Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Requested move 15 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight晚安 06:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Liancourt Rocks → ? – No. There is no evidence that majority of English speakers call the island "Liancourt rocks". In fact, majority of English uses "Dokdo" or "Takeshima". Gerçois (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks does not actually satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, considering Google ngram search result shows that Dokdo or Takeshima is more frequently used than Liancourt Rocks.

Considering that 1. "takeshima" also refers to name of people in Japanese language, and 2. neither "Dokdo" nor "Takeshima" holds sway over each other, I think title of this article should be changed into "Dokdo/Takeshima" (in alphabetical order, which is used by number of WP:RS) Gerçois (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. We are not dealing with this again. The page is where it is because of the naming dispute, and "Dokdo/Takeshima" gives theoretical precedence to Dokdo. O.N.R. ^(talk) 13:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• oppose unless someone has another good neutral name this is going to end up being a trash fire—blindlynx 19:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Blindlynx I dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because Liancourt rock is not a common name Gerçois (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose because renaming the article Dokdo or Takeshima will inherently make it less NPOV. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky i propose dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because it is neutral Gerçois (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But then, doing that can lead to some believing the Korean POV is more important. I just wanted to note that in the past people have switched around Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo/Takeshima to WP:POVPUSH and make WP:DISRUPTIVE edits, and I don't want any of that happening here. Not to mention that writing all those slashes while saying "Dokdo/Takeshima" will reduce readability. Thus, I oppose. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want proof I can provide some diffs if needed. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky yes please Gerçois (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've found a few diffs of POV edits (not only switching around Dokdo/Takeshima, but some of them also show people switching around East Sea/Sea of Japan)

[1] (not really dokdo but more east sea/sea of japan)

[2]

[3] (this one is an especially good examples of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing via removing Takeshima)

[4] (Sea of Japan)

[5]

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Most of other disputed islands and boundary dispute use name for its current effective occupier, such as Falkland Islands and Senkaku Islands, and it perfectly follows current norm for WP:COMMONNAME, which is not violating NPOV. Because simply it is 'real' common name for calling. Look at authority files for librarians. Almost ALL of renowned national libraries and institutes uses name of islands along with its occupier, including the Library of Congress. Is their any reason why this specific article should follow particularly different norm or rule? Which is not aligned to any of naming consensus for English Wikipedia? - SCMBD (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that "Liancourt Rock" isn't really the WP:COMMONNAME in English (it quite likely isn't), and I'm generally of the opinion that we should firmly base our geographical naming practices on "common usage", and in doing so discount all catering to national sensitivities and preferences or balancing between them (which is often misunderstood as a matter of "neutrality"). So, if it was indeed shown that some other name (say, "Dokdo") was indeed a lot more common, I'd be all for changing the name to that, and "neutrality" be damned. The problem is just, in this particular case it is exceptionally difficult, quite likely impossible, to demonstrate such a common usage. It certainly can't be done with simple Google searches or ngrams. Reasons include:
  • "Dokdo" has multiple name variants difficult to search for ("Tokto", "Dok Islands", "Tok Islands", "Dok do", "Tok to", etc.).
  • "Takeshima" is frequently used for different referents, mostly personal names.
  • A large proportion of the web hits for "Dokdo" come from partisan sources – including multiple "patriotic" Korean websites actively created for the purpose of *promoting* the use of that name. All of these ought to be discarded from any reasonable search for what actual common usage in English is.

  So, to serve as a basis for a well-informed move decision, we'd need a careful, qualitative analysis of high-quality independent sources in English that deal with the islands in contexts independent of the naming/sovereignty dispute. Such an analysis should ideally be provided before a RM is started. The bare link to a single ngram as given in the nomination statement here isn't really that.

  As for the option of using a double name ("Dokdo/Takeshima"), I wouldn't exclude that in principle, if it really could be shown that that in fact comes closer to a "common name" usage, i.e. if reliable sources really used this or similar double references as a matter of routine. We had that solution in "Imia/Kardak" for a long time until recently, where I believe the case for such a "common name" status was much stronger than here, but it was changed to simple "Imia" recently, so reintroducing that solution here would probably be another uphill battle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Comment But then, the problem is, some disruptive editors might just switch Dokdo and Takeshima around to subtly shift the POV and put WP:UNDUE weight on the Korean/Japanese POV. Putting "Dokdo/Takeshima" implies that the Korean claim is more correct while putting "Takeshima/Dokdo" implies that the Japanese claim is more correct. I just don't want disruptive editors to target this article, that's all.

  Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is not a justified reason to prevent a rename of the article. There are many articles that receive even more attention than this one, but that doesn't provide an encyclopedic reason as to why Wikipedia should consider one name over another. If such repeated vandalism occurs, the solution should be to protect the page, not to alter the name of the page. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I don't agree with the premise of your comment that the ngram results were influenced by "patriotic" Koreaan websites since Google ngram results are exclusively based on printed sources. Google ngram is even officially named "Google Books Ngram Viewer."

  Corpus linguistics research is a systematic and neutral method of researching language usage, and Google ngram viewer at least provides a starting point. It would have been more preferable if there were other high-quality sources that meets requirements you suggested; But I believe that raising the standard of proof to such a high level, in absence of counter-evidence, requires a separate argument for it. 아이서울유 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just to respond to your point about Google ngrams being based on books: that's true – but even in a book search, the two first pages of search results are flooded with items such as "Everything You Need To Know About Dokdo", "Dokdo: Korean Territory since the 6th Century", "The Story of Dokdo Residents", "Dokdo is Korean Territory", "Dokdo in Korea: A Story of Dokdo Island, a Korean Territory", "Dokdo in Korea: a story of Dokdo Island, a Korean territory", "The Dokdo Story", "A Story of Dokdo Island: A Korean Territory", "Love You, Dokdo: Historical Trip to Dokdo with a Mentor". All of this is essentially propaganda spam. Incidentally, almost all the other, serious-looking items on the search list are written by Korean authors or at least have Korean co-authors. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that is in itself an exclusion criterion, I do believe that too should make us quite wary about any assumptions regarding regular English usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  There are indeed political pamphlets written with intention of advancing a certain viewpoint, while I'm certainly sure that political pamphlet, slogan and phrases are part of ordinary English corpus as well as non-political one, the problem is "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" is still significantly more frequent than "Liancourt rocks" at least from late 2010s even if we exclude half of results from both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima". Both of them are more commonly used than "Liancourt rocks". The discrepancy is simply too large.

  Again, there is no reason to exclude "propaganda" materials from English corpus, since WP:COMMONNAME is mainly about ordinary usage of English language, regardless of political background. "Kyiv" would be a good example of such case.

  While I indeed believe there are merits of argument against the move based on WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME does not provide such merits anymore. 아이서울유 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  The main reason why specific term "Dokdo" looks like specifically promoted by Korean patriots in internet, is that term is brought out from Revised Romanization of Korean after year 2000 to call "Korean: 독도", when there was already ongoing fierce dispute by patriotic internet users between Japanese and Korean. The English term for "Korean: 독도" before year 2000 , by McCune–Reischauer style, is "Tokto".

  Another important point is that English users does not normally uses geographic term in foreign language, such as 'field', 'mountain' or 'island'. For example, the famous mountain in Japan "富士山" is read by Japanese as "Fujisan" or "Fujiyama" yet it is called Mount Fuji by English, as the "Fuji(富士)" is designation of the mountain and "san(山)" or "yama(山)" is just Japanese term meaning mountain. Likewise, English users does not call Korea's famous southern island "제주도" as "Jejudo". English users rather call it as Jeju Island, as "do" is just Korean term meaning island, while "Jeju" is distinguished designation for that island.

  In this manner, it is quite surprising that English users have to choose headline for this article's islands between "Dokdo" or "Takeshima", because Korean 'do' and Japanese 'shima' is just a noun meaning island. More natural headline for English users would be "Dok Island(Korean term)" or "Take Island(Japanese term)". And as I explained in above paragraph, most of librarians actually uses term "Tok island" for this article's islands, as the Korean designation of the islands "독" is romanized as "Tok" in old McCune–Reischauer style, while new Revised Romanization of Korean uses "Dok" for "Tok".

  Then what would be natural conclusion for this all argument? I suggest we use "Tok Island" or "Dok Island".

  (1) Simple search result for both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" term is harshly contaminated by patriotic Japanese and Korean internet users, so those results cannot be preferred ground for designation of this article. And also, they do not follow real English usage, as Fuijsan is Mount Fuji and Jejudo is Jeju Island in English Wikipedia.

  (2) While search result for google in "Take Island" makes no sense, search result for "Tok Island" makes perfect sense, as it is the real common term widely used by intellectuals, including librarians, in English world for calling this article's islands. - SCMBD (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but its this reply that makes no sense. Dokdo and Takeshima are far more commonly used in English than "Dok Island"/"Tok Island"/"Tok to"/"Take Island"/etc etc. (which are all outdated anyways) Whether or not to include the island suffix is a completely case by case situation, based the on English usage in that specific situation. If you want previous precedent, see Ulleungdo. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no clear and neutral common name in English. That's why Liancourt Rocks is used. Masterhatch (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Masterhatch I propose dokdo/Tekeshima in alphabetical order because Liancourt rock is no the a common name

  reliable sources such as the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-19207086 and DW https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-starts-drills-at-japan-claimed-islands/a-50155334 use dokdo/Tekeshima Gerçois (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  "dokdo/Tekeshima" doesn't work because wikipedia doesn't like those slashes in article names. So, keeping status quo is still the best option at this time. Masterhatch (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Masterhatch I'm i didn't understand is it a technical problem or a rule because there are a lot of article that use the slash such as /pol/ Gerçois (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a technical issue. It's style. When there are two relatively common names for a subject, generally speaking, both names are not used with a slash between them. One name is chosen. With both Dokdo and Tekeshima being very hot button names, a more neutral name has been chosen (Liancourt Rocks). I would be more open to a debate about renaming this article either Dokdo Islands or Tekeshima Islands than I would about using both names with a slash. Masterhatch (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Masterhatch i understand, I think we should leave it as Liancourt until dokdo or Tekeshima become more used, because right now they are used equally as much it we'd be biased to choose dokdo or Tekeshima Gerçois (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Gerçois I suggest "Tok Island" instead, as it is more normal English naming style. You can find many reasons why I support this alternative plan from my reply for @Future Perfect at Sunrise in above paragraph. SCMBD (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. While I agree that neither Korea nor Japan prefers "Liancourt rocks" over "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" respectively, "Liancourt rocks" does not strictly fall under "neutral" point of view because official position of Korea is that there is no dispute at all. It's more of an outsider point of view. It's akin to Taiwan. Both "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "Taiwan, province of China" favors a certain POV, but it does not automatically mean that "Taiwan" is a neutral name.

  Since "Liancourt rocks" is neither a neutral nor common but outdated name shortly used during early 20th century, I guess there are three options:

  • Dokdo, which obviously favors Korean POV but is consistent with other articles using a name preferred by administering state. (Falkland islands, Kuril islands, Senkaku islands and etc.)
  • Dokdo/Takeshima, which contains both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima", reflecting a practice of using both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima, which is common in English literature, in alphabetical order, which is also a common way of ordering words, phrases and sentences in English language. Putting a simple explanation in FAQ section that following alphabetical order does not mean Japanese POV is more illegitimate should solve NPOV problem. "D" simply comes first.
  • Status quo, which is neither common nor neutral but the title of the article remains same, like Republic of Ireland except that there is no WP:ARBCOM order in this case. 아이서울유 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly support move to Dokdo As has been previously discussed, having an article title with both names is not an acceptable solution (ie. Dokdo/Takeshima or Dokdo or Takeshima). It has also been discussed that Google Ngram information on "Takeshima" is unreliable because of its use as a common Japanese name and also because of its use as the name of Takeshima (island) (not to mention that having parenthetical disambiguation is discouraged when not necessary). Two points that have not been brought up yet are:

1. "What are the islands called outside of the context of the dispute?"
2. "What is the island called in the most cited academic literature on the topic?"

I have gathered references on the two questions below:

All English-language academic sources on the islands with 20 or more citations found through Google Scholar

Sorted from greatest to fewest citations

• Liancort Rocks/Tok-do/Takeshima Cited by 187 Charney, Jonathan I. (1999-10-01). "Rocks That Cannot Sustain Human Habitation". American Journal of International Law. 94 (3).

Uses "Liancort [sic] Rocks/Tok-do/Takeshima Islands" once when referring to the islands, but no further mentions are made.

• Takeshima Cited by 107 Kimie, Hara (2001). "50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japan's Territorial Problems". Pacific Affairs. 74 (3).

Primarily uses "Takeshima" in conjunction with "Takeshima (Tokdo)" (for the contemporary situation) or "Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks)" (for the historical situation). The article discusses the historical background behind the Treaty of San Francisco with regards to Japan, as well as contemporary issues it raises in Japanese politics.

• Dokdo Cited by 82 Van Dyke, Jon M. (2007-01-31). "Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary". Ocean Development & International Law. 38 (1–2).

Primarily uses "Dokdo". Introduces the terms "Takeshima" and "Liancourt Rocks" by stating "These islets are called Dokdo by Korea, Takeshima by Japan, and the Liancourt Rocks by various Western explorers and colonial writers". The article discusses the islands from the perspective of international law, concluding that "Korea’s claim to sovereignty over Dokdo is substantially stronger than that of Japan".

• Dokdo Cited by 75 Mitchell, Douglas A.; Watts, David Randolph; Wimbush, Mark H.; Teague, William J.; Tracey, Karen L.; Book, Jeffrey W.; Chang, Kyungil; Suk, Moon-sik; Yoon, Jong-hwan (2005-06-01). "Upper circulation patterns in the Ulleung Basin". Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 52 (11–13).

Primarily uses "Dok Islands". Mentions the term "Takeshima" once as "Dok (Takeshima) Islands" with no further context. Article discusses findings regarding wind patterns in the area.

• Dokdo (Two articles written by the same authors in the same series of the same journal) Cited by 72 Yoon, Jung-Hoon; Kang, So-Jung; Lee, Soo-Young; Lee, Mi-Hwa; Oh, Tae-Kwang (2005-09-01). "'Virgibacillus dokdonensis' sp. nov., isolated from a Korean island, Dokdo, located at the edge of the East Sea in Korea". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 55 (5). and Cited by 50 Yoon, Jung-Hoon; Kang, So-Jung; Lee, Soo-Young; Lee, Mi-Hwa; Oh, Tae-Kwang (2005-09-01). "Maribacter dokdonensis sp. nov., isolated from sea water off a Korean island, Dokdo". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 55 (5).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The two articles discuss varieties of bacteria collected off the islands.

• Takeshima Cited by 68 Oda, Shigeru (2017-03-28). "The Normalization of Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea". American Journal of International Law. 61 (1).

Solely uses "Takeshima". No other terms are mentioned. The article discusses the islands in the context of Japanese normalization of relations with South Korea.

• Dokdo Cited 63 Sakamoto, Rumi (2011-03-07). "'Koreans, Go Home!' Internet Nationalism in Contemporary Japan as a Digitally Mediated Subculture". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 9 (10).

Uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands while using "Takeshima" (with quotes) in the context of Japanese colonial racism or "Dokdo/Takeshima" to refer to the conflict.

• Dokdo Cited by 58 Choi, Sung-jae (2016-03-24). "The Politics of the Dokdo Issue". Journal of East Asian Studies. 5 (3).

Solely uses "Dokdo", with the exception of use of "Takeshima" in quotes or to refer to the "Takeshima Movement" The article discusses the political nature of the islands with respect to the historical and political backgrounds of both countries.

• Liancourt Rocks Cited by 51 Fern, Sean (1998). "Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute" (PDF). Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs. 5 (1).

Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" to refer to the islands and is the article currently used to cite the claim that the island is called the "Liancourt Rocks" by neutral observers. It mentions "Tokdo" and "Takeshima" as the Korean and Japanese names respectively. The article concludes that South Korea has a stronger claim to the islands in every respect.

• Liancourt Rocks Cited by 43 Sibbett, Benjamin K. (1997). "Tokdo or Takeshima? The Territorial Dispute Between Japan and the Republic of Korea". Fordham International Law Journal. 21 (4–9).

Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" to refer to the islands, does not use the terms "Tokdo" or "Takeshima" outside of in quotes, and provides very little contextualization for the two terms. The article discusses the islands with regards to international law, concluding in a judgement favoring South Korea.

• Takeshima (out of convenience) Cited by 45 Bukh, Alexander (2014-10-21). "Shimane Prefecture, Tokyo and the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima: regional and national identities in Japan". The Pacific Review. 28 (1).

Primarily uses "Takeshima" to refer to the islands, while introducing "Dokdo" as the Korean name. The article states "Since this paper is devoted to analyzing the Japanese side of the dispute, the Japanese name will be used throughout the text. This is done, however, solely for purposes of convenience and should not be interpreted as an expression of support for Japan's claims." The article discusses the island with regards to the establishment of "Takeshima" in Japanese national identity, such as through "Takeshima Day".

• Dokdo Cited by 42 Hunter, William Cannon (2013-10-03). "The Visual Representation of Border Tourism: Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and Dokdo in South Korea". International Journal of Tourism Research. 17 (2).

Primarily uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands, while introducing "Takeshima" as the Japanese name. The article discusses the island in the context of tourism to the DMZ and the islands.

• Dokdo (out of convenience) Cited by 40 Wiegand, Krista E. (2015-02-26). "The South Korean–Japanese security relationship and the Dokdo/Takeshima islets dispute". The Pacific Review. 28 (3).

Primarily uses "Dokdo" to refer to the islands, while using "Dokdo/Takeshima" when discussing the Korean and Japanese contexts. The article discusses the impact of the islands on South Korean domestic politics and states that its use of the name "Dokdo" "in no way suggests a political stand on the legitimate sovereignty of the islets and is purely for the sake of simplicity."

• Liancourt Rocks Cited by 39 Smith, Robert W.; Thomas, Bradford L. (1998). "Island Disputes and the Law of the Sea: An Examination of Sovereignty and Delimitation Disputes". International Boundaries Research Unit: Maritime Briefing. 2 (4).

Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks" with "Takeshima/Tok-do" in parentheses. It mentions the islands once in text and twice in maps. The article discusses sovereignty disputes regarding islands.

• Dokdo Cited by 37 Chang, Kyung-Il; Kim, Youn-Bae; Suk, Moon-Sik; Byun, Sang-Kyung (2002-12-31). "Hydrography around Dokdo". Ocean and Polar Research. 24 (4).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article uses measures of conductivity, temperature, and depth to analyze the hydrography around the islands.

• Takeshima/Tokdo Cited 34 McCormack, Gavan (2011-01-03). "Small Islands – Big Problem: Senkaku/Diaoyu and the Weight of History and Geography in China-Japan Relations". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 9 (1).

The island uses both names in the two instances the islands are mentioned. The article discusses the Senkaku Islands dispute with regard to Japan's relationship to China, and brings up the islands to compare and contrast the two disputes.

• Dokdo Cited by 32 Lee, Seokwoo; Van Dyke, Jon M. (2010-12-01). "The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty and Its Relevance to the Sovereignty over Dokdo". Chinese Journal of International Law. 9 (4).

Primarily uses "Dokdo". The term "Takeshima" is introduced by stating "Japan's claim to Dokdo, which it calls 'Takeshima'". The article discusses the islands with regards to international law, particularly with regards to the Treaty of San Francisco. The article concludes that the treaty does not strengthen or weaken any claim and is irrelevant to the issue of the islands' sovereignty.

• Dokdo Cited by 31 Ryu, Shi-Hyun; Jang, Keum-Hee; Choi, Eun-Hwa; Kim, Sang-Ki; Song, Sung-Joon; Cho, Hyun-Jin; Ryu, Ju-Sun; Kim, Youn-Mi; Sagong, Jin; Lee, Jin-Hee; Yeo, Mi-Yeong; Bahn, So-Yeong; Kim, Hae-Min; Lee, Gil-Seong; Lee, Don-Hwa; Cho, Yeon-Sik; Pak, Jae-Hong; Park, Jin-Soon; Ryu, Jong-Seong; Khim, Jong-Seong; Hwang, Ui-Wook (2012). "Biodiversity of Marine Invertebrates on Rocky Shores of Dokdo, Korea" (PDF). Zoological Studies. 51 (5).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article examines the biodiversity of marine invertebrates on the island, as the article title succinctly states.

• Dokdo Cited by 30 Kang, Rae-Seon; Won, Ki-Sik; Hong, Kyung-Pyo; Kim, Jong-Man (2001). "Population Studies on the Kelp Ecklonia cava and Eisenia bicyclis in Dokdo, Korea". Algae. 16 (2).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article reports the results of two population studies on two varieties of kelp on the island.

• Dokdo Cited by 28 Lee, Moon-Hee; Kim, Yeon-Kye; Moon, Ho Sung; Kim, Kyoung-Duck; Kim, Gwan-Gyu; Cho, Hyeon-Ah; Yoon, Na Young; Sim, Kil Bo; Park, Hee-Yeon; Lee, Doo-Seog; Lim, Chi-Won; Yoon, Ho-Dong; Han, Sang-Kuk (2012-10-31). "Comparison on proximate composition and nutritional profile of red and black sea cucumbers (Apostichopus japonicus) from Ulleungdo(Island) and Dokdo(Island), Korea". Food Science and Biotechnology. 21 (5).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article compares the characteristics of Sea Cucumbers on the island to those on Ulleung Island.

• Dok-do Cited by 28 Oh, Miyoung (2009-02-04). "'Eternal Other' Japan: South Koreans' Postcolonial Identity". The International Journal of the History of Sport. 26 (3).

The article primarily uses "Dokdo", but includes in parenthesis "Liancourt Rocks" during the first mention of the islands. The article discusses the post-colonial and ethnic identities of South Korea by examining their relationships with Japan.

• Tokdo Cited by 27 Kajimura, Hideki (1977). "The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo" (PDF). Korea Observer. 28 (3).

While the article primarily uses "Takeshima/Tokdo", it states that "Takeshima" is not an admissible name for the islands, preferring "Tokdo". The article is a discussion of the historical understanding of the islands in Japan, the etymologies of both words, the legal background over the islands, and a general discussion over the islands themselves. The article concludes that Korea has a stronger claim to the islands.

• Liancourt Rocks Cited by 26 Johnston, Douglas M. (1992). "Anticipating instability in the Asia‐pacific region". The Washington Quarterly. 15 (3).

The name "Liancourt Rocks" is provided once and no further discussion of the islands outside of one mention of its existence as a territorial dispute. The article discusses potential instability in the Asia-pacific region from a U.S. foreign policy perspective.

• Dokdo Cited by 24 Selden, Mark (2011-04-25). "Small Islets, Enduring Conflict: Dokdo, Korea-Japan Colonial Legacy and the United States". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 9 (17).

The article primarily uses "Dokdo", but mentions Takeshima once in the second paragraph where it states "Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (hereafter Dokdo)" and in the image captions which state "Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)"

• Tok-do Cited by 24 Valencia, Mark J. (1989-01-01). "Northeast Asia: Petroleum potential, jurisdictional claims, and international relations". Ocean Development & International Law. 20 (1).

The article generally uses "Tok-do", although it alternates frequently with "Take-shima", and less commonly with "Liancourt Rocks". The article discusses territorial disputes in Northeast Asia with regard to the potential petroleum found in those areas.

• Dokdo/Takeshima Cited by 24 Hiwatari, Nobuhiro (2006-02-01). "Japan in 2005: Koizumi's Finest Hour". Asian Survey. 46 (1).

The article uses "Dokdo/Takeshima" in the two times that the islands are mentioned. The article discusses various of aspects of Prime Minister Koizumi's government up to the 2005 Japanese general election.

• Dokdo Cited by 22 Raman, Gurusamy; Choi, Kyoung Su; Park, SeonJoo (2016-12-02). "Phylogenetic Relationships of the Fern Cyrtomium falcatum (Dryopteridaceae) from Dokdo Island Based on Chloroplast Genome Sequencing". Genes. 7 (12).

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. That article discusses the genome sequencing of the sole fern species on the islands.

• Liancourt Rocks Cited by 21 O'Shea, Paul (2012-03-19). "Playing the Sovereignty Game: Understanding Japan's Territorial Disputes". University of Sheffield (Doctoral Thesis).

Primarily uses "Liancourt Rocks", while using "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" to refer to the islands in the context of history/politics in South Korea and Japan respectively. This section of the doctoral doctoral thesis primarily discusses the rise of the modern-day political significance of the islands.

• Dokdo/Takeshima Cited by 21 Bowman, Garret (2013). "Why Now Is the Time to Resolve the Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute". Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 46 (1).

Primarily uses "Dokdo/Takeshima", whilst noting that the islets were once referred to as the "Liancourt Rocks" by Western explorers and colonial writers. The article argues that Japan and Korea should resolve the dispute in order to resolve other disputes that the two countries have with China and Russia.

• Dokdo/Takeshima Cited by 21 Japan's Border Issues: Pitfalls and Prospects Akihiro Iwashita (2016)

This was the only source I was not able to get access to, if anyone else has access, it would be much appreciated. From the search function on Google Books, it appears that the book primarily refers to the islands as "Dokdo/Takeshima", but mentions "Liancourt Rocks" once as an international name.

• Dokdo Cited by 21 Kim, Chang Hwan; Park, Jae Woo; Lee, Myoung Hoon; Park, Chan Hong (2013-01-02). "Detailed Bathymetry and Submarine Terraces in the Coastal Area of the Dokdo Volcano in the Ulleung Basin, the East Sea (Sea of Japan)". Journal of Coastal Research.

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article is a discussion of measurements of the sea floor around the islands.

• Dokdo/Takeshima Cited by 21 Cho, Jinman; Kim, HeeMin; Choi, Jun Young (2009-12-01). "The Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute between Korea and Japan: Understanding the Whole Picture". Pacific Focus. 24 (3).

The article primarily uses "Dokdo/Takeshima", while dismissing the "Liancourt Rocks" name as false neutrality. The article discusses the rise of the islands' political status in Japan since the early 2000s and various efforts by the Japanese government to gain international recognition.

• Dokdo Cited by 20 Bong, Youngshik D (2013-04-01). "Built to last: The Dokdo territorial controversy. The baseline conditions in domestic politics and international security of Japan and South Korea". Memory Studies. 6 (2).

The article primarily uses the term "Dokdo", but does mention Takeshima, by stating "the islands of Dokdo (known as Takeshima in Japan)". The article discusses the persistence of the issue and concludes that there is little likelihood of the dispute being resolved without a "critical rupture".

• Dokdo Cited by 20 Baek, Seung Ho; Lee, Minji; Kim, Yun-Bae (2018-02-01). "Spring phytoplankton community response to an episodic windstorm event in oligotrophic waters offshore from the Ulleungdo and Dokdo islands, Korea". Journal of Sea Research. 132: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.seares.2017.11.003. ISSN 1385-1101.

Solely uses "Dokdo". No other terms are mentioned. The article discusses a phytoplankton community around the island and its response following a windstorm.

Special cases

• Cited by 136 Sumi, Robert; Yasseri, Taha; Rung, Andr´s; Kornai, Andr´s; Kertesz, J´nos (2011-10-09). "Edit Wars in Wikipedia". 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing.

This article discusses edit wars on Wikipedia and mentions this article (and thus the islands) once in this context.

• Cited by 34 Ekstrand, Michael D.; Riedl, John T. (2009-10-25). "rv you're dumb: identifying discarded work in Wiki article history". WikiSym '09: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (4).

The article discusses discarded revisions on Wikipedia and provides this article as a case study of an edit war.

• Cited by 23 Lee, Choong-Ki; Kim, Tae-Kyun; Mjelde, James W. (2016-01-02). "Comparison of preservation values between Internet and interview survey modes: the case of Dokdo, South Korea". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 59 (1). This article discusses the results of a study on the effectiveness of internet surveys and uses questions on "Dokdo" to South Koreans on the internet.

Given this evidence, several conclusions can be drawn.

1. "Dokdo" is by far the most common name used in the English-language academic literature on the islands. In addition, in articles examining the islands from an international relations perspective (as opposed to that of domestic politics), it is disproportionately the name of choice, and when discussing the islands outside of the context of the territory dispute, the term "Dokdo" is practically universally used.
2. "Liancourt Rocks" is an uncommon name for the subject and several references use it solely as a dated historical name for the islands. The name has sometimes been used in academic literature, but its use is surpassed by "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" by large margins. Its neutrality has been disputed by a number of articles and the last publication which has seriously considered "Liancourt Rocks" as a name for the islands has been more than a decade ago. In general, most of the usage of "Liancourt Rocks" dates back to the 1980s and 1990s, with the most recent source that seriously considers the name being O'Shea (2012).
3. There is also evidence that suggests that this Wikipedia article's name has influenced the popularity of the "Liancourt Rocks" as a name for these islands.
   • (Ekstrand and Riedl 2009) and (Sumi, Yasseri, et al. 2011) both mention this article in highly cited conference proceedings analyzing Wikipedia edit wars. The articles both use the name "Liancourt Rocks", citing the title of this article, to refer to the islands. I find it highly believable based on this that it is not unlikely, that Wikipedia's use of this article title has played a minor, but significant role in supporting the legitimacy of the term "Liancourt Rocks" in recent years.
4. I would also go further to argue, as expressed in (Cho, Kim, et al. 2009), Wikipedia's usage of "Liancourt Rocks" does not provide a neutral POV, as this name provides legitimacy to far-right (a)historical scholarship that would count under WP:FRINGE. In addition (Cho, Kim, et al. 2009) further states, "Furthermore, since 2000, Japan has taken active measures to list the islet as Liancourt Rocks in the publications of foreign governments, and international organizations. As a result, currently the US CIA World Factbook, Wikipedia, and the Netsaber site all use the term, Liancourt Rocks, to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima."

Sorry for the long message. Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise Is this what you had in mind? :3 F4U (they/it) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain the far-right thing?—blindlynx 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

(Sakamoto 2011) Mirroring the post-1990s historical revisionism, netto-uyo exhibit xenophobia towards immigrants, depict Korea and China negatively, and uphold revisionist history, justifying and glorifying Japan’s wartime actions...They became visible through a number of Internet-generated controversies that erupted around 2002-2004 such as those over the World Cup Soccer hosted by Korea and Japan, 'Hate-Korea' comic books, the so-called 'Nanjing Massacre comic book' and Dokdo/Takeshima, to name just a few.

(O'Shea 2012) The net effect of all this was to fundamentally change the Japanese discourse on the rocks, making them into a major issue for traditional right-wing conservatives and for the new 'youth nationalists' (they were always a major issue for the far-right ultranationalist).

(Hunter 2013) However, the release of the 'New History Textbook' draft in 2000 (claiming the islets as Japanese territory) and the pronouncement of 'Takeshima Day' in Japan on 22 February 2005 have rekindled the controversy. South Korea and China are particularly sensitive to these acts as signs of postcolonial aggression, given Japan's imperialist past.

(Oh 2009) The fierce political disputes between South Korea and Japan were ignited again in April 2005 when the Japanese government approved, as available choices for Japanese schools, textbooks that described Dok-do as islets belonging to Japan and glorified Japan's colonial past more cunningly than ever before.

(Cho et al. 2009) The expanding Japanese empire forced Dokdo under its sovereignty while curtailing Korea's diplomatic rights in 1905. Japan eventually annexed the whole Korean Peninsula in 1910.

For articles discussing the issue on a broader scope, see (Bukh 2014), (Fern 2005), (Van Dyke 2007), and (Choi 2016). Pretty much all of the scholarship above that discusses the dispute also concludes that South Korea has a stronger claim to the islands and that Japan's dispute over that claim generally has to do with influential domestic right-wing nationalist groups and a fear over domino effects on the Sea of Japan/Senkaku Islands disputes. The scholarship above also generally concludes that the annexation of Dokdo by Japan in 1905 is a part of its colonization of Korea, and not a separate event. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Another comment, this ngram also shows that Dokdo / Takeshima is also a demonstrably more popular name than "Liancourt Rocks". A slash does reduce the suitability of the article's title, as detailed in MOS:SLASH, however, it doesn't outright rule it out and I think this is in the end, a far better solution than using "Liancourt Rocks", which as I have stated is not a common name for the rocks. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As there is no clearly-defined neutral name used by the majority of reliable and neutral English-language sources, we should keep the article at this name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there is no name other than the current one that satisfies NPOV + out of the two suggested names neither is more used than the other, which is why the Sea of Japan title argument doesn't work in this case. Summer ^talk 18:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I have noticed no one has so far mention Google Trends although it is a tool recommended in WP:COMMONNAME to determine the most common name for a topic as it keeps track of what people search for on Google. In the case of this topic, according to the GT comparison I just ran there have been more searches for "Dokdo" wordwide than for "Takeshima" and less searches for "Liancourt Rocks" than the former worldwide over the past five years. However, as this is the English language Wikipedia and the topic does not have any strong national ties to any particular English-speaking country I had better filter my results to the most populous English-speaking country however, GT turned out a similar result for the United States and a similar result for the United Kingdom which speaks the next major dialect of English. This suggests the Korean name is the most common among native English-speakers. However, according to WP:NPOVTITLE neutral titles are preferred on Wikipedia although they admit that the most prevalent name for a topic is not always neutral. Tk420 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

References

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.

Circular Reasoning

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

---

Has Wikipedia ever considered the possibility that Wikipedia itself could be the genesis for the common name for these islands? Specifically, reliable source authors may be consulting Wikipedia to see what name they should use for these islands. I read through WP:COMMONNAME, but I could not find this possibility addressed. If this were the case, then the logic of WP:COMMONNAME would seem to break down due to circular reasoning. Google may also be following the lead of Wikipedia when labeling these islands on Google Maps. Wikipedia seeks to reflect common English language usage, but what happens when Wikipedia itself is the source of that usage? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the genesis of the article title name, the name derives from a French whaling ship. As for the rest of the theory, that is not specific to this page, and indeed rests on the dubious assumption that Liancourt Rocks is actually the common name. CMD (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course I know that the name Liancourt comes from the French whaling ship. I am not talking about the etymological origin of Liancourt. Rather I am talking about how Liancourt has come to be the most common name in reliable English sources. This issue is indeed specific to this page in that the Liancourt Rocks are a relatively obscure topic where Wikipedia itself can have a significant influence on the frequency of name usage. By comparison, no one would argue that Wikipedia is influencing the title of the Myanmar article (as opposed to Burma), since that is a nation of 57 million people, as opposed to a historically uninhabited small outcrop of rock. Westwind273 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That usage out there in external sources may have been influenced by Wikipedia's choice is quite possible, certainly. However, the other side of the suspected "circular" decision-making doesn't really hold: as far as I can see, Wikipedia's choice of "Liancourt Rocks" was never really based on the hypothesis that this name was predominant in external sources, neither when that choice was first made nor on the multiple occasions when it was upheld. These decisions were mostly motivated merely by the desire to avoid the various alternatives, which people were concerned would be perceived as non-neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I mainly agree with FPAS about this. I think the main reason why Wikipedia uses "Liancourt Rocks" is to prevent Korean/Japanese POV pushing by changing the names of the disputed islets to Dokdo or Takeshima. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 13:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that I actually endorse that reasoning and motivation; just that I believe that's what has factually driven the consensus-building here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. The naming of this article cannot be based upon neutrality, because that sets up a severe contradiction with naming of the Senkaku Islands article, which would be Pinnacle Islands if it were based on neutrality. The lack of clarity on this point puts Wikipedia on a very dark path, since there is so much emotion about the naming of both island groups. Wikipedia has to remain true to WP:COMMONNAME, which says we should use the name most commonly used by reliable English sources. Therefore, my original concern about circular reasoning remains valid: It is very possible that the original naming of this article 20 years ago may have significantly influenced English usage over the past 20 years. This is a problem that WP:COMMONNAME does not address. This article will forever be bombarded by Koreans wanting to change the article name to Dokdo. If Wikipedia does not acknowledge that it had a hand in making Liancourt Rocks the common English name, then it will be hard to stand against all the pressure to change the article name. I realize this is perhaps a discussion that should be continued over at the WP:COMMONNAME talk page, but the folks over there are not as familiar with the unique situation of articles like Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Couple of idle thoughts in response:

• re. No, no, no. The naming of this article cannot … – I think we'll all be much happier if in this discussion we stick with just explaining how things came to be as they are, instead of arguing once more about what things should be. We just had the latest big Requested Move a few weeks ago; nobody will want to open up this can of worms yet another time so soon.
• re that sets up a severe contradiction – let's face it, Wikipedia isn't consistent about such things, and never can be. I personally have no idea about whether the Senkaku article is where it ought to be, and I don't really want to have to look into that one just in order to make up my mind about this one.
• re Wikipedia has to remain true to WP:COMMONNAME – well, I myself argued in favor of COMMONNAME and against application of a "neutrality" criterion (which I happen to consider ill-conceived) in the last move discussion, but if what you suspect is true and the "common name" status of this entity out there has really been influenced significantly by Wikipedia, then that surely counts as an argument against applying WP:COMMONNAME, doesn't it? It's true that this is something the guideline doesn't address.
• re This article will forever be bombarded … – well, yes, it will. Some people – mostly drive-by guests from outside Wikipedia – will never be happy unless we conform to their national preference, no matter what Wikipedia policies we'd base our decisions on. Most regulars here, I believe, have come to a state where they simply want the status quo to be maintained because they are tired of the perennial debate. Which, come to think of it, is an entirely reasonable stance to take too. There was once someone who formulated what they called the Joghurt principle – the thesis that it is worth fighting out even the lamest article naming war on Wikipedia until, finally, after a few dozen move requests, the One And Only Truly Policy-Conformant Outcome will have been reached, at which point everybody will suddenly come to the realization that this is the case and henceforth stop further move debates. (The classic case of this lamest move war of all that suddenly stopped was, you guessed it, the spelling of "Jog(h)urt".) I'm not a big friend of this principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Good comments. I think the key problem here is that if I were a Korean person, I would feel that English Wikipedia is discriminating against me. Why is this article called Liancourt Rocks, but the Senkaku Islands article is not called Pinnacle Islands? This seems to be favoring Japanese people over Korean people. In response to this, the only thing that Wikipedia has to fall back on is COMMONNAME. NPOV fails because it would imply that the other article name should be Pinnacle Islands. Thus I think the only long-term stable option for Wikipedia is to admit that on some of these more obscure articles, Wikipedia itself may be influencing the COMMONNAME, but that this is unavoidable given the nature of Wikipedia. Of course the other options are to either change this article to Dokdo or change the Senkaku article to Pinnacle Islands. Full disclosure: I am an American who lived in Tokyo for ten years; I am fluent in written and spoken Japanese. (Kind of ironic that I am favoring the Korean position :) ) Westwind273 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a case could be made for renaming this article to "Dokdo Islands", conditional that evidence be provided that it is the preferred WP:COMMONNAME for the islands in sources outside of Japan and Korea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2023 (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.

Censorship Period

When will it be possible to discuss the topic of the article name again on this talk page? In other words, how long is this censorship period? Thank you. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say at least 3 months from the current date.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

My argument for new consensus (feel free to disagree) that this page displays a Japanese-centric bias

Before I even start, and before someone closes, I will acknowledge I am universally on the korean side, as a South Korean. I feel like the page is biased by trying to be neutral. My argument is that the NPOV should be around 70% Korean, 30% Japanese, not fifty-fifty like it is now. Maybe this is patriotic bias, but there is substantial evidence that Dokdo has been controlled by Korea since the Silla period. Silla's 이사부 already conquered Dokdo, and even during the Joseon period there is lots of evidence of Dokdo. I hate Japan, so there is bias, but I think I have a point here. Who agrees? (of course you can disagree!) Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jishiboka1: Look, I'm Korean-American myself but I do have to say I disagree about this mainly due to existing WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia policies. Although I myself believe that the disputed islets should be controlled by South Korea, I don't want to put those viewpoints in a Wikipedia article because I don't want this article to be any less neutral than it is now. If as you said "NPOV [is] around 70% Korean, 30% Japanese", the article would put WP:UNDUE weight towards the Korean POV. Plus Wikipedia is not a place to show that certain viewpoint is "the truth" but rather a place to present facts objectively. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 11:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Shadow Starlit. For my own two cents, it's important to remember Wikipedia isn't here to help solve real world issues—only to record the events involving the issues. Wikipedia shouldn't help figure out who actually owns the rocks nor should it push the issue one way or the other. Masterhatch (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: Exactly. Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. However, in Korea, any other name other than "독도(dokdo) being used is considered highly offensive. You can argue that is the same in Japan, but you can also compare Japan's other claims (ex. Nanjing Massacre Denial). Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Koreans being offended by the use of any other name than Dokdo has anything to do with the price of beer. Masterhatch (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

wat? Maybe that's some slang that I don't know? Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"What does X have to do with the price of beer" is an idiom expressing that X is irrelevant to a discussion. Which is actually true for "Koreans being offended by the use of any other name than Dokdo". Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Japanese names

I'm wondering why there appears to be an inconsistency in the Japanese names given for the individual islands themselves. In the "Geography" section of the article, the islands are noted as "Ojima" and "Mejima" whereas in the second map drawing at the side, the islands are noted as "Otoko-jima" and "Onna-jima." If the names on the map are correct, then the article text should be modified to reflect this; if the names in the text are correct, then perhaps an explanatory note could be added below the map. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Identity and Diplomacy (Global Perspectives)

The preference for the term "East Sea" over "Sea of Japan" is rooted in a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and geopolitical considerations. Advocates of the "East Sea" argue that the name holds historical and cultural significance predating the colonial era, emphasizing a more inclusive regional perspective. Countries like South Korea view the use of "East Sea" as a means to assert their national identity and diminish the dominance of the "Sea of Japan" name, which is linked to a contentious colonial history. The parallel lies in the potential to evoke historical grievances and sensitivity. Just as certain war criminal flags, such as Nazi flag and rising sun flag, may carry a contentious historical legacy, the naming of geographical features can be a source of geopolitical tension, reflecting deep-seated historical issues. Both situations involve symbols that can be interpreted differently, highlighting the need for nuanced discussions and diplomatic approaches to navigate complex historical narratives and foster understanding among nations. The choice of terminology is also seen as a way to navigate geopolitical sensitivities in the region, reducing potential tensions associated with historical disputes. Proponents suggest that adopting "East Sea" contributes to a more balanced and neutral international approach to the naming of this body of water, reflecting diverse perspectives and acknowledging the complexity of historical narratives. In essence, the naming debate transcends mere semantics, becoming a symbolic representation of identity, diplomacy, and historical consciousness in East Asia. 73.132.144.47 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)