Talk:Port Hamilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (SK Geography), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Why port hamilton?

It's not disputed island and Korean name for the island is Komundo. There is no reason for Hamilton to be used. In english speaking world, Komundo is used. I don't see any wide spread or established use of Hamilton [1]. It's just nonsense to use Hamilton. Bring me more convincing evidences why ths island should be called Hamilton. Ginnre 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

korea "port hamilton" -wikipedia on google English pages have 135, korea "Komundo" has 64. What's more, the komundo pages are generally less official; see [[2]] where they use "Port Hamilton" as the main title--even on The Korean Times. In any case, this is not an uncontroversial move. If you want to move it, therefore, please follow the appropriate procedure (outlined here).
What's more, this area shows up in history quite often--it's importance is chiefly historical. That name appears so frequently in comparison with your proposed one that it should be left there. Komdori 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the article page according to Wikiepdia naming convention (Korean): Islands - Read about it here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean). Deiaemeth 07:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ALso, there seems to be multiple British places named Port Hamilton, and the name Port Hamilton does not apply to Komundo in modern times.. [3] [4] [5] Deiaemeth 07:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about this area, but why not follow your own advice in the edit log and propose a move? You may request a move. I have heard of Port Hamilton in many history books of the area; if it's used more in English, it should be here per the Wikipedia general naming convention. —LactoseTIT 11:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Geomundo: 10,200 results http://www.google.com/search?q=Geomundo+Korea+-Wikipedia

Port Hamilton: 924 results http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Port+Hamilton%22+Korea+-Wikipedia

Try going to the last pages--when you try, you realize it is only 152 (not 10,200) vs 366 (not 924). What's more, these include many Korean pages. Search for English only pages, and you get 74 vs. 131. As I mentioned, looking at the authoritative sources, even the Korean ones, rather than informal blogs, etc. show a much higher use of Port Hamilton. Komdori 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Like what the others said, theres no need to use "Port Hamilton" when it has a Korean name and is a Korean island. Korea is not in a "territorial dispute" with the UK or the US either. Also, it says in the article that it has been turned over to South Korea. I agree that this article should be moved to Komundo. Good friend100 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is true that Port Hamilton is the most common name in English, it would seem best to use that name here. See Wikipedia:Use common names, which generally takes precedence over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Islands... and the latter has a specific exception for cases such as this (strange that Deaiemeth didn't notice that). That said, I haven't evaluated the arguments pro and con here; for the present, I have no opinion of my own.  :-) The potential ambiguity of "Port Hamilton" does seem like a powerful argument in favor of the Korean name (which should be romanized as "Geomundo" per the Korean naming conventions, since the islands are in South Korea). Cheers, -- Visviva 11:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As for the ambiguity--is there more than one Port Hamilton in Korea? It seems even less issues of ambiguity would arise than the state of Washington vs. Washington, D.C.. If there are several Port Hamilton's in Korea, the situation might be different. —LactoseTIT 17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What if we apply WP:IAR? Then we could move this article to the Korean name. The island is under control of South Korea and edit counts on google does not apply here (and google is way too inaccurate with "number of hits", something that people like to make a big deal about).

The article should definitely moved to port hamilton regardless of edit counts on google because South Korea controls this island. Good friend100 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter who controls it. That's not how the naming system functions. That's why Germany is at Germany instead of Federal Republic of Germany or Deutschland. —LactoseTIT 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean the number hits on google is how places are named (yes Wikipedia says the most common usage, but how do we know using google?) Good friend100 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Without a doubt, these islands are chiefly notable because of the British base there in the late 19th century. There is much written about them from that perspective, which means that the majority of history books, etc. in the English speaking world refer to them as Port Hamilton. Ultimately, it's not that important of a place (presumably why it has taken so long to fill in the history here, and it's remained a stub for so long). I happened to have a few good sources which talk about Port Hamilton with me, which is one reason I'm filling in some of the details to make this page more interesting.
Incidentally, the "Ignore all rules" rule is to be applied if a rule is impairing the improvement of Wikipedia. It's not to be used as, "I personally don't like some rules around here so I would like to ignore it and push my own ideas."
The name "Port Hamilton" appears almost universally when discussion of these islands come up, possibly because no one really talks about them unless they are talking about the British base. —LactoseTIT 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Port Hamilton is the former name. Try Googling "Port Hamilton".

"Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." Wikipedia:Naming conflict WikiWitchWest 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about naming of an island or an island group, inanimate entity, so that paragraph does not apply. This is similar to naming of Mount Everest than naming of Myanmar. --Kusunose 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/search?query=%22Port+Hamilton%22&ct=&searchSubmit.x=0&searchSubmit.y=0 "Port Hamilton" no longer usually refers to Geomun-do. WikiWitchWest 04:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because this island group is not notable at all in the encyclopedia. Is it under the encyclopedia under any name? —LactoseTIT 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See also the USBGN Geo Name Server, the Korean name is the official standard English name. Port Hamilton is one of many variants, but the self-identifying name is the U.S. standard name for this place. http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/Gazetteer/Search/Results.jsp?Feature__Unique_Feature_ID=-709744&Diacritics=Yes&reload=1 WikiWitchWest 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everything is on the Internet--and this is a rather unnotable island that is notable for having the British base--therefore, most print sources (like history books, where most English speakers would ever encounter this) talk about it with the name Port Hamilton. It doesn't matter whose territory it is. The British embassy in Seoul refers to it as "Port Hamilton" even today [6],

as do many Korean sources when they are writing in English.

—LactoseTIT 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course they would write it in english so that English users know what island they are talking about. They would add "Port Hamilton" to prevent confusion since most english speakers would have a hard time figuring out "Geumun-do" (unless they have learned Korean). Just because Korean sources use port hamilton when writing in english doesn't mean that South Korea thinks that port hamilton is the best name.
Check articles on Dokdo. They usually add either "Liancourt Rocks" or "Takeshima" to show the other names. Does that mean Koreans think "Takeshima" is the right name? They just add several names to stop confusion or show the different names of the island. Good friend100 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, we are supposed to use the English names here. Komdori 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo? Dokdo isn't an English word and yet it is the current name of the article.

Also, Port Hamilton should not be used for consistency reasons. Some could claim that "Liancourt Rocks" is more commonly used than "Dokdo" but Dokdo is used. Jeju-do, Ulleung-do and all the other hundreds of islands in Korea are named in Korean. Good friend100 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps unwittingly, you are actually arguing that those other names are bad. Please don't do this, it hurts the case for the Korean names in other articles. It's important to maintain that where an English name is more commonly used, we use that name. In the end, it's the global policy at Wikipedia. Komdori 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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.


Port Hamilton → Geomun-do — This is a procedural discussion, and I do not have an opinion on the matter. It has been suggested that "Geomun-do" is more commonly used in English than "Port Hamilton" to refer to this island. Please offer your opinion below and any supporting evidence in support of your stance. Please try to be concise in order to keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand. Any off-topic comments may be removed. This article has been protected from being moved so that consensus may be reached before any move is made. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
  • Support See my arguments and supporting links above. The modern English name reflects the native name, which is spelled "Komundo" by the U.S. government, and "Geomun-do" by South Korea. "Port Hamilton" is a WW2-era name for Geomun-do, like "Quelpart Island" used to be for Jeju-do (note the South Korean spelling, not the U.S. government spelling Cheju Island--it's a matter of different romanization styles. "Geomun-do" is consistent with other Korean romanizations in Wikipedia. Also note how the former name is treated in the Jeju-do article). Google and other sources show that "Port Hamilton" now should be about a Canadian port. WikiWitchWest 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This group of three islands is basically only notable due to the British base in the 19th century. History books (where most English speakers would encounter this name) and reference books printed in English almost universally use the English name, Port Hamilton. The argument against it seems to be that it now has a local name, but that doesn't change all the references that have been printed to it. Cheju is different because that's actually a name that has taken over--Cheju isn't just important for historical reasons--it's a popular tourist spot, and so the name has actually changed in common English usage. I don't believe there are more English language references to this place using the Korean name--whenever this name appears, it's almost certain to be accompanied by the more common English usage (Port Hamilton). If there are really ambiguity concerns, I suppose we could try something like Port Hamilton (Korea), as there is only one there, and it's unambiguous in that context--if someone could even make a convincing ambiguity concern. The main argument for this move seems to be that the controlling government has assigned a local name, but the fact remains that this name is relatively unused in the English world.

Even the pictures in the article itself which are for the most part written in Korean indicate the name in English is Port Hamilton, relegating the Korean name to a parenthetical remark. —LactoseTIT 06:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See the part when an "article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." I doubt we'll come up with much discussion of the place in modern days, and I've got a stack of resources discussing it historically (I just started adding a few yesterday, in fact). —LactoseTIT 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I withdraw my support. Oppose as per LactoseTI's reasoning with regard to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Kusunose 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming to Geomun-do, per LactoseTI and Kusunose. There is no reason to use an uncommonly used local name when all the books use a commonly used English name, Port Hamilton. Saying we should employ WP:IAR just because ignoring rules would let us "move this article to the Korean name" is ludicrous. Komdori 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support renaming. The "Port Hamilton" on the map does not make the Korean name "lesser" its simply written as another name for the island, note the Hanja used. That cannot be used as an argument. Really, the US probably doesn't care what language the name the island is in. "Port Hamilton" is probably used because its easier to use when describing (even though the island is not a popular subject).

The island is a South Korean territory. There are no naming disputes on the island so there is no reason to keep a 19th century name on it. Good friend100 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the naming policy? It doesn't matter at all whose territory it is, I don't know why you keep mentioning it. The French Republic is under France because it is the commonly used name in English. Bill Clinton is not under William Jefferson Clinton. It doesn't matter what the "official" name is, or the fact that no one disputes it. Komdori 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Make sure to use the English only search, and keep in mind that Geomundo has a lot of results from Central America that have nothing to do with this island (there is a magazine Geomundo, like National Geographic, for example). Komdori 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, would Port Hamilton (Korea) be ambiguous in the least? Komdori 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is similar to the Japanese Bonin Islands, which are called "Ogasawara" in Japanese. The islands are so obscure, and its Korean name (Komundo) is so obscure, that the old English name remains more prominent.--Endroit 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Endroit. Just because a geographical body is owned by a country doesn't mean the name used by that country must be used. If the islands were more notable in the English-speaking world like Dokdo or the Senkakus, I might support a move. But they're not, so I don't. John Smith's 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

In response to LactoseTI, another example is Ulleungdo, formerly known as "Dagelet Island", and hardly an international tourist hotspot. Korea's local islands are today referred to by the local names internationally, even by the U.S. government. Geomun-do is pretty obscure, but that's no reason to keep calling it by the 19th century name. And the maps in the article were made very recently, obviously by someone just working from the article title. Those are circular arguments. And as for ambiguity of "Port Hamilton", please just try Googling that name.

Finally, I don't really care if it's Komundo or Geomun-do, those are just different romanization systems. I thought Geomun-do was the Wikipedia-style romanization (following Ulleung and Jeju), but either is acceptable. WikiWitchWest 07:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See the section on Ulleungdo for tourism information. That island (Ulleung-do) is also important as a national park in Korea and has some part in the Takeshima discussion, so it is discussed from time to time today. The same is not true, afaik, for Port Hamilton. The maps were made months ago by an editor who hasn't even made edits here that I saw, and clearly isn't "pushing" for a name.
Are you honestly suggesting there are multiple Port Hamilton's in Korea? In Asia?
It doesn't really matter to me a terrible lot where it ends up, but the fact remains that nearly all the references (both old and new) will be calling it Port Hamilton, and no one will have ever heard of it by the local (Korean) name. While I you may wish it was notable otherwise, it just isn't so.
Lastly, it really doesn't matter what the US government officially does due to political pressures, etc. I doubt you'll find any references where they don't mention the name Port Hamilton as well, to let the reader know what they are talking about. —LactoseTIT 11:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The path through which most people will read about this island would be travel agencies [7], tourism board sites[8], and asia portals[9] [10] which use "Geomundo", especially due to the upcoming Expo 2012 [11] [12]

Do you have any evidence that the Library of Congress [13] and NOAA [14] are bowing to "political pressure", as opposed to accurately describing the modern English name?

Who suggested there are multiple Port Hamiltons in Korea or Asia? I suggested you Google "Port Hamilton" to see what that name most often refers to. It's not this island. WikiWitchWest 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is there is only one in Korea, only one in Asia, so there is no ambiguity. I think the idea is that if you think there may (sometime, down the road, perhaps) be some ambiguity, we could name it Port Hamilton (Korea). This island group may be rarely discussed in the world, but when it is, it always has the English name used (Port Hamilton). Komdori 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is people looking for "Port Hamilton" are not looking for this Korean island. It's already ambiguous. The unambigous English name used by Korea and the U.S. is Geomundo.

Also, Komdori, I see that after Lactose recruited you to support him here, you've been selectively contacting a lot of other editors you think can be on your side. Is this acceptable behavior? Should I contact everyone who I think might be on "my side"? Are we being tested on spamming skills?

The consensus opinion is already clear, especially if you add Ginnre and Deiameth from the earlier discussion above. Only Lactose and his friend (and maybe that friend's friends) are opposed. WikiWitchWest 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"marshal support" as Visviva once put it. I personally think its dirty going to places where you can get support and blaring out that thers this problem. =) Good friend100 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Geomundo, that's ambiguous as well. Someone looking for that is much more likely looking for the Mexican magazine than this island. If someone is looking for this island, they will most likely search for Port Hamilton, as virtually all sources of actual information (accounts, history papers, etc.) will cite it as such.
Speaking of dirty, using old edits (and intentionally/conveniently leaving out Visviva btw) in the poll data is just stupid. There are no uninvolved editors (besides Kusunose, who didn't even support your position) who are commenting on this article yet, so there is no consensus. As it is, until some outsiders make their opinions known there really is no decision.
I did go to some editors that I've seen that are fairly neutral. I intentionally avoided editors I knew were hard core for one side or the other. Anyone who isn't hardcore KPOV will probably side on not moving it, as the main argument is that since it's Korean territory it should have a Korean name, which is just silly. Komdori 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read Visva's comments? What exactly is "stupid" about accurately noting that only you and your friend are opposed? Geomun-do is not ambiguous. This article should not be renamed "Geomundo" because that is ambiguous, but "Geomun-do" (or the alternative spelling "Komundo") are not ambiguous.

And how did you determine the "neutral" editors to solicit? We will see if any of them comment here how predictable they are. WikiWitchWest 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are three editors opposed, and three in favor. Considering that 5/6 had contributed to this argument before the RFM, and the one outside editor came down as opposed, that doesn't really indicate much of a consensus for your idea. Komdori 22:57, 16 April 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.

Policy is pretty clear here. 1. Is there a standard modern English name? Not really. 2. Is there a standard historical English name? Yes. We don't get as far as question three, which is where the native names come in. Until the islands become significant in a modern setting (which would presumably be reflected in the article), the historical name will be used. The article currently states the islands' position, and then discusses the 19th-century military base, with no further discussion of their status in the 21st-century. The arguments about disambiguation are ill-founded. There are no other articles about a "Port Hamilton" in Wikipedia, and even the dablinks on this article don't point to any confusible articles. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Vice-Admiral E. Putiatin

The article mentions Russian Vice-Admiral E. Putiatin. Is he and Yevfimy Putyatin the same person? Although his first name does not start with E, Cyrillic Ye does look Latin letter E so there might be some confusion. --Kusunose 09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same person; I'll link it. —LactoseTIT 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)