Jump to content

Talk:Kuril Islands dispute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article title

  • It should be called a dispute instead of a conflict, since conflict sounds like a war or a battle and is more ambiguous. E.g. Vietnam conflict. Japan seeks a peaceful resolution only, while Russia's position seems to be to ignore it. --69.212.98.139 18:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Kuril Islands. Four islands, so plural, not singular. --69.212.98.139 18:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article content

  • This article and the main Kuril islands article are short enough that there shouldn't be any problems merging this article into the main Kuril islands article. In either case, it seems like the topic of dispute already exists (and rightly so) in the main Kuril islands article. I don't see that changing, or why any mention of the dispute should be moved from the main article to this one. --69.212.98.139 18:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The map could be colored to indicate the four islands in dispute. It's a pretty small area compared to all of the Kurile islands.--69.212.98.139 02:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Done - Nik42 06:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Northern Territories is a collective term for the name of the sub-region of the Kuril Islands that is in dispute. Naming the article after the location appears to be how every other disputed territory is handled (e.g. Kashmir, not Kashmir dispute; Gaza Strip, not Gaza Strip dispute; Liancourt Islands...). Furthermore, neither the articles Northern Areas nor Northern Territory found the necessity for a disambiguation page or a link to a disambiguation page, which seems to indicate the unimportance of keeping Northern Territories the location for a disambiguation on all three articles. — Tokek 23:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

*****VOTING SECTION*****

Addendum Please Read: Your votes are supposed to be cast above the discussion section. However, votes cast in the Discussion section will still be honored and tallied in the end. If you have been reading the discussion (please do, it is important), you will notice that there are now three proposed changes, which means you have four voting options. —Tokek 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

STRONGLY oppose this effort to recast an already existing discussion, which is a consensus against Northern territories. It would be preferable to acknowledge that consensus and close that discussion before opening a new one; and attempting to retroactively impose a format is doubly undesirable. Septentrionalis 19:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose reformatting, particularly in regards to "Southern Kuril Islands/South Kuril District", supporting the descriptive Southern Kuril Islands is not identical to supporting Russian administrative term South Kuril District Nik42
Added According to Apoivre's comment below, South Kuril District is not identical to the disputed islands (Iturup/Etorofu is outside it), in which case, South Kuril District would be incorrect Nik42 11:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Update: More than five days have passed since the beginning of voting. The decision was keep - no change by majority concensus after more than five days of voting. —Tokek 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Oppose - while I sympathize with the Japanese view, the term Northern Territories is only used by Japan, not by Russia, who simply calls it the Southern Kuril Islands. Using Northern Territories would, therefore, be POV. Furthermore, in the examples given, Gaza Strip and Kashmir are used by both parties in the dispute, while Liancourt Rocks is a neutral name not used by either party (Dokdo in the case of Korea, Takeshima in the case of Japan). Nik42 02:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit: Support merger with Kuril Islands and disambiguating link from Northern Territories, Weak support for Southern Kurils (I don't think there's any need for a separate article, at least not at present), Oppose Northern Territories Nik42 04:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I was unaware that the term Southern Kurile Islands was a commonly used term in Russia to refer to the disputed territories. If this is the case, we should mention this fact in the article. Also, it makes the current title all the more bad. Either Southern Kuril Islands or Northern Territories would be an improvement. When I was browsing List of islands#List of islands of Asia, I noticed that every article (except this one, which adds "dispute" at the end of the title) in the disputed islands section used the name of the location as the article title. In fact, this practice seemed to be common for disputed non-island territories as well. I didn't mean to suggest biasing the article title. I don't even know if a neutral title exists, or even if this article's current title is perfectly neutral, or if this topic is politicized enough that there are actually people who would be offended if we used one country's term for it over another's, or how adding "dispute" at the end makes the title somehow more neutral than without. What I meant to suggest was that simply using the name of the location would be a less awkward and more common naming method.—Tokek 05:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it is considered separately from the rest of the Kurils. If you know Russian, can you tell me what the difference between "Kurilsky", "Severo-Kurilsky", and "Yuzhno-Kurilsky" is? The page on Sakhalin Oblast lists those as three of the districts of that oblast.
        • Just checked via Altavista Babelfish. Severo-Kurilsky = North Kuril, Yuzhno-Kurilsky = South Kuril. I'm fairly sure that Yuzhno-Kurilsky corresponds to the "Northern Territories". For example, On February 1946, Sakhalin and the Kuriles became Russian territory. Until this time the Japanese have not recognized the lawfulness of the agreement governing the ownership of the southern Kuriles. [1] Nik42 07:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • At any rate, I think it is an accurate name. Even the Japanese refer to it sometimes as "Southern Chishima", Chishima simply being the Japanese name for the entire chain. As the dispute rests on the status of a subset of the Kuril Islands, I think the current name is good. Nik42 07:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Southern Chishima is not an option for a good title because usage of that term to refer to the disputed territories is rare to never. I refrained from bringing it up earlier to keep my comment shorter. —Tokek 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, this page isn't so much about the islands themselves, as about the dispute around the islands. If the page on, say, Gaza Strip was primarily about the controversy surrounding it, rather than about the region itself, with the controversy merely being one section, then it would make sense to call it also Gaza Strip Dispute or something similar.
      • I suppose Southern Kuril Islands could work, as it's a NPOV name, as noted above Nik42 07:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • You say that since there exist the term "Southern Chishima Islands", "Southern Kuril Islands" is NPOV. I don't follow this logic.—Tokek 20:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
          • What I mean is, the island chain is called the Kurils in English and Russia, and Chishima in Japanese. Since the islands concerned are the southernmost islands of the chain, if a page separate from Kuril Islands is to be made, then "Southern Kurils" would be the least POV title. The bit about "Southern Chishima" was merely in reference to that being the Japanese equivalent of "Southern Kuril Islands", since Chishima=Kuril Islands Nik42 04:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Northern Territories but support move instead to Southern Kuril Islands, or merge with Kuril Islands article. ObsidianOrder 09:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Merger with Kuril Islands is probably best Nik42 13:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I support the merge option as well. Merger can reduce bloat by duplication of information and effort between here and there, however if in the future the Kuril Islands article gets too long and we end up splitting, then the merge effort would have been in vain. —Tokek 21:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither page has grown much in the past year or so. If this should change, then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it Nik42 04:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Septentrionalis 23:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, it's a Japanese-centric use of an ambiguous term. Several places in various countries are referred to as northern territories, hell Australia even has a Northern Territory, Australia. 132.205.3.20 14:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read what I've written above, the articles Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D). From WP:D: "Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that might reside under the same title. Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." You said: "Several places in various countries are referred to as northern territories" however there is only one such location listed in the Northern Territories diambiguation page, so if you know more, please feel free to add it. Note: please *DON'T* add titles that have the term Northeast in them. The "Northwest" article titles that you added have since been moved to Northwest. We can move the diambig page (if we want to keep that) to something like Northern Territory (disambiguation), or we can have a two-way link between the Australian territory. Being for a disambiguation page/link doesn't necessarily mean you have to be against moving to Northern Territories. —Tokek 22:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose ambiguous name. Gene Nygaard 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE both the moves and the merger. Kuril Islands is a geo page while the dispute page is - you guessed it - about the dispute. If Japan happens to have territorial claims to all of its neighbours that's no reason to merge all the location pages on the disputed areas with pages about the respective disputes. "Northern Territories" would be Japan-centric, "Southern Kurils" would be inaccurate: geographically, Southern Kurils are all the islands south of the Boussole Strait, from Chirpoy to Kunashir, not the 3 islands and one group of rocks Japan claims - these, technically, fall into the Lesser Kuril Ridge. --apoivre 11:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't find info on the exact boundaries of South Kuril district (appparently, it includes the Habomai, Shikotan and Kunashir, but I'm not sure), but at least one island Japan keeps claiming, Iturup, lies in Kuril District (the district seat, Kurilsk, is on Iturup). --apoivre 11:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please consider checking out the voting section located above the discussion section. The format of this talk page was based off of a recommended template from the Wikipedia:Requested_moves page.—Tokek 20:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuril_Islands_dispute/Archive_1&oldid=721282847"