Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Occupation or Control or Administration?

This article use the term of "control" and "administration" for present situation of Liancourt Rocks. However, it seems that "occupation" is more general than "control" and "administration".

  • THE WORLD FACT BOOK by CIA[1]
South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954
  • NEWS by BBC[2]
Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953
  • NEWS by washingtonpost[3]
Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal.
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia[4]
the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.
  • Prof. Van Dyke[5]p45
Since Japan's relinquishment of control over Korea after its defeat in World War II, Korea and Japan have contested the ownership of Dok-Do, which are currently occupied by Korea.
  • News week [6]
    Angered by Japanese moves to survey a contested range of islets currently occupied by Korea--Opp2 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will correct it to a general term.--Opp2 06:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

so, should the infobox term govern be changed into the occupied? --Boldlyman 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I want to correct the following sentences to the general term.--Opp2 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
opening part
  • South Korea currently controls occupies the islets where they are known as Dokdo
  • The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to them as Tok Islet in its English-language articles and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".
Part of "History of the territorial dispute"
  • Japan protests Korea's claim and administration occupation of the Liancourt rocks.
  • The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to the Liancourt rocks as "Tok Islet" in English, and publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".
Part of "Armed confrontations"
  • After the incidents, in 1954, South Korea built a lighthouse and a helicopter landing pad on the islets, which it has regularly administered maintained ever since despite repeated protests by Japan.
Part of "After World War II and during occupied Japan"
  • Japanese sovereignty which is mentioned in (b) were eventually recovered. Those mentioned in (c), for the most part, remain in Russian control occupation (though disputed by Japan).
Part of "Recent developments"
  • The dispute occasionally resurfaces, such as when South Korea built a wharf on the islets in 1996 and declared them a Natural Monument in 2002, spurred by a controversial Japanese textbook that called South Korea's control occupation of the islets "illegal" that same year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Look, Opp2, it always seems as if you have some sort of a motive for doing these things. If you don't, then you don't need to consult the ppl at talk page. From plain grammatical perspective, the sole usage of the word "occupy" is not recommendable. And especially if you want to push JPOV that Japan also administers the island, I will not allow it. Even then, "administer" has 2 possible meanings that we can discuss about if you are willing to. (Wikimachine 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
You do not have the right to judge. You are not presenting the source at all. You should present the credible source by the third party who has uses the term of ”control" first. I donot want your original search. Thank you.--Opp2 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I donot want the original reserch and personal hope. I have already presented the source of the third party who is using "occupation" or "occupied" for NPOV. I request the source of a neutral organization for the rebuttal. --Opp2 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. Read the following just to figure out what kind of hole you're digging yourself in.

All right. From today on, we're going to always use the word "scattered" & replace all words "disseminated" with "scattered" in all Wikipedia articles.

See what kind of nonsense you're saying? (Wikimachine 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

You have only changed the subject and you do not present the source. Therefore, I cannot help judging your insistence as an original research. Let's present the source of the third party who used "control" if you want to rebut. I have presented the source(occupation). You are not yet presenting the source(control or administration). Well, which insistence is NPOV?　Which term is general?　Thank you. ----Opp2 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
In support of Opp2 - sources presented use the word "occupied". This justification, of course, ony remains valid until sources using other terms are presented.
In opposition to Opp2 - because "occupation" of a land can only be carried out by a foreign power, those who believe that the rocks are part of Korea would disagree with the term, whereas "controlled by" is undisputed and therefore NPOV. Phonemonkey 11:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to confirm to you because my English is poor. I have presented this problem many times. However, KPOV side insist that "occupation(occupied)" is grammatically wrong or "occupation", "control " and "administration" are quite the same meanings and impressions. Do you think so? I think that this your comment is true.
P.S. "Occupation" is used in various meanings. lawful acquisition of territory(title by occupation), lawful effective control and military occupation... Then, "occupation" is NPOV and it often uses in case of legally unsettled. Therefore, Japanese Government adds "illegal", and use the term of "illegal occupation by Korea". --Opp2 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what you say, because you're not going to simply replace all synonyms of "occupy" with "occupy". English is a much more sophisticated language over which you (Opp2, especially when you suck in English) don't have the right to limit its vocabulary. (Wikimachine 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC))
"Occupation", "control" and "administration" are not synonyms. Phonemonkey 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The insincere ID might have tried cheating me. There is another one question. Are the grammars of the following sentences wrong?
  • Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan . South Korea currently controls occcupies the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.
CIA will have made a mistake, too, if this grammar is wrong. If this sentence is not sophisticate, the sentence of CIA and the Columbia Encyclopedia will not sophisticate too. A person who cannot present even the source is only making noise.--Opp2 05:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I present the source that use "occupation" as legal activities by a own power.
The Island of Palmas Case (famous judicial precedent)
In this judicial precedent, activities of East India Company was admitted as legal effective control. And, "occupatin" is used for the East India Company's activities. In addition, "occupation" is used also for legal title of the territorial acquisition.
  • If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title – cession, conquest, occupation, etc.
  • The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.
  • Now, no act of occupation nor, except as to a recent period, any exercise of sovereignty at Palmas by Spain has been alleged.
  • The acts of the East India Company (Generale Geoctroyeerde Nederlandsch Oost-Indische Compagnie), in view of occupying or colonizing the regions at issue in the present affair must, in international law, be entirely assimilated to acts of the Netherlands State itself.
I think you can consent to my claim with sources. "Occupation" has various meenings and is NPOV and best word.--Opp2 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why it would be the best word. Why should we not use other worsd just because you show a couple of usages of "occupy"? You don't make sense. You don't understand English enough to make such decisions/advocacies. (Wikimachine 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Watch the personal attacks. I could pick on your English, too, but I don't because it is irrelevant. Instead, answer his question directly; there isn't anything ungrammatical about using "occupies." We can discuss instead whether it is the best choice--and it's not outrageous to suggest it might be, given the (many) sources that use that very word (which happens to describe the situation a bit more accurately... the US "controls" many minor islands around Alaska with no human presence whatsoever). --Cheers, Komdori 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My point wasn't centered simply on English mistakes - Opp2 acknowledgedly is deficient in English for one reason or another (other ppl observe this, he admits it). Wikimachine 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My wish is also that Opp2 gets down to the point straight. I don't like these indirect & cheap attempts to make loop holes around stuffs like "administer". (Wikimachine 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for your answer. Is Wikimachine's insistence concrete and persuasive for native speaker? I think that he only is deceiving because he cannot find NPOV sources which support his claim.--Opp2 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Wikimachine. Opp2 wants the word "occupy" and has backed it up with sources. You merely try to disqualify him from his opinion because his English is poor. See the inbalance? Phonemonkey 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that he make looped the talk by an abstract concept and no sources. --Opp2 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You know it's not straight as you say. What he's trying to do is simply absurd. I'm still not convinced that "occupy" hold the exclusive position as the neutral term. To prove that "occupy" is the only neutral term to describe the situation is very difficult. Opp2 is better off not trying. He should try to prove that a specific term is not neutral instead. (Wikimachine 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
Talk about pulling teeth... how about it being just more accurate instead of discussing everything based on "neutrality"? This is kind of a good example of what happens when you "bind articles" together inappropriately. I believe it was goodfriend who changed this article from "occupied" to "controlled" to match the Senkaku page. Unfortunately, the situation is different and the words (correctly) were reflecting that difference. Troops aren't present on Senkaku (so it's not occupied) but are present on Liancourt (so it is). In picking the single, best word (picking multiple ones would lead to an "arms race" of adjectives for both sides), it might be beneficial to pick the best term for the sake of accuracy. --Cheers, Komdori 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I think that the possibility to use the word of Senkaku is high. This means that my English was also unrelated. The insincere ID might have tried cheating me. And, this page is not a page of Senkaku. It is shown that there is no reasonable reason to use the word of "control" and "administration". --Opp2 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Accuracy is neutrality. Again, it's up to Opp2 on how he approaches this question. You guys keep bringing up "Senkaku" but I don't understand what you mean by that. (Wikimachine 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
As for the talk of Senkaku, from what I gather from above my understanding is that someone originally changed "occupied" to "controlled" simply on the basis that this is the term also used on another article about another place. Is this correct? And sorry if this sounds harsh Wikimachine but "accuracy is neutrality" is a pretty bold statment to make which needs to be backed up with some sort of reasoning before it comes anywhere near convincing. Phonemonkey 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll stop mincing around with words here and just say I totally disagree with "accuracy is neutrality". If statement A describes a situation in more detail than statement B, does it automatically make statement A more neutral? Of course not. Phonemonkey 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
He never describe situation in the detail. He only say I am correct and accurate. --Opp2 08:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useless no matter what we say to him. He cannot present the source. He cannot present the evidence though he is convinced that I am correct and accurate. I think that he wants only to oppose me and is age of resistance. Because the source of the rebuttal is not presented, I will retouch to "occupation" after this article release from protecting.--Opp2 08:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey--you're right. Here's the diff. (Good friend100's comment was "consistent with senkaku, edited first paragraph.") It had been somewhat stable at "occupied," then a compromise "maintains a physical presence" version surfaced, which I think is also perfectly accurate, and then was changed to "controls," only on the basis of it being used in the Senkaku Islands page, which I agree with both Phonemonkey and Wikimachine as being a terribly poor reason, especially considering the difference in situation that was reflected with the difference in terminology (as I mentioned above). At the time, many other "more important" content disputes were happening (i.e. affecting more major amounts of content). --Cheers, Komdori 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Any chance we can go back to "maintains a physical presence?" --Reuben 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be for that, as long as no one objects to it being a little wordy (I don't). --Cheers, Komdori 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any of this as clean business. Some of you guys are so JPOV that you get insulted by the slightest offense - hmm should we use control or occupy or having been invaded or maintains physical presence? Ahh, I like maintains physical presence so much better b/c it's not a occupation but it really is. Duh... I don't really care what change is made as long as it doesn't sweat. English is something that you can't limit just with NPOV. And yes, neutrality is accuracy. Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. It doesn't matter if there are a billion opposing viewpoints, it's simply impossible to present all viewpoints & emphasizing some viewpoints that are not widely accepted over accepted ones is POV. (Wikimachine 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, your accusation of "JPOV" rings empty unless you explain why. Your assertion that a viewpoint is "not widely accepted" is not backed up by sources to counter the ones which Opp2 has presented. And of course you can have sentences which are factually correct but present only one point of view, so no, accuracy does not equate to neutrality. "Maintain a physical presence" is suitable for some of the sentences in the article but I do think it might be a bit wordy to use every single time. Phonemonkey 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You know what, Phonemonkey, rules in Wikipedia are not realistic & often contradict each other. I often think that some of you are so immersed in this made up system that your thought process becomes unreal. You simply can't say that we're going to use "occupy" or "physical presence" as the sole term to describe the situation on Liancourt Rocks simply by using Google stats. Just like "scattered" and "disseminated". Who cares if "occupy" is more used?
Also, you guys don't even understand the situation. I'll clear out some clouds over your heads.
  • S. Korea occupies Liancourt Rocks.
  • Japan & S. Korea administer (i.e. register) Liancourt Rocks as one of their provinces, states, etc.
  • S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks (here, "administer" used in different context w/ the word 'rights').
Now, some of you with uber sensitive skin might turn pale if it says "occupy" so you guys asked for "physical presence", which is ridiculous "compromise". If you have ever taken a formal English course, you always say the fewest words to say something. "maintains physical presence" is definitely longer than "occupy". I'm even guessing that some of you think that "occupy" is POV b/c it's stating as a fact while it's my guess that "maintains physical presence" tries to invoke this sense of illegit presence. But if we were to do that we might just as well say that "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island disputed by Japan". We're not.

(Wikimachine 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

"S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks" and "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island" is extreme KPOV. You do not understand International Law at all. No one has the jurisdiction for determination of the administrative rights now. There is no source in your insistence. You do not write a novel but should present the source.--Opp2 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Opp2, if you want to have a productive discussion, tell me why it's contrary to the international laws instead of telling me it's extreme KPOV. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks. Why? It controls it. What's Japan going to do, come in with the JSDF? No. (Wikimachine 01:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
Who decided "S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks" and "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island"? Korea? Japan? ICJ? UN? Please show me the source of your recognition.--Opp2 02:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Opp2 and Wikimachine, back to the topic please. Phonemonkey 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. However, as for the conversation with him, I think time to be useless. He only deceives because he cannot present the source. --Opp2 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikimachine, what's this unrealistic Wikipedia rule did I supposedly bring up? And I thought you were the one who were against the word "occupy", did I miss something here? Because your above post implies that you have no problem with the word "occupy", am I correct? In which case what are we debating here, Wikimachine? And feel free to address the points I actually brought up in my previous post. In your own time, of course..Phonemonkey 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not I'm getting off the subject. Opp2 & I have been on this discussion for such a long time that we know exactly what we're talking about and that all these are related. Sry for being confusing, but it seems that there are 3 sides here - those who advocate sole usage of occupy, another for physical presence, and third for none of these crap. (Wikimachine 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
He was not able to present the source for long time. He has attributed my English and been deceiving for long time. He cannot present the source still.--Opp2 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to. You haven't given a source either. Yours is original research. Unless you have a scholarly article explaining why using "occupy" in context of describing the situation with the Liancourt Rocks dispute is POV, you can't use it. (Wikimachine 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please confirm to other people. It is only you that say my original reserch. Is it this time OR? You change the reason. Do you withdrew the previous reason which is English grammar. After all, it was a lie. --Opp2 04:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can split this a bit. It would be nice to agree on something for the opening (face it, the only bit most people read) and then discuss something for the rest of the article. As before, I'd suggest "occupies" or "maintains physical presence" for the opening. As for the rest, if we are unable to agree on a term everywhere perhaps we can work out a way to avoid using anything. If you look at the sentences quoted from the article, it wouldn't be too hard to simply avoid this issue entirely for most of them. --Cheers, Komdori 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If the reason which use the word of "maintains physical presence" is solicitude to Korean mind which is "Takeshima is a Korean territory", I cannot agree. It is KPOV. If "maintains physical presence" is used, it is necessary to emphasize the fact of the protest of Japan. --Opp2 05:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason would be because some people seemed to have a misconception that "occupied" might imply that it is necessarily illegal. I think everyone can agree that saying "Korea illegally occupies" or "Korea legally occupies" are both probably too POV-based statements to be acceptable. "Maintains physical presence" would mean just that Korea stations troops there, rightly or wrongly. I really don't see much difference between these two alternatives and would support eithe at this point. --Cheers, Komdori 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If this word that doesn't become familiar is used for Korean, I think that it is necessary to emphasize the protest of Japan for Japanese.(ex. despite repeated protests by Japan)
“South Korea has built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets despite repeated protests by Japan.” [7]
I think that "built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets" is same meaning as "maintains physical presence". However, "also claimed by Japan" is weaker than "despite repeated protests by Japan" and "maintains physical presence". On International Law, the protest is a very important method of displaying sovereignty.
And, do you think about the North Korea comment in the opening? It use "control". Is the story of North Korea necessary in the opening? The government-controlled station in North Korea is a source. I think it is very political and unworthy. In addition, the same document is also in "History of the territorial dispute". --Opp2 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Komdori. How about "SK has maintained a military presence since 1953", with or without the Japanese protest bit. This is about the opening paragraph. Phonemonkey 13:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, your reasoning is so messed up. "illegally legally ocuppies" and "illegally legally maintains physical presence" are the same things. If you truly think that "occupy" has some sort of negative connotation - that might be the Japanese occupation etc. I have to question the motives behind these discussions. It's so obvious to me. You guys are so POV & sensitive to these things that you have to have a debate on which word to use when all of them have similar meanings. (Wikimachine 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Please feel free to continue throwing about accusations of "POV" "questionable motive" etc. but I hope you're aware that they will continue to be meaningless until you illustrate the reasoning process through which you arrived at that conclusion. Since it's so "obvious" to you, why keep it to yourself?
  • I'm trying to find the bit where someone was supposedly too "sensitive" to the word "occupy". I take it's not the bit where Komdori actually suggested using the word "occupy" [8] ?
  • So I take it you have no problems now with the word "occupy" (since your initial opposition based on English grammar seems to have disappeared into the ether), so my understanding is that you are now happy with Opp2's suggestion. Phonemonkey 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well since it was an accusation to Komdori, let him reply. I gave my warrants - including the fact that we're making a big deal out of something so trivial - whether to use cookie or pie? No, I don't have to repeat myself for my arguments to stay. Think of this as linear history. What I have said all stay. (Wikimachine 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
What a time wasting exercise; I didn't respond because Phonemonkey pretty much said it all--if you have no objection to using the word "occupy," as you seemed to have before, great. I'm not sure from where the POV accusation came since (as Phonemonkey pointed out) I actually suggested as an alternative the word with which you mistakenly seem to have thought I had an issue. Read over what everyone said; it seems you are ardently arguing in agreement with everyone else... --Cheers, Komdori 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was never aimed at anyone. I misread my own post. Still your compromises are nonsensical. (Wikimachine 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
There isn't even any need for a compromise since I take it you no longer object to "occupy". Phonemonkey 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, your proposal which is "military presence" has the possibility of becoming the factor of the edit war. The rebuttal that it is not an army but the police that it is in Liancourt Rocks is expected from KPOV side. It should be "peaceful" for lawful occupation in International Law. Then SK is making not military forces but the special police reside for pretending peaceful occupation. The realities are military forces though the surface is the police. This is makeshift propaganda by SK because peaceful occupation is decided by with or without protests of another country. However, the person who believes the propaganda of SK will cause the edit war.--Opp2 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Opp2, I agree with your concerns about "military presence" being potentially controversial but please see this as a NPOV vs POV issue, not a KPOV vs JPOV issue. Phonemonkey 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that "ocuppies" is the best because he says that ocuppies and maintains physical presence are same things. Simple is best.--Opp2 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Look Opp2, the world is never simple & it's not either A or B. It could both A and B. Who knows? So what if "occupy" is simple? "administer" is simple too. "control" is simple. So why is it that we should use only "occupy"? This is already a lost argument. (Wikimachine 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
Because "occupy", "administer" and "control" are not synonyms. And who was the person who said "some of you with uber sensitive skin might turn pale if it says "occupy"? Phonemonkey 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You might have lost track, phonemonkey. Remember that there were 3 sides - 1 for no change, 1 for "occupy" only, and 1 for "physical presence". And so what if they are not synonymous? No God told me to use "occupy" only in Liancourt Rocks. Such advocacy is ridiculous and unreal. (Wikimachine 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
Again, if you read the discussion again you will see that this is a follow-on to Komdori's suggestion [9] which is to rephrase the opening section. I have already made clear that I am only talking about the opening paragraph [10] just in case it was missed the first time.Phonemonkey 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"Occupy" has sources. "Control" doesn't have the source. Though I found only one source that used "control", the source uses "occupation" too. You are only making noise without making an effort like this. No one will support your insistence if you merely complains without sources and evidences. Therefore, present choices are "occupies" or "maintains physical presence". You are not a judge.--Opp2 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well my comments still apply. I might seem to have made contradictory arguments but I didn't b/c I was answering 2 sides. (Wikimachine 01:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

The following are amendment bills of opening.
[proposal1: It is faithful to sources]

  • South Korea currently controls occupies the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.

[proposa2: The activity of the two countries is concretely described]

  • South Korea currently controls maintains physical presence the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed despite repeated protests by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.

I want the opinion and indication about the grammar. --Opp2 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I like occupies better but controls is fine too i guess... we've gone over "despite repeated protests" - we don't need that & it sounds stupidly awkward. (Wikimachine 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Source[11]
In November 1997, despite repeated protests by Japan, a docking facility to enable use by a 500t supply ship was completed. In December 1998, a manned lighthouse was completed.
It should be "occupies" based on sources. "maintains physical presence" is a conceded idea for Korean mind. I want to describe the repeated protests by Japan clearly. It is a give-and-take. However, I do not persist in the word "despite". I want alternatives. --Opp2 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that that was in the intro & the protest was specific to the building of the docking facility. We don't want any plagiarism. (Wikimachine 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea: maintains physical presence on the islans
  • Method of displaying sovereignty of Japan: express repeated protest
Should we emphasize only the method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea why? The protest is a peaceful and legal countercheck to invalidate a one-sided occupation. I want to change proposal1 to "protest" too. However, I am enduring it. If South Korea responds to the reference to ICJ, this problem will be solved. It is South Korea that refuses a peaceful, final, impartial solution deflecting. Can you understand? You only complain. You do not make an effort and do not endure for agreement.--Opp2 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's just not good as "and claimed by Japan". They both say the same thing, but "repeated protest by Japan" just sounds disturbing. It's as if S. Korea repeatedly rejected something so obviously true (indicated by "despite"). Just bad connotations. (Wikimachine 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Should we emphasize only the method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea why? Should we "indicate" only the insistence on the sovereignty of Japan? Japanese Protests are true. It is also true that South Korea is one-sidedly occupying. It only has to write the fact directry. When the fact is written directry, South Korea is doing awkward. Therefore, do you tell it that Japan must hold back? Your logic is contradicted. --Opp2 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You have both already agreed that you are happy with the word "occupy" so you are arguing about the details of a "compromise" which is not even necessary. Stop biting each other for the sake of it. Phonemonkey 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
We're not going for a compromise. Opp2 wants this addition " despite Japanese protests" I don't want that. And no Opp2 you'll go no further than what is written currently. Details of Japanese protests can go in the body paragraphs. (Wikimachine 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, please check out WP:OWN--everything moves by consensus, and you don't unilaterally set what will or will not appear in the opening. I can see the point that it might be nice to balance a description of an active action of occupation with an active action of protest--but I'm hesitant to suggest any version that has too much working on one side or another since it could be perceived as unbalanced. At least we're moving forward a bit and seem to have settled on the term "occupy." Might we be able to move toward a balanced opening asserting that both claim it, that it's occupied, balanced by official protests? It's a bad idea to push the (quite obviously) most important aspect of this region into the body. --Cheers, Komdori 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't feel like owning this article at all, I made very few edits to it anyways (except for the intro & that was b/c of the dispute). Of course, all the will not will are rhetorical & are based on the previous dispute on the intro (consensus already established & by that I have mandate to keep it so). But again Komdori your dualism suggestion is not reasonable. Anything could be actively done & the question is not whether or not something is "actively" done but that it is actively "done". Fact of the matter is, "claimed by Japan" is more than substantial & provides all the summary that should go into the introductory sentence. Maybe after the introductory sentence it could be more elaborated on with the mention of Japanese protests & the international law theory etc..... all that in the intro, too if that's what Opp2 wants but he has not suggested that. Also Komdori, I'm very sure what Opp2 visions of as the neutral title (look in the archive, he provided several alternatives) & they all got rejected b/c they sounded too POV & too provocative. Thus I'm not at all interested in approaching Opp2 on this matter again. (Wikimachine 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, it seems to have been confused by me. Because opening is decided to the proposal1, let's discuss the other parts. --Opp2 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have decided opening to proposal1. I want to do the following to a basic policy about other parts for NPOV.

  • The use of "occupation(occupy)" is assumed to be a principle. Because it is a word that the third party who can trust is using most.
  • The use of "administraton" and "control" is enabled when described clearly as the interpretation and claim of South Korea.

I added the amendment bill based on this policy. Please see above my posting of this part(Opp2 14:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)). A political insistence of North Korea was reiterated two times. I delete it from opening because NK is not a party in charge, she doesnot have any right and quantitative balance with Japan are bad. And, because it is not opening and the present source is SK media, I added "despite repeated protests by Japan" to the sentence of the part of Armed confrontations based on third party's source. I want the opinion and indication about the grammar.--Opp2 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can probably trim the bit about N. Korea thinking the "Korean peninsula" should control it (or at least move that down into the body) since they are not an active party in the dispute (any more than other third party nations are). As for the other issues, maybe something like, "Liancourt is claimed by both South Korea and Japan. South Korea currently occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." Not perfect, I'm sure, but maybe a start--I tried to avoid using the word "despite," and packed a bit more information in to boot. I'd strongly urge people to suggest improvements on it rather than just saying they don't like it. Wikimachine: I'm not sure what your comment on dualism was except to mean that you would rather not have a neutral (dual) opening (a non-npov opening would of course not really be a possibility by the npov "rules"). --Cheers, Komdori 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now this might be time to discuss this type of POV that I'll call "negative POV". The best example would be this title. Liancourt Rocks is neutral, as you say. Korea claims it. Japan claims it. But who owns it? S. Korea. And what does Japan want? A disputed status. "Liancourt Rocks" is thus slightly more JPOV than it is KPOV b/c it indirectly challenges S. Korea's legitimacy in its control & b/c all Japan wants is a disputed status (which Liancourt Rocks indicates) (don't forget that American studies found S. Korea's claim to be stronger). Same goes with this "claim - claim" dualism. I won't go into it further, & instead bring this POVness that I sense into light again. You guys are so sensitive to these slightest offenses or connotations or indications etc. that you want to make a change that really makes no difference. (Wikimachine 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Now that I have time I'll write more - that is if the US controls a territory, there is no need to say that the US control the territory and claims it. US doesn't need to claim what it controls. (Wikimachine 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
This is untrue; the US controls many areas it does not claim (look at the areas in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.). Possession in general is essentially meaningless in terms of territory (this isn't possession like owning something--if I break into your house and keep you out at gunpoint, it doesn't make me the owner, especially if you make official protests). It also doesn't matter what other nations think (you've got it backwards, the American analysis found the Japanese claim was stronger than ours, but that's essentially besides the point, too). What the ICJ thinks might be relevant, but for whatever reason Korea refuses to go. The bottom line is it is not our place to evaluate the quality of the claim, but set both up equally. Since you find the proposed version "a change that really makes no difference," I guess it means you are not opposed, and have no better suggestion. --Cheers, Komdori 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And now back to the topic of discussion - Komdori, I like your suggestion for the opening and I take it we are unanimous on this. (As for Wikimachine's comment above - because he is obviously attempting to shift the discussion elsewhere, I have posted a reply to him elsewhere - in a new section, where it belongs, down below.) Phonemonkey 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"the US controls many areas it does not claim" which is also not true. US openly states that this will be a temporary occupation. A better equivalent would be US controlling the state of Tennessee & proclaiming a statement claiming Tennessee even after it has controlled it for 150 years.
"Possession in general is essentially meaningless" which I know to be false - I'm a policy debater.
"you've got it backwards" No I didn't, this is from Yale Global. Japan asserted its legal claim then, even though, based on the International Crisis Group’s review of historical records, Korea had a stronger claim.[12]
"set both up equally." which, again as I've said, leads to "Negative POV" (under your definition as i see, but I think that it is set up as neutral and equally as it can get) - it's kind of like double negative (you know how you multiply two negative numbers to create a positive number)
"Since you find the proposed version "a change that really makes no difference" which is true on the factual level but not on discourse level - in other words, those two statements contain no difference in terms of the information they provide, but one is POV & one is not. So I oppose it. (Wikimachine 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
And Phonemonkey, I think you got the picture backward. I was responsive to Opp2, remember? Maybe that's what you need for him, but I'm all go on the intro discussion here & we can formally begin a dispute & RFC & arbitration whenever you want. I don't think that all the people who are concerned about this article are present & perceive this as a minor discussion. (Wikimachine 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for komdori, It seems that your proposal is very nice, though I do not understand an English nuance. Please let me make only one the opinion. I think "occupation" and "uninhabited" are so unrelated. Even if it is an uninhabited island, records of the cadastre and the government official lands for the investigation are admitted as the evidences of effective occupation in the judicial precedent. I think that your comment about defference between Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku before is not accurate. Therefore, I think that we need not emphasize "uninhabited".--Opp2 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, "emphasize uninhabited" is my mistake. Because occupation has a meaning not physical occupation, I think that it should add "physically". --Opp2 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This is so out of the blue, Opp2. We don't need to emphasize anything. The intro is as fine as it can get. These proposals are illegitimate and unnecessary. There was no dispute to begin with, there is no compromise to make. (Wikimachine 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Your insistence has neither the source nor evidence. --Opp2 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What? ??? I don't need an evidence showing that you are not responsive or that your suggestions have no point. (Wikimachine 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
komdori, I corrected a little and the explanation of the islands name was added. "Liancourt is claimed by both Japan and South Korea. South Korea currently occupies physically the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan. The islands is called Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan."--Opp2 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We can make it a little shorter while saying the same thing. How about: "The Liancourt Rocks are claimed by both Japan where they are known as Takeshima and South Korea where they are known as Dokdo. South Korea currently physically occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." I also switched the order of a couple words to make it flow better. I like "physically" better than "militarily" to ruffle the fewest feathers possible. Wikimachine, I will respond to your queries in the section below. --Cheers, Komdori 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will retouch the article if it waits for several days, and there is no rebuttal based on a concrete source.--Opp2 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, Komdori, good work. Phonemonkey 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but if I perceive that you guys are crowding me out & trying to manipulate the outside perception of the consensus here, I'll resort to the actions that I've listed above & you'll have to deal with it. It better be something legit. (Wikimachine 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
If you presented an accurate and reliable source, everyone would consider your insistence. However, you did not do it. You tried only to press your opinion and your original research. You only complained.--Opp2 01:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, you're so good at getting other peoples' mistakes. Why not explain to Opp2 that his "evidence" is original research? You take root beers & cheers all the time but you're really terrible at these real stuffs. (Wikimachine 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, the reason why I indicated that I agree with Komdori's suggestion is quite simply because I agree with Komdori's suggestion - "The Liancourt Rocks are claimed by both Japan where they are known as Takeshima and South Korea where they are known as Dokdo. South Korea currently physically occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." . I will be happy to consider your objection if you actually explain why, instead of dancing around at the side throwing paranoid accusations around and generally not making any sense. Phonemonkey 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, ppl only know what they've experienced so sounds like you had to deal w/ paranoia some time ago. I was talking about Opp2's list of defs & examples of the usage of the word "occupy".
Back to your proposal, I thought I already explained. S. Korea controls the island, it doesn't need to claim it again, and Japanese protest is illegit. This is how I see it, Phony. You ask why not? I ask you why yes. When something is already neutral & fine, why try to change it? That attitude is POV. You seem to try to build this assertion that in any dispute the two parties must be equal - that's simply not true. Maybe dispute over Antarctica but not this one. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. Simply, trying to represent a view that is accepted less on the equal level as the dominant viewpoint is prescription. (Wikimachine 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
It's a good thing that you can (finally) see and admit your own bias. You feel that, "S. Korea controls the island, it doesn't need to claim it again, and Japanese protest is illegit." The Japanese position is that the illegal occupation by South Korea of sovereign Japanese territory is indeed illegitimate, and rather than escalate to bloodshed (when they are already constantly accused of militarism) they'd rather settle the matter in the very international court set up to settle this type of matter. Writing either exclusively according to your bias or to a Japanese one would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is a main answer to your "why must we be neutral" question. —LactoseTIT 00:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I hope Wikimachine shares my appreciation of the irony of him dropping comments like "Japanese protest is illegit" together with a comment which goes "that attitude is POV" in the same bleedin paragraph. And of course, it was Wikimachine himself who was ranting on earlier about how people were supposedly too sensitive to use the word "occupy", but we haven't seen him reconciliate that with his supposed position yet. Oh, and of course I am looking forward to his reasoning as to he now opposes the use of the term "occupy". But there's no rush, Wikimachie. In your own time :) Phonemonkey 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, this is what I said before & no it's not - just like Tsushima Island. And even if I concede that no I didn't mean Japanese protest was illegitimate in the act of protesting itself but its content -that S. Korea is on equal level with Japan in the dispute. And I used "illegit" in different context (notice it's not completely spelled) - legit illegit means more like sensible insensible (it's a debate term (policy debate)). (Wikimachine 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Remove the protection

Return the protection to semi-protection so editors can make needed changes. My last three edits, and the one interwiki fix before me today can in no way be considered part of an edit war. Full protection is inappropriate here, and such protection puts off genuine editors such as myself. If necessary block the editors that are edit warring instead.

This change is needed:

The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), with their highest point at 169 meters (554 ft) in the western islet.

should be changed to:

The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), and sources vary as to their highest point: truthofdokdo.or.kr claims the western islet (Seodo) is 151 meters and korea.net claims 169 meters (554 ft).

-Wikianon 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that that would sound clumsy. If sources vary as to the altitude of their highest point I reckon it would be best to quote the generally accepted figure (if such figure exists) or at least try to say something like "estimates vary between XXX and YYY" and cite the references. Phonemonkey 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please address the incorrect translations on this page

I pointed out the historical errors of the 1667 Report on Oki written by Saito Hosen above. From there I provided at least three separate citations written in English from publications by credible sources. I'm still curious why this error hasn't been dealt with.

Wikipedia reads. In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hessen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following: Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

But in reality the document reads. Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this "州" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report does it say Ulleungdo (Matsushima) marks the northwest boundary of Japan. In fact, Ulleungdo was called Takeshima at this time. "Thus, this "州" is the northwest boundary of Japan.

The character "州" in Kanji (chinese based-characters) means area or province. If you read the text of Saito Hosen't report he used the character "州" to denote province and used the character "島" to mean island.

Again, In the last line of his report Saito Hosen states. "Viewing Korea from Takeshima~Matsushima is the same as viewing Oki Province from Shimae Province. This this "州" province or area markes the northern boundary of Japan.

Here are the English sources that concur with what I've pointed out.

http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html

Scroll down to chapter 10 (X) on this article by Japanese Professor Hideki Kajimura and you can see some Japanese also support the Korean interpretation of the 1667 Report on Oki by Saito Hosen.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura.hwp

Here is another reference from Han Key Lee's article published by Seoul University Press in 1969. The information on Saito Hosen's Oki 1667 Report on Oki is on page ten. It too states the boundary of Japan was Oki Province (Island) NOT Matsushima.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/leehankey-legal.hwp

Although I've linked these documents from my website they were originally downloaded in there unedited form from this website. I did this because you cannot hotlink directly to them (for some reason it doesn't work) The original page where I obtained publications of the Korea Observer can be found at this link.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm

The errors I'm pointing out have nothing to do with "interpretation" or POV. The errors Wikipedia has made in this example are an incorrect translation of a historical document as a result of intensive JPOV lobbying. This is a separate issue from Dokdo as a political issue. This should be rectified.

Here is my page on the Saito Hosen report. You can view the original document itself and compare the actual text and translation.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

Wikipedia should stop bickering over silly issues such as alphabetical order and definitions of words like "occupation" and address the incorrect translations and lack of primary maps and documents here.Clownface 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you describe both theories(province and island), I will agree to correct. And, I think that you will agree to the correction of many KPOV descriptions (looks like terra nullius and Japanese contradiction theory). --Opp2 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to interrupt, but I was just wondering if 竹島 is read as 죽도 (Jukdo) in Korean, and ta-ke-shi-ma in Japanese. If so, why is the small island next to 울릉도 (uellungdo) also read as Jukdo (in Korean)?Amphitere 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Japanse contradiction and terra nullius theory

<Insistence of Japanese Government>

The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

<Insistences of Japanese scholars of International Law>

  • Prof. Matsusumi(Hachiman Univ ronsyu p107-108, 1962)
If it was not terra nullius but a territory in Japan from long ago, the requirement for the territory acquisition (title by occupation: annotation by Matsusumi) by modern International Law did not have to be filled. Incorporation into Shimane Prefecture might be evidence that Japanese Government admitted Takeshima as terra nullius.(無主の土地でなく日本古来の領土の一部であるという立場に立つ限り、日本政府は第二の点であるところの「近代国際法により必要とされる領土取得の（先占）要件を国家行為を以て充足する」必要はなかった筈である。にも拘わらず1905年（明治38年）2月22日....竹島の領土編入の意志を殊更に島根県告示を以て公示したのは日本政府自身当時竹島を「無主の土地」と認めていた証拠であろう。)
  • Prof. Minagawa(Kokusai hougaku no syomondai p363, 1963)
Acient title was acquired by Japan's discovering in the 17th century, and using it exclusively realistically. This title was replaced for firm title by the incorporation in 1905.(日本はすぐに[sic.]十七世紀はじめ竹島を発見し、それを現実的専用の対象とすることによって原始的権原を有していたのであり、それは 1905年同島の正式な領土編入により確定的権原に代替された.....)
  • Prof. Daijyudo(Kokusaiho gaiko zashi p143, March 1963 and Ryodokisokuno kokusaiho p143, 1998 )
The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards are enough to change title thought that Japan effectively acquired in accordance with International Law in the 17th century for the modern title.(日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。)
  • Prof. Serita (Nihon no Ryodo p153, 2002)
Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the occupation title of terra nullius. Japan insist that if it treats as a Japanese territory at that time and another country doesn't object to it, it is enough to acquisition because International Law doesn't apply before opening the country to the world.(日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。)

<Outline of thesis by Prof. Park who is a Korean scholar (Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi 2006)>[13]

The insistence on two territorial titles (historical title, title by occupation) like Japan seems like contradiction. In this thesis, the insistence of Japan is examined. That is, Japan should select one title or two titles can be united. And I examine which title is appropriate if Japan selects one title.

1.Contradiction theory of historical title and occupation title

The author classified the insistence of a Japanese scholar and Japanese Government as follows.
  • Title by occupation theory (Prof. Matsusumi's thesis in 1962, Prof. Minagawa's thesis in 1963)
  • Historical title theory (Japanese Government, Prof. Daijyudo's thesis in 1966)
However, the insistence of Japanese Government is assumed to be a coexisting theory. Prof. Park is not judging whether Daijyudo’s thesis is a contradiction theory or a coexisting theory to be clear.

2.Coexisting theory of historical title and title by occupation

The insistence of Japanese Government is thought to be a coexisting theory. Daijyudo’s thesis is thought to be a coexisting theory. International Law did not request the reconfirmation of the will to own territory against the country which had become the member of the international society on the way. However, International Law is not prohibiting it. It is logically possible to strengthen her title by additional action same as title by occupation. A logically possible thing and actual execution are other questions. Therefore, Japanese title by occupation cases should be verified.

3.Analysis of Japanese title by occupation cases

The Japanese process of title by occupation is as follows. Geographic knowledge is acquired first. Secondarily, the ownership of the island is confirmed. Finally, if the occupation by another country is not confirmed, it is incorporated. However, the civilian's activity might be earlier than the acquisition of geographic knowledge by government. It is only two cases that Japan notified in seven cases. The relation to Senkaku Islands in the Sino-Japanese War is paid to attention in Korea.

4.Comparison with Takeshima's incorporation

There is no big difference between Takeshima's incorporation and other Japanse title by occupation cases. In Takeshima's incorporation, the governmental intention of reinforced Japanese historical title is not felt. Japanese coexisting theory is likely not to approve as a substance act though the theory is logically possible.

5.Summary

Japan should insist on title by occupation about Takeshima because there is no difference with other title by occupation cases. However, Japanese government will not do it. Korea should present the historical evidences when Japan insists on historical title. Korea should prove that Takeshima is not terra nullius before 1905 when Japan insists on title by occupation. After all, it is likely to have to be based on modern International Law like title by occupation or the effective control title, etc. It is difficult to find the standard of the historical title in East Asia at that time.

When the opinion of Prof. Pak and Prof. Serita's opinion are added to Prof. Pak's classification, it is as follows.

  • It is contradiction, and Japan should select title by occupation.
Prof. Matusumi, (Prof. Minagawa), (Prof. Daijyudo)
  • Japan should select title by occupation though it is not contradiction.
Prof. Park
  • There is no problem in a present Japanese insistence.
Japanese government, (Prof. Daijyudo), Prof. Serizawa

():Interpretation by Prof. Park.

Even the person who doesn't know International Law will understand by there are various interpretations. There are neither an established theory nor a judicial precedent about the application of International Law to the country before International Law is received. There is not a decided form to succeed to from history title to title of International Law either. Therefore, a lot of theories exist. It is only Prof. Matsusumi to conclude title by occupation of terra nullius.

<The description of a present article>
"Opening"

  • Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

"The Joseon and Edo Period"

  • This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

"Other Maps and records"

  • In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.

These descriptions are KPOV in complete. I do not demand to erase these KPOV descriptions(contradiction). However, I demand the following corrections for NPOV.

  • It should be described clearly that it is an interpretation by South Korea.
  • The rebuttal of Japan against this contradiction theory should be described.
  • The following contradictions of the South Korea's insistence are pointed out as "contradiction" cleary.
  • South Korea is interpreting Don 'guk yeoji seungnam as the record that sees Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo now. However, a Chosun government is interpreting it as a record that saw Ulleungdo from the peninsula in 1694.[14]
  • The South Korea government is insisting that Ahn's activity is effective now. However, Chosun government answered to Japan that he is unrelated to a Chosun government in 1696. Moreover, Chosun government answered that Ahn's petition in the Tottori clan is his lie. [15]

--Opp2 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those evidences. It may have been my fault, but I did not see these until now. (Wikimachine 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Opp, even before the second Anyongbok incident of 1696, Japan admitted in their own documents both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were not territories of Japan.

This was discussed between Tottori and the Shogunate (Bafuku) in 1695. The documents are recorded here. This proves that Japanese claims that the Murakawa's and the Oya's were not granted fuedal tenure as they assert. The documents are here.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html

The Korean government's official publication on Dokdo also confirms this.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/gov-doc1.jpg


In conclusion, Japan did not consider neither Takeshima (Ulleungdo) nor Matsushima as Japanese territory during the 17th Century.

Opp, please show one map or document that shows Japan's territorial acquistion of Matsushima prior to 1905. Here are about 30 maps of Japan that show Dokdo was not part of Japan before 1905 and thus their historical claim is a sham.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html

Wikipedia, why do you ignore my requests to have your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 corrected? I've given you the correct document which is supported by other publications..

The Korean government's official publication on Dokdo also confirms what I've been saying. What kind of evidence do you consider worthy of citation to correct this. Some of the citations I've used are the same sources you've used on other hisotrical matters (ie Shin Yong Ha)

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/gov-doc2.jpgClownface 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not you know Oki to be a direct control territory? Do you understand a Japanese political system at that time? To begin with, it is not confirmed that the Shogunate and the Tottori feudal lord accepted Ahn's request. Why do you change the topic? Present subject is Chosun's official final answer to Japan about Ahn. She denied Ahn's activity.--Opp2 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, do not worry about. Because you did not know. However, the log about one half year ago is here.[16] I think that this "Wikimachine" is different from a present "Wikimachine". I think that it is a different person though ID is quite the same. Yes, you didnot know that at all.--Opp2 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm the same person. Actually, most of what that says is included somewhere in the article - except that the first several quotes explain how the incorporation could have been under terra nullius. That could be added, but I'm not sure if the translation of yours is accurate. Also, just one sentence doesn't do us any good. And we need the book's or journal's title & then the chapter title as well. (Wikimachine 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Include? first several quotes? Which concrete quotation and article?　The quotation is all the same as last time. The title of the book has already been written. Is the one sentence bad?　Is such a rule in wikipedelia?　And, most of the sentence is quoted by Prof. park and his thesis has already been presented.

--Opp2 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
amended bill
"Opening"

  • Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905 and peaceful effective control after that.

"The Joseon and Edo Period"

  • This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

"Other Maps and records"

  • Though Japanese government hasn't claimed as acquisition of terra nullius, some Korean scholers are pointing out that the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void. However, Japanese scholars are claiming that it is not contradiction because International Law and the concept of terra nullius is not applied to the state which closes the country and International Law is not prohibiting the re-incorporation of her territory.

I want the opinion and indication about the grammar.--Opp2 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go to WP:JP to ask someone there to back you up on the translations. (Wikimachine 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
Why do not you admit your lie or mistake?--Opp2 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, what your proposing is a confusing mishmash of legal terms. I don't even understand what you've written.

Peaceful Occupation after that!!?? Is that a joke Opp2.

First the Japanese Navy surveyed Dokdo for installation of watchtowers two months before they annexed the island.

Here is the map by the warship Tsushima drawn by Vice Commander Yamanaka.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map.jpg

Regarding 17th Century "management" Opp, you say Matsushima was part of Oki Province at this time? Well, Opp Japanese maps of this era say otherwise.

First a map of Oki Prefecture around 1660, No Matsushima.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-oki-map.jpg

Next a national map of Japan from 1691. Oki is in the box.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ishikawa-ryusen-1694.jpg

Next another Japanese national map from 1654. Again Oki island is in the box. It is clear Oki Island is the northwest boundary in all of these maps.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1654-Japanese-map-border.jpg

If wiki states "Japanese cite 17th Century activity as basis for historical claim.." they should mention no Japanese maps of this era show either Takeshima (Ulleungdo) or Matsushima (Dokdo) as part of any Japanese Prefecture or on national maps of Japan. Clownface 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Peaceful effective control" is an insistence of Japan. It is described clearly as the Japanese claim. Is the following sentences added as a Korean claim?　”In South Korea, there is no evidence of the effective control. There is not specific evidence without doubt that it shows that 石島 is Liancourt Rocks either." Why do not you understand the subject always? Do not tell an unrelated story to this part here. --Opp2 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten important information. Japanese Government never says that they acquired terra nullius. Japanese acquisition terra nullius in 1905 is an interpretation by some Korean scholars. Therefore, my amendment bill was retouched again. See above.--Opp2 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you are only presenting scholars interpretation of what they feel were Japan's grounds for annexing Takeshima.

However, Japanese historical records state Japan's "so-called" basis for including Takeshima they continually cite the island as being "uninhabited" and make no reference at all to historical grounds. Terra nullius mean's literally no-mans land or having no people although it still lacks clear codification to this day.

Let me give you an example. Nakai Yozaburo describes his conversation with various Japanese Ministry officials such asAdmiral Kimotsuki regarding Liancourt Rocks.

"...As I thought that the island was Korean territory attached to Ullungdo, I went to the capital trying to submit a request to the Residency-General. But, as suggested by Fishery Bureau Director Maki Bokushin, I came to question Korea's ownership of Takeshima. And at the end of my investigation with the matter, I convinced myself that this island was absolutely ownerless through the conclusion by the then Hydrographic Director Admiral Kimotsuki. Accordingly, I submitted an application through the Home Ministry to the three Ministers of Home Ministry , Foreign Ministry and Agriculture. Commerce Ministry for incorporation of this island into Japanese territory and for its lease tome. The Home Ministry authorities had an opinion that the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time [during the Russo-Japanese War] would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea. Thus, my petition was rejected..."

Admiral Kimotsuki was instrumental in the annexation of Dokdo. The minuscule announcement Shimane made on the second page of a local newspaper also shows that Japan did not incorporate Takehima on historical grounds. The article describes these rocks as first un-named. If indeed Takeshima was Japan's from ancient times they would have at least mentioned the rocks' names when they "announced" the inclusion.

The reason Japan tries now tries to deny their terra nullius claim is because evidence that Koreans were cognizant of the island before the Japanese seized it has become known. ie (the logbook of the Niitaka and Black Dragon Fishing Manual.

From what data exists, Japan annexed Dokdo on the basis they said the island was ownerless (terra-nullius) Please show original evidence (docs) that Japan annexed Dokdo on the historical grounds. Otherwise what makes the Japanese translation any better than the Korean? Clownface 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Reserch. Why do not you understand the subject always?----Opp2 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the source of Nakai Yozaburo's diary is not "original research" at all.

The source of Nakai's diary was written by Kazuo Hori a Japanese man in a published article called "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905" in 1997 from the Korean Observer. All the sources of his information are cited at the end of the article.

Kazuo Hori's published article can be seen on this page.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm

The quote I mentioned above is on page 18 of Kazuo Hori's well-researched article from the link above. Again from this data it is quite clear the Japanese either believed Liancourt Rocks were Korean (Home Ministry) or the island was ownerless (terra nullius) Admiral Kimotsuki of the Imperial Navy's Hydrographic Dept. He was the man who was the driving force behind Japan's incorporation of Liancourt and was the one who ordered a military survey of the island and a report from the warship Tsushima in November 1904.

Again Japanese Admiral Kimotsuki stressed to Nakai Yozaburo that Liancourt was "ownerless" (terra nullius)and stated that Liancourt Rocks was "completely ownerless" That was the basis of Japan's annexation of Dokdo NOT historical ownership.

Mark Lovmo also has the article published on his website.

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html

Now I've given historical proof Japan annexed Dokdo on terra nullius Opp. Can you give evidence of incorporation on the basis of historical title?

Just because information goes against your agenda Opp doesn't give you the right to label it "original research" Clownface 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hori is not a scholar of International Law. Why do not you understand the subject always? --Opp2 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

administration of liancourt

I'm going to remove the "administration" section at the top of the page.

dictionary.com's definition of "administer" is "to manage, have executive charge of" [17]

Adding that Japan also administers the islands is biased in that your taking advantage of the literal meaning that "oh Japan also does some paperwork about the islets in their government".

Does Japan control the islets? Do articles explicitly mention that the islets are administered by Japan? [18] it doesn't. Not to mention that this article doesn't even mention the word "Liancourt Rocks".

[19] it says that "the islets are an administative part of Ullung Island, North Kyongsang province, under the control of the Department of Ocean and Fisheries" No mention of Japan administering the islets, only claiming them, which is true. Good friend100 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true. The article should explain that. (Wikimachine 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Well, I don't know about the removal - it's understood that Korea controls the island but doesn't "administration" mean paperwork in that case? (Wikimachine 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Let's go for an RFC. (Wikimachine 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

No article says that Japan administers the islets. I remember that JPOV editors used the paperwork as an excuse to say that Japan administers the islets. There are no articles I can find that say Japan administers the island. Its always a variant of "Korea administers the islets and Japan claims them". [personal attack removed] Good friend100 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All right. [personal attack removed] By the way, welcome back - in Japanese that's pronounced as "okairinasai" or something (watched some anime). (Wikimachine 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

In third party's sources, South Korea's oneside-occupation also is not using "administration". If administration is used, South Korea is ineligible too. Opp2 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, its not about the "paperwork" that I'm arguing about. The "paperwork" that one of the JPOV editors mentioned was their excuse for saying that Japan administers the islets.
To the anon editor, I mentioned a couple of third party sources at my comment above. Good friend100 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo and Time sight cannot see by error. Dictionary.com is not about liancourt. What do you say?--Opp2 06:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Claiming administrative righs is not the same as actual administration. Phonemonkey 13:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that South Korea administers the islands and Japan doesn't. Japan simply claims it. Good friend100 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're dealing with a bit of a confusion with language here. As I mention in the below section, the info box is to discuss how the relative countries administer the place (that is, how they categorize it for the sake of administration). It is not an evaluation of whether or not they have some philosophical "right" to do so. —LactoseTIT 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not basing it off of "who is right and who is wrong". Its a fact that South Korea physically administers the islets. Japan doesn't. They only claim it and classify it into their appropiate prefecture. Classifying doesn't mean administrating. Good friend100 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. From Japan's perspective, Japan is the only entity who legitimately administers it as part of the prefecture as described, with Korea "just claiming" it. The box is describing the facts objectively--how both countries classify it as part of (administrative) regions. —LactoseTIT 19:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that's Japanese government's perspective (not even all Japanese think that way anyways) & that's still separate from how we're going to approach the administer issue here b/c all that matters is who administers the islets now? (different from the equivalent of register, which is purely paperworks.) (Wikimachine 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
This is a point of view issue; it depends who you ask. The government of Japan classifies it for the purposes of administration as part of Shimane Prefecture. The government of South Korea classifies it for the purposes of administration as part of Ulleung County. This is the reason for that section of the infobox template; I am not certain of any reason for someone to want to remove this factual information except to "side" with one group. —LactoseTIT 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you say comparison of different viewpoints in itself is a matter of viewpoint (perspective), then I've got nothing else to say. Anybody can specify & attack a deeper & more fundamental flaw in another's reasoning. (Wikimachine 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

RFC

Dispute on whether to include Japan's administration data over Liancourt Rocks when it's purely paperwork + whether the latest version is per consensus (22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs)
Japanese paperwork does not amount to administration at all.

Collins Cobuild English dictionary defines "administration" as: The range of activities connected with organizing and supervising an organization or institution works.

Japanese paperwork is not supervision over the actual activities on Takeshima and can't be seen as any form of administration at all. Japan just maintains these activities as a flimsy "legal basis" to keep their claim alive.

Drop Japan's "admin" infoClownface 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Both S Korea and Japan claim administrative rights over the rocks, but currently it is S Korea which administers the islands. There is no need t delete the entire "administration" section, as Goodfriend100 seems to be suggesting - as long as the fact above is made clear, there is no need to delete any administrative data. Phonemonkey 13:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Then is it appropiate to include only South Korea in the section? What I'm trying to do is a fact. Good friend100 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Only including S Korea in that section would certainly reflect reality better than what we have now; however I think it is important for the sake of NPOV to leave Japan's claim to administrative rights over it on one form or another. I'm not sure how though, I have just tried tampering with the infobox and miserably failed. Phonemonkey 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey, I just edited the article's beginning paragraph. I still don't get why we should not delete the section. Japan certainly does not administer the islets and adding it to the section is simply another way for JPOV editors to make this article lean towards Japan. Good friend100 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'm happy to have that section deleted, it's obviously more trouble than it is worth. Phonemonkey 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read the information about the info box template (how it was designed). The information there is not asserting what is right or wrong, but providing information about how the relative countries classify the island. In other words, how they administer it (whether or not they have the "right" to do so). Removing it because you think one country's claim is stronger than another is simply censoring useful and valid information. —LactoseTIT 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it not appropriate to remove Japanese administrative information, since it is in dispute. For NPOV sake, it should be kept. Who controls is a different matter from that who obtains it legitimately. --Aphaia 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And thats your excuse Lactose. That "how the countries classify the islets". By your logic we should add that China and Russia administers them since they classify them too. Did you read my previous post? Its simply by your own logic that you think it should be up there. No media or other articles say that Japan administers the islets with Korea.
I'm suggesting that we just remove the whole section. Good friend100 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think you're missing something with the language. Russia and China do not classify them as parts of Russia or China. They have no administration categorization, and so aren't included in the box. Removing the box would be simply censorship of information you didn't like. Too bad for the student writing a report... —LactoseTIT 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not writing a report on this and in my school system, Wikipedia isn't even accepted at the middleschool level because its so inaccurate.

Let me say again that Japan doesn't administer the islets. Nobody says that Japan administers the islets. Thats your own personal interpretation so that you can have that up there. Simply because Japan classifies the islets into their country doesn't mean that they administer it. They don't occupy it, neither do they have any control over it. Look up the word "administration" in a dictionary. Keeping the box would simply be an inclusion of information you like. Too bad for the anti-Korean sweating himself (herself) with a student writing a report... Good friend100 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and let me mention that Wikipedians are wasting their time writing an encyclopedia that nobody uses for an informational purpose. Good friend100 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it's irresponsible for you to write even your middle school report with the information on Wikipedia solely, but the point is that a good, properly referenced article can serve as a springboard for a wealth of acceptable sources. If you dislike Wikipedia so much and don't want to make it an informational source (as evidenced by your comments above and your anti-wikipedia essays posted at various times on your user page) I don't know why you continue to detract from the experience of those who do.
I'll try to explain in more simple terms about the administration. If you were to go up to a Japanese governmental official and pose the question, "In what administrative region is Takeshima?" you would get a specific answer, reflecting the way their government administration classifies it. If you were to ask a Korean governmental official, "In what administrative region is Dokdo?" you would get a different answer. Both of these answers are appropriately sourced and are useful pieces of information for people seeking information about this region. —LactoseTIT 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and if I wasn't clear, I'm not a middle schooler. Good friend100 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternate version

User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks As requested, I'm providing sources. I'm going to write the alternate version of this article, & will present this to either the arbitration committee, mediation committee, or the RFC. (Wikimachine 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

When you're done, feel free to compare with the state of the real article, and suggest individual changes for us to debate. —LactoseTIT 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This Alternate version is based on old information and the guess. [20]--Opp2 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is South Korea suitable as an administration?

A one-sided act is not taken as a lawful act by International Law.

  • In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue.[21]

Even the scholar who is supporting the Korean claim admits that present occupation by Korea is blocked by Japanese protests.[22] p21-22

  • Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription.
  • Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.

Therefore, South Korea is not suitable as an administration. If only South Korea is admited as an administration, it is KPOV.--Opp2 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What information sources are considered reputable?

A number of times of requested a change to inaccuracies on this page. What sources does Wikipedia accept as credible? I hear the term "original research" a lot here what does this mean and what does it matter?

Wikipedia, Please clarify what information you need to amend your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki and I will provide them for you. Clownface 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you asked. For the definition of original research please refer to Wikipedia:No original research, and as for what sources are acceptable please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Phonemonkey 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Asked translations

^ (Japanese) "朝鮮時代の地誌では、島嶼を記録する場合は、その海島を所管する群県の所在地からの方向と、陸地からの距離が明記される決まりになっていた。(When the Korean topography records in the Joseon dynasty described islands, it was regulated to write the direction from the local government and the distance from the land.) See [5]. 竹島は日韓どちらのものか by Prof. Shimojyo.

The link is http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/chirisi.html, it says
  • the content is based on two books by Shimojo Masao?, "日韓・歴史克服への道 展転社 / 竹島は日韓どちらのものか　文春新書 / いずれも下條正男著を参考にしました"
  • the author of this webpage doesn't seem to be identical with Mr. Shimojo. And it is a summary rather than quotes. So I think this webpage cannot be attributed to Mr. Shimojo.
  • Since it cites an original research by an anon webmaster, it doesn't meet our Wikipedia criteria as "reliable source". Regardless if it is true, I think this part should be replaced with the proper cited sources, perhaps including Mr. Shimojo's. Since I think it problematic to be cited here, I'm not interested in its translation. Sorry.--Aphaia 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The original of ”竹島は日韓どちらのものか” is as follows. p163-165

州、府、郡、県の地方官庁では、「規式」に準拠して資料が集められたわけだが、これは鬱陵島のような島嶼の場合でも同じであった。例えば「慶尚道地理志」では、島嶼の「規式」は次ぎのようなものであった。
諸島は、陸地よりも相去る水路の息数。及び島中、前に在りて人民の接居、農作の有無。
これによると、「諸島」が地誌に記載されるときには、陸地からの距離を明記することが求められた。
（中略：各種地誌の記載例の検証）
「慶尚道続撰地理志」の「地理誌続撰事自」という「規式」で、「海島、本邑の其方に在り。水路幾里。陸地より本邑を去ること幾里」と記すように定められていたからである。
（中略：慶尚道続撰地理志の記載例の検証）
「慶尚道続撰地理志」では、島嶼は陸地からの距離と、島を管轄する地方官庁からの方角（其方」を示すことが原則とされていた。
したがって、「世宗実録地理志」や「東国興地勝覧」の「蔚珍県条」で「県の正東の海中に在り」とあるのは、鬱陵島や于山島が管轄する蔚珍県の東の海中にある事実を示すもので、「風日晴明なれば即ち望み見るべし」というのは、蔚珍県（陸地）から鬱陵島までは「見える」距離にあることを示しているわけである。

I think writing this as the quotation to be too long. --Opp2 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quotation, I think the relevant part is just one line: これによると、「諸島」が地誌に記載されるときには、陸地からの距離を明記することが求められた。Also I note this passage doesn't say that "direction" should be referred. It shows a n example in which both distance and direction was referred, but not say both were regulated to note. So I think my original concern is right. It twisted, even slightly, the cited source, thus an original research rather than citing a source. --Aphaia 07:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the description about direction from Shimojyo's book. Please see above. I do not think OR.--Opp2 12:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah I missed another part "「慶尚道続撰地理志」では、島嶼は陸地からの距離と、島を管轄する地方官庁からの方角（其方」を示すことが原則とされていた。" But because another example I quoted had required only distance, you cannot say direction must have been required without reservation. The original sentence is still your understanding and the referred source doesn't say. So I think it your OR. --Aphaia 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I want your help. A person who can only　complain is doubting my English at "Japanse contradiction and terra nullius theory"[23]. Could you check my English translation of "Insistences of Japanese scholars of International Law"?--Opp2 13:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I can help you. --Aphaia 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's unfortunate.　And, I am not an author of the site. --Opp2 08:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

beginning paragraph

I don't see anything wrong with my edit.

Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan.[1][2][3] In Japan, they are known as Takeshima (たけしま, 竹島, Bamboo islands) and in South Korea they are known as Dokdo (독도, 獨島). South Korea currently occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan.[4][5] The name "Liancourt Rocks" comes from the French whaling ship Liancourt which charted the islets in 1849.
South Korea claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905. Today, South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima, in Oki District, Shimane Prefecture. Good friend100 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with most of the above. It's only the second half of this sentence which is unnecessary - "Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan." The fact that Japan claims the islets are mentioned twice in the same sentence, and the fact that S Korea currently administers the islets is already in the intro. Phonemonkey 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the current version nor do I see the need for your edit. Again, Phonemonkey, you ask why not? I ask why yes. (Wikimachine 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
Strange comment from Wikimachine. I never asked "why not", and I have already answered "why yes". Phonemonkey 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree at all. Becouse "administrate" has already been discussed. Sources of time and yahoo that you presented above cannot be seen. I think it is useless even if the same thing is written twice looks like your proposal. --Opp2 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"However" is not a conjunction. --Reuben 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No way, RV

I WILL NOT TOLERATE that "consensus" that you Opp2 made up - if you want the change, do it legitimately - DONT USE ANON ACCOUNTS to slip in changes, & then say "CONSENSUS". OR ELSE I WILL USE ARBITRATION & REPORT TO WP:SOCK FOR REVERT WAR & MANIPULATION OF CONSENSUS. (Wikimachine 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I've had enough with all of you -constantly nagging & slipping in stuffs & bluffing about consensus etc & the worst reasonings & arguments ever that I know even a 3rd grader wuould disagree to but it's just not easy answering them all & it's such a time waste I feel. If you think you can hide behind civility and NPOV with me, you've got it all wrong. (Wikimachine 03:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Upon your 2nd revert, Lactose, I'll begin arbitration. Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists. (Wikimachine 03:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Komdori, if you haven't noticed, I was under the impression that there was no new edits on the intro & I never agreed to anything there- there was consensus - but it all ends here. I'll begin arbitration now. (Wikimachine 03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
A half dozen or so editors worked on making it better over a period of days or weeks. You were well aware of the discussion, but just threatened to veto. We don't need your permission. See WP:OWN. Go ahead and file whatever you like, they will probably say the same thing. Not to be rough, but if you change your mind and decide to help improve the article instead of wikilawyering, we'll be here to discuss it with you. --Cheers, Komdori 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make up stuffs. Anyone can check the discussion and figure that out - I specifically stated that I didn't perceive any change in edits so I didn't know what Opp2 meant. (Wikimachine 04:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

And you guys agreed amongst yourselves. There was never any consensus. (Wikimachine 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

You have just contradicted yourself. People took part in a discussion and agreed on an edit. If that's not consensus then what is it? Phonemonkey 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence is not based on the source. You are only complaining. --Opp2 12:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for change to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki.

Wikipedia reads as follows:

In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hessen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following:

"...Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan..."


This is an incorrect translation and incorrect interpretation made in the JPOV that is not supported by other maps and other historical data of this era. The last line of Saito Hosen's report reads:

然則 日本之乾地以此州爲限矣 Thus, this "州" prefecture (Oki) marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.

It does not say Ulleungdo (竹島) or Matsushima (松島) mark the northwest boundary at all.

While 州 is conventionally translated "province" in this context, not as prefecture, the literal translation of that quote may be "Thus the dried land [opp. watery sea] of Japan make this province its boundary [mark].". However we admit 州 can be used to refer to an island. This is highly context depending (州 can be state [e.g. State of California], or even continent [e.g. European Continent]), so I recommend to list both interpretations unless the whole text is provided and we can see it more closely. --Aphaia 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following change based on the cited publications to follow:

Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this prefecture "州" (Oki) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Here are the sources of the proposed changes.

The first is Gyeongsan Province‘s official publication on Dokdo. I quote: "...This islands (Ulleungdo) is abundant in bamboo, fish and sealions. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Koryo (Korea) from there is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this prefecture (Oki) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan..."

See pages 37,38 (image #'s 18,19)

http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf

The second citation was published in the Spring 1998 Edition of the Korean Observer by Han Key Lee. The related text is on page 10. I quote:

Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two island are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus the island (s} marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

"...Here 此州 (thus or the island or these islands as sinitic characters can be used either as singular or plural) is erroneously interpreted as the "two islands." This can be rightly interpreted as denoting Oki making the northwestern boundary of Japan..."

Han Key Lee's article can be found here.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm


The third citation was written and published by Shin Yong Ha again in the Korean Observer in the fall of 1997. Shin Yong Ha's reference to Saito Hosen's 1667 report is on page 2. His article can be found here.

I quote: "...Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two islands are uninabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Oki marks the northwestern boundary of Japan..."

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm

The fourth published citation was written by a Japanese man named Hideki Kajimura. The reference to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki is on page 16. I quote.

" The above mentioned expression in the Records on Observations in Oki Province should be interpreted as expressing Oki Island as the boundary of Japanese territory , as the Korean side points out...."

Hideki Kajimura's publication called "The Question of Takeshima Dokdo can be viewed here.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm

All four of the above citations are published articles written by separate sources Korean and Japanese. Clownface 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Aphaia, thank you for your response.

I created this image with a translation and explanation that agrees with the citations I've given above. I know this is original research but hopefully it explains what the professors above and I say about incorrect translation.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/saito-oki-text3.jpg


In Saito Hosen's report he consistently used the term "州" to mean province and "島" to denote islands. For example Saito Hosen uses "竹島" for Takeshima and "松島" for Matsushima. He also states these two islands as "此二島" and refers to Oki Island "隠岐島" and Oki Prefecture as "隱州".

On top of that the Saito Hosen's report is titled 隱州視聽合記 begins with an introduction of Oki Province "隱州" and ends with a summary declaring this "州" as the boundary.

The last two lines read.

These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Korea from there is the same as viewing Oki Province from Onshu Province. Thus, this "州" marks the northwest boundary of Japan. Saito Hosen declares the boundary of Japan on information of the sentence prior. By the Japanese translation, the boundary of Japan is "these two islands"

How can two islands separated by a days travel (90kms) in a straight line from Japan become a boundary? Saito Hosen did not use the fact Korea was visible from Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) area to declare these lands as part of Japan. It makes no sense that because Korea was visible from Takeshima~Matsushima it would be Japan's land especially when Saito Hosen uses the comparative analogy of viewing Oki from Onshu, territories long since Japanese territory.

Check this map. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-coastmap1.jpg

Here are original images of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki. You can compare the original text with my translation above.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito2.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito1.jpg

Clownface 11:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimatum

I'm guessing that all of you have read what I've written at the arbitration - although I don't understand why it's mere content dispute & I feel that it's going to fail, so I'll say this:

This is a you-know-that-i-know-that-you-know scenario. No matter what you say, I know that you know what I am talking about & that what I say is mostly true. There was no consensus building, and the 4 of you agreed amongst yourself. You need an outsider to agree with your proposal.

The fact of the matter is, it will be only a matter of time b/f rest of the editors join this discussion. I'm obligated to revert to the version prior to the current one & it will be done.

Also, it is up to you guys to change your attitude & your objectives here - which I've described at the arbitration case. I refuse to cooperate until you guys are willing to cooperate first. (Wikimachine 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Please explain the supposed difference between "editors agreeing between themselves" and "consensus". Phonemonkey 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Already in this article the lines are already drawn as it has been for 2 years - JPOV: user:Macgruder, user:Komdori, user:LactoseTI, user:Endroit, etc.
vs. (again, KPOV & JPOV are used out of convenience, don't make fool of yourself by claiming yourself as NPOV)
KPOV: user:Good friend100, user:DandanXD, user:Easternknight, user:melonbarmonster, user:Amphitere, user:Oncamara, etc.
NPOV: user:LordAmeth, user:Visviva, user:Nihonjoe, etc. (Wikimachine 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, I think you missed my question. The question was "please explain the supposed difference between "editors agreeing between themselves" and "consensus"". I hope you are not under the mistaken impression that this article and the talk page is "owned" by the little club you mention above. Phonemonkey 22:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's an international organization & we're just part of that work group. In fact, we're almost done with a super computer that can create millions of sock puppet accounts & we're planning to take over Wikipedia in December 12, 2012.
Consensus building: 1) ppl make compromises 2) ppl open to other's opinions 3) ppl make reasonable demands
Agreeing amongst yourselves/club activity: 1) ppl don't make compromises, not open to other ppl's opinions 2) ppl make ridiculous demands that cannot be met by the other party 3) ppl then make "compromises" that are slightly less than the ridiculous demands but still can't be agreeable 4) ppl take turns reverting & also support each other in talk on everything, & clear sign - they never disagree amongst themselves (however, I have disagreed w/ my club members, ha & if you ask for ev, I'll give links) 5) ppl then make changes on an article that are opposed by the other party when they're sure that other editors in the other party are inactive & the other party doesn't have much to engage in revert war
I hope our very good faithed & neutral editor here, Phonemonkey, will learn from this & know the dark side of the force. (Wikimachine 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Wikipedia is not a team sport and I view each editor's arguments on their own merits. And as far as I am concerned I joined the discussion about the intro, weighed up each persons comments and agreed on a consensus with the other editors who contributed to the discussion (none of whose usernames I even recognised). As I have already indicated, if you had actually explained clearly what your reasoning is then I (and I am sure Komdori too) would have been more than happy to take your point into consideration, but you hadn't. You were even angrily arguing in agreement with the others half the time. Now with many consensus-building situations there are sometimes one or two people who are not satisfied with the outcome, and in this case it just happens to be you. Phonemonkey 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken. I was either frustrated or cold, not angry & I didn't contradict myself. ... of course, when I found out that Opp2 had voluntarily made changes to the article that I found to be very offensive, I became angry. (Wikimachine 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I will write a neutral version of the article here: User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks so that I can work at it with peace. See Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) to know what to expect. (Wikimachine 23:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

are Korea being provocative?

personal opinion, of course they are..they are trying to be as annoying as possible to Japan and Japanese people. but personal opinion means nothing when it comes to wikipedia so.....

the word provocative means something that provokes. not an intent to provoke, you could be accidentally provocative, and there is no denying the fact that Korea's actions are provoking Japan.

so unless there is a really good reason ie. my understanding of the word provocative is not correct, or Japan is not being provoked, then I see no reason as to why that one word is being removed, and should not be put back.Sennen goroshi 19:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It breaches NPOV. I don't deny for a second that Korea's actions are provoking Japan, but sticking the word "provocatively" breaches fairness of tone. The alternative is to add the word "provocatively" onto pretty much every verb involving Korea and Japan (since it seems Japan can't move its left toe without upsetting some Koreans, less so vice versa). And anyway, true as it may be, it breaches WP:OR. Phonemonkey 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's funny, because the more-or-less official stance of the South Korean government on this issue is "Controversy? What controversy?". Korea has the island, what more do we need? Any move will serve only to acknowledge that this is indeed a disputed land. I can see that how irritating it must be to the Japanese government, but I can't see how just "sitting on the island" can be called "provoking." In fact, many Koreans actually accuse our government for "not being provocative enough," (= fearing Japan and keeping silent). Ironic, isn't it.
Well, if you're talking of some Koreans being provocative, then that's a different matter, but let's not confuse (some) people with a nation. Yongjik 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the topic of discussion strictly about edits to the article. The section in brackets in my comment above was to illustrate a point and was not designed to offend either Japan or Korea, but sorry if it seemed like it. Phonemonkey 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, of course. I'm sorry. (By the way, I was addressing Sennen goroshi, not you.)
User:Yongjik exits in search of more yummy flamebait topic... :) Yongjik 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of a geocities source

Goodfriend100, you have sourced this edit of yours [24] on a geocities page (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html). While I agree it is a well researched site, assuming that it is a personal website of a private individual I don't think it falls under the definition of a reliable source. If the interpretation of the Cairo conference which you mention has been used by (for exampe) the Korean government as an argument (as opposed to a personal interpretation by whoever's page it is) then I'm sure there would be other, published sources which show this, so I urge you to find that. At the moment someone will, quite justifiably, remove the paragraph you added. Phonemonkey 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, send a message to my e-mail address: rei0zero@gmail.com. I'll send you a gozillion sources which Phonemonkey can't complain against. (Wikimachine 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
Wikimachine, if you have a reliable source then you are totally welcome to put it on the article yourself. And I don't understand why you seem so offended by the fact that I pointed out that the source is a personal website - would you have preferred me to notice that a source was a personal website, but kept it quiet? Phonemonkey 23:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No I'm not, sorry I wasn't offended by you. And no, I don't want to contribute to the actual article b/c it will be reverted. That was really no reason, I'm not sure why I wasn't more courteous. (Wikimachine 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Ok, Phonemonkey, thanks for the heads up. Good friend100 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

opposite reason to add Cairo declaration to the summary of the section

  • If the Cairo declaration is added to the summary of the section, It should also add RUSK DOCUMENT and SFtreaty to the summary for NPOV and balance with insistence of Japan.
  • The source is an individual site. His degree is uncertain. And, the selection of the source and his comment has been biased, too. For instance, he is presenting the document by S.W. Boggs at 7/13/51 for Korean view[25]. However, the investigation by Boggs at 8/3/51 is disregarded. [26] And, this site quotes the thesis of a foolish Korean scholer who's name is Myung-Ki Kim without the verification[27]. This professor cannot do even an accurate quotation[28].
  • Hey Opp2, a better alternative to "stupid" would be "obtuse". (Wikimachine 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[29]

Wikimachine also agreed this professor's negligence.--Opp2 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, your more than welcome to add whatever you want, as long as its sourced. And your just repeating what phonemonkey said. Don't name somebody as "foolish". Its clear that you are only here for the interest of strengthining the article in Japan's favor. Good friend100 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If the Korean rebutter against Shimane incorporation is added to summary, it is necessary to add that Korea does not have the evidence of effective control and specific evidence(only presumption). The rebuttal to the insistence calls a further rebuttal and eddit war. --Opp2 01:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And, I always describing the both theories in parallel. Present article doesnot become so. For instance, terra nullius and Ogasawara hypothesis. In these hypotheses, the "obtuse"　scholar's thesis is starting points.--Opp2 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ownership --> legitimate rights

Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs (previously mentioned in archives).

Considering the evidence presented by both sides, South Korea establishes a stronger claim to the Liancourt Rocks because it has manifested greater affirmative acts of sovereignty – as necessitated by principles of international law – on and around the disputed area. Given the islands’ ambiguous past, the dispute turns on which country has demonstrated affirmative ownership as set out by historical precedents. Nevertheless, the two sides are considered unlikely to bring this dispute before an arbitrator as such direct involvement would risk renewed hostilities and further divisions.

(Wikimachine 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

This of course is not really even able to be used as a source here--it is an opinion piece written by an undergraduate student. The class asked them to pick a side and support it. Any student could (and did) write opposing pieces as well. Feel free to pick through his article for references to something worthwhile including. —LactoseTIT 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like it. Good friend100 02:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I might add the course leader was the chair of the Korea Foundation. Anyway, to include such a paper, we'd have to establish the legitimacy of Sean as an expert (which he isn't). It's not that I don't like the paper, but just see it for what it is (in terms of relevance here)--we can us it to find sources to add, but it itself is worthless. —LactoseTIT 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like it. It's Stanford. It'll be used. I'm too busy writing a neutral article that includes all points of view to take care of these individual complaints, as in the past. (Wikimachine 02:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
I do like it. It won't be used, however. See my comment as for why. Feel free to write whatever you like, and if we actually can agree on bits of it, we might be able to take them for this article. —LactoseTIT 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid that whatever goes through ppl here will be mottled down & reduced to something that's not worth the tremendous effort I'm putting right now. And this is from past experience. So, I'm going to go for RFC or arbitration to bypass you guys. (Wikimachine 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Also, we don't need expets. Ppl who write news articles aren't experts. Wikipedia sources are not limited to experts, Lacti. (Wikimachine 02:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Its already certain that you will put down whatever is anti-Japan in the paper. Good friend100 02:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd question that guy's expertise & validity if he opened his own personal site to write it. But it's through a journal, esp from Stanford. Look at here. There's such a thing as reviews by other experts. Also, I'm not sure where you got the info about Sean Fern being only a graduate student. (Wikimachine 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
He wasn't even a graduate student, he was an undergraduate student. So you are honestly thinking to include, "Sean Fern, an undergrad with no scholarly credentials, wrote an op-ed piece for a student paper where he wrote his opinion that...," and include it with everything else? Please... read over WP:RS sometime. As for trying to use RFC or arbitration to "bypass" consensus, well, luckily that's not how Wikipedia works. —LactoseTIT 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"will receive his B.S. in Foreign Service (with a major in International Politics) from Georgetown University. Next year attending Cornell Law School. For this paper, Sean worked closely with Victor Cha, assistant professor of Government at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. main research interests include international law and organizations, human rights, and national security. working on his senior thesis, which is on regime change theory and how it relates to the Internet."[30] He does have credentials. It's usual for university journals to allow students to write scholarly articles. Let me ask you this, then, do all the news reporters & government website builders have academic credentials with PhDs? Nay. I've seen no consensus here to begin with. Only 2 to 3 ppl in a club. That's no consensus. (Wikimachine 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
When he wrote it, he hadn't even received his B.S. yet (i.e. he is an undergrad). Search his name and you won't find any relevant publication establishing any level of credibility or expertise. Victor Cha, as I mentioned, is now the chair of the Korea Foundation, incidentally (I'm sure the paper wouldn't have any bias, would it? Even so, he is not a coauthor). Anyway, it's a student-run paper. Look up what the thing even is before you post, it doesn't even print anything not written by students :S. —LactoseTIT 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
One more point--you seem a bit confused--we do not quote reporters' interpretations of law, we see what expert they quote and quote them. Again, read up on WP:RS. —LactoseTIT 03:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes we do too. We can quote anything from news reporters. You think that Korea Foundation is biased? Why can't it be a mere coincidence? He did receive it, he just received it that year & the paper was done by the time he was graduating. See "Next year attending Cornell Law School". You think that he had a time machine so whatever was meant to be a several years was reduced to few months? You're in no position to say that this assistant professor is biased. We just don't go any further than that. That Sean Fern didn't have much credit is acceptable, though. See this for Victor Cha's credentials. I mean, that's just like saying that all Koreans are biased. (Wikimachine 03:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
News reporters generally don't interpret law themselves. By the way, how do you know he ever even graduated? And even if he did, he'd just be another poor schmuck with an (essentially worthless, credential wise) pre-law degree--so what? An undergrad degree doesn't somehow suddenly make him an expert worth quoting in an encyclopedia. If you do somehow try to write something up for inclusion, make sure to remember we'll need to describe the nature of the source (biased undergrad writing an op-ed submitted to a student paper)... As for Victor, he at least had the brains to keep his name off the author line (and hence has no responsibility, academically speaking, for the content). —LactoseTIT 03:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh, when was Wikipedia so reliable & professional & elitist that we would reject something that the rest of the academia accepts? There's such a thing as peer review - & it was reviewed before it was published. And he's not some complete loser. He's a student at the prestigious Stanford University. And the journal's not some anonymous local daily -it's from Stanford. Don't you agree that it's better than any paper that some Ph.D. professor from some idiotic community college would write? Yeah, try asking me to write that "biased undergrad..." You aren't thinking straight. In other words, it's better than the nationalist Japanese professors & maybe some Korean professors as well - hired by their governments. (Wikimachine 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Try to get your facts straight. He never went to Standford afaik. It's not peer reviewed by the academic community, it's done by students. It's great that students make a paper for students, but that doesn't somehow raise their youthful efforts to the rank of being accepted by academia in general. Read up on how the academic community is set up; it will save you much time in the future. *Sigh*, not to minimize your contributions, but nearly anyone can get into nearly any US university as an undergrad if you actually try (that should be encouraging if you want to go to a particular one). I guess that's beside the point, except for the fact of noting that passing the gate doesn't give you a bit of credibility in and of itself. The system in the US is set up to evaluate potential for learning, not learning already done. —LactoseTIT 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's usable. It's bad, but you can tolerate it. The arguments are already there, it shouldn't matter who says it & in the end it wouldn't matter b/c jpnese viewpoints would be included too. (Wikimachine 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
It might have been if there were no acceptable expert opinions out there. There are, however. Look at what he wrote, anyway, I'm sure he quotes some stuff which is usable. —LactoseTIT 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean everything. You could have a consensus that this article should be moved to Takeshima by 25 pro-Japanese editors, which doesn't make sense. Luckily, thats not how Wikipedia works. Good friend100 02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. So I suggest before trying to "bypass" anyone, people take a deep breath, a nice sip of soda pop, and check out what Wikipedia really uses (WP:CONSENSUS). —LactoseTIT 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then could you provide me links for Japanese points of view on these? I just search on Google, JSTOR, lexisnexis, etc. And they're all surprisingly pro-Korean. I'm afraid that my version will get backlash unless I get some JPOVish articles as well. (Wikimachine 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Huh, maybe because nobody agrees with Japan. Good friend100 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe because few Japanese people care about it (or even know about its existence), and Koreans have whipped themselves into a furor over it. Unfortunately, just being "meaner and more angry" doesn't have much weight in international court. Try some of the more respectable history journals, etc. and you'll get some hits. Little has happened in terms of commentary; it kind of stagnated when Korea refused arbitration of the matter (fingers in ears, "la la la"-style). —LactoseTIT 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Another friendly word of warning--your version certainly will be tossed in the trash if you adopt an all-or-nothing approach. All of us have dealt with people picking apart our suggestions--it's part of how wikipedia works in consensus building. In the recent discussion of the intro, you had an opportunity to make suggestions just like the rest of us. All isn't totally lost if you do an all-or-nothing approach I suppose, because someone else can pick apart your version for anything of merit (thanks to GFDL) and include any good bits. I strongly suggest, though, that you try making suggestions of individual changes if you want anything at all to survive. —LactoseTIT 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything as friendly here, and I'll write the article as I wish. Also, you still haven't given me links and all. When you say reputable journals, I can't find them on JSTOR - which contains reputable journals. (Wikimachine 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
My link certainly seems to have angered you. Now your trying to comeback by accusing Korea of having an attitude of a litte boy at the international court. Note that it is true, and Korea is doing it because they know they will lose. Japan is a more powerful country and has more weight in their voice in the international society.
And maybe you should think in Korea's shoes why they are so pissed about. First you get raped in 1592, then you get your head knocked off and raped again by the Japanese in 1910. Not to mention all those raids on Korea in between. Do you think Korea would have any kind of positive reaction to Japan considering Japan's past behaviors? Seriously, stop acting like a kid and look on different perspectives, jesus christ.
Oh wow, now you even claim that few Japanese people don't know about it? Whats with you? Now your making up stuff? I'm sure the Japanese cover the issue in their news and newspapers, which would obviously mean that some people know about it.
And don't give me stuff like "Wikipedia and its community" or "How we all work together". You obviously have a negative impression on Korea and heavily biased against Korea, so you have no right to tell me what to do and if I could "salvage some parts" because its clear you'll never agree with whatever edits I make that are related to Korea or Japan. I'm simply trying to state the facts and make this article less POV. If you (like Japan), can't accept the truth about how many stronger claims Korea has, then you'll just end up sweating over something that you can't change. Its clear that the Japanese government is limited to whining for lost land. The only way they could get it back is by attacking Korea (which would probably not happen). Good friend100 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Effective Control vs Historic title(+Prof vs student?)
Grounds of Mr.Sean Fern are historic title of Korea and and KPOV interraption(looks like Shin Yongha) of the history material.[31] I do not describe about the interpretation of the history material here because it is not a subject. Then, how is Mr.Sean verifying historic title of International Law?

After verifying the judicial precedent, Prof.Lee is analyzing the historic title as follows. [32]p25-29

  • At the international judicial fora, however, this specter called colonialist international law is often resurrected and given full effect or vindicated by the ICJ and international arbitral tribunals.
  • It is true that this state of affairs is often ascribable to the heavy reliance placed by the disputants on the so-called colonial effectivités.
  • including the treatment of inter-temporal issues by the ICJ, which make painfully clear that the umbilical cord of contemporary international law is still linked to the Euro-centric and colonial outlook of the past.

This has proven a cruel current state of International Law. Historic title is hardly considered in International Law.

Then, is Mr. Sean doing what verification and the explanation for historic title of the international law? Has his "as necessitated by principles of international law" been proven? He is assuming historic title to be effective without verifying. Well, which of Prof. Lee with verification of judicial precedents and Mr. Sean(he is a sutudent?) without verification is a reliable source about historic title of the International law?--Opp2 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could you guys explain what the difference is between S. Korea's dispute over Tsushima Island & Japan's dispute over Dokdo? I think that the article formats are very different on both sides. Considering that 1) Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe 2) the simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputant on an equal level as the disputed 3) Korea's claim over Dokdo is stronger & has maintained presence, how is it that Tsushima Island is presented clearly as Japanese while on Dokdo you guys try to portray the situation as if Korea's claim over it is illegitimate? I think that if you fail to answer this then you really have no point in anything. (Wikimachine 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is easy. The South Korea government is not protesting about Tsushima. Then the The peaceful effective control by Japan is continued. --Opp2 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Could LactoseTI or Komdori answer this question? (Wikimachine 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

As explained many times we're not here to evaluate the legitimacy of each country's claims on the islets so I suggest this "discussion" to stop right here. If anyone wants to discuss the Tsushima article then please do so on the Tsushima article's talk page. Phonemonkey 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tsushima Island article is not written like this one, although both are same disputed stuff & we're supposed to be in no position to decide on the legitimacy - Tsushima is written as legitimately Japanese while Liancourt Rocks is written as equally disputed. Just look at the "administration" box. And it's not that I want to discuss the Tsushima article, I think it's fine and dandy, but I want this article to be like the Tsushima article. (Wikimachine 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
As far as I know, there is no office in Korea for the administration of Tsushima, is there? There are offices in both Korea and Japan for Liancourt, and so we can talk about how they classify it for the purposes of administration. It might be nice to make an article about an officially disputed place look like an article about an undisputed place, but that really wouldn't be accurate or unbiased. --Cheers, Komdori 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, wasn't it just the Masan city? The whole point I wanted to make (as I have) is that the act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on the equal level of the disputed. (Wikimachine 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Your point is still unclear. Is the nation of Korea officially disputing Tsushima on an international level? You are honestly unable to see the difference? I believe we can agree that on an international level Liancourt Rocks is in dispute and Tsushima is not (meaning there is a dispute between countries over territory in the former case and not the latter, for those having a hard time to follow along). This is not an opinion, it is easily sourced. Put another way, as I mentioned before--does the nation of Korea currently claim Tsushima and have an administrative classification for the region? If so, it should be noted in that article's infobox, just as the Japanese administrative region deserves mention here. --Cheers, Komdori 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, put Tsushima aside. Simply, if Russia were to suddenly dispute Alaska, the act of disputing doesn't put Russia on equal level as the US on the question of ownership & you can't just go "we've got to present 2 sides equally b/c we're NPOV". NPOV is tricky 1) you have to present both sides 2) without prescribing, only describing. (Wikimachine 03:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Two points. 1) Virtually all references today to Liancourt Rocks are about or at least mention the dispute--I think this is something we can agree on. Right there it means the article is going to be about the dispute mainly, because Wikipedia is to describe, not prescribe. We can't pick the side we want to win and "prescribe" it. 2) As for the rebirth of the old Alaska question, the answer is still the same--if it was claimed on an international level, especially if the number of references about the dispute overshadowed the other references to it, then yes, it should be described equally, because Wikipedia is to describe, not prescribe. --Cheers, Komdori 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, this is just a group of small rocks - there's nothing else to talk about. And since both Japanese & Koreans make a big deal out of it & since Japanese colonialism/imperialism/war crimes etc are still not resolved today it is inevitable that disputing makes up for a big chunk of any Japan-Korea related stuffs. (Wikimachine 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Cairo Conference

http://www.korea.net/about/about_dokdo_view.asp?board_no=12401&menu_code=B&page=2 Now it's sourced. Don't complain anymroe. (Wikimachine 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

doesn't have to be official

It doesn't have to be an "official claim" by the Korean government. Its only a hard fact that we're trying to put in. If you don't like it, thats too bad. Good friend100 15:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! And I just edited it so that it wouldn't say "Korea argues", unfortunately somebody (probably you/Komdori) just reverted it back again! I'm not the only one edit warring! I'm trying to edit so that you (and everybody else) can agree on it, unlike you, who is simply "sticking fingers into his ears and saying lalala". Good friend100 15:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not put the KPOV rebuttal in the summary. Will the rusk document and the SF treaty and lack of the evidence of Korean effective control be put in the summary? Do you want to do the edit war? --Opp2 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned, there isn't consensus for this inclusion yet, but we can discuss it here to avoid an edit war. —LactoseTIT 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Korea.net is the official English website of the Korean government. Duh. (Wikimachine 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

It still didn't argue in quite the terms you were suggesting; I also find it disingenuous that you revert around a dozen other changes when reinserting the poorly worded paragraph (which will need further work here, since there is still no consensus for inclusion as it is). —LactoseTIT 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus? You'll never agree to include that fact in the article because you don't like it. If there is consensus, it would probably be a watered down piece of hardly anything. Or better yet, nothing at all. The article is already JPOV thanks to you, and we're trying to make it balanced.
Whats even sadder is that because you have no arguments to use, your starting to contradict yourself. First you say we can't use "government" sites or "Korean government" sites because they are POV. Now you say we have to use them to reference "official" arguments. Seriously lame how you turn the POV car left and right to avoid roadblocks. Good friend100 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Government sites are acceptable. The wording for the paragraph needs redone. For example, starting with "however" is inappropriate. —LactoseTIT 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you want it reworded? (Wikimachine 16:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Then, it is improper as the source.
  • The announcement of the Japanese government is a WP:OR. (Wikimachine 06:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC))
Is a primary source of Japanese Government useless, and is the South Korea government safe?--Opp2 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The quotation of the site of Japanese Government was not admitted one year ago though it was described clearly as the insistence of Japan. Was the rule changed?--Opp2 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was "OR", it was "POV", but it's okay to put it as "Korea asserts" - then ppl know that it's Korea POV. (Wikimachine 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
I only copied your comment. There is this.
  • A reference does not have to be from a government or a large organization for it to be trusted. (Wikimachine 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC))
Was the rule changed?--Opp2 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a reply to your assertion that a source had to be from a government or a large organization to be reliable. Umm... I sense that this is a hypocrisy. Opp2, that was what you said, not me. (Wikimachine 16:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
The log remains. You will be able also to retrieve it. Did you change the rule?--Opp2 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, LactoseTI, finally you give in that we can reword it. Then how do you want us to reword it? If your so interested in this, why don't you reword it and insert it back into the article? Christ, your telling us what to do, yet your not doing anything but deleting stuff you don't like. Good friend100 16:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually when there is this much disagreement about the insertion of content (which likely should be there in some form), it's discussed in the talk page first so as not to make an edit war on the main page. I guess when people are hell-bent on including some little tidbit, they tend to forget this... —LactoseTIT 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess when people are hell-bent on not including some little tidbit, they tend to forget that too. Good friend100 17:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you just love it when LactoseTI suddenly goes all quiet? Lactose, we don't have to wait for you. When our 24 hrs limit is up, we can revert Opp2's back. This is for Opp2 as well. You guys are quick to point out other ppl's mistakes & all, but stink when it comes to doing stuffs that you dislike, etc. (Wikimachine 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Let me repeat the question: how should it be reworded? (Wikimachine 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean about "going all quiet." You want to include it, so the ball is in your court. Paste below what you'd like to include, and we can develop consensus about the best way to do so. It makes sense to get the most prevalent arguments and their responses into the article. —LactoseTIT 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was teasing, but didn't you want something to be changed? My 3RR is up. I can't do anything else here, or if I were to make a compromise (as Good friend100 just did on Goguryeo) I'd be blocked (GF100 was indefinitely blocked, if you have some sympathy for him, ask the admin to unblock him.) (Wikimachine 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm heading out the door, but hopefully someone will get a proposal started below--one concern as I mentioned before was the "however." Incidentally, even if we are working toward a legitimate compromise in the main article, if we go back and forth there it might give an outside observer the impression that we're edit warring. Again I agree that this very likely belongs in this article somehow--it's just a matter of hashing out the details at this point; I'd suggest we do it here rather than there. —LactoseTIT 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend100, thanks for the new sources re Cairo statement. I suggest the following:

  • moving the Cairo conference bit down to the beginning of the "after WW2" section as it is not a summary of either's position. (I know the declaration was made in 1943, but it concerned what to do after the war ended, so I think it is more at home in that section than the preceding section.),
  • Rewording it to: "The Cairo Conference of 1943 stated that "Japan will be expelled from all territories which she has taken by violence and greed [since the time of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95]." Korea argues that Dokdo falls within the Cairo Declaration's definition of territories taken by greed, whereas Japan argues that the islets are an integral part of Japanese territory and do not fall under this definition." I have removed the last sentence because it appears to remain unsourced.
  • I would prefer if "Korea argues that..." is rephrased as "the South Korean Government argues that..." And of course "Japan" rephrased as "The Japanese Government argues that...". This is not just for this paragraph, but for as much of the article as possible, so that it is unambiguously clear exactly whose opinions they are. Phonemonkey 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100 is indef blocked b/c he made a compromise but that was seen as the 4th revert. Anyways, until he's back again, let's keep this quiet. I'm not interested in discussing here any further until I finish my neutral version of this article. (Wikimachine 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Since this article doesn't belong to any particular editor (or a group of editors) there is no need to stop a discussion just because one of the participants got blocked. You're welcome to continue contributing to any discussions here (although it would be nice if you could tone down your occasional outbursts of incivility), and I also look forward to your version of the article. In the meantime, the discussion continues. Phonemonkey 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The after WW2 idea is good, and we can make it flow more like a chronology than a series of unrelated arguments. Of course, we should change "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks." --Cheers, Komdori 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not have the objection in your proposal. But, as for the description of the state, the alphabetical order is better. After all, can the site of the government be used as a source? I was cheated for one year by insincere ID.--Opp2 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp2, please assume good faith. I don't think you were necessarily lied to, because government websites do not fall under the normal definition of a reliable source (published, third party source), so the lines are not clear cut. I think they are acceptable if treated carefully - I am going by the following extract from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples.
"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view."Phonemonkey 23:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're not talking about bias here, we're saying that this is South Korean government's opinion - in that case, we already show that this can be a biased assertion. So, Good friend100 wanted this "S. Korean government asserts that..." And LactoseTI said you can't say that unless you have an evidence that the S. Korean government asserts so. And I provided the evidence from the S. Korean government's website. That's no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say (I can't see anyone calling it WP:OR for starters), or what you are responding to. Phonemonkey 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I understood. It is a part that was said that the source of the government cannot be used related to the insistence of Japan of opening (terra nullius). When this topic ends, I will propose it again. Because it is not a subject here, I will stop.--Opp2 05:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend was baned indefinite. I corrected the article because it seems that there is no opposite against phonemonkey's proposal. However, the name of the islands (Dokdo) and the order of the claims were corrected for NPOV.--Opp2 04:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

anon account

Please stop using anon accounts to participate in revert wars. I checked the article history & all those anon accounts are brand new, basically. I really wonder how you guys manage to get new IP addresses everytime there's a dispute - when I say "you guys" I'm very much guessing Opp2. This is so much like a forum-organized stuff (i.e. 2ch.net 1 yr ago) It's as if they're all Japanese ppl who can't speak English & Opp2 is the only who who can so whenever he needs help his club helps in to make up for their language disability. (Wikimachine 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Look, there must be some misunderstanding on your perspective of what I'm thinking. If you think I hate Japan, no I don't. I've got some Jpop & anime stored in my computer so maybe you can believe me I don't get angry just b/c of those Japanese viewpoints on this article - but if they're emphasized in the most ridiculuos ways. Only thing that would piss me off is this constant revert war & constant crap such as how LactoseTI talks about consensus when there clearly isn't consensus, etc. That - making up craps even though you're wrong & I have to waste time replying or reverting... and is this playing or serious, making edits that you know the other party's going to reject. Or... ignoring questions that you know you can't answer. If you've seen S. Korean demonstrating against Japanese gov & burning Japanese flags & getting violent on youtube & you conclude that's how all or most S. Koreans are, you're wrong again. I do what I do here simply b/c that is the right thing to do. Also, don't think that you're making some symbolic victory by doing what you want here or getting ppl blocked/banned. All that might result from what you do here is to lose a potential ally. (Wikimachine 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

wikimonster. Obviously you've never lived in Asia. You can go to a different P.C. Room four times a week for a buck a shot all within ten minutes of your backdoor.

BTW............saito hosen's 1667 Oki report.......? I've provided the translation and 4 different published citations. sigh........Clownface 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, those PC cafes. Why couldn't I think of that. (Wikimachine 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Revert-warring

Just for the record, in case this should be needed some time, here's a list showing various editors' amount of participation in the revert war during the last few days, since the latest protection expired.

  • Good friend100 (indef blocked)
    • 31 Aug 22:32
    • 01 Sept 14:44
    • 01 Sept 18:47
    • 02 Sept 20:59
    • 02 Sept 22:12
    • 03 Sept 04:04
    • 03 Sept 15:03 (3RR)
  • Opp2
    • 30 Aug 05:33
    • 31 Aug 16:30
    • 01 Sept 00:05
    • 02 Sept 00:34
    • 02 Sept 22:25
    • 03 Sept 15:06
    • 03 Sept 16:39
  • Wikimachine
    • 31 Aug 02:24
    • 02 Sept 03:12
    • 02 Sept 03:23
    • 03 Sept 15:37
    • 03 Sept 16:08
    • 03 Sept 16:15
  • Phonemonkey
    • 01 Sept 15:23
    • 02 Sept 19:20
    • 02 Sept 19:46
    • 03 Sept 19:01
  • LactoseTI
    • 02 Sept 03:16
    • 03 Sept 04:03
    • 03 Sept 05:01
    • 03 Sept 15:44
  • Komdori
    • 02 Sept 03:27
    • 02 Sept 19:53
    • 03 Sept 15:30
  • Gettystein
    • 31 Aug 13:33
    • 01 Sept 14:39
  • Sennen goroshi
    • 02 Sept 19:27
    • 02 Sept 19:50
  • Whsskdhkf (throwaway sock?)
    • 01 Sept 06:15
  • Boldlyman
    • 01 Sept 07:52
  • Henry7646
    • 01 Sept 14:39
  • Ohnoitsjamie
    • 03 Sept 15:26

Fortunately, it seems to have abated a bit since yesterday. Please try continuing some constructive discussion without simultaneous reverts. Let me take this opportunity to remind everybody that the 3RR is not an entitlement to continued reverts just below four a day. I heard one editor (Wikimachine?) say above that they were "out of reverts for today" or something to that effect, and would continue the next day. Don't. In the past, some similarly disputed articles have been forcibly "pacified" by systematically blocking editors rather than protecting pages, and I think the same approach is needed here. I think I'll get some admins' consensus and then start implementing in informal revert parole on this article, where reverts will be met with blocks well below the nominal 3RR level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bason0-socks were also in on it, if you look further back into the August history of Liancourt Rocks. For the relevant WP:RFCU report see:
Those socks were indef-blocked, but who knows how many more socks popped up again in the list above?--Endroit 09:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you heard of PC cafe? Unfortunately I can't join the fun b/c I live in the US. (Wikimachine 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
People editing at multiple PC's at a cafe certainly could be detected with a check user. If you aren't talking about a check user, they might all be on a single IP, a cafe wouldn't make any difference (probably more likely for those throwaway ones). If this really becomes an issue, a good option would be to semi-protect the article. We have enough trouble coming to consensus with established editors without worrying about people stirring the coals. It indeed seems to have cooled down recently, though. --Cheers, Komdori 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Meatpuppets are highly discouraged also, per WP:SOCK. I suggest blocking them as well, if they're obvious.--Endroit 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The biggest South Korean newspaper Choson Ilbo reported the name moving dispute this June, and it even admitted its canvassing ("after our previous report, XX Korean editors participated to vote, but their votes were removed due to Wikipedia rules"). So the recent rush could be just a side effect of such nationalistic coverage, or not, and good old familiar socky attempts. I support blocking every circulative revert club member. 3RR doesn't say "you are invited to revert an article up to three times a day". Never. --Aphaia 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit by IP user seems to have increased for avoiding ban by this warning and this comment.[33]. I think that semi-protection is necessary.--Opp2 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New sources about the Treaty of Peace with Japan

Tsukamoto who is a councilor of the Japanese National Diet Library has reported about Takeshima and Treaty of Peace with Japan.[34] (Sorry Japanese) In this thesis, important and worthy documents of the Department of State and American embassy are introduced and verified. I present an important document as follows.

08/10/51 Rusk documents
 09/05/51 Attach a signature to Treaty of Peace with Japan
 04/28/52 Coming into effect of Treaty of Peace with Japan
 10/03/52 FROM: Amembassy, Tokyo TO: Department of State[35]

  • The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea.
  • "all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quellait , Port Hamilton and Degelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands within the area to be renounced. Japan has, and with reason, assumed that its sovereignty still extends over these islands.

10/16/52 FROM: American Embassy, Pusan TO: Amembassy, Tokyo CC: Department of State [36]

  • Although this Embassy is not in possession of complete information regarding the Department’s views on the ownership of Tokto Island, it appears that its status is unsettled.

11/05/52 FROM: Department of State TO: American Embassy, Pusan CC: Amembassy, Tokyo[37]

  • It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington.
  • The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility the Japanese Government is therefore justified.
  • The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, include Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently.


12/04/52 FROM: American Embassy, Pusan TO: Department of State [38]

  • We had never heard of Dean Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took definite stand on this question.
  • but had no thinking that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim. Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of a wrong assumption for along time
  • I am sending with a transmitting dispatch, a copy of the note that we have just sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs…………which refers to Dean Rusk’s note to Ambassador Yang of August 10, 1951.

07/22/53 Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rock Dispute between Japan and the Republic of Korea by Department of State) [39]

  • With regard to the question of who has sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks, it may be of interest to recall that the United States position, contained in a note to the Republic of Korea’s Ambassador dated August 10, 1951 reads in part
  • Since sending the August 10,1951 note to the ROK Government, the United States Government has sent only one additional communication on the subject this was done in response to the ROK protest of the a??leged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:
“ The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry’s Note that ‘Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks)…… is apart of the territory of the Republic of Korea.’ The United States Government’s understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in Assistant Secretary of States Dean Rusk’s note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.”

11/30/53 Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) Controversy by American Embassy, Tokyo [40]

  • Even if they do not, I think we would be remiss in not apprising the Japanese of a position which we have consistently maintained and which we are under no obligation not to divulge.
Accorgingly, I suggest that we adopt the following course of action:
1. Express to ROK Government our concern over repeated clashes with the Japanese over the Liancourt Rocks.
2.Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)…. But if clashes continue to occure we may be forced to give publicity to the Rusk letter and to reiterate the view expressed therein


These are very interesting sources. We should correct a present article. --Opp2 06:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember, only after a discussion. --DandanxD 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. After presenting the amendment bill and discussion, I retouched always. And, you retouched without the discussion and sources.[41] The way like you leads the revert war.--Opp2 14:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A note, I do not think the boxes' lists should be in alphabetical order, because the boxes in the article, Zen, are also not in alphabetical order. If alphabetical order is applied to all articles, I do not think it is fair that it is only applied to this article. Please put China as first and Japan as second in the article, Zen. I'm starting to have a suspicion. Amphitere 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
please donot change the subject. This section is for SF treaty. Here is not a ZEN article either. Please go to ZEN article if you want to change the order of ZEN.--Opp2 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Amendment bill in part in the first half

Amendment bill

Upon Japan's defeat in World War II and occupation of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan by the Allies, the SCAP Instruction #677 of January 29, 1946 temporarily ceased Japan's administrative power over Liancourt Rocks.[6][7] SCAPIN are instructions of occupation forces based on international law of war, and not treaties between subjects and Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

SUBJECT:Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas Japan.
1. The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.
3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaidō, Honshū, Kyūshū and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryūkyū (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding
(a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island), and Kuelpart (saishu or Cheju) Island,
(b) the Ryūkyū (nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Kanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands including the Daito (Ohigashi or Gagari) Islands Group, and Parace Vela (Okino-tori), Kercus (Kinami-tori) and Canges (Nakano-tori) Islands, and
(c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomazo) Islands Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.
5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.
6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Postdam Declaration.

Islands mentioned in (a), other than the Liancourt rocks, were renounced by Japan at Treaty of San Francisco. Japanese sovereignty which is mentioned in (b) were eventually recovered. Those mentioned in (c), for the most part, remain in Russian occupation (though disputed by Japan). The instruction stated that "nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

A similar description is seen in Article 5 of SCAP Instruction #1033 that became the origin of the MacArthur line.[8][9]

3. (b) Japanese vessels or personnel thereof will not approached closer than twelve (12) miles to Takeshima (37°15′ North Latitude, 131°53′ East Longitude) nor have any contact with said island.
5. The present authorization is not an expression of Allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area.

Japan argues that this instruction as the interim cessation of a sovereignty exercise because it is described as "cease exercising" in clause 1 and described clearly that it is unrelated to the territorrial artcle of Potsdam Declaration in clause 6.[42]

South Korea argues that this instruction as a territorial order which excludes the Japanese sovereignty because it is described as "Japan is defined" in clause 3.[43]

The U.S. Department of State denied the Korean claim based on SCAPIN677 in a note to the American embassy in Korea.

The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, include Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1776 of September 16, 1947 desinated th islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and futher provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Island and certaion ports on Western Honsu.[44]

comment
The point of the insistence of the two countries is whether SCAP677 means renouncement of Japanese sovereignty or interim cessation of a sovereignty exercise. Therefore, a part not related to this point was deleted, and new important information was added. I want the opinion and indication about the grammar. --Opp2 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First under what premise do you say that sovereignty is retured to Japan Opp? That is your interpretation. The Korean side argues because no further instruction were issued these Takeshima remians excluded from the definition of Japan.

Never was the allies exclusion of Takeshima from Japanese territory renounced Opp.Clownface 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree

Opp, you've also slyly ommited (Just the the Japanese MOFA did) article 5 of Scap 677 which states.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

This means that the conditions of these clauses are not temporary at all, but permanent unless replaced by further directives in the future. Sovereignty over Takeshima was not restored to Japan at all.

Of course you have omitted this important information because it damages Japan's claim. Do you think citing Japan's MOFA website for an interpretation of these legal docs is a credible source?Clownface 14:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed the subject again. That is an old theory by a obtuse Korean scholar before Rusk Documents and above sources was opened, and it is being written in the latter half part though citation is needed. Please read the article[45]. I think that you admit SCAPIN didnot order renouunciation of sovereignty because you insiste that SCAPIN continues. Japan lost all right and didnot have any right to continue if it was interpreted that Japan had renounced her sovereignty by SCAPIN. It becomes contradiction. And, the hypothesis completely contradicts this note of Department of State. And Japan has recovered full sovereignties by SF treaty.
Article 1
(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.
To use it as an insistence of South Korea in the latter half part, Article 5 of SCAPIN677 was added to the amendment bill for the first half part. See above. However, I will add Article 1 of the SF treaty in the latter half part for the insistence of Japan. I think that your rebuttal reason is solved. Opp2 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, don't use the decisions by the Americans under the false premise that this represents a consensus of allied policy.

Therefore, not the Allies but the Department of State is made a subject. But the U.S. State Department is the drafter of the SF treaty. Moreover, SCAPIN is GHQ instruction. GHQ obeys the instruction of the United States.[46] Therefore, the United States is very important for the interpretation of SCAPIN.--Opp2 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed by many nations of which America was only one. Dokdo Takeshima made no mention of the islands whatsoever don't enter the Rusk documents as a representation of policy of the 40 plus other nations that signed this treaty. The Rusk documents were a confidential memorandum that reflected US Policy NOT allied policy. They weren't even made public until decades after the fact.

Then, do you agree to the deletion of the story of news of CIA and John B. Coulter story in the present article? U.S. State Department is the drafter of the SF treaty.　 --Opp2 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The SF Peace Treaty never resolved the issue of Dokdo Takeshima. Period.

It is an insistence of South Korea.　I do not say that we should erase the insistence of South Korea. I do not say that the insistence of South Korea is wrong. However, the drafter of treaty and High-ranking organization of GHQ(USA) denies South Korean claim. The insistence of Japan and the insistence of South Korea are equally written for NPOV. The reader will judge which is correct.--Opp2 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, why are you constantly tearing this article apart? Why don't you leave it alone and improve the actual content instead of trying to improve the content? Clownface 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to make the subject not diffused. And, did you consent in the first half part? --Opp2 05:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Kingj123, your rationale behind your edits should be that Liancourt Rocks, despite being disputed, is more Korean & than it is known to be Japanese - not alphabetical order. It's not that D comes before T but that J (Japan) comes before S (South Korea). Simply, even if Japan comes first in alphabetical order, Japan's simply not on equal level of ownership of South Korea & therefore it is inappropriate to have Japan on top of S. Korea - again these were trivial stuffs but some POV pusher wanted to make Liancourt Rocks "more" Japanese so put that country, country 1 field. (Wikimachine 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Saying it is "more Japanese than Korean" or "more Korean than Japanese" is at the heart of the major debate worldwide. We cannot come down on one side or the other here because we must maintain at least a semblance of neutrality. —LactoseTIT 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's where you go biased & flawed. According to you, anybody can dispute anything & suddenly the question of ownership becomes real. NPOV doesn't justify prescription over description. (Wikimachine 15:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC))
Considering that it has been a worldwide issue for decades, with news stories appearing frequently even today about the dispute, it is inappropriate to prescribe the "winner" based on your interpretation of the merits instead of describing the dispute. --Cheers, Komdori 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I never asked for a winner nor do I think of a dispute as being centered on mere act of winning. No matter what you say, what I say stands. Dokdo is a Korean island. (Wikimachine 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

It's not neutral to always put Japanese before Korean, whatever the "alphabetical" reason, the reader gets a biased impression. For neutrality, I propose that whenever there's a Japanese/Korean pairing, the order should be alternated (J/K order, then K/J order at next pairing, then J/K, etc.). If you want to stick to strict "alphabetical" order, there's no reason to order it by country spelling. Dokdo comes before Takeshima alphabetically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIYet (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read this policy and already archived discussion. The alphabetical order rule is supported by this policy for NPOV. If you have any claim for a naming convention on Wikipedia, you should go to propose your claim on those discussion page. As LactoseTI said, it is not "more Japan than Korea".--Watermint 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes our policies can be flawed or not as comprehensive/responsive to different situations. But most of all, ppl can manipulate those policies for their own ends. (Wikimachine 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC))
However, the said guideline (WP:NCGN) only applies to lists of foreign language names. That is, for this article, it is the multilingual language infobox in the geography section. And WCGN's recommendation is probably not based on neutrality but for practicality. When there's many languages and you want to find a name in one language, it would be easier to find if the list is in alphabetic order of their respective languages than in the order of importance (whatever the criteria). I don't think simply bring WP:NCGN up would settle this content dispute. --Kusunose 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two days' worth of revert-warring

Just for the record. None of this is quite near 3RR yet, but all of it is unproductive revert-warring. New user NIYet has the most reverts, but he was actually doing the least unconstructive job nevertheless, whereas others were blindly reverting him in tag-team. No blocks right now (or I'd have to block all you guys), but Arbcom will be interested in these statistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we should all stop this. However, this article is extremely J-POV. We should at least put the tag on to this article. It is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.168.201 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, NIYet made another revert and was blocked for a clear-cut 3RR violation. LactoseTI added several references, some of them addressing the issue evidently bothering NIYet since he blindly reverted four times after inserting it without discussion, all within a 24 hr period. --Cheers, Komdori 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A friend in need is a friend indeed. Good friend100 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Section

We should add a section about how Korean and Japanese government are working on to solve the on going dispute. We were all busy debating which country these islets belong to. We should research more about how these two governments are at least "trying" to solve the problem peacefully and morally. Kingj123 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


ABOUT JAPANESE MAPS

Only the interpretation of South Korea is added by goodfriend about Japanese maps without discussion and consensus.　If he excludes the interpretation of Japan, I should demand the deletion of the maps. He is violating WP OWN. The source of the interpretation of Japan is as follows. This report is written by adjunct prof. Funasugi.

しかし、地図をみると、多くは経緯度が記されており、両島の経緯度をみると、竹島は、アルゴノート（実在しない島）、松島はダジュレー島、すなわ現在の鬱稜島であることがわかる。（However, when we look at maps, latitude and longitude is recorded. When we measure the latitude and longitude of both islands, we understand that Takeshima on the map is Algonaut (island that doesn't exist) and Matsushima on the map is Dagelet(present Ulleungdo).[47]

This is a comparison result in latitude and the longitude.[48]--Opp2 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are ridiculous and wholly inappropriate. You can't insert pro-Japanese defense for every map description and reorder sentences so Japanese claims come first, etc.. Stop revert-warring and NPOV edits.melonbarmonster 03:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for joining this discussion. Komdori & LactoseTI (+Phonemonkey) did, however, agree to those ridiculous POV edits. You may also participate at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence.(Wikimachine 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
Your insistence doesn't have the source. And, there are neither a consensus nor a discussion.[49] If you want change the opening. Please present your sources(of cource NPOV source) and discuss.--Opp2 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition, do not change the subject. The subject of this section is interpretation of the Japanese map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, Takeshima on Japanese maps is Ulleungdo even dispite the more easterly position at Argonaut's location.

You can see Yohinaga Kashihara's 1876 map is labelled "Ulleungdo~Chosun name~Japanese name Takeshima. This shows Seibolds incorrect positioning however Takeshima (Argonaut) is Ulluengdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg

Opp you misleading the readers by saying Japanese cartographers omitted Dokdo (Matsushima) and knowingly double mapped Ulleungdo Island. The fact is the Japanese simply mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo according to Seiblolds more westerly position.

Takeshima was confirmed non-existant in both Japanese and Western maps which can be shown here.

1863 British Navy map shows Takeshima as P.D. or non-existant.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg

A Japanese naval copy of the British map. Note Jukdo drawn in dotted line as well.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanesenavymap.jpg

A Russian Navy map. From 1857.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1857-russia.jpg

The Japanese copy of the Russian map. Note Argonaut drawn in dotted line. (non existent).

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-argonaut.jpg

The Japanese simply mapped Takeshima and Matsushima in more Westerly positions.

You can see the Japanese considered Takeshima and Matsushima as Korean land on this map.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-kinseki.htmlClownface 06:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your original reserch. It is necessary to describe both of the claim of Japan and South Korea for NPOV. The person who looked at the maps will judge which is correct. However, goodfriend excludes the claim of Japan. --Opp2 06:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If your interested, add some free Japanese maps that say Liancourt is Japanese. 500 year old maps are not OR and by stating that simply shows how illogical and biased YOU are. Your constantly attacking this article with these long tirades which are obviously not productive.
I removed those sentences about Japan because they weren't properly sourced. Just spitting back the reason Lactose likes to use when I add information. The sources were simply links to the image. Thats not properly sourced. Good friend100 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I propose the complete removal of the second paragraph of the opening section:

Some sixth century records from Unified Silla mention islands in the Sea of Japan. There are also Japanese records from the seventeenth century discussion islands in this region. In 1900, there was a Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands in the area into modern Ulleung County. In 1905, the islands were incorporated into Japan via a terra nullius incorporation


for the following reasons:

  • We've got enough trouble agreeing to the opening section; a summary of each countries claims is likely to bring more trouble.
  • It is unnecessary, because aspects of each countries claims are discussed in the relevant sections below.

All comments welcome. Phonemonkey 23:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly not. Its perfectly acceptable and theres no blatant bias in it. Let me note that YOU are the one bringing more trouble by starting a thread on this. Its most likely that we will start a fight between Goodfriend and Wikimachine vs. Phonemonkey, Lactose, and Opp2. Good friend100 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I never disputed that there is anything wrong with the actual wording of the paragraph, nor did I expect you to disagree in such an unnecessarily venomous fashion. Phonemonkey 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your question, Phonemonkey, there was no heated argument over this section before and now that you mention it, its clear that editors like Lactose or Opp2 will push for it to be removed. I see nothing wrong with it. If its so problematic, then add a section for the Japanese. Good friend100 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea who would agree or disagree (I actually expected most people, including yourself, to agree, on the basis of the reasons I stated). Your opposition is noted. Could you elaborate on your final sentence though? And how did you know who would oppose and who would agree? Is it a POV issue which I have somehow missed? I see no bias in the wording of the paragraph and think its perfectly acceptable. I don't really mind either way, I just don't think it's at home where it is. Phonemonkey 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
A solution to the problem is to either add a pro-Japan summary or move the section down somewhere else. I don't agree deleting it completely.
And yes, I think you missed it as a POV issue. And (I don't know how long you have been around) to me its clear that editors I know will take sides, and I'm tired of more arguments. Good friend100 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anybody was suggesting removing the material, just that it doesn't need to be in the intro. It's both too much depth in specific historical arguments, and at the same time rather vague because of issues of historical names that can only be alluded to. --Reuben 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually suggested removing the material, but if anyone prefers to move it elsewhere that's perfectly fine by me. Goodfriend, why do you see it as a POV issue? Phonemonkey 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree, there's no need to present either country's arguments in the intro beyond noting present status and that there are arguments. --Reuben 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't need to be there, and adds just another bit to fight over. We have a hard enough time with just the intro. —LactoseTIT 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody was fighting about it until now. Good friend100 00:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is fighting about it, I only made a suggestion and other people have commented about it. Phonemonkey 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, something is off because there was no Unified Silla in the sixth century. The vagueness of the text makes it a bit difficult to guess what's actually meant. --Reuben 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then edit it accordingly. I don't get how some here are simply trying to delete it completely rather than look for alternatives. Good friend100 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I only suggested deleting it, and said "all comments welcome", which means if anyone had an alternative suggestion they were perfectly welcome to do so. And your suggestion is to move it elsewhere, and now to edit it, and that's perfectly fine as an alternative. Phonemonkey 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to force people to do it my way, I'm just not happy with how some just want to erase it. Good friend100 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal already contains each countries claims.
<ex.>

  • Some sixth century records from Unified Silla mention islands in the Sea of Japan.
There is no record of the sixth century in Korea. The record of oldest Korea is the 12th century. And, the record of the 12th century is not "islands" but "a" island(ulleungdo). That is, this sentence is a Korean claim.
  • In 1905, the islands were incorporated into Japan via a terra nullius incorporation
Japan never say terra nullius.　That is, this sentence is Korean interpretation of Japanese claim.

After all, your proposal only chooses the claims of each country, though the subject of the claim doesn't described clearly. And, the selection criterion is also uncertain. I think that these cause a more serious trouble.
Korea also admits Matsushima of the 17th century in Japan is present Liancourt Rocks. However, it is a controversy whether record about Usando at 15th(6th?) century is present Liancourt Rocks. However, it becomes quite parallel in the following.

"Some sixth century records from Unified Silla mention islands in the Sea of Japan. There are also Japanese records from the seventeenth century discussion islands in this region."

It is understood that it is not a fixed fact, if it is described as "Japan(Korea) argue." However, If the subject is not clarified, it seems that a fixed fact. I think that the phrase of "Japan(Korea) argue(claim)" is a buffer of the matter that cannot agree. --Opp2 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Korean record is from the 12th Century and it clearly states Ulleungdo became part of Korea in the year 512 A.D. NOT "some islands" Ulleungdo. This is a very important piece of data. This historical document shows Korea had the strongest territorial bond to the region a thousand years before the first Japanese arrived in 1618.

This is significant because it shows Koreans were living within visual proximity of Dokdo for a millenium before Japanese arrived.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-early-records.html

Opp, the Japanese clearly incorporated Dokdo on the basis they "believed" the island was ownerless or no-man's land...."terra nullius"

It must be mentioned in the year 1695 the Japanese shogunate declared both Takehima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were not part of Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html Clownface 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because such an insistence is done, I think that the each country clames should be separated. If phrase of "Japan(Korea) argue(claim)" is deleted, a stricter description is requested. Was the incorporation of Japan in 1905 terra nullius?　It can be written that it is not terra nullius if it is described clearly as Japan claim. Because it is a Japan claim, and not a fixed fact. It is necessary to select either terra nullius or not if it is not described clearly as the Japan claim. Korean will insist on terra nullius. Because it is a condition to point out contradiction. It is necessary to select either though even the opinion of the scholar of International Law has divided.[50] Perhaps, it is not likely to be able to agree. It was not separated the calims but is the order that becomes a problem. To obscure order, the cause of a new trouble is made. I think that the phrase of "Japan(Korea) argue(claim)" became a buffer of the matter that cannot agree.--Opp2 05:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Before we get too far off topic, what it comes down to is that it is not easy to succinctly summarize the arguments in a nice way, and it really isn't necessary to put it in the intro. As Clownface and Opp2 are illustrating, leaving anything will soon balloon into a full-fledged "one side says this, to which the other side says, to which the other side says" type thing. In the interest of getting the article stabilized permanently (wouldn't that be nice?) I'd agree that the benefits of leaving it are outweighed by the disadvantages, especially because it seems quite tempting to trolls (none of who are on this talk page) to screw around with it in an effort to rile us all up. --Cheers, Komdori 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the top of the history section on a preliminary basis. The information is pretty much repeated in the same section, so I don't think there is much rationale in keeping it. Also, if it is true that Unified Silla did not exist in the 6th Century then there is an obvious factual error, so this should be corrected (with a source) if it is to be kept. Phonemonkey 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro's infobox

I realized that my version replaced the infobox w/ Japan's administration in it - however I also remembered that the Japanese administration was not originally there & was added by without consensus or discussion (until it was slipped & settled for a while so Komdori & LactoseTI could say "consensus! no more changes now!") (Wikimachine 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

We have been through this several times, every time someone gets it in their head to remove it, it seems it needs explaining again. The infobox template itself makes it more clear. This is an area to describe how the various regions classify it for purposes of administration. Like it or not, both countries have a classification. If you have an issue with the word "administration," you can take it up with the infobox people, or perhaps we can make a split with whatever word we agree on. --Cheers, Komdori 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Or I can take it right here, Komdori, I'm just saying that it was added without consensus to begin with. (Wikimachine 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC))