Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 1

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

Disputed?

Korean claims on the island: Settled a long time ago. As not even the Korean government takes the actions of the Masan city government seriously, and as far as I know, the action would not constitute a formal dispute of ownership, I'm taking the Korean template off this page, as well as the (very cute) map with the Korean name. Feel free to revert if you feel strongly enough about this, but I see no real reason for either. --Zonath 19:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just to reassert my revert; I agree with the removal of map, as it seems useless to me. However, I feel that the Korean name should be also be put up; as:

  • Koreans also lay a significant claim on the island based on its history,
  • It is a spot that can be a place for Korean-Japanese dispute at anytime in the future, like the Senkaku Islands of Japan. As of today, a sizeable proportion of the Koreans feel that Tsushima is part of their land, by looking at the Masan claim. If the Dokdo claim dissolves, Tsushima may be the next target for territorial disoute, therefore I feel that the Korean name should be placed up.

Tan 20:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dunno about the sizable proportion thing, since the Masan claim was the first time in about 50 years the issue has been brought up, as far as I've heard, and seemed to be just abunch of politicians ill-versed in international law and relations stirring shit. Also, since the basis of the Korean claim seems to be that the island was invaded 600 years ago in order to supress piracy, I dunno that that counts as significant (can't find any source for the thing about the japanese gov. asking king sejong for help...) However, I can see your reasoning, I guess, so won't be taking the Korean down unless there's a sizable number of people who actually want it down. Not like it does any harm, but I was interested in trying to prevent this page from turning into a juvenile edit war like the page on Dokdo has become. I suppose next thing we know, someone will put up a Japanese name on the page for Jeju... --Zonath 13:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima isn't disputed because the South Korean government doesn't claim it. Whatever it cries. The city of Masan has no authority to raise territorial questions. --Nanshu 06:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Tibet? It is found in the Category:Disputed Territories. Chinese islands also label it as disputed. [1] If dokdo rearises, so does Tsushima.-User:Mr Tan

That's none of zhwp's bussiness. Every country has people with strange ideas. We shouldn't care about every little thing. --Nanshu 04:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's sort of problematic linking Tsushima and Dokdo, since they're completely different issues. For one thing, Korea has never asserted a claim to Tsushima at the national level except for one time fifty years ago. The fact that the national government asked the Masan city council to withdraw its proclamation of 'Daemado day' lends a lot of credence to the idea that Korea doesn't consider this a territorial dispute. In addition, Tsushima is actually inhabited, and has been inhabited for hundreds of years, while Dokdo has only been inhabited for decades, and has no inhabitants which are indigenous. The indigenous population of Tsushima seem to mostly consider themselves to be Japanese, not Korean. In any case, linking the two disputes makes Korea's case a whole lot weaker, since it dilutes a strong claim (to Dokdo) with a weak and frivilous one, casting doubt upon any claim the Korean government makes (a statement to this effect was made by the Korean government). Not only does it not make sense to label the island disputed, doing so is a bit of a disservice to Korea. --Zonath 06:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima-jima

Tsushima-jima seems a purely administrative term. Since the possible etymology of Tsushima is tsu (port) + island (shima), Tsushima-jima sounds redundant. --Nanshu 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not romanization. Go and see Dokdo. Also, 대마도 is commonly used, dunno about the 쓰시마.-User:Mr Tan

What are you talking about? --Nanshu 04:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 대마도 is only rarely used to refer to the islands, although it is becoming more common these days. Almost all Korean maps either list the islands with their name in Chinese script or else as 쓰시마. --Zonath 06:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pirate [solved]

I request Mr Tan to provide primary sources that support the following statements:

A Korean ambassador came to Tsushima and exerted control in 1368 by sending a discussion court there, but the famous Japanese pirate Chong Chi stated that Tsushima are Japanese territory in 1387.

--Nanshu 08:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go and see [2]-User:Mr Tan , 10:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read this page, and I cannot confirm that "a Korean ambassador" "exerted control in 1368." Also, this convinced me that the events you mentioned are too trivial to be explained at the article of Tsushima Island.

BTW can you find the corresponding passage from [3]? --Nanshu 04:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand Korean well. User:Mr Tan

Don't worry. It's written in Classical Chinese. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Now I got it. Quote from Goryeosa:

對馬島萬戸、遣使來獻土物 [秋七月己卯]
遣講究使李夏生于對馬島 [秋七月甲午]
對馬島萬戸崇宗慶、遣使來朝、賜宗慶米一千石 [十一月丙午]

That's all. How did you confirm that "a Korean ambassador" "exerted control in 1368"? --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oei Invasion

In 1419, King Sejong of Joseon in Korea ordered his trusted general Yi Jong Mu to clear the island of the Wokou pirates. At this time, Tsushima came under the sphere of influence of Joseon. Owing to the lack of food on the islands, the local Japanese governor requested King Sejong to give help to the local inhabitants. In response, the king formally colonised and placed Tsushima as part of the Gyeongsang province, although Japan maintained claims to the island.

First of all, this is too detailed for the overall history of Tsushima. The details are to be put at Oei Invasion.

It is clear that Mr Tan checked only Korean sources. The incorporation of Tsushima into Gyeongsando was not accepted by So Sadamori. It was done by someone in Tsushima who tried to resume trade. Forgery of documents can frequently be found in Japan-Korea diplomacy. One cannot come to the truth without checking sources from all the parties. --Nanshu 04:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stated that Japan maintained claims to the island. User:Mr Tan.

Now I wrote the article of the Oei Invasion. I hope you realize your complete ignorance.

BTW I googled "So Sadamori" and got no hit. It was not so surprising to me but it symbolizes the lack of online English sources for this topic. Do not reply on them. You must read proper books first. --Nanshu 02:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Island(s) [dup]

If you go to this map here, Tsushima has islands, not Island. [4]

Also, it is very messy to give the names with brackets. Tsushima Islands, be it singular or plural, is still 島.

User:Mr Tan, 14:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Tsushima Island#Island/Islands. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for Moderation?

Since you guys seem to be in a lame edit war over the name of this page (moving the article constantly), let's get a moderator in here to sort things out. --Zonath 07:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

How to keep a balance and keep the article away from insignificant details

After discussing some issues with Mr Tan, I overcame with a sense of futility. He lacks basic knowledge on the topic. He aims to emphasize Korea to a maximum extent and for that purpose he doesn't hesitate to pick up one exception and to ignore 99 normal cases. Maybe he doesn't realize what he does.

I don't want and I don't have time to teach him ABC. Instead I recommend him to read books that outline the history of Tsushima before editing this article although I doublt there is a good English book about it. If he manages to see the forest for the trees, I will welcome him. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can see in my impartiality that I balance between Korean and Japanese resources by uniting the old and new informations, since Tsushima is somewhere between Korea and Japan, and the people there should be mentioned to let the wikipedians to have a hint of how Tsushima is like, as this is only a mere overview. Also, Baekje subjects could have colonized the island while some stopover in Tsushima, as evidenced in the fact that Baekje subjects fled to Japan upon the fall of Baekje. You should also not remove Silla, but the history of Tsushima conflicts between Korea and Japan, as evidenced in the fact that Syngman Rhee claimed Tsushima in 1950 touting to its relations with various kingdoms of Korea.

I welcome new contributions, but I feel that the Korean name at no costs should be removed as well, as the Koreans widely call Tsushima as Daemado. You can see in the old version of Tsushima proince: [5]--Mr Tan 20:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, don't you see why I created a bunch of sections above. It's because I wanted to clarify disputed points. In other words, I wanted you not to dodge my questions. By giving an all-in-one reply, you hid the fact that you did not answer some of my question and remarks on your errors such as strange "Tsuikai Kingdom".
I ask for Mel Etitis and Zonath's cooperation. --Nanshu 02:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the historical accounts of Japan and Korea often differ -- largely because nationalist scholars on both sides tend to use mythological/unsubstantiated accounts (such as Samguk Sagi) to support their claims. Yes, Baekjae people could have colonized Tsushima, since from the position of Baekjae, a logical route to Japan would have crossed the Korea and Tsushima straights, but it's questionable whether elements of the Baekjae nobility or army would wish to travel past the center of Shilla power in the southeast on the way to Japan. At any rate, we shouldn't be stating speculation as fact, even with the qualifier 'may have'. Cite your sources, which would preferrably be peer-reviewed and independant (I.E. not news stories, which tend to be pretty bad to cite on historical issues). --Zonath 15:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

"However, it said that Silla had placed Tsushima under its control, although it was believed that the subjects of the fallen Baekje kingdom may have exerted control over the island while others fled to Japan during the late 7th century."
  • it said: What does 'it' refer to? Japan? A book? This is not only bad scholarship, but poor English usage.
  • it was believed: By whom? During what period? Why isn't it believed anymore? Who disproved the belief?
  • may have exterted control: I may have had eggs for breakfast two weeks ago... I can't remember. Where is this exertion of control recorded? Is there any archaeological evidence? Do islanders speak of a King Han Guk-in in their folklore?

--Zonath 15:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have ractified my mistakes. Go ahead and review it again. Tan 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Korean historians -- too broad a group. So far, the only source cited (on the Talk page) was a news article copying an assertion of Hulbert's History of Korea. So, a good first step would be to add that book to the references section along with the news article and, if you have access to the book itself, perhaps transcribe the relevant parts of it (with page annotations), upload it into wikisource (it was published in 1905, so no problem with copyright) and put a link to the text on-page. Cite Hulbert as the originator of the claim (not 'Korean Historians') until you (or someone else) have the chance to check footnotes and bibliography against more contemporary historical record (rather than a book published hundreds of years after the fact). Cross-check what other scholars say about Hulbert's work (likely to be in Korean), and add references to those sources, providing a summary of their work alongside. As for the Baekjae claim -- as far as I can see, it's still unsourced speculation. Try to provide as detailed and accurate a picture as you can, including viewpoints from both sides (or at least ways people can check the claims for themselves) on any possibly controversial claim, which is what NPOV is about. It is not particularly impartial to make or support claims from an unassailable position, no matter whose ego you are trying to soothe -- in fact, such a practice could be considered highly biased.--Zonath 08:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


I dropped the 'a minority of Koreans believe' sentence from the second paragraph of the section on the dispute, which moved information on the proclamation to the front. I appended "the proclamation has stirred up some public support for the idea" after that. The link provided was removed because it was from 1998, and the paragraph was about Masan in the past few months. Added that link to the bottom, since it looks like it has some pretty useful information. --Zonath 07:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

For Silla, go ahead to that link: [6]

For Baekje, ask User:Kjrocker, for he was the one who hinted Baekje. I suppose that the subjects of Baekje would settle in Tsushima while others flee further into Japan, as you can see in the Baekje article. Tsushima is an island located on the strategic point between Korea and Japan, so many Koreans could have well settled in Tsushima while others went further into Japan.

  • Also, how can you prove that Yi Jong Mu is the former King Taejong? How can King Sejong order his father when he was already emperor? Taejong must be dead when Sejong is emperor.

Tan, 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The newsgroup posting referenced at the bottom clearly states that King Taejong was the one who instigated the invasion of Tsushima in his position as leader of the army. He abdicated rather than retired... quite common practice for kings to do so in both Korea and Japan. --Zonath 15:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mel: You have not made my reply on Baekje and you are making an unanimous edit. Also, please see the link on Silla. Also, please do not remove the Under the Korean claim, the Islands belong to the South Gyeongsang province. statement, as the Dokdo puts up the Japanese address and it poses no harm, but gives knowldge instead.

Mel & Zonath: Also, is there any sources stating King Taejong is Yi Jong Mu and his date of abdication?


Tan, 23:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. Newsgroup postings don't count as adequate citations.
  2. I don't know what you mean by "You have not made my reply on Baekje"
  3. I assume that you mean "unilateral edit".
  4. It has been established that there isn't a Korean claim, only a claim by one city.
  5. Don't revert changes wholesale; you reverted not only the substantial changes, but also a set of corrections of the very poor English. (Much more needs to be done to this article.) Reverting corrections to the English counts as vandalism; I suggest that you tread very carefully. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For point 1: It is not a newsgroup posting. If you visit the page, you can see it as international news. [7]

For point 2: I want you to ask the User:Kjrocker for it was him who hinted the Baekje claim. I have already stated that the Korea straits is an ideal route for people to travel to and fro between Korea and Japan, and Tsushima is the best spot for Baekhje as subjects to take refuge, just as in the case as Koxinga and his loal Ming followers take refuge in Taiwan from China to prepare for the invasion of China, but fails, just as in the case of Baekje. See the article Baekje to clarify that they have fled to Japan.

Also, do you know why Syngman Rhee and Masan dare to make a claim on Tsushima? There are various links to Korean history on Tsushima history.

For point 3: I don't understand what does it mean to be unilateral edit.

For point 4: My reverting of wholesale changes is not by purpose, but targeting at Silla. Also, you had not made my reply at that moment.

Ah, yes, see this useful blog link. [8]

User:Mr Tan 09:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay... I found this article which indicates that King Taejong was not, in fact, Yi Jong Mu, but was Yi Pang-won, so I'll go ahead and change that. King Taejong's date of death is listed here as 1423, and his reign ended in 1418, so he either abdicated, or was forced out of office. However, it appears that it was Taejong who ordered the invasion of Tsushima, rather than Sejong, as the newsgroup posting on the main page shows, as well as this article. So, I'll go ahead and change that, too. --Zonath 16:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

For the information of the Japanese pirate fighter Chong Chi, see [9]

Tan 19:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. Then why did you call it a newsgroup posting? In fact newspaper articles are rarely acceptable as citations for matters of fact, either.
  2. If you have something to argue, argue it here. I don't intend to plough through the debate on another article's Talk page in order to find out what you're referring to. Your claims above aren't very clear, but you seem to be offering original research.
  3. I can only suggest a dictionary; look up 'unanimous' and 'unilateral'.
  4. I don't understand your response, though it doesn't seem to address my complaint. You seem to be using 'make' in a rather odd way (both in "You have not made my reply on Baekje" and in "you had not made my reply at that moment"); what do you mean by it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • At that moment was the reply that you have made since the last time you have written a comment on my talk page. (Oh well, that is just to let you know my purpose). The answer on Baekje is in this talk page, however.
  • Yes, I argue all things concerning the Tsushima Islands here, didn't I? I never mention anything about our dispute in Zanskar here right?
  • I never stated that the Silla link [10] is a newsgroup posting at all. Newspaper articles are reports on facts, not on fiction, especially in the case of history. Thus, the Silla case is not false at all.
    • "The newsgroup posting referenced at the bottom" is what you wrote (it's there at the beginning of this section); I'm not sure how that isn't referring to a newsgroup. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Korean historians claim to have discovered that Silla had placed Tsushima under its control, although it was also believed that many of the subjects of the fallen Baekje kingdom exerted control over the island when they decided to settle in Tsushima after their landing, while others decided to flee to Japan during the late 7th century.

I have given the furthest that I can give; why can't just be it up there? There is sufficient proofs and facts already for the Silla and Baekje. What do you want anymore? I have given you the references links, and full stop.

Tan 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Who are these Korean historians? Why do they only claim to have discovered this? What is the evidence? It was also believed by whom? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've just reverted your changes. Some of them because you've reintroduced the material about which I'm asking questions above, some because I didn't understand your English: what do you mean by "under the name of his son"? Was he pretending to be his son? And what do you mean by "dependancy" (sic)?

The reference you give, incidentally, is to a newspaper article referring to an historian who is referring to a book by an American missionary. It's far from decisive evidence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at this amp on the right:

You can see the states of Silla, Baekje, Gaya and Goguryeo. According to the source:[11] it states that Tsushima became a dependency (or control, if you like), of Silla in the 7th century at its peak. Therefore, it shows that Silla had enough powers to control Tsushima, or at least as its dependency. What ever you think, Christian missionaries write books that derive from historical facts. So, for the last time, please do not revert the accounts and unlink Yi Jong Mu (as somebody may want to write an article about him). Historical accounts are never accurate, but this has provided sufficient evidence.

Read this from the news source: It is important to notice that the island of Tsushima, whether actually conquered by Silla or not, became a dependency of that kingdom, the book says. "On account of the sterility of the soil the people of that island were annually aided by the Silla government".

Also, do not bracket the sentence in the territorial disputes section. Daemado is known to be the Korean name as it was stated in the Korean and Japanese names table.

See this sentence: After World War II, there arose a movement in South Korea to claim Tsushima, citing its historical relations to the various kingdoms of Korea.

Tan 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


After elaborations and citing sources and giving explanations to the best that I could, I hopeyou fully understand the meaning of putting up the Silla and Baekje politics in Tsushima. Also, I hope that you would stop rephrasing sentences by adding brackets and the thing. I welcome all contributions from you to Tsushima and other articles in wikipedia usefully, but please do not maintain to the hard-headed side, as you seems to be putting tremendous pressure on wikipedi users. Facts from news websites are always good enough to be trusted.

Tan 19:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Please do not revert and modify the facts in the terriorial claims section. The Korean government has made a official comment by retracting the claim and callong the Masan council to calm down. Thus, there is no reason to remodify the facts or bracket the sentences!

Tan 22:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's edits

  1. I'm amazed that you're still lecturing me on proper English. One reason that I've again reverted your edits is that they've either changed good English to poor, or have added text whose English is too obscure for me to be sure what you're trying to say.
  2. No, it simply isn't true that "Facts from news websites are always good enough to be trusted"; in this case, though, matters are made worse by the fact that the news site refers to what a single historian says based upon a rediscovered book, but we have neither the historian's words nor the book. Thus the news item can be used to support a cautious claim, but not your bold one.
  3. Could you post your proposed revisions here so that I or other editors can correct the English before they're added to the article? The rest of the article is already in desperate need of copy-editing, but that shouldn't be a reason to add more mistakes.
  4. You might be interested in: Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My native language is English. Mandarin and Chinese dialects serves as my second, third and fourth language respectively. One's ethnicity does not means that English is not his native tongue.
  • You have removed facts unanimously. No, you should not do that. Instead, one should correct the sentence structure and improvise it, not deleting it off!
  • Also, it is not appropriate to add brackets in the sentence. From your character, you are a very stubborn and perisstant man who refuses to change for the better. My English may not be as bad as you think; just watch out for my future edits.

Tan 01:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. You make four errors in your first paragraph, four in your second, and three in your third; it doesn't matter whether English is your native language or not — I'm afraid that your written English is dreadful. You've been told that by a number of editors, because of your insistence on criticising and changing the English of others.
  2. Some of your edits are merely changes from good to bad English; those can only be reverted. The English of some of your edits is too poor for me to be able to decipher your meaning; it's thus impossible to improve (not improvise) them. Some of your edits make claims not backed up by the evidence you supply; those should also be removed until good evidence is provided. Some of your edits are fine except for their English; those I retain, tidying the grammar and spelling.
  3. "it is not appropriate to add brackets [to] the sentence"?
  4. Your last sentence makes little sense, unless it's meant as the same sort of joke as "Wagner's music isn't as bad as it sounds". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. I advise you not to add brackets to sentences if possible. The Zanskar article added too much brackets unnecessarily, when proper unbracketed sentences could actually be used. Proper English advise against the use of brackets (The majorty of featured articles doesn't use brackets unnecessarily unless a proper sentence could not be used)
  • I will work out on my grammar. Forgive me, but you are from UK and I'm from Singapore. How can our standards be compatible? If you use American English, and you stated you are part Irish, are you sure that your English does not have Irish gramatical influences? This will cause confusion to me. Another article critically needing help is the Liancourt Rocks (somebody has moved it to Liancourt Islands and please move it back as Liancourt Rocks)
  • In history, if a king abdicates in favour of his son, it is always the fact that the former king will issue orders under the name of his son as he is no longer a king, but his father. I will ractify the sentence, but please do not remove the facts. See if its good now.
  • The word recently can be confusing to some. Some may think that recently pertains to now, and many may feel badly confused about the facts.
  • My English can't be that bad, where is the mistake in here? under the name of his son, King Sejong, the already abdicated King Taejong

It states that the former King Taejong uses the name of his son King Sejong to give orders, making King Sejong as a "puppet king". It is ridiculous for a person not having the ability to comprehend what this phrase is talking about!

  • Also, why are you making a revert from this new sentence--

New Sentence:In the midst of time, the Tsushima Arirang and Chingu music festivals, which are unique to the Japanese are established in the recent years with roots from its indigenious culture.

Old Sentence: This is evidenced in the celebration of the modern Tsushima Arirang and Chingu music festivals, which are unique to the Japanese.

--Back to its old sentence? You said that it doesn't make sense, and I'm ractifying it. Don't revert that edit again, this is already considered as vandalism.

I have changed the orientation: This is evidenced in the fact that Korean songs such as Arirang and Chingu are sung in a festive mood, thus leading to formations of unique local festivals from the Japanese.

If you revert it again, it will be considered as vandalism.

Tan 09:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  1. Oh good grief, read what I say on my Talk page if you're going to make use of it. First, I don't use American English (why on Earth should I?); secopndly, my Irish blood is not going to have an effect on my grammar.
  2. I can't be bothered to point out all the grammatical and other errors you make in the above examples. You've refused to accept that your English is faulty, you've attacked other people's English, and you've shown yourself unable to enter into sensible discussion on these points. All I can say is that everything you cite above is riddled with errors, including (especially) "under the name of his son, King Sejong, the already abdicated King Taejong". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  1. Why don't you understand our regional differences? Singapore and UK uses somewhat different forms of English.
  1. I have repeatedly acknowledged that my English is at least faulty to some extent. However, if you look around, there are other users whose English is worse than mine. Furthermore, you yourself is attacking me. I have repeatedly hinted, stressing me out, that we must point out that if a king abdicates in his son's favor, and wants to carry out an order, generally he would uses his son's name as the son is already an emperor! (Uses you common sense, lah.)
  1. Also, I appeal to you that please do not revert that edit in the demographics section concerning that Arirang festival! I have changed the facts after new analysis. I realised that Arirang could not be a festival, but it is so called a festival after years of cultural intergrating. If you revert again, and again, stubbornly, I have no choice but either to issue a block against you or other means. If you see gramatical errors, why can't you just edit, and ractify it? I can't believe that my English grammar is so bad that it could not even be understood. Action speaks louder than words. So far, no users have made comments that they cannot understand my content. Also, do not forget the fact that I only contribute a portion of the content!

Tan 19:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. It has nothing to do with Singaporean English.
  2. I must have missed your admissions that your English is faulty; where did you make them?
  3. I don't know why you've hinted at things rather than just saying them. If your point is correct, then I now know how I might rewrite that section in proper English.
  4. The section about the festival is too badly written for me to work out what you meant; you might not believe that your grammar is that bad, but I'm afraid that it is. You have also made a number of other edits in which you changed good to bad English, and I've had to revert all of them.
  5. Your threat to "issue a block" makes little sense, given that you're not an admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not a threat. Instead, it is an advise to you. According to wikipedia policy, a person can be blocked after making a certain number of reverts without first analising over the page. Even the facts are not understood to you, it may be understood by others. These facts, however, a neither worngly classified, nor they are redundant. The fact that you keep on reverting like this is already supposedly considered as vandalism. If you do not understand the facts, tell me why, and I explain to you. Also, concerning about the content, never revert, unless you think it is redundant. If you think it is lousy and still unable to understand, then tell me, not revert at your own accord.

Tan 22:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (in so far as I understood your comment, however, you haven't grasped the nature of the rule; I suggest that you read the document to which I've linked). I have now reverted this article three times today, and you have also done so three times. If you revert it again, therefore, you will have broken the rule. Your lecture about when reverting is permissible is wrong on many levels. If you're going to lecture others on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you should make sure that you've read and understood them.
Note that I've pointed to the parts that I don't understand on numerous occasions, and you still have not explained them.
It's clear that you are still not prepared to accept that your English is as bad as it is, and that you're not prepared to moderate your rather aggressive approach to me and to other editors. I very, very strongly suggest that, for your own good, you stop and think very carefully about your conduct and about your approach to Wikipedia. I have no wish to see you blocked from editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Is there a rule for adminstartors for telling the users about the blocking policy before they block?
  • Also, why do you have to remove the Maps of Korea? I want to hint Tsushima is in certain Korean and Japanese maps (If you follow that link). Go and see, but I see there is no reason for you to remove it. So, I appeal you to put it up again, unless you give me a good explanation.
  • You never hinted to me where you want explanations either.
  • What are my bad points then?

Tan 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. If you mean should users be warned, then yes. Why do you ask? I've blocked you once, after warning you. I shan't block you again, because I have now become involved in the articles myself, but I've warned you because if you continue to behave badly I shall ask another admin to review the situation and block you. I should say that I've put your case in front of the other administrators to ask for their advice as to how to proceed; so far, the only reponse has been the opinion that you should be blocked for a period. I'm trying to avoid that.
  2. I've deleted the link to Maps of Korea because the islands aren't part of Korea, and the link thus implies a political point of view. (Why do you want to hint at things again?)
  3. OK, I'm beginning to realise that you're misusing 'hint'; what do you mean by it?
  4. I think that I've rehearsed the problems often enough. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

I wonder how long it will be up there--there is little work for improving. Mel, please work it out or the sign is going to be up there forever--it is very bad.

Tan 12:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will have to learn to be patient, Mr. Tan. Not everybody thinks you and your articles are the center of the world. Waiting is good for the human character. Wait until someone comes along and fixes it. Do not write your grammar edits anymore, for the time being, as they are getting to be irritating. Fix your grammar and then come back. Mel is giving you another chance, but know that not all men are like him. You could get blocked indefinitely. Now if Mel wants to fix this himself, that's up to him. Don't go ordering people around bec. that's very rude. Use the subjunctive. JMBell° 12:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tan:

  1. Your edits have again introduced serious grammatical errors.
  2. You have changed some of the Wikilinks that I corrected, depite the fact that mine linked directly to actual articles while yours don't (they go to redirects, which lead to — the same articles that my links went to).
  3. You have "corrected" my use of the word 'parts', saying that they're not parts but islands — yet the original text, which you seemed to think was OK, called them sections.

This isn't just a matter of your usual appalling English combined with your belief that it's better than other that of editors — you're also editing very carelessly. Please stop and think before making changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He never learns. Yesterday, he changed "isles" to "islands," saying that they're not isles, but islands. With his extensive knowledge of English he should surely know that isles are islands. I must compile this stuff someday and put it on BJAODN, if only it didn't conflict with my ethics.... JMBell° 00:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to leave him a message explaining this, but then decided just to change it back, as I think he's uneducable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

A naming convention

Seeing as there's been a lot of controversy over the naming of disputed territories (and not just at this article), I decided to start a strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names). Since many people here are likely to have an opinion on this, I'm advertising it here. Please notify people whom you think might be interested. --Xiaopo ℑ 02:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Editors contributing to this article might be interested in leaving their views at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming, etc.

I've just reverted Ypacaraí (talk · contribs)'s edits, as they removed material with nothing but an edit summary saying that it was "nonsense", and added a PoV claim. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Demographics and culture

The section was quite doubtful so I removed whole section. Author of this part should show evidence. My comments are as follows:

  • First paragraph. I asked a number of Korean residents to the local government and it was 50. I was also surprised at this small number. It means demographic ratio of Korean is only 0.125% while it is 0.6~1% in mainland. The official explained that economy depends on only fishing there so immigrants just pass Tsushima and go to mainland. It is understandable for me. So, Korean is not "a large minority" at Tsushima. Of course, It is possible that there are many Korean-origin persons who have Japanese citizenship. If author meant this, please show concrete number with evidence.
  • Second paragraph. Actually there are many signs in Koreans but they are for tourists. Therefore, it is not evidence of heavy influence of Korea on language in Tsushima. Show other evidence.
  • Third paragraph. It seems there are only few Korean residents. How can they affect on religion in Tsushima? There are more Koreans in mainland but I cannot find effect of "Korean Shamanism" here.

Anyway, I want to see the evidence. I am afraid that the only evidence of the author was the article of newspaper...

- placed by User:Corruptresearcher | talk | contribs


If Tan wrote this, then it would be quite understandable... - JMBell° 13:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Good job. You proved the unsubstantiality of his claim about demographics though the burden of proof is supposed to be on Mr Tan. But I've already pointed out these things above (see the section of Demographics and its subsections). --Nanshu 14:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest revert

I've no idea what Nanshu means by saying that I refuse to join in the discussion* — however, to revert to his own version, overriding other people's work, isn't acceptable. I've already said that his map would be acceptable if it were larger and of higher quality (and preferably a PNG file, not a JPEG); at the moment, the islands are a small, vague blob. The map shows their general location, but little more. Mr Tan's map isn't very good, but it's much clearer.

Note that User:Corruptresearcher placed his concerns here, so that they could be discussed and acted upon; you have simply made large-scale changes without discussion.

(*Ah, I've just found a couple of comments in various places above. I'm afraid that adding a comment to a Talk-section that has been dormant for a fortnight or so isn't the best way of attracting the attention of other editors. You need to set out your reasons for wanting change in a new section; then we can discuss your points properly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC))

It's surprising that you didn't notice my remarks here even though I clearly inform you twice [12] [13]. If you don't see what I meant, why didn't you ask me "Where?" instead of reverting without comment?
Now, you keep your eyes closed and cry, "I can't see anything!" It's impossible to cooperate with those who don't respond. It looks like you think, "I am the rule. Those who oppose me must convince me. But I don't have to make an effort to understand other opinions." I've already explained my points. I don't have to repeat. It's your turn.
P.S. In that you don't know the topic well, you are not so different from Mr Tan. --Nanshu 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The latest version is acceptable also for me. Maybe I overkilled sentences. I remember that the official also said that the Korean is the second minority group next to Phillipino (89 persons). I added it. --Corruptresearcher 18:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The spelling is Filipino!!!! JM*Bell° 20:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah... I confused English and Spanish. I can accept correction of gramatical errors, of course. Who rejects? :-p --Corruptresearcher 21:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
In fact "Philippine" is acceptable as the adjective, but the noun is always "Filipino". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Really?! ... Oh, I found it in my dictionary... English is difficult... It's Greek to me... --Corruptresearcher 21:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there a source to which we can link for the demographic information? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding foreign residents, unfortunately no. General demographic information of Tsushima can be obtained here but there is no information of foreign regidents. I sent e-mail (address was obtained from the web page mentioned above) to ask population of Korean regidents and got answer from the official. So I cannot show evidence but others can check it by sending e-mail to the same address. If double check is needed, please do so. Another source is Korean Residents Union In Japan but I could not find demographic information in English page. In Japanses page, there is demographic information of each prefecture and it is 1,396 in Nagasaki Pref. but no information of Tsushima City, neigher. The Union covers only residents from South Korea so the number does not include ones from North Korea. --Corruptresearcher 21:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to cut and paste the e-mail to this page so that any editor who disputes the claims will be able to see the source? You could remove your real name if you wanted to remain anonymous. It doesn't matter if it's not in English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that it causes some legal problems on privacy of the offical or copyright of him, even if it is obtained from the local government. I must ask it to the official but it takes a couple of weeks because it is vacation season now in Japan. --Corruptresearcher 21:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Corruptresearcher's data look accurate. According to 2000 census, the number of foreigners in Tsushima is 145 [14].

Ippan setai jin'in 一般世帯人員 (population?) of Tsushima is 40,350. The ratio of foreign people in Tsushima is only 0.36%! (I don't know whether ippan setai jin'in includes foreigners or not, but it is within the margin of error.) It is much lower than the average ration of Japan (1.03%) [15]. The presence of foreigners is too trivial to be mentioned at this article, and Mr Tan's remarks derived from it are mere nonsense. --Nanshu 04:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Map

I replaced with a new map because:

  • The old map was meant for Tsushima city (you can see a dot there, see Tsushima city]])
  • No color
  • More precise in terms of description

Tan 00:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A political map for a political entity and a geographical map for a geographical entity. Your deformed political map doesn't fit to the article of the island. So I replaced it.--Nanshu 03:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I created Image:Tsushima-sat.jpg too. --Nanshu 04:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I adopted another map. Any comment? --Nanshu 04:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Large-scale edit

Nanshu, you're behaving a little like Mr Tan — making sweeping changes to the article without proper consultation, and in a way that worsens the English considerably. Please set out your reasons for wanting to make the various changes. Moving different arguments that you've had to the bottom of this page is not only a bad thing in principle (because it distorts the chronology of the arguments), but it dowsn't really help, because it's often difficult to make out what the two of you are trying to say, and to match the arguments to the changes that you've made.

I've reverted your edit, but kept your new image. It's possible that all your changes should be kept (tidied up a little), but you need to explain them first, not simply present us with a fait accompli. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's you who actually behave like Mr Tan. You are really stubborn and still refuse to answer my remarks.

My edit became large scale just because it is a combination of my previous minor edits. Check revision history. (As you are a sysop, I suppose you know basic features of MediaWiki.) I'd edited this article little by little until I reached the bottom. Every time I edited, I showed a reason here. So it's not my fault but yours.

Do you find it difficult to deal with large scale edits? That's because you stick to all-in-one debates and refuse point-by-point discussion, like Mr Tan. I strongly recommend you to change your discussion form. Wikipedia is not a sequential-access memory.

BTW, are you willing to discuss history in depth? If so, I expect you to read Japanese, Classical Chinese and Japanized Classical Chinese because, as I explained above [16], there are virtually no reliable online English resources about this topic. I have no intention of translating and annotating my sources just to convince you. It takes so much work for me. If you don't, then there is little you can do here. You may show your ability to command natural English. And that's what you are expected to do. --Nanshu 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the nature of Wikipedia; it's a collaboration. One thing that's not acceptable is making large-scale changes and refusing to offer grounds for them. Translating and annotating your sources isn't for me, it's for Wikipedia in general; if you don't think that it's worth doing, then you can't think that your edits are worth keeping — because until you supply reasons and evidence, your edits won't remain.
I'm perfectly happy to engage in either point-by-point discussions or all-in-one debates; so far you've offered me neither, only patronising and aggressive brush offs.
If your edits are justifiable, I very much want to see them put into practice, but I don't intend simply to take your word that the sources exist but you can't be bothered to present or explain them. If they're only available in Japanese, and your time is too precious for you to do us the courtesy of translating them, then present them at the Japanese Wikipedia and edit the article there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. I just find it difficult to cooperate with those who don't try to cooperate. Again, I offer grounds for my edits. You keep your eyes closed and cry, "I can't see anything!" It looks like you think, "I am the rule. Those who oppose me must convince me. But I don't have to make an effort to understand other opinions."

I'm not going to edit Greeks because I don't know much about this topics. But you edit the article of Tsushima even though you don't know and don't try to study. I have already presented my points. It's your turn. I will not rearrange them just to convince you.

To write an article, we need a ten times larger amount of knowledge in background. (But Mr Tan's knowledge is less than half and he fills the gap with his good imagination.) So it is impossible to make comments with as great care at talk as in the article. Of course, I have translated and annotated my sources into English for articles. But don't expect me to do the same for discussions. I put primary sources as it is (e.g.Talk:Tsushima Island#Pirate [solved]) and made reference to books. I expect you to read them.

Now you said, "I'm perfectly happy to engage in either point-by-point discussions." It is one step forward for you. The next one is to change your ignore-comments-not-placed-at-the-bottom policy. I hope you will do, and offer references to my previous comments.

  1. For the useless name table, see Talk:Tsushima Island#Romanization.
  2. For the singular/plural issue, see Talk:Tsushima Island#Island/Islands [unsolved].
  3. For Mr Tan's edits on the section of "Demographics and culture", see Talk:Tsushima Island#Demographics.
  4. For the strange Tsuikai kingdom, see Talk:Tsushima Island#Tsuikai kingdom? [waiting for Mr Tan's answer].
  5. For Mr Tan's silly edits about ancient history, see Talk:Tsushima Island#Baekje? [waiting for Mr Tan's answer].
  6. For the Oei Invasion and Mr Tan's miunderstanginds about it, see Oei Invasion and Talk:Oei Invasion. The rest of Mr Tan's silly edits resulted from his ignorance about the consequence of this invasion.

--Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


"It was said that" etc.

Mr Tan, please stop adding sentences including phrases like " it was said that", etc., to articles. Who said it? When did they say it? On what basis? Why don't they say it now? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


Where did I ever added the phrase "It was said that"? I don't see it at all.

Also, concerning about the few phrases I have put up, I hope that you will understand why.

  1. Of late, the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists.

I got the evidence from an Asahi article that I have saved from the web(i can't find the link anymore). It is written by professor Cho Kyeung-dal:

The key to preserving tradition is also to be open, to have an open-minded attitude. This shows in the comments of Hideji Yashiki, chairman of the Aritayaki pottery traditional craftsmen association.

Yashiki, a highly acclaimed craftsman who hails from the town of Nishi-Arita in Saga Prefecture and is known as ``the Saga Prefecture Master, feels a sense of crisis in the growing presence of non-Japanese pottery.

``Recently, a lot of Chinese pottery, like that made in Jingdezhen, is not only cheap, but its quality is improving rapidly, he said.

The first thought that usually comes to mind in protecting Japanese tradition is to stop the flow of foreign goods into the country by curbing imports. But Yashiki insists on opening the doors wider to facilitate cultural exchange.

``In order to further develop Aritayaki-style pottery, we need cultural exchange with South Korea, China and other countries, he says. ``We need to attend exhibitions held in South Korea and other nations and polish our techniques. We can't sit idly by.


Yashiki himself has displayed his works at two exhibitions in South Korea and competed against rivals. This experience helped him realize that there are still certain styles that only the Aritayaki potters can create. He realized that Aritayaki pottery, despite its higher price compared with South Korean or Chinese pottery, will sell as long as the quality is good.

He believes that if he and his peers create such unique products, the traditional Aritayaki pottery will survive the test of time.

Kurume University visiting professor and archaeologist Junichiro Mori, who worked hard to launch the Saga Prefectural Nagoya Castle Museum and served as its former curator, shares a similar view.

And, concerning this phrase:

It was noted that the current population of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan, thus displacing the indigenious Japanese populace which may have some Korean ancestry.

It is an analysis from a chain of facts. If you notice from the article, Joseon had wanted all the population of Tsushima to return to Korea following its policy to leave islands uninhabited. (From the article, Japanese rule was slowly established as Joseon had no intention of colonizing the island, following its policy of leaving islands uninhabited.)

But the So clan remained on the island, if you see that the Sos during the Joseon dynasty never evacuated the island. Before the island was evacuated of Koreans, intermarriage must have taken place.

Feel free to add your comments here if you oppose.

Also, please do not revert the alignment of "Japanese names" in the template. Kanji first, then Hiragana, the Romaji (see how Liancourt Rocks is aligned accordingly)

Tan 22:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Please find the link first and then post the edit. We need to verify it - it's unavoidable Wikipedia policy, sorry. I had a few problems with that, too, back then, but you just have to go with the flow. And you can't base the Japanese here on the Japanese in Liancourt Rocks for one simple reason: Is it based on anything? JMBell° 16:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted Mr Tan's stubborn attempt to introduce hearsay into the article. At Talk:Zanskar he tried to lecture me on the passive and active voice (though he seems to think that that it's the same as the dictinction between the first and third person), so perhaps he'll realise that the passive voice is inappropriate here, being vague and evasive. The claim: "It was noted that the current population of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan, thus displacing the indigenious Japanese populace which may have some Korean ancestry." not only contains Mr Tan's usual grammatical and spelling errors, but doesn't say who noted this, when they noted it, or why they noted it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


You are stubborn. In fact, I have explained and acknowledged that it is an analysis of facts, and it is not a hearsay at all. In fact, I don't see any policies where analysis of facts are being prohibited from wikipedia either.

Do not discuss topics on each of the discussion pages itself if it is not related to the topic. I never make mention of the active and passive voice here in the first place.

Correct my english grammars if you see any, but stop nagging about it.

tan 01:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You, Tan, are stubborn. Accept your shortcomings but do not take it as an insult to your person. This is a correction, not an insult. "It was said" is passive, you mentioned active and passive voice in Talk:Zanskar, you even wrote it in bold letters, how can you say you never made any mention of it? Oh, here, you say? Well, we are making mention of it, since you placed it in the article. "It was said" is passive and active would be "someone said." There's the correction. JMBell° 00:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


The comments you make is not related in anyway to the article itself!

Also, please do not revert the analysis phrase itself unless you can explain why.

Tan 10:56, 16 May 205 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, the reason was already explained by Mel Etitis's first comment. Please show us 'who noted that'. At least, you should show us a source. You had better to read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms also. The guideline pointed out that "It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternative opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.". --Corruptresearcher 03:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have already hinted the Aritiyaki pottery.

Also, I have decided to change the senetence phrase--

It was suggested that the current populace of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan, largely displacing the indigenious Japanese populace which may have some Korean ancestry, following Joseon's past policy to leave the islands uninhabited.

Through the analysis of factual accounts. I don't see how it is weasel either.What do you think?


tan 11:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You still do not understand our comments. WHO suggested that? You? WHOSE analysis? Done by you? Or another researcher? We want to know a concrete name of the guy who suggest the opinion. I have never heard such a strange opinion.
And I do not care about the expression regarding Aritayaki pottery. --Corruptresearcher 08:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

By me. Look again, It is an analysis from a chain of facts. If you notice from the article, Joseon had wanted all the population of Tsushima to return to Korea following its policy to leave islands uninhabited. (From the article itself, Japanese rule was slowly established as Joseon had no intention of colonizing the island, following its policy of leaving islands uninhabited.) But the So clan remained on the island, if you see that the Sos during the Joseon dynasty never evacuated the island. Before the island was evacuated of Koreans, intermarriage must have taken place. Tan 21:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"I have already hinted the Aritiyaki pottery." What does this mean?
"Also, I have decided to change the senetence phrase". It's not a "senetence phrase", it's a sentence — and the way that you tell us your decision is, as usual, unacceptable.
Many people have explained why your suggested sentence shouldn't be included, and nowCorruptresearcher has said the same. "It was suggested" is poor English anyway (I assume that you mean "It has been suggested"), but this sort of vague passive construction isn't acceptable. Who suggested this (and when)? Where did they suggest it? Why did they suggest it? Also, the word is "indigenous", and the sentence as a whole is clumsily cast at best.
"Through the analysis of factual accounts." There's no verb; what did you mean by this?
"I don't see how it is weasel either." It isn't weasel; idesees, that doesn't mean anything, and no-one has said it. The reference is to weasel words.
See Talk:Zanskar for my reluctant decision to seek arbitration against Mr Tan. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Now we find what is the problem. It is your, Mr. Tan's, analysis. It is you who wants to suggest the opinion. Then you should read another document: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a chatroom, discussion forum, or vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 5. Primary (original) research". Do you understand? You should find another place to publish your own analysis. Mr. Tan, your editing stance is far from that the Wikipedia guidelines expect. Please stop editing for a while and read the Wikipedia documents carefuly at first. --Corruptresearcher 13:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You say that

Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 5. Primary (original) research". Do you understand? You should find another place to publish your own analysis.

It also states that proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc.

Do you realise, that proposing theories is not the same as an analysis? An analysis is not a theory at all!

Furthermore, an analysis from factual accounts are not the same as those of primary original research. Primary original research is the researching of information by yourself throgh various means, while analysis is using inferring from factual accounts. Thus I see nowhere that analysis are not allowed in wikipedia.

Tan 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is same in this case. You tried to mention that "the current populace of the islands were mainly recent immigrants from mainland Japan". However, you may not find other researchers who suggest such a strange opinion. It is quite natural because both of your analysis and the "factual accounts" are totally wrong. You must admit the fact, that is, no one suggests this strange opinion other than you. Japanese have stayed there continuously. --Corruptresearcher 12:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)