Talk:Heaven Lake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heaven Lake article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. -- Andrew c [talk] 15:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Should stay consistent with the mountain it is on. Baekdu Mountain doesn't have the english name. Good friend100 02:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as I did in the previous RM, North Korea owns 60% of the lake.[1] (Wikimachine 02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose. Nothing substantial has changed since last time, when the problems with the proposed title were explained in detail (although there has been a bit more of a trend to use the English title in naming disputes). Dekimasuよ! 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What trend? Show me some media that uses "heaven lake". As I said, the CPOV editors simply used WP:NPOV to lean this article more towards the Chinese side. If, by their definition of neutrality, then Baekdu Mountain should also been have moved as well. Good friend100 14:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I found an article in Science last time. The proposed title conflicts with the names of other lakes, as you know, so some sort of parenthetical would be necessary, but you haven't proposed one. As for your rationale, the Eiffel Tower is in Paris; the Berlin Wall was in Berlin; the Great Wall of China is in China. We don't challenge the consistency of those titles. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't use NPOV to justify everything. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. You can't try to represent a less accepted view on equal level as the dominant view on a subject. (Wikimachine 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
I agree that Wikipedia should describe and not prescribe. I'm not trying to "invoke" NPOV in a philosophical sense; this title was chosen for pragmatic reasons. The cost of fighting over this outweighs any advantage. If lack of will to argue is too little reason to oppose, I'll strike my oppose tag. I just don't see any good coming of this request. You may recall that I recorded a similar opinion in the past, when the Dokdo move was proposed under the rationale that we just hadn't had such a request in a while. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose — per discussion & decision under the 2nd "Requested move" section at Talk:Heaven Lake/Archive01. That's where Stemonitis said "any future moves must be preceded by a clear demonstration of consensus, ideally assessed by an impartial outsider". I believe that has yet to happen. --Endroit 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't know much about this naming dispute, but having looked over the previous discussion it's clear that there are some strongly held views on either side of the debate. Unless there's something new to add, I don't see what good will come out of reopening what looks like a giant can of worms. PC78 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Endroit, Dekimasu; no discussion since previous name discussion. --Cheers, Komdori 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.