Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takeshima Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dokdo. Mailer Diablo 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takeshima Islands

Blatantly POV duplication of Dokdo, which is currently a disputed article due to the controversial nature of the situation there. There's no need to have multiple articles for the same topic, especially when the articles are almost exactly the same (except for the POV changes). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(Of course a redirect to Dokdo is fine. I wouldn't oppose a future referendum on naming, with the caveats that 1) it shouldn't come too soon after the recently concluded referendum, and 2) it's not feasible under current conditions and would likely draw in more vandalism) --Reuben 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dokdo for the reasons stated above. --Zonath 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dokdo. I don't think there is anything in the article worth merging. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dokdo. Article is a complete cut&paste POV fork from that page, and is a poor solution to the content dispute there. Kuru talk 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dokdo per above. -- Gogo Dodo 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. A diff between the two articles (copy protected text of Dokdo, paste into edit box for Takeshima Islands, show changes) makes it pretty clear that this is a pure POV fork, with "Dokdo" changed to "Takeshima Islands" in most instances where it's used, "Takeshima Islands" moved to appear first when both are used, and general POV inserted:
    Added paragraph in intro:
    There have been the problems of their territorial rights(including their naming rights) and fishery rights around it since 1954. Koreans have been very nationalistic to have been plotting to rename "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea". Also they have illegally controlled and administered "Takeshima Islands" since 1954 and been plotting to rename them "Dokto" in spite of Japanese repeated fair demands that if Koreans have any complaints about the sovereignty of Takeshima Islands(while South-Koreans called them "Dokto"), Japan is ready to accept the innternational neutral judgements and Koreans should obey the decisions too. While Japan has been protesting against Korea more than 50 years that south Korea should stop their illegal behaviors and accept the international fair judgements, Koreans have been violating Takeshima Islands.
    Removed paragraph:
    South Korea currently controls the islets and claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records.
    Replaced with:
    South Koreans illegally have stayed on the islets and claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century and would not admit the truth that there have been no Koreans permitted to live not only on the Takeshima Islands but also on the Ulleung-do from 1403 to 1876 by Korean authority. Besides Japanese territorial claims to Takeshima Islands come from the fact that Japan fairly gains the sovereignty of Takeshima Islands first in 1905. Furthermore Japan has the seventeenth century records concerning the territorial rights of Takeshima Islands. What is most important is that Japan gave only fishing rights around Ullueng-do to Korea but not the other anything in 1696.
    It's still a little early to be closing the AFD as a "speedy redirect", but I'm feeling strongly inclined to do so anyway. I see no reason the two articles should be separate. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    Also, note that Takeshima Island already redirects to Dokdo. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, of course. However, I am slightly concerned that the recent vote to move the neutrally-named Liancourt Rocks to the politically-fuelled Dokdo was passed despite intense opposition on the Wikilawyering grounds that the opposition voters found out about the proposal "too late". This content dispute would never have happened if the neutral and mutually-acceptable name had been retained, instead of allowing one side to claim a "victory" for their POV. Suggest a new debate be opened on the naming, perhaps one held centrally rather than on the article's talk page to ensure wide visibility, and that those who participated in the previous debate both before and after the arbitrary deadline be given the chance to have their arguments properly considered. — Haeleth Talk 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this. This intenese J-K bickering is beginning to wear on my nerves. I find the whole discussion to be more POV-slinging mudfest than a civilised debate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There are several quite provocative guys in the discussion page who make the page look like mudslinging, but I don't think the whole discussion can be dumped down that way. Ginnre 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Liancourt Rocks is not mutually acceptable, as can be seen in the discussion page of the article(opening paragraph section). The name was once an official name for the island before 'Takeshima' in Japan and have much stronger tie to Japan. And the US adopted that name when Korea was under Japanese occupation. Ginnre 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


  • redirect, and strongly oppose another poll on this hot potato. there was a proper poll, properly noticed, and with participation from many neutrals from rfc. after full discussion about commonness and "english"-ness of various names, consistency with articles like Senkaku Islands (which is not titled "Pinnacle Islands"), etc. the result of the rational, impartial poll was 14-0 in favor of the move here. only when some japanese chat site got a whiff of the news did the page get bombarded by countless new japanese accounts, including proven sockpuppets 1 2 3, etc. the move to dokdo was properly done, capitulating to the immature attacks would set a bad precedent, and another poll will surely be plagued by the same, if not more, problems. we should be focusing on fixing embarrassments like Rusk documents and Norimitsu Onishi, resulting from the same group of new accounts. Appleby 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect, and oppose a new poll per Appleby Ginnre 05:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dokdo, which is currently where the article is located. Rōnin 07:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, I support re-opening the poll in the future, though good luck filtering out the sock-puppet accounts. Rōnin 07:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect the POV fork, there are better ways to solve the problem. Seems that it does need a wider discussion though. - Wickning1 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.