korea for a long time.

Please change "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" because the actual name is Dokdo and Korea first found it. Some people claim that the first dicoverer of Dokdo is French who rode a boat called Liancourt, that is why they named it Liancourt Rocks. But it doesn't make sense as you see the history. The problem is that people only know the latest or current history and forget about the older history. Way back before France discovered it, it was already Korea's land.

This link shows that Google has accepted to include East Sea together with Sea of Japan: (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2018/08/356_253565.html)

I am writing this because I am concerned that many people will know the wrong information and will be so one sided. If we don't fix this now, I think it'll be harder in the future. We have evidences but people keep ignoring it and nowadays as technology is developing, people are starting to change history and make up stories for their own country. Before that happens, I request that you change this content. Thank you. Gyurin0901 (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See top of talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The name Liancourt Rocks is just the most common English name, and on the English wikipedia, the most common English name should be used as a title, while local names should be mentioned. This does not imply French discovery, nor does it imply that Korea has no righteous claim on the islands.

The Sea of Japan is also the most common name in English, and is already used as the title of the article about the Sea of Japan. It does not imply any Japanese souvereignty over the sea or the islands. The Gulf of Mexico is also named of Mexico, while it contains territorial waters of the USA and Cuba. St. George Island and St. Vincent Island are in the Gulf of Mexico, but still not a part of Mexico. JacobBryssen (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The name sea of Japan needs to be corrected as East sea

This island is part of south Korea, so it makes sense to use East Sea and its link in the document. Sunghanc83 (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Any request to change the sea of japan requires consensus and that needs to be taken to the Sea of Japan article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

Would like to suggest to change "Sea of Japan" to "Sea of Japan/East Sea" or "East Sea/Sea of Japan", because juxtaposing, or presenting both names is the right way when a particular geographical area is under naming dispute. Marsuuni (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Slash hinders flow. Best to pick a name and stick with it; if there is consensus, maybe have the other name in parenthesis, as well. El_C 06:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Another one who needs to read the talk pages covering the last ten years. Britmax (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Typical news about VANK (who is behind all these move requests)

For the centralization of discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#FYI: VANK trying to manipulate Wikipedia. (Permalink as of now) — regards, Revi 08:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of Liancourt Rocks are wrong!!

'Liancourt Rocks'is the wrong name. That is 'Dokdo'!!! And 'Dokdo' is a Korean island!! 'Japan of Sea' is not right. That is the 'East Sea'. You need to learn the truth about Dokdo. Japan agreed a long time ago that Dokdo is not their land. But, Japan is lying to people. Please remember always that Dokdo is Korean land!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.95.214.150 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Devleo (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Dokdo is Korean territory

Fatal sourth-korean sea rescue helicopter crash near the Liancourt rocks.

A south korean fire service Airbus H-225 helicopter fell into the sea near the Liancourt rocks disputed by Japan. Apparently none of 7 people onboard (crew and a rescued fisherman) have survived the crash. The wreck lies on the seafloor at 70 meters depth: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-crash/south-korea-searches-for-survivors-of-helicopter-crash-off-disputed-islands-idUSKBN1XA2T9 77.234.84.42 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Not right

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.

Location is in East sea. (Gyeongsangbukdo ulnggun, dokdori) Republic of lsh (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan" is the most commonly-used name in English. (Note that "wiki.riteme.site" is the English-language Wikipedia, and - as per WP:COMMONNAME - we generally use the most commonly-used name in English.) Other names for the sea (including "East Sea") are described in detail at Sea_of_Japan#Names. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2019 (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.

editing riancourt rocks document

i want to edit this document. of course, i'll write it neutrally by writing japan and korean's opinion equivalently.

first, can i edit this document?

second, i effort to write this document rightly and grammatically, but i don't have english as a mother language. so, during it, it is OK to mistke grammatically or on contexts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himchan1112 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is already "neutral" so probably doesnt need to be changed, perhaps better if you just make your suggestions for improvement here and others will help if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but judging from the quality of your grammar and proofreading, you would be better off submitting any changes here anyway. Britmax (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

below the title History, in the next paragraph:

"Whaling American and French whaleships cruised for right whales off the rocks between 1849 and 1892.[34]"

The USA is not America, America is the whole continent, that should be changed to USA whaleships, that is a sensitive topic for the rest of the countries in America. Jpvilla1990 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

​Words in English do not have the same meaning as they do in Spanish. "Estadounidense" = "American", "Americano" = "from the Americas". – Thjarkur (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

Change Sea of Japan to East Sea due to the historical significance of the name, “East Sea,” which has been used for over 2,000 years, and legitimacy of the indication “East Sea” in accordance with resolutions of relevant international organizations based on objective historical facts compared to indicating the East Sea as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". This video will help you understand the reason why the "Sea of Japan" indication mentioned is wrong and illegitimate. I hope to receive feedback soon.

[1] 49.145.133.46 (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NC-SoJ.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmF2o3NEUd4

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

SEA OF JAPAN

EAST SEA 70.77.198.189 (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No explanation given for the change. El_C 09:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral?

Bro, I don't know who wrote the introduction to this fine piece of false information, but c'mon... at least make it sound neutral. It just looks like a Japanese friendly person wrote it to make it look like Dokto bElonGs tO jApAn since it's in the sEa of jApaN (it should actually be addressed as East Sea). Like, is this writer trying to say that Korea stole a jApaNeSe islAnD? Completely ridiculous. It's all about the implication! Watch out with your wording and what not. I suggest that you go and learn what it actually means to be neutral. This biased document honestly makes me sick. Tanjiro0001 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what neutral has to do with as the name "Sea of Japan" is the name of the related article in wikipedia, if you think it is wrong then you need to raise it on that article and make your case. If that article changes name then we can change it here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Ngl, there isn't even point of making this document favorable to Japanese knowing that their ancestors wrote a formal document claiming that Dokto and some other island do not belong to them. Quite funny thinking about how Japanese say that Dokdo has been theirs historically since that means they are literally denying their ancestors' words. Please... Be logical. But I mean there's nothing more amusing than watching far right Japanese folks getting all salty about this issue, so maybe just keep on being biased! Tanjiro0001 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that it's possible to not mention the SeA oF jApAn to make this document functional... The name itself is also a controversial matter, yet someone has used it to write a quote on quote neutral document... Is it logical that you are claiming this is neutral? Absolutely not. Sorry bud, but please learn more about this topic! Tanjiro0001 (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this is only your third edit to wikipedia and you may not be aware of how it works, but you still need to go to the Sea of Japan article if you want it changed, this is not the place. Nothing wrong with the name of the article it clearly describes the subject in English. You are welcome to read all this articles talk pages archives about article naming, but I would suggest that requesting a change from the current neutral name is unlikely to gain traction. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
It is good to respect Wikipedia functions of this article. Nevertheless, it is not true that it is neutral because of the term "Sea of Japan". The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Korea, suggests writing them together as like "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", or "Sea of Japan / East Sea". Wikipedia Germany also does (see Liancourt-Felsen). Could you change it like that? It would be more neutral and reliable document. Tonghun82 (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2020 (CEST)
We use the common English name. Not what Japan wants us to use, not what either Korea wants us to use, but what is normal usage in English. If the Japanese or Koreans or anyone else doesn't like English usage, that is their problem. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with "use common name." Wikipedia is encyclopedia. And must be kept neutral. South Korea and Japan is having dispute with East Sea/Sea of Japan, and should be named both. Because it is not decided. And that is neutral. Tim Ko Gangbaek (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sovereignty dispute section's misinformation

Quote (original): 

Other key points of the dispute involve the legal basis that Japan used to claim the islands in 1905, and the legal basis of South Korea's claim on the islands in 1952.[citation needed]

Changed: Other key points of the dispute involve the legal basis that Japan used to claim the islands in 1905, and the legal basis of South Korea's claim on the islands in 1900.

Evidence: Japan first claimed there sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks in 1905 by The Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40. The Empire of Korea, former government of Republic of Korea, officially claimed there sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks in 1900 by Imperial Decree No. 41.

However, before 1900, in 1877, an order given by the Dajōkan, the highest administrative body of Japan at the time, to the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs, confirming that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were islands outside of Japan’s territory.

As a result of consultations with the government of Joseon (regarding the Ulleungdo Dispute), the Dajōkan concluded that Ulleungdo and Dokdo did not belong to Japan, and ordered the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs as follows: “Regarding Takeshima [Ulleungdo] and one other island [Dokdo] about which an inquiry was submitted, bear in mind that our country [Japan] has nothing to do with them.” Tim Ko Gangbaek (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dokdo

Hello, any watchers around? I just discovered this category, any opinions on if/how we should deal with it? All the articles in it seem to have some dispute-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The position of the Dokdo

Hello? I'm one of the people who are interest in Dokdo. I'm 13 years old and I live in Korea. I found the position of the Dokdo in this document. Dokdo is located in the Donghae(Republic Of Korea). Donghae is not Sea of Japan. I'm disappinted and angry so much becuse of this document. Correct this Please. Dokdo lover0525 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC) I interest in Dokdo too. Dokdo is Republic of Korea's territory.I agree with this opinion.(Ehgnsdl (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC))

You do understand the concept of different languages right?--Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
If the ko-WP version makes you less angry, try reading that instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Many peoples will read this ducument. So we must correct the location of the Dokdo. Dokdo is a Republic of Korea's territory. According to the international law, the sea within 22kilometers of the country's territory is its territorial waters. Therefore Republlic of korea's territorial waters Donghae is the location of the Dokdo should be. Donghae is not Sea of Japan.Dokdo lover0525 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whose territory it is. It is a simple matter of language. The English name of this body of water is the Sea of Japan.--Khajidha (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You have chosen to read/write on en-WP. The guideline here is WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), so that is how we do things. Other websites, like ko-WP or ja-WP, can write how they choose. Here, people will learn that Sea of Japan is called Sea of Japan on english Wikipedia. This may change at some point, see Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute#International_Hydrographic_Organization, but for now, that's how it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

126.243.108.137 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That is just a list of random links. What is your request? Britmax (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Add this links to Wikipedia page. 126.243.108.137 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: Linking to youtube videos from POV sources (Japan and South Korea officials) is not helpful. The maps links are already available from the infobox geographic coordinates, IIRC. No reason to include this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

The title should be Dokdo. Koreaseouldokdoeastsea (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the conversation about this on the talk page. Even if it were done, it would not be an update. Britmax (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, requests that involve changing the title of an article are not within the scope of an edit request; you may instead follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Gaioa (T C L) 14:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please update

Please update new information.

Population 50 → 34

(URL: https://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/eng/introduce/residence.jsp (Page title: Dokdo, Residents & Visitors | MOFA Dokdo) )

60.69.101.130 (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you!  A S U K I T E   17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for dispute

While national pride and history do play a role in the dispute between ROK and Japan on the ownership, the importance of rich fishing resources and supposed natural gas quantities are known to be a factor; however, these are both only mentioned in passing near the beginning of the article. Some referenced discussion would help. 67.209.131.178 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you suggest any high quality reliable sources that discuss these elements of the dispute? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

171.248.149.158 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 Dokdo is cleary Koreas land. I dont get it why Japanese say that it is theres.
 When you see ld maps from Korea and japan, you can find that Dokdo is Koreas land.
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Change all entries of "Sea of Japan" to either "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", or "East Sea (Sea of Japan)", or preferrably "East Sea". The supporting ground is that www.google.map notates both names together, "Sea of Japan (East Sea)", where "East Sea" is parenthesized. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6752445,134.2470815,8.49z 2601:647:4800:7D2:9D72:52C4:8038:19C8 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 22#Add (East sea). ✗plicit 05:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

CHANGE 'SEA OF JAPAN' TO 'EAST SEA' This needs to be changed throughout the entire page. 137.83.117.88 (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

See previous request response. Vsmith (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

Eyiddskfe (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I found out through Google, but there was an error, so I asked for editing.

Dokdo is Korean territory and located in donghae.

Dokdo is the territory of South Korea, it's true. But..I'm wondering about this site. why wrote down that Dokdo located in the Sea of Japan? I hope to modify it to donghae.

please hope that you will correct it. History should not be distorted.

about where Liancourt Rocks located-sea of japan

saw the answer that this does not reflects any of japanese or korean pov. But if so, you should put both ways to call the sea between korea and japan. donghae and sea of japan. they can be written together side-by-side or it is reflecting japanese pov since it is in dispute actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎58.231.55.141 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the quite lengthy discussions we’ve already gone through on Archive pages; Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 22#Add (East sea) among others. Unless you bring some new perspective to the discussion, it’s unlikely to evolve any further. In my opinion, "add the Korean name" is simply not that kind.—B.C.Mayfield (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_21&oldid=1085916185"