Talk:Sakhalin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capital name

"The Soviets completed the conquest of Sakhalin on August 25, 1945 by occupying the capital of Sakhalin, 大泊(Yuzhno Sakhalinsk)."

The capital of Karafuto Prefecture is called Toyohara (豊原) in Japanese and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (Ю́жно-Сахали́нск) in Russian. There is a railway station called Ōdomori (大泊) in Mie prefecture, though (which is very far from Karafuto), see [1] or [2]. Do the 大泊 characters refer to another Ōdomori location in Karafuto Prefecture, and if so, which place is intended, Ōdomori or Toyohara?

User:212.247.11.153 19:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The text above, that you copied, says:

• "Ōdomori (大泊) in Mie prefecture"

That makes me think that the location in NOT in Karafuto, but Mie.

PS Plese sign your talk page entires with four tildes:> ~~~~

WikiDon 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ainu Population

I have changed the current Ainu population to zero as per information presented in "The Shamans Coat: a Native History of Siberia" by Anna Reid.(2002)DHBoggs 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

"Sahalin" could be a redirect page for this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.249.138 (talk • contribs) .

Done.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Geography, Economy, and Demographics

I have added to and edited these sections. --Sir Edgar 07:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The indigenous people of Sakhalin are the Xianbei and Xiazhe tribes, who had a way of life based on fishing. The Chinese in the Ming dynasty knew the island as Kuyi (Chinese: 苦夷; pinyin: Kǔyí), and later as Kuye (Chinese: 庫頁; pinyin: Kùyè). According to the Book of Shengmu (Chinese: 聖武記; pinyin: Shèngwǔjì), the Ming sent 400 troops to Sakhalin in 1616, but later withdrew as it was considered there was no threat to Chinese control of the island. A Ming boundary stone still exists on the island.

Look at the passage above.It indicated that the "Ming" sent 400 troops to Sakhalin in 1616 according to the Book of Shengmu.But I think the dynasty which sent troops in 1616 is Qing not Ming. "1616年：根据《圣武记》，清朝就曾派兵四百到岛上巡边，因无外力威胁而撤回。" http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BA%93%E9%A1%B5%E5%B2%9B

I have added to the Economy section, in order to provide some perspective on possible Russian reasons (referenced) for its recent actions regarding the Sakhalin II project. Saraalan 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

There is a lot of redundancy between Sakhalin and Karafuto Prefecture. It seems like the latter should be merger with the former.

I wouldn't go as far as to merge them completely (if only for categorization and linking purposes), but the latter should definitely be cleaned up.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With the number of articles that link to Karafuto Prefecture, it would be nice to keep an article there. But it needs to focus principally (if not entirely) on the Japanese occupation and administration of Sakhalin and not focus so much on the history and geography of the island as a whole. I'm not an expert on Karafuto but in the near future I'll try to translate and incorporate some information from the Japanese page and see if I can't get rid of a little bit of the redundancy. CES 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Karafuto myself, but if you happen to have any questions about Russia/Soviet Union when you work on this article, feel free to ask me for help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

�"路

According to the article this is how Tōrō is spelled in Japanese. There just might be something wrong with it - considering it consists of �, ", and an actual kanji. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found it in the Karafuto Prefecture article, it's 塔路. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Indigenous Peoples" of Sakhalin

Am I the only one who thinks it is very odd to have Russians, Koreans, and Yakuts listed as "indigenous peoples" of Sakhalin? Shouldn't the "indigenous peoples" of Sakhalin be the Nivkhi and the Ainu, and at most perhaps also some Tungusic peoples (e.g. Oroks or Evens)? Ebizur (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

please verify

We should verify disputed content regarding Japan's current position on the status of Sakhalin. The Japanese government has formally established a Consulate-General in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk ( ja:ユジノサハリンスク#在外公館 ), it can be regarded as an official recognition of Russian sovereignty. - 219.79.122.73 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The statement in the article Today, the island is claimed by both Russia and Japan . . . is wrong, so I will edit it to make it clear that the dispute is in the past. --Kleinzach 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just learned that Japanese maps regard this island as a no-mans-land.(82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

They color it white, I am near one right now and can provide a cellphone picture if you'd like. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Railways - removal

"All mainland rolling stock is replaced by Japanese Shinkansen rolling stock (except series 400, E3 and E5 "mini") which is regauged (from 1435 to 1520) at Kholmsk and in Japan since 1999, and new rolling stocks. "

Ok, I'm not sure, but I really don't believe this.. Is it true, seems unlikely? If it is true then please prove it with a reference. It really doesn't seem likely to be true at all? Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

about sakhalin island.

before Japan and Russia share the island of Sakhalin, the entire island was under Japanese control. right ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.28.96.223 (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The island never really had a clear owner until 1875 when it was given to Russia. Before that the Chinese Japanese and Russians had all laid claims, and the Russians and Japanese had settlements on it. In 1875 it became Russia, before being divided by the Russo-Japanese war. It went back to Russia after WWII. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

'nationwide'? which nation?

As part of a nationwide Sino-French cartographic program- of where, China? It needs clarification.Costesseyboy (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP: Japan Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed C-class for lack of sufficient in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sakhalin province vs. Sakhalin island

This edit caught my eye recently. At a quick look, the article seems unclear about whether its topic is the island or the province -- especially with the image File:Sakhalin in Russia (claimed).svg and the link to Oblasts of Russia in the infobox. I see that there is a separate article for Sakhalin Oblast. That edit which caught my eye mentions Moneron Island and Ush Island; it seems as if there are standalone articles for those islands, there should be one for Sakhalin island as well; perhaps this article ought to be renamed Sakhalin island (which currently redirects here). Also, this article says, "Sakhalin has one smaller island associated with it, Moneron Island." Ush island might deserve a mention there as well. I'm not planning to do any editing in regard to this, but thought it needed a talk page mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Would there be a significant difference between the content of the two articles? If not, it's appropriate to discuss both topics on the same page, otherwise there'd just be a large amount of duplication. CMD (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The oblast also includes the Kuril Islands. There will still, of course, be some duplication between the articles on the island and the oblast, but they should have a completely different focus (the oblast's article should cover the political aspect in great detail and physical geography as a brief overview, while in the island's article the approach is the opposite).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2013; 13:21 (UTC)

I disagree. In the same way that country articles include a significant section on geography, I'd expect the oblast article to have such a section as well. As for an article focused on the physical geography, that is what would be covered by a Geography of Sakhalin article. CMD (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily so. There are many articles that separate geography versus administration, and without the Geography of~ format. See for example Okinawa Island, Okinawa Islands, Okinawa prefecture, and Okinawa, Okinawa; also see Hawaii, Hawaiian Islands, and Hawaii (island). It's a matter of an article about the landmass versus an article about the political entity that occupies the landmass. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One of your Okinawa pages is a single island not particularly larger than the others in its island group, one is the island group, one is a prefecture containing more island groups, and one is a city. The geography article for the prefecture appears to be Ryukyu Islands. Hawaii vs Hawaiin islands is a better example, but in this case it remains that Hawaiian Islands is a subarticle of Hawaii. I have no preference for what any article on the physical geography of Sakhalin is called, but I expect it would work as a subarticle of this one, rather than as a parallell article, especially as unlike both those examples a single island absolutely dominates the Sakhalin oblast. This is similar to say Cuba or Iceland, where a single island makes up the vast majority of a political entity of the same name. The current Sakhalin Oblast article covers much of the same information as this article. Merging them would create a single much stronger article. CMD (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging them would create unneeded confusion between a political entity (the bulk of information about which should be post-1945, with most other aspects merely a summary) and a geographic entity (the article on which should include information oblast-specific information only as a summary and go into greater details regarding everything else). The Hawaii example is actually a very good analogy—merging the article about the US state with the article about the islands would be a disaster. Treat the island article as a "subarticle" of the oblast article if it helps (and rename it if necessary), but I'd be strongly opposed to treating them as one and the same. What these two articles need is a good makeover and cleanup, not a merger.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2013; 17:12 (UTC)

There isn't any information that applies to the oblast but not the land it's on. You're right about the Hawaii article being a good analogy in the article design aspect, but wrong about where that analogy leads. The Hawaii article, about the US state, includes a geography section (a large one), and a long history section that greatly pre-dates statehood. This article, Sakhalin, looks like that Hawaii article, and a cleanup of the Sakhalin Oblast article would turn it into what is currently on this article. I'm all for creating a page that looks like Hawaiian Islands, but this page isn't it, and Sakhalin Oblast is just a less comprehensive version of this page. CMD (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's my point too, more or less (although you are wrong when you say that there is no information about the oblast but not the land it's on—you are forgetting the Kuril Islands, which account for almost 18% of the oblast's total territory; hardly chump change!). Neither article is well-written or has its priorities straight. In my book it means that both articles should be reviewed and cleaned up, perhaps with some parts swapped. Merging everything into the Sakhalin Oblast article would not be a good long-term solution but merely a sloppy short-term fix, that's all I'm trying to say. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2013; 19:22 (UTC)

Ah, I was referring to topics rather than extent, apologies (but even then, isn't the land in the Kuril's land the oblast is on?). As both articles seem lost, merging them seems to be a good solution to this issue to me, as it would make it much easier to assess which information can be split off or otherwise shifted. It's a firm starting point. Also, if there was a merge, it should probably be to this article, as it's slightly older. CMD (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about firm standing ground, but to me this approach seems more like shooting a sick horse instead of giving it medicine. We already have two separate articles, which were separate for years with no one complaining (I doubt Cuba or Iceland had ever been in this position), and dumping everything together only to split them again later is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion (if only for reasons of tracking attribution!). What's more, while I agree that both articles are in a sorry state, I disagree that there is no other way to fix them other than starting from a clean slate. On top of that, there is a rather strong consensus that political entities (especially high-level entities such as Sakhalin Oblast... or the State of Hawaii) deserve stand-alone articles, and suggesting that the oblast article should be merged into one that's supposed to be primarily about a geographical entity just doesn't sit well. Why should the article about the Sakhalin Island include information about the economy of the Kurils, for example? An article about the oblast is the ideal place to cover the aspects common to both the Sakhalin Island and the Kurils (such as economy and demographics), without having readers jump from one article to another in order to combine these data. Even Britannica knows better than to combine these two topics in one place! :)

I don't know if you find anything of what I'm saying convincing, but I guess one way to gauge the worthiness of this proposal is by filing a merge request and taking it from there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2013; 20:18 (UTC)

Climate section neutrality

"Unpleasantly foggy", "only a few degrees warmer", "persistently wet conditions are ideal for mosquitoes". Unpleasant for who? Only a few - how many? Statements about mosquitoes and snowpacks have no citations. I think the section is written like a personal experience blog. Does anyone disagree this should be corrected? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Total Islands

According to the {{Infobox islands}}, the "total islands" field is only supposed to be used for archipelagos. As Sakhalin is an island and not an island group, I've removed that field from the infobox to avoid confusion. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Did Khitan empire rule Sakhalin?

Did Khitan empire rule Sakhalin? Kruele (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Sakhalin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317085144/http://museum.sakh.com:80/eng/10.shtml to http://museum.sakh.com/eng/10.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716191818/http://www.eng.rzd.ru/isvp/public/rzdeng?STRUCTURE_ID=193 to http://www.eng.rzd.ru/isvp/public/rzdeng?STRUCTURE_ID=193
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140715020713/http://infojd.ru/19/ohanog_2006.html to http://infojd.ru/19/ohanog_2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071101062629/http://www.sakhalinenergy.com:80/en/default.asp?p=channel&c=1&n=130 to http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/en/default.asp?p=channel&c=1&n=130

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

To call Sakhalin a "large Russian island" ignores the valid Japanese claim to half the island, and is not neutral.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sakhalin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://niehorster.org/012_ussr/45-08-08/army_16.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120909005413/http://www.rzd-partner.com/press/2008/07/07/327041.html to http://www.rzd-partner.com/press/2008/07/07/327041.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214120631/http://www.sakhalin-2.ru/en/media.asp?p=media_page&itmID=185 to http://www.sakhalin-2.ru/en/media.asp?p=media_page&itmID=185
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715225759/http://qa.sakhalin-2.com/en/media.asp?p=home&yr=2006 to http://qa.sakhalin-2.com/en/media.asp?p=home&yr=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sakhalyn

There are foreign moviement here, correct? The mare is back. Do you wurite in the Castellian idiom? La Geno (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?

Why is there a POV warning? There's no comments here, and I can't find who added it in the log. (comments, people, comments) Is it okay to remove? I don't see much POV in the article, but I haven't done a deep reading. --Golbez 22:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's OK as far as I can see. It does presents the area as a place of constant Russian expansion (which it was, of course), while the power struggle and the contesting interests of Chinese, Japanese and Russian rulers and colonists are at different levels responsible for the transformation of the Island and the negative effects on the native population. The only thing I would doubt is the statement that the Japanese returned the 'proper' name to Sakhalin by calling it by a japanized Ainu name. Historical names change according to historical processes and in their respective contexts are all equally valid. To avoid an unnecessary essentialist remark I'll remove the word 'proper' from this second paragraph, therefore stating that the Japanese restored the Ainu name for the Island. By the way, anyone might have information on the actual times of Japanese withdrawal from the north portion of Sakhalin, Hammond-Times Atlas of World History states that the Russians regained full control of this portion only after 1925 (p. 254). As I have no further information than a small sign on a map, maybe somebody could find out more. --BlackMarket 16:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I want to transsfer the names of the Russian, Japanese and Chinese names into an infobox, so as to make the organization of the names better. The names were not added by me, however.

If anybody is interested, please see the dispute on the Korean name of Tsushima Islands; but there should be no reason why the Korean name should be taken down just because Korea no longer claims Tsushima; the Japanese name is here, yet Japan does not claim Sakhalin. However, the Japanese in retrospect to Sakhalin, like the Korean in retrospect to Tsushima, have played a significant role in their history. Mr Tan 09:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kuyedao Claim

Hey @Qiushufang:, could you provide the quotations from the books that prove the claim we are adding on Wikipedia about the Kuyedao name? Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The Qing dynasty called Sakhalin "Kuyedao" (the island of the Ainu)." has at least two contentious elements I would like to see proven. The first: that the Qing Dynasty called Sakhalin Kuyedao. The claim seems to mean that someone between the years 1644 and 1911 used the word Kuyedao to refer to the island, but I'd like to see what the words used by Nakayama, T. in his statement on page 20 of the book Japanese Society on Karafuto actually are. The second claim is that the phrase "the island of the Ainu" is somehow related to the meaning of the word "Kuyedao". Who says? Does Nakayama say this too? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Qing dynasty called Sakhalin ‘Kuyedao’ (‘the island of Ainu’) and the indigenous people paid tribute to the Chinese empire. However, there was no formalized border around the island. The Qing dynasty was a pre- modern or ‘world empire’ which did not place emphasis on demarcating borders in the manner of the modern ‘national empires’ of the nineteenth and early twentieth century (Yamamuro 2003: 90–97).

— T. Nakayama

Voices from the Shifting Russo-Japanese Border p.20 Qiushufang (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Have you cited the book Voices from the Shifting Russo-Japanese Border on this Wikipedia page? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and do so. I have the chapter not the full book. Be my guest.Qiushufang (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: It is not ethical for me to cite a source I am not reading from. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Then how would you know it is "dubious" if you have no access or education on the subject? Qiushufang (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have not read the relevant material, have no education in the subject, or have any intention of improving it with the relevant citations, then what exactly do you have to contribute to this article? Qiushufang (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the rush to remove the dubious tags? I'm just saying that any claim on Wikipedia mainspace needs to be sourced. I did find Nakayama's statement on page 20 from 2015, but I would like to see more of that because his statement is based on reference to Yamamuro 2003. If there's only one source (Nakayama) that proves this claim, then that would not be enough- there should be lots of sources, right? Are there any pre-21st century sources with this information about the name "Kuyedao" that you can provide? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

First you asked me to provide the citation. I did. Now you ask me in the edit history I would like to see evidence that the Qing Dynasty called the island Kuyedao beyond the Nakayama page 20 quote citing a Japanese article. That is why I have put the dubious markers here and initiated a discussion on the talk page. Well I have done that. What is your excuse now? Qiushufang (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How would you even know any of this? You literally said It is not ethical for me to cite a source I am not reading from. So you have not read the article at all. Qiushufang (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You have not explained why the Qing calling it "Kuyedao" is dubious despite everything. Why does it require more citations? When I added Smith, you also added dubious to it, yet you have not said why the source is dubious. Have you read it? Why does it require more citations? If so, then why do other parts of the article do not? What is the standard you are using? Qiushufang (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Yes, the goalposts have been moved in a sense. But I'm saying that Wikipedia has gone from no proof to a little bit of proof. If what you believe is true, two sources for a name like that should be easy to find. Is there anything pre-21st century? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I know there is some animus between us due to the recent map problems, but all I am asking for is (1) more evidence (preferably anything from the 20th century or earlier) where the Qing was calling the island Kuyedao, and then (2) evidence on the 'island of the Ainus' etymology. What does "Kuye" have to do with "Ainu"? Do you see the problem I'm having? If some good sources and the quotes aren't found for this claim, then Wikipedia can't write that- what does Smith say on page 83 of Empire and Environment in the Making of Manchuria? (Note: I found Nakayama's work on Google Books- I am looking for Smith's work now.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The same process of a steady Ainu influx took place on the mainland where Chinese documents describe a strong Kui (or Kuwei, Kuwu, Kuye, Kugi, i.e. Ainu) presence in the area otherwise dominated by the Gilemi or Jilimi (Nivkh and other Amur peoples).

— Richard Zgusta

The Peoples of Northeast Asia Through Time p. 64 Qiushufang (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The unsuccessful invasions of Kyushu launched by the Mongol Yuan dynasty in 1274 and 1281 are well known, but what is less widely realized is that the Mongols also made several attacks on Sakhalin, beginning in 1264 and continuing until 1308. The Yuan shi relates that from their bases at the mouth of the Amur, Mongol forces attacked the Guwei people who were located across water, presumably on Sakhalin. The Guwei of the Yuan shi can be linked with the Gui and Guwu of the Ming and the Kuye of the Qing. This word is most probably related to kuyi, the name given to the Sakhlain Ainu by their Nivkh and Nanai neighbors (Wada 1938, 81). Related names seem to have been in wide use in the region. The Kuril Ainu, for example, called themselves koushi (Torii 1919, 33 34), a word that may have been Russianized to form "Kuril." The etymology of this group of terms is debated, but it is reasonably certain that they do refer to the Ainu (see Hora 1956, 81 97; Kikuchi 1989).

— Mark James Hudson

Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands p. 226 Qiushufang (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Qiushufang Okay, you are trying to show that Kuye is connected to the name of the Ainu. But even the source you cite says, "The Guwei of the Yuan shi can be linked with the Gui and Guwu of the Ming and the Kuye of the Qing. This word is most probably related to kuyi, the name given to the Sakhlain Ainu by their Nivkh and Nanai neighbors (Wada 1938, 81).... The etymology of this group of terms is debated, but it is reasonably certain that they do refer to the Ainu (see Hora 1956, 81 97; Kikuchi 1989)." Even if this were right, you can't just say "Island of the Ainus" with one source and be done with it- you have to tell people there's some doubt or uncertainty in the term. All that would all seem reasonable except for the fact that the page 阿伊努族 never mentions the characters 库页 to refer to the Ainu. A Mandarin Chinese article about the Ainu would certainly mention old names for the Ainu, right? But they don't. What gives? Does Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia just forget an old name for an Ainu tribe? So you see, I have a lot of room to doubt these sources, and I think a full confirmation is needed, not just a summary judgment. This issue touches on modern-day questions of Chinese irredentist beliefs ("自古以来，库页岛是中国的领土。" translation: 'Since ancient times, Kuye Dao (referring to Sakhalin) was China's territory.'), so we have to be CAREFUL not hasty. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So do you have any sources that say otherwise? Given that we have three sources that all say Kuye means Ainu, the academic consensus therefore seems to be that Kuye reasonably means Ainu. Qiushufang (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not my job to prove anything- it is your job to prove the claims you are making in Wikipedia mainspace. The Nakayama source does say ‘Kuyedao’ (‘the island of Ainu’), but the source doesn't discuss this etymology in full, and other sources say that, "The Guwei of the Yuan shi can be linked with the Gui and Guwu of the Ming and the Kuye of the Qing. This word is most probably related to kuyi, the name given to the Sakhlain Ainu by their Nivkh and Nanai neighbors"- that is, only a tribe of the Ainu and not the Ainu generally. Therefore, a better source on this etymology is needed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, 阿伊努族 never mentions the characters 库页 to refer to the Ainu. Is that a problem? Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is probably a good reason we don't use the Chinese wikipedia as a source. Also it literally says "This word is most probably related to kuyi, the name given to the Sakhlain Ainu by their Nivkh and Nanai neighbors" so I'm not sure where you're getting the one tribe from. Qiushufang (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I say tribe because the article says "Sakhalin Ainu". If the word Kuye referred to all the Ainu, then that would DEFINITELY appaer on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia. You would include a mention on the page 阿伊努族 that the Qing Dynasty referred to the Ainu people as Kuye if that were factually ascertained, right? But don't focus only on this part- this is only part of the question. This is also about this island's name too. Spurious etymologies are common in all languages. Just add the sources you want to cite for the claims you are making. Where's source number two with the name "Kuyedao"? That should be easier than proving this etymology. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this right. You are going to base your info on the Chinese wikipedia, but not three academically published monographs on Sakhalin and the Ainu? Qiushufang (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: As far as I know, you have cited one monograph that makes the two claims you want Wikipedia to make (Nakayama, page 20), but it does not discuss the issue in depth. The other two sources (Zgusta and Hudson) are discussing the potential connections between the words Kuye and Ainu. That is a related but seperate issue. I'm still looking for source number two on the two claims that the Qing called the island Kuyedao and that Kuyedao means 'island of the Ainu'. Also, what's on page 83 of Smith? Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Astounding. So one source says Kuyedao means Island of the Ainu, and two other sources say Kuye can reasonably mean Ainu, considering that the Ainu were called the Kuyi by their neighbors, and they themselves called themselves koushi. Yet somehow Kuyedao would not mean Island of the Ainu? Then what exactly does Kuyedao mean? Qiushufang (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: It would be original research (WP:OR) to translate Kuyedao to 'island of the Ainu' based on the two sources Zgusta and Hudson. We need to see some reputable scholarship make that exact translation in their work. Why prop all this up on one source? I see that Nakayama is doing that, but it is a passing mention, not an in depth analysis. Let me know what's on page 83 of Smith. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet you use Chinese wikipedia as a source. Please do tell about the reputable scholarship of wikipedia, an encyclopedic website. Qiushufang (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Just go ahead and prove that the Qing called the island Kuyedao and that the name of the island means island of the Ainu. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything. The source literally says ::

The Qing dynasty called Sakhalin ‘Kuyedao’ (‘the island of Ainu’) and the indigenous people paid tribute to the Chinese empire. However, there was no formalized border around the island. The Qing dynasty was a pre- modern or ‘world empire’ which did not place emphasis on demarcating borders in the manner of the modern ‘national empires’ of the nineteenth and early twentieth century (Yamamuro 2003: 90–97).

— T. Nakayama

Voices from the Shifting Russo-Japanese Border p.20 Qiushufang (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are arguing with evidence with the absence of evidence. What sources say Sakhalin was not called Kuyedao by the Qing? What else did they call it? I have already provided the Manchu name. Qiushufang (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are literally saying, "look at all these non-existence sources that disprove your source." Why should one source, supported by other sources as well, be considered dubious when other sources don't even exist? Qiushufang (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: In general, etymologies for words are fraught with problems. People make up false etymologies based on connecting similar sounding words and assuming that they have found the right etymology. What we want here is the right etymology, not something speculative that wasn't thought through. That means looking for someone who has done an analysis not just of "Ainu" and "Kyue", but of the supposed term "Kuyedao" and the supposed translation "island of the Ainu", and whether or not the Qing Dynasty really did call the island "Kuyedao", especially since the name Kuyedao is one of the focuses of Chinese irredentist beliefs (cited above). Don't attack me personally, just bring the sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am attacking your sources. Where are they? You are avoiding the fact that you don't have any sources that say otherwise or any sources at all. So what is your argument here based on academic sources? You don't have one. Qiushufang (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: I'm asking for you to provide more evidence for your two claims than a one-line statement in a 2015 work. The original research does not count toward anything. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research... like direct quotes from the source? Qiushufang (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: If there was only that one source, then it would not be good enough to be posted on Wikipedia in an unqualified way. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully there are other sources qualifying it. Qiushufang (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: WP:OR. Still waiting on page 83 of Smith. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No you're not. You're waiting for me to respond so you can say "ah gotcha it is wrong." If you can't even access the source, what business do you have doing here? Qiushufang (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Stop attacking me. You are violating WP:SYN with regard to the Zgusta and Hudson works: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources...."A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." It is not enough to cite one line in one 2015 work to prove your two claims that 1) the Qing called the island Kuyedao and 2) that Kuyedao means island of the Ainu. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dude, this whole time you've provided no sources for your claims? What sources say the ones I've been using are dubious? You have no education in this topic, have done no reading in it, have no access to the sources cited, yet you write as though you have any qualification. Why? What makes you the authority on this, but not these academically published source? Your arguments are meaningless and you have moved the goalpost with every word you type. You are not arguing in good faith and you have contributed nothing to this article. You have provided no sources and no real arguments beyond "I do not agree with this, let me see the source." I have done that already. I am not here to feed you quotations. Go look them up yourself. If you can't even do that, then you have nothing to argue with. Qiushufang (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have provided a source which states that the Qing called it Kuyedao. Do you have a source which says it was called something different by the Qing? Please provide a source. Qiushufang (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: This is not a "go and look it up yourself" situation. Here we are actually requiring that you provide sources for claims you made in the Wikipedia mainspace. One line from one work in 2015 doesn't cut it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a situation where you have no argument. One line is better than no lines from no sources from no text. If you are not arguing with sources then this discussion is meaningless, because one is arguing with sources and the other is not. You are merely saying, "well but this source can't be trusted." Why? And what sources can, written by whom? You don't even bother to read the sources cited. How can you know if they're dubious? Qiushufang (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: The reason the source can't be trusted is that it doesn't discuss the content of the two claims in depth (not even a full sentence) and it may be relying on speculation about the meaning of Kuyedao that we don't know to be confirmed. One line is just not enough given the present-day context of Chinese irredentist beliefs, which want to believe the island may once have been called Kuyedao by someone somewhere in the Qing Dynasty. Again, if the two claims you are making can only be found in this one source, then this content is not Wikipedia worthy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes... because the claim is made by a Japanese person named Nakayama, based on another source by a Japanese person named Yamamuro, who are supposedly Chinese "irredentists". Qiushufang (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are not analyzing the source, you are merely saying it is dubious because it conflicts with modern national considerations. That is not how the dubious template is used. Qiushufang (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: If it is actually true that all the books say exactly what you have proposed in these two claims is true, then cite them. That's all I'm asking. Rather than trying to come up with some way to do damage to me or whatever, just cite all those sources. Stop attacking me and get out those books and show where they make a detailed analysis that supports your two claims about how the Qing called it Kuyedao and what the translation of Kuyedao is. But just stop attacking me. It does nothing for any of your claims. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I know you are angry with me Qiushufang. But I want you to see that our problems here and over the maps derive from legitimate concerns from a person with a worldview that may not accept everything that you accept to be true. Here are some related thoughts I have had during this discussion which I would like to know more about:

1) Does the term 'Kuye' supposedly refer to all Ainu people, or just the Sakhalin Ainu? If it refers only to the Sakhalin Ainu, then the 'island of the Ainu' translation may not really be a precise translation- did the Nivkh and Nanai also refer to Ainu living outside Sakhalin by the 'kuyi' name? What was the scope of the word 'kuyi' 'kuye' etc.?

2) Are there any sources beside Nakayama that say that 'island of the Ainu' is the correct understanding of the term Kuyedao? Has anyone ever studied the topic?

3) Are we sure that "the Qing Dynasty" really did call the island Kuyedao as Nakayama claims? What sources say that? Did any emperors ever use the word "Kuyedao"?

Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Wouldn't the fact that it only refers to Sakhalin Ainu strengthen the argument that it means Sakhalin?

2. If Kuye and dao mean Ainu and island, then what other meaning could it have had?

3. I do not think any emperors would care all that much about a northeastern tributary island of barely any significance. Kuyedao is the only name for Sakhalin by the Qing dynasty that I could find that was not Manchu. Do you have any other sources on what the island was called? Qiushufang (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Historical extent of the Ainu people

You write that Zgusta says "The same process of a steady Ainu influx took place on the mainland where Chinese documents describe a strong Kui (or Kuwei, Kuwu, Kuye, Kugi, i.e. Ainu) presence in the area otherwise dominated by the Gilemi or Jilimi (Nivkh and other Amur peoples)." If that statement is true, then this map (which appears on the page) seems to be wrong, because no Ainu presence is shown on mainland Asia. You would expect a lightly shaded area or a dot or two (like in Japan) to appear on the Asian mainland if Zgusta's statement is true. Is the map wrong? (It's very possible that the map is wrong- there are a lot of bad maps on Wikipedia.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was noted by Hudson:

It has long been

assumed that Ainu populations from Hokkaido expanded into Sakhalin and the Kurils, replacing or pushing out the Okhotsk people. While such a migration has yet to be proven, based on available evidence, it is the most parsimonious hypothesis. To begin with, the alternative explanation that the Okhotsk culture/people of southern Sakhalin and the Kurils transformed themselves into the Ainu culture/people of those regions seems unlikely. The expansion within Hokkaido of late Satsumon culture at the expense of the Okhotsk was probably the beginning of the process of Ainu colonization. Historical data may also support Ainu expansion into Sakhalin. The unsuccessful invasions of Kyushu launched by the Mongol Yuan dynasty in 1274 and 1281 are well known, but what is less widely realized is that the Mongols also made several attacks on Sakhalin, beginning in 1264 and continuing until 1308. The Yuan shi relates that from their bases at the mouth of the Amur, Mongol forces attacked the Guwei people who were located across water, presumably on Sakhalin. The Guwei of the Yuan shi can be linked with the Gui and Guwu of the Ming and the Kuye of the Qing. This word is most probably related to kuyi, the name given to the Sakhlain Ainu by their Nivkh and Nanai neighbors (Wada 1938, 81). Related names seem to have been in wide use in the region. The Kuril Ainu, for example, called themselves koushi (Torii 1919, 33 34), a word that may have been Russianized to form "Kuril." The etymology of this group of terms is debated, but it is reasonably

certain that they do refer to the Ainu (see Hora 1956, 81 97; Kikuchi 1989).

— Mark Hudson

Qiushufang (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your questions:

Question 1. Wouldn't the fact that it only refers to Sakhalin Ainu strengthen the argument that it means Sakhalin? Response: I'm not doing original research here. I'm just trying to find out if the sources say that the Qing Dynasty called Sakhalin Kuyedao and, if so, what Kuyedao means. But I guess yes, if the word kuye means Sakhalin Ainu exclusively, then that would be an aid to the argument that the Qing might have reasonably referred to the island as Kuyedao. But the problem is just: the sources! Need em! Get them sources up there saying that the Qing called it Kuyedao! All them books! Because we are not doing a synthesis or original research here. If you have the sources, just put em up there man! Please, I'm begging you. Stop engaging me in games of logic and cite the sources! There is no need for this discussion to be happening once the books and articles saying the Qing called it Kuyedao and what Kuyedao means are cited.

Question 2. If Kuye and dao mean Ainu and island, then what other meaning could it have had? Response: It is not wise to assume to know what Kuye means when there are so many various terms floating about referring to the area. Who knows what any term might have meant at any time? I once thought my last name meant something it didn't, and I told the local historian my false idea. Ten years later, people were telling me my incorrect idea as if it were true.

Question 3. I do not think any emperors would care all that much about a northeastern tributary island of barely any significance. Kuyedao is the only name for Sakhalin by the Qing dynasty that I could find that was not Manchu. Do you have any other sources on what the island was called? Response: Okay, well, if the emperor didn't know about this island, then who did? Response: On what basis can we say "the Qing Dynasty" called it Kuyedao? I'm not trying to prove other names, I want you to prove the name you say the Qing Dynasty called it. I did notice the 2017 source that called it Kuye Fiyaka- what does Fiyaka mean?? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You provided a big quote from Hudson, but what I noticed was that Hudson didn't say that the Qing called the island Kuyedao. Hudson also didn't say that Kuyedao meant 'island of the Ainu'. That's the key. Also, what did you think about the Zgusta thing where he said there were Ainu on the mainland. Is Zgusta talking about mainland Asia? Also, what about page 83 of Smith (Smith, Norman, ed. (2017), Empire and Environment in the Making of Manchuria, University of British Columbia Press, ISBN 9780774832908)? What does Smith say??? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

1. I'm still going off of Nakayama. So I'm not posing hypotheticals. That's what the source says that what's written in the article, likewise. If you think the source is not trustworthy, then that's your problem, not mine.

2. Supposedly people in Beijing according to this article, but it is unsourced. Although the inhabitants of Sakhalin did not recognize it.

3. It's not illogical to think that Kuye meaning Ainu would logically mean Kuyedao = Island of the Ainu, as stated by Nakayama. That is not a game of logic. Literally anyone would find that connection. Qiushufang (talk)

@Qiushufang: 1 Here's the problem: why go off only one source? Why not find another source too? If you can't find it today, that's okay. You may be 100000000% right- all I'm saying is that if you give me so much evidence that I am literally FORCED to accept that the Qing Dynasty called it Kuyedao and that Kuyedao definitely meant 'island of the Ainu', then this discussion will be concluded. All we have right now is one half of one sentence in one work from 2015. That's paltry evidence. Maybe the claims about the term 'Kuyedao' are exaggerated or slightly incorrect. Maybe the name of the island during the Qing Dynasty period is more complex than a one-line statement in a 2015 paper can describe.

2 That's fine if it was only the Beijing name for the island. All I'm saying is, let's show that the Beijingers called it Kuyedao in the Qing Dynasty. Let's do it with more than the one source from 2015.

3 Words change meaning over hundreds of years. Kuye could be ANYTHING. Mandarin is notorious for homophones. Yeah, there may be some reasonable speculation that the Ainu or some portion of the Ainu are connected to the term 'Kuye'. But can we be sure it is connected to this island without citing the sources that say it is?? Why are we hinging everything on three books, and a fourth Smith source that I haven't seen?? Let's just get all the sources and see what they say man!! Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese wiki https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BA%93%E9%A1%B5%E5%B2%9B also says it's called Kuye Island if that's any consolatioin to you since you seem to value the opinion of Chinese wiki. It also says that the Yuan and Ming Guwei and Kuyi both mean Ainu and that the Qing called it Kuye. Qiushufang (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: Bring some sources to English Wikipedia and cite them or discuss them here if they support your two claims. I can read modern Mandarin Chinese. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's another example of what me demanding sources for all claims: in the In God We Trust page, people like to add a line saying that the US motto In God We Trust comes from the Star Spangled Banner (the US national anthemn). However, no credible, scholarly source makes that claim- only one source that was copying Wikipedia in the 21st century seems to make the claim. I'm saying that, just like people want to believe that the In God We Trust motto came from the Star Spangled Banner, there are people that want to believe that the Qing Dynasty called the island Kuyedao. Nakayama may have followed online rumours about Kuyedao and the usage of that term in the Qing Dynasty- it may not be a scholarly analsysis, but a flippant aside. We need clear evidence via a comprehensive look at the scholarship on this issue- a scholarly analysis or two that the Qing Dynasty really did call Sakhalin Kuyedao. We want Wikipedia to be credible, not a rumour mill. When is half a sentence in a 2015 monograph enough to prove such a complicated claim like "the Qing Dynasty called Sakhalin Kuyedao". I mean, there has got to be nuance there. If Nakayama is the only source saying it, then it's not really a supported claim in the scholarly community. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is a good thing we are not using wikipedia as a source. Qiushufang (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

After I made the above comment, I did some research and did find that in 1956, people proposing In God We Trust as the national motto of the USA did in fact bring up the words of the Star Spangled Banner. There was a monograph that went into detail on the topic and cited primary sources in its discussion. That's what I'm looking for here- not a one line throw away statement: an analysis where a scholar tells us "yep, as we can see from these documents, it is clear that the Qing called it Kuyedao and Kuyedao clearly translates/transliterates to 'island of the Ainu'". I am open to changing my mind, which is why I am waiting on some scholarly confirmation of Nakayama's half-sentence. In the same way, when I saw a full page of material describing a connection between In God We Trust and the Star Spangled Banner that referenced primary sources, I was like "oops, I messed up, this content really is relevant" and the Wikipedia's wording and overall reliability on the subject were improved a thousand fold. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Historical expanse of Ainu.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I say don't delete. SlyGuyFox (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Size

Article claims that this is "the largest island in Russia". Novaya Zemlya is larger, according to that article. Is there an error, or is Novaya Zemlya somehow considered not to be "in Russia"? 62.172.108.6 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Because Novaya Zemlya consists of two islands; Severny Island and Yuzhny Island, whereas Sakhalin is only a single island entity, that makes Sakhalin is larger than those two islands individually, but smaller if they combined.B.C.Mayfield (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. 10:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Sakhalin Oblast.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as the geographical and political entities don't have the same borders, and each topic should be covered separately. Klbrain (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

---

It seems to me that the tradition here on Wikipedia is to use the same article from both the geographical area (such as an island) and the political entity if the latter has the exact same borders as the former. See examples such as Tasmania, Corsica, Sicily, Cuba and so on. The only exception to this rule that I know of is the Taiwan, but that's apparently due to the complicated political status of the island. With Sakhalin, however, it's political status as a Russian territory is undisputed. So, what does everyone think? --212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Modern Sakhalin Oblast seems to also contain the Kuril Islands, which probably were not a part of historical Sakhalin, especially the early historical era when it was referred to by the Manchus as the island at the mouth of the black river. It's doubtful whether they knew the Kuril Islands even existed. For example this map of the Qing dynasty in 1821 shows it containing Sakhalin island, but not the Kurils:

Is there any historical evidence that the Kurils were considered the same geographical entity as Sakhalin island? Qiushufang (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

strong oppose (and would rather suggest WP:SNOW declining this proposal), not "exact same borders as the former" at all to start with. Sakhalin Oblast == Sakhalin (island) + Kuril Islands. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extremely strong opose as above and that you would merge the Kuril Islands with the Island of Sakhalin, pretty much. Kuril Island have WAY MORE DIFFERENT HISTORY, so NO. Mausebru (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So are neither of the 3 editors above bothered by the fact that the province of Sicily includes multiple nearby islands (e.g. Lampedouza with their total area larger than the area of the Kuril isles? As does Cuba? There are other examples but i am not sure i should even bother, you guys dont seem to factcheck any of your own statements that you make on wikipedia. I thought this site would have better users. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I am also not sure what the editors are supposed to infer from the map posted above? If the map includes the Sakhalin but not the Kurils that means... What, exactly? This makes 0 sense to me. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Cuba refers to a country. Sakhalin refers to the island of Sakhalin and not the Kuril islands. It makes sense that they each have their own articles because they refer to different entities and have different history. Qiushufang (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Qiushufang, exactly! They are indeed different entities and have different history. Sakhalin, for example, has had a continuous uninterrupted Russian presence since mid-XIX century (even after Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 Russia/USSR retained a foothold on the island, the only exception being a brief Japanese occupation of Northern Sakhalin during the Russian Civil War, which was reversed in 1925), whilst Kuriles were, at some time (1875-1945) entierly outside Russia/USSR — and, partially (southern ones), are in sovereignty dispute today. And well, the Cuban example actually works against proposed merger, when we consult RS (Britannica): Cuba is a single article for an island and a country, whilst Sakhalin has one article for island and another for oblast. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose, not an improvement at all. Apcbg (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Sakhalin Oblast is an administrative division, a human-made geographic entity with human-made boundaries. This article talks about the island of Sakhalin, a geographic entity with clear natural boundaries. NotAldariasky (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. As already mentioned, Sakhalin Oblast refers to the federal subject of Russia specifically which also includes the Kuril Islands, while the Sakhalin article is about the island itself. Mellk (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Of course, no. Danloud ^(talk) 20:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose Sakhalin is about the geographical island itself, Sakhalin Oblast is about the geopolitical subsidiary of Russia so to summaraize... no — SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2021 (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.