Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 8

THE EDIT HISTORY OF THIS ARCHIVE IS IN Talk:Dokdo/Archive 9 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern. A couple pieces of information need to be addressed and corrected with regard to the Japanese Edo Era and what the Japanese define as "effective management" of both Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Matsushima (Dokdo)

In the year 1667 Saito Hosen wrote his report on the Okinoshimas (Oki Islands) and described the islands and their vicinity. Wikipedias abbreviated portion of Saito Hosen you have is as follows....

The quote you have.

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 translation is incorrect and is obviously from the Japanese side. The Koreans and some Japanese scholars dispute this translation.

Here is the real translation.

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 these(this) island(s) mark(s) the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report on Oki does he say "Ulleungdo" is the Northwest boundary of Japan's territory he simply says "this island" or "these islands." It is not plausible that Saito Hosen used "these two islands" as Japan's boundary because Takeshima (then Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are 90kms away from each other in line and on a Westerly direction away from Oki. A 90km wide boundary?

Saito Hosen defined Japan's boundary based on what territory was visible from which area. You can see he says "thus......these islands......" Because Korea was visible from the Ulleungdo area and Oki was visible from Onshu (Japanese mainland) a more plausible translation is that Oki was the boundary of Japan at the time. It should be noted that Japanese maps of the day DO NOT show either Ulleungdo or Dokdo.

The quote by "Viewing Korea from this area is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu" by Saito Hosen in Kanji looks as follows 見高麗如雲州望-州 and it can be seen on many Japanese maps long after Ulleungdo was deemed Korean territory. Thus it doubtful it was used to determine Ulleungdo as Japanese territory. Here is a summary of Saito Hosen's report on my website.http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

In the year 1785 Hayashi Shihei used a color-coded map that also showed the same Kanji text next to Ulleungdo Island. This map was colored to indicate which territories belonged to whom and we can see Oki Island are definitely the limit of Japan.Here is a page with Hayashi Shihei's map and an images showing Saito Hosens quote below. Note the characters 朝鮮 for Chosun are used rather than 高麗 for Koryo.http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Hayashi-shihei.html

Korean professor ShinYongHa also supports the other translation stating Oki is most likely the boundary in Saito Hosen's report.

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

Japanese writer Hideki Kajimura also agrees with the alternate translation in his article about Dokdo.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/Books/observer/2-4.hwp

I would also like to inquire about editing the portion regarding Japan's claimed "effective management" during the 17th Century. I look forward to you response.

about Chosen Hachido-no Zu
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

• Chosen Hachido-no Zu (1758) depicts Ulleung-do and Dokdo as one big island within Korean territory, according to Korean scholars. Some Japanese scholars believe the map only shows Ulleung-do as a territory of Usan-guk (state).

I think this map[1]. Where is it being written Dokdo? It is being written Ullengdo(鬱陵島) & Usan-state(于山国) & Iso-take(イソタケ) in this map. What is the gallooty Korean scholar's name? Can the Korean scholar read the Chinese character?--Opp2 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)amended bill

• Chosen Hachido-no Zu (1758) depicts Ulleung-do and Usan-guk(state) on one big island within Korean territory. Korean scholars insist that Dokdo is comparised in this one island. Japanese insiste that only Ullengdo is drawn in this map.

Is the South Korean scholar really doing such a foolish insistence? --Opp2 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) I wait for the constructive opinion until January 13. --Opp2 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can’t see Dokdo on the map. Is it only visible to Korean?

about Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

• Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do (1861), an incomplete map of Korea, includes Dokdo, according to Korean scholars.

The detailed data of this map is here[2].Only Ullengdo is drawn.

amended bill

• Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do (1861) depicts one island. Korean scholars insist that Dokdo is comparised in this island. Japanese insiste that only Ullengdo is drawn in this map.

I wait for the constructive opinion until January 18. --Opp2 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

about Historical Geography of Great Japan
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

• Historical Geography of Great Japan (大日本地名辞書, Dai Nippon Chimei Jisho?), 1900) records that when the local government of Shimane prefecture asked the Japanese Meiji government whether Dokdo would be merged into Shimane, the government in 1877 responded that Japan had no relation with the islets.

This content is the Japanese Dajokan (Council of State) issue in 1877. Historical Geography of Great Japan is unrelated to this description. Because the Japanese Dajokan (Council of State) issue has already been described, this should be deleted. I wait for the constructive opinion until January 18.--Opp2 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No deadlines in Wikipedia! (Wikimachine 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm choosing to just ignore what he wants because he's just repeating everything. Eventually, he will come to the conclusion that this article should be moved to Takeshima. Good friend100 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

about CIA's Daily Digest
The newspaper article writes that Japan decided abandonment after signing the SF treaty, and is unrelated to the interpretation of the SF treaty[3]. Therefore, a present description is distorted. Moreover, the document to which Japan decided abandonment after signing SF treaty has not been discovered. The possibility of the false report of CIA 's Daily Digest is high.

• Newspaper article

The CIA's Daily Digest of November 30, 1951, said Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951. However, Tokyo raised the issue again two months later in the midst of the Korean War.

• This article description

CIA documents from 1951 uncovered recently in the port city of Busan indicate that the U.S. believed Japan renounced its claim to Dokdo by signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

• amended bill

The CIA's Daily Digest of November 30, 1951, reported Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951. However, the such document of Japanese Government has not been discovered.

The position of this description should move behind the SF treaty signature, too. I will correct it if there is not opposite with specificaly and logical reason. --Opp2 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

about SCAPIN677
SCAPIN677 describes a legal effect in clause 1, and describes the application area in clause 3. Hoever clause 1 that is the purpose of this directive is not described now. Therefore, it is necessary to add a italic type part.

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.

Administration and title are distinguished by International Law. --Opp2 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Stanford report by Sean Fern describes,[4]

Since the end of World War II, Korea and Japan have contested ownership of these islets, given the name Liancourt Rocks by French whalers in the mid-1800s and called that by neutral observers to this day.1 (p. 78)

1 For objectivity, in this paper Tokdo/Takeshima Island will be referred to as the Liancourt Rocks

This means that current article title is not NPOV. Since WP:NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia principle, the title should be reconsidered accordingly. Jjok 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jjok, we can't base the article's name off of a single scholar. Look at previous discussions stored in the archives. (Wikimachine 06:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

What you need to do is to show some evidence that Tokdo is more neutral term by using neutral and reliable sources. In the above case, even the pro-Korean author admits Liancourt Rocks is neutral. In addition, it is not only example. Aiden kindly resummarized some references previously shown in this talk page bellow:

What is the neutral, mainstream standard?

1. The BBC refers only to the islets as disputed islands and does not use either Dokdo or Takeshima.
2. Encarta encyclopedia refers to the islets as the Liancourt Rocks (disputed).
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online states, "South Korean–Japanese relations deteriorated on two fronts. The first was an argument over the ownership of an island group that South Korea called Tokdo and that Japan referred to as Takeshima (some maps used a neutral term—the Liancourt Rocks)." (emphasis added)
4. The CIA World Factbook states, "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954." (emphasis added)

There are many more well respected sources, most of whom acknowledge that pending the resolution of the conflict, Liancourt Rocks represents a neutral alternative to either Dokdo or Takeshima. —Aiden 05:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your list of "respected sources" are WP:OR. And specific instances on the usage of the term "Liancourt Rock" should be attributed to the authors, not the sites because what you claim is simply not true. (Wikimachine 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

In relation to the World Factbook, we now know that the rocks were not included in the territory that Japan renounced.[5][6][7] [8] However, US uses Liancourt rocks as a neutral and appropriate English name for long time according to the research by Zonath:

Actually, if you're going to bring up the World Factbook, you might try actually using it as a reference to back up your argument. For your convenience, I did a quick survey of how this dispute and the islets have been described in the World Factbook since 1990.

• 1990-1997 - "Liancourt rocks claimed by Japan." [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (Note: Most of these links are text file versions of the entire factbook and take a long time to load.)
• 1998-2000 "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Tokdo) claimed by Japan" [17] [18] [19]
• 2001-2002 "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Tokdo) disputed with Japan" [20] [21]
• 2003 "Liancourt Rocks (Take-shima/Tok-do) are disputed with Japan" [22]
• 2004 "unresolved dispute with Japan over Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima) and occasional protests over fishing rights in grounds also claimed by Japan" [23]
• 2005-Present "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954" [24]

(by the way, I think it is clearly showing that the change of the term is a result of Korean lobbying) Jjok 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving specific instances of the "Liancourt Rock" even by respectable sources isn't going to get you anywhere because I can provide triple that amount of examples & this will just end up being a list-war. "The research by Zonath" who is a Wikipedia user is WP:OR. Don't call it a "research". (Wikimachine 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

By the way, if you think Korean lobbying got us here... look at the archive. Most of the consensus came from non-Korean editors.

"This link from Ginnre's discussion page, [25], clearly shows Japanese mobilization against articles on Japan-Korea disputes and controversies. For example, not long ago Imjin War was changed to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Now this article. And who knows whether some other related issues are being overturned to JPOV?

the 2ch.net specifically lists all the Korean Wikipedian editors, the list of disputes occuring, etc. Don't lose your focus."

This is from the archive.

The general consensus has been agreed on & search engine results have already been referred and compared upon in the previous votes. The results are probably listed in Archive 6. (Wikimachine 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Is that all that support Tokdo is more neutral? The search engine results are far more or less OR compared to credible secondary and tertiary souces and the previous agreement has done based on consistency that is argued from NPOV now. Please show some credible sources to support the neutrality of current title. I am feeling necessity to ask to user:Nihonjoe for some comments.

Actually, Zonath tried to find some evidences of Japanese lobbying that seems resulted in showing opposite way... Jjok 06:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought Zonath was out of this discussion. Ah, a network of JPOV editors conspiring on Japan-Korea disputes?

Sorry, but it is Wikipedia's policy to check on search engines to see which title is more widely used. (Wikimachine 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Please explain to me how citing academic sources is original research. That's probably some of the silliest reasoning I've ever heard. In that case, looking up any source to add content to any article would be original research. And Wikimachine, please see Wikipedia:Search engine test which states explicitly "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than its author." and "Note that there are cases where this googletest can be overruled, such as when an international standard has been set..." There seems to at least be an academic standard to use the neutral term. —Aiden 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Aiden, search engine test has been used by those very editors who have discussed, voted, and showed consensus in the previous naming debate. That means that the community upholds the search engine test & nothing more. Let's talk about your flawed reasoning.

• First of all, are you NPOV? No. You don't provide academic sources that support the usage of Dokdo. You see, this is how I think: some editors simply are anti-Korean & JPOV. Maybe you are one of them. If not, let actions reflect on thoughts.
• Second, is your search comprehensive? No. You don't search for all of the articles that support the usage of Dokdo or Takeshima or Liancourt Rock.
• Third, is Liancourt Rock the international standard? No. Japan advocated Liancourt Rock to construct the ownership of the island as if it were disputed... which it's not. Japan protests, S. Korea ignored & there can be nothing that could be done about it just like Takeshima is Japanese, and called so in both Japanese and English.
• Fourth, the conclusion: if your method was that brilliant, people would have used it a century ago, when the Cattle Bruiser defeated the Battle Cruiser... However, it's not. We could go in circle, providing more evidence that either support Liancourt Rock or Dokdo & in the end, it would depend on who gives the most amount of supporting cites.
• Fifth, precedent: if we, and I, as individual (and you too), let this matter slip, it's going to set a precedent. One critic said that the ones who talk the most & loudest in Wikipedia prevail. Wikipedia is dominated by the masses. Uncontrollable. Matters so trivial and unproductive as these consume my time and yours, all because of the magnitude that lies within the consequences of foolish examples. (Wikimachine 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Sean Fern will receive his B.S. in Foreign Service (with a major in International Politics) from Georgetown University. Next year he plans on attending Cornell Law School. For this paper, Sean worked closely with Victor Cha, who is an assistant professor of Government at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. [26]

This author is interesting. He says he will use the Liancourt Rocks as a neutral term, though he uses Tokdo in relatively neutral paragraphs as follows:[27]

Additionally, when news of Japan’s incorporation of Tokdo reached Korea, (p.86)

While Japan could argue that the international community did not protest its occupation of Tokdo or the entire peninsula between 1905 and 1945, (p. 87)

Despite this paper’s conclusion that South Korea has a better legal claim to Tokdo... Given the need for a close bilateral relationship between Japan and South Korea, the two sides will likely resolve any remaining disputes related to Tokdo by compromise and agreement. (p. 89)

Does he want to say that his article is not written from neutral view? The contributor section also describes:[28]

He is currently working on his senior thesis, which is on regime change theory and how it relates to the Internet.

I hope he will join this discussion. Jjok 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... So that professor's going to talk to us in Wikipedia right at this page? (Wikimachine 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Sean Fern doesn't know International Law. He doesn't know historical title is invalid and even critical date. In International Law, there is no notification obligation. The quality of this report is really low. --Opp2 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So? Sean Fern's papers are tertiary sources. That means that they're going to be used in this article. I don't think you should know more than him to judge on the quality of experts. (Wikimachine 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I have already proven by using a concrete judicial precedent. --Opp2 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare with the content of Sean Fern's report[29], Van Dyke's report[30] , Lee's report[31] and Park's report[32]. It is very interesting.

1.Present One-sided sovereignty exercise by South Korea.

• Sean Fern is admitted as claim of South Korea. (Neither the Japanese protest nor critical dete are verified.)
• After Japanese protest is verified, Van Dyke says that Korean activity is invalidity by the Japanese protest.

2.Korean Historical title

• Sean Fern and Van Dyke are admitted claim of South Korea. (They are not verifying it concerning the effectiveness of historical title on International Law.)
• After Lee verified the judicial precedent enough, he grieves the disregard of historical title in International Law.

3.Korean Historical record

• Sean Fern and Van Dyke are thought that an old record is Takeshima. (Neither an old verification of the record nor the examination of the evidence ability on International Law are done. )
• After Park verified the judicial precedent enough, he said that "It is necessary to excavate evidence". (He indirectly admits that there is no effective evidence on International low.)

Well, why does this happen? The second source that supports South Korea title denies an insistence each other. It is because it is necessary to disregard at least one of the important rules on International Law to insist on title of South Korea. The quality of the report of Stanford is bad in these theses. There is still an interesting feature. Matters which are verified enough by scholar under judicial precedent become negative to Korean claim. The normal person might be awareness of there is a tower in the castle in the air. --Opp2 12:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't matter that the international law is favoring Japan. It doesn't mean that you can rewrite this article in favor of Japan. Good friend100 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These theses are the one presented as the second source that can be trusted. Mensch!! An inconvenient part for South Korea is not written in article. It is very mysterious. Thank you.--Opp2 05:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the thesis is biased but it's just a Bachlor's thesis: no wonder the quality is poor. Anyway, international law is a common rule and Korean Government is violating it. He should have mentioned that. --BobUncle 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see here[33]. He is extracting the judicial precedent in the deliberation according to his conclusion. It is written that the map doesn't testify in the judicial precedent of palmas that he quoted. He doesn't know hisorical title is not admitted in International Law.--Opp2 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The title was decided upon very, very, very long discussion. Do not just throw away the tens of pages of discussion just because you think differently. We have article on Senkaku Islands because it is effectively controlled by Japan, while both PROC and ROC have been protesting. And the same applies for Kuril Islands. Merumerume 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In your logic, it is necessary to change of the title of Gando to Jiandao[34]. You will agree positively with the change of title of Gando. Thank you.--Opp2 07:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, don't bring up other article debates on the Dokdo discussion page. on camera 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you agreed Senkaku and Kuril unrelated to the title of this article. Thank you. --Opp2 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think; just don't waste more time debating other articles. on camera 08:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You should say to Merumerume. Thank you.--Opp2 08:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DBAD on camera 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out the contradiction of logic in the example. Thank you. --Opp2 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that the change to dokdo twined with the discussion about article of Senkaku invalid. Thank you.[35] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you thank you thank you, everybody. The general consensus had already been decided that there should be no more debates about the article's title unless some radical and historical incident happens.[36] I mean, as Good friend100 predicted, Opp2 was going to push for the change of the title. You see, Opp2, nobody listens to you anymore. Why? Because you make no efforts to conform with the rest of the society. (Wikimachine 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

You will agree positively with the change of title of Gando too. Or, did grounds changed to Dokdo disappear? If grounds disappeared, it is necessary to correct it. If contradiction is pointed out specifically , you are a strategy change to an abstract personal attack. Thank you.--Opp2 04:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, is there any discussion or other opinions for Jiando in Gando? If not, Gando is not comparable to this article. You may initiate discussion to do so if you want and there is a sound ground, but that's a different story. This article is more relevant to Senkaku islands or Kuril islands as there are obiviously more than one party with different names in their favor. Considering Senkaku islands or Kuril islands are putting the name of the status of quo in their opening paragraph and referring to the object with the name, I think the opening paragraph should be just like before you modified. Ginnre 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no logic but only your hope.--Opp2 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not my hope, but how WP has been working. Otherwise it would have been just a venue for propaganda of anything and everything. You don't know how much it has been discussed about the title and opening paragraph. See the archive. There have been some guys who acted just like you, ignoring everyone and doing nothing but talking what he/she has to say, without listening. Those voices just went to nowhere. Seeing that you dismiss others opinions so easily, it seems that you expect there's not gonna be many people who will listen to you, right? However your logic is good and your writings are strong, without bringing out consensus, nothing can be really done here. That is to say, your argument cannot be substantiated. It's simply not how WP works. Ginnre 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grounds made Dokdo and the case with Gando are clear contradiction. You are only running into in a past story that cannot verify and exception by your original standard. --Opp2 07:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT edit the opening paragraph without consensus on the talk page. Simply talking about what you want then editing it is NOT allowed. You will violate the 3RR rule if you persist in this. Good friend100 03:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The version of Wikimachine that you sent back doesn't gain a consensus at all. I think you should say to Wikiment, Wikimachine and yourself.--Opp2 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I restored old opening paragraph back to 12/23/06 edition, when nobody touched it. So please don't touch it anymore until we have this mediation. But how does the mediation work??? Ginnre

I agree. But there is one person who doesn't agree to mediation. I do not know the mediation work either. --Opp2 04:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the neutral, mainstream standard?

1. The BBC refers only to the islets as disputed islands and does not use either Dokdo or Takeshima.
2. Encarta encyclopedia refers to the islets as the Liancourt Rocks (disputed).
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online states, "South Korean–Japanese relations deteriorated on two fronts. The first was an argument over the ownership of an island group that South Korea called Tokdo and that Japan referred to as Takeshima (some maps used a neutral term—the Liancourt Rocks)." (emphasis added)
4. The CIA World Factbook states, "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954." (emphasis added)

There are many more well respected sources, most of whom acknowledge that pending the resolution of the conflict, Liancourt Rocks represents a neutral alternative to either Dokdo or Takeshima. —Aiden 05:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merumerume, China occupies the Paracel Islands, the Bonin Islands are undisputed Japanese territory, SK built the Ieodo Ocean Research Station on the Socotra Rock, if the Taiwan Island article would be created separately from Taiwan, it may be the Formosa, and Gando is Chinese territory.

However, if you have neutral and reliable sources that the Pinnacle Islands is more neutral, you can discuss there using them. I personally think one of the drawback of "Pinnacle" is too general and ambiguous[37][38][39] as like the East Sea and one of the reasons that the Factbook uses "the Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai)" instead of the Pinnacle Islands. Jjok 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In International Law, a one-sided sovereignty exercise to disregard the protest of another country becomes invalid. The dispute generation day is set as critical date, and the activity after that is disregarded. This is common sense of International Law. After the protests of Japan is verified, present one-sided sovereignty exercise by South Korea is judged to be invalid in the thesis of Prof. Van Dyke[40] that is the second source. He also is pointing out the possibility that a one-sided insistence of South Korea violates Charter of the United Nations.

• 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.

"Obligation of resolving disputes peaceably" is provided in U.N. Charter Article 33[41]. I think that it is appropriate to add it at the beginning of the part of "Current situation". --Opp2 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

reference:CIA World Fact book[42]

South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954

At the beginning of the article, this sentence is applicable,too.--Opp2 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How faithfully has Japan abide by UN resolution with respect of comfort women? Has she ever officially recognized comfort women while the rest of the world knew what happened during WWII? You may introduce some theories of some law professors, but this writing is just unilateral insistence of Japan based on their interpretation of everything regarding this issue. For example, 'Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient ...' is totally what Japan wishes to bring the situation to, but not reality. All I see is Japan trying to provoke and provoke whenever she got chance. What is not peaceful now? Ginnre 06:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You should go to comfort woman article. In International Law, if the insistence of the two countries conflicts, it is a dispute and the activity after this is invalid. Thank you.--Opp2 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't avoid my question and please answer. I have impression that whenever it was not easy for you to answer, you/ve been simply avoiding it. Ginnre 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My answer is simple. Prease read UN Charter and judicial precedents.There is no judicial precedent that interprets like you. --Opp2 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, did you read the whole thesis? Your selective quotation and insistence based on that is almost a fabrication. That's why I wrote 'this writing is just unilateral insistence of Japan...' above. What you have quoted above is a (distorted) summary of what's been discussed in this thesis. Well, actually I learned a lot about international law and what factors they weigh on when they decide. Your insistence of practically the only one of many factors where Japan might possibly have some chance of winning the case, if all of many assumptions are further met. Anyway, you omitted some part and selectively showed only above one, implicating Japan has high chance of winning at ICJ and Korean reaction has been nothing but faulty. Your firsts quote is actually as follows;

• 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. If Korea's claim is based on its earlier historical excercises of sovereigty over the islet, however, Japan's persistent protests would be less significant. (page22)

You have misunderstood it. This means historical title of Korea is not denied by the present protest of Japan but present sovereignty exercise by Korea becomes invalid by Japanese protest. And, the treatment of historical title is not the subject now. You should read this　thesis[43] and this judicial preceden[44] wanting know the historical title. Van Dyke doesn't verify the effectiveness of historical title in international.--Opp2 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And his conclusions regarding the sovereignty of Tok-do/Takeshima is actually as follows;

• Korea's claim to sovereignty over the islets is thus substantially stronger than that of Japan, based on historical evidence of Korea's exercise of sovereignty and recognition of Korea's claim by Japanese cartographers, based on the dubious actions of Japan to incorporate the islets as terra nullius in 1904 and the inability of Korea to protest effectively during that time because of Japanese military domination overe the Korean government, based on the principle of contiguity (becuase the islets are cvloser to Korea's Ulleung-Do than to Japan's Oki islands), and, finally, based on Korea's actual physical control of the islets during the past half century. (page 25)

This is also unrelated to the subject. The subject is legal effectiveness of a one-sided present occupation by South Korea. I have already written the verification matter and the contradiction of theses in the part of "Professor?Sean Fern".--Opp2 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By thw way, the thesis said Japan's claim is based on 1905 'terra nullius' incorporation. You deny it and quote it at the same time? Or you only take whatever is favorable to you? Next time, when you quote, please do so with the whole part, not what can be used for your purpose. Let's be fair. Ginnre 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important what verification be done in the thesis. It is necessary to deny the matter to which reasonable grounds and the verification are not done. I already described that the verification matter and the contradiction of each thesis. --Opp2 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I happened to stop by here.

"In International Law, a one-sided sovereignty exercise to disregard the protest of another country becomes invalid."

Opp2, your argument pressing for "since 1954 despite Japanese protests." is WP:OR unless you fulfill one of the following criteria:

• The historian who wrote the thesis himself must advocate that encyclopedic entries write to include that type of phrase in the introductory paragraphs in order to leave "big impression".
• Give an example of an encyclopedic entry that writes the introduction in that format.
• If the historian himself does not advocate, give another scholarly article that specifically states that not giving a direct link between the control and protest is an international POV (never heard of & doesn't exist in Wikipedia).

You must meet at least one of the following requirements or else your arguments are considered WP:OR. That means that any of your future arguments regarding this matter can be ignored. I've repeatedly told you about this & you've repeatedly dodged my points. But this is a final flag.Let me repeat my previous arguments in case they might be lost.

• All your suggestion adds is a direct link between the two facts of S. Korea administering the island and Japan protesting the S.K.'s control. Now, the intention to "clarify that Korean administration is an unauthorized act based on International Law" is POV, and to delay these arguments until the later sections would be more appropriate.
• "Japan disputes Korean sovereignty over Dokdo annually" would be SOTO or "statement of the obvious". The word "disputes" in present tense already implies a continuous action.

(Wikimachine 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Here is not a place of the discussion about the opening part. International Law is a union rule of the world for the territory and the sovereignty exercise. --Opp2 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Opp2. I'm tired of repeating the same thing. Because you ignore other's opinion so easily and only takes what you want to take, your wrting becomes more and more nothing but a propaganda of JPOV. What you introduced regarding international law is just one of many possible scenarios when many assumptions could be met. For example, you say this;

"In International Law, a one-sided sovereignty exercise to disregard the protest of another country becomes invalid."

So what? That is just one clause somewhere in international law. You ignore many assumptions that have to be met to be able to apply that clause to the real world. To apply that clause to the issues regarding the islets are totally different problem and this article is not for dealing with that kind of legal issue. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia and this article is to introduce the islets and the situation or background surrounding them in an impartial way. As you admitted, there are many theories regarding international law and historical documents. Yours is just one of them and it is very close to what Japan wants to bring the situation or interpret this situation. That's all and enough for this article. Those can be mentioned in a proper length balanced with what Korean side says. It is no more than that and you are not entitled to write more than that here. If you want to keep writng the same thing again and again, creat your own website and write whatever you want there, not here.

Again, repeating same things result in just ignoring you. I'm wondering if you want to be ignored. Then why do you put all this effort in vain? After this final advise to you, I, too, won't respond to your writing except when you try to modify the article in an inappropriate way. In the future, I won't discuss with you before reverting your edition because every detail is already debated from my side and there is nothing new what you say. Plus you don't discuss and don't listen, just write what you want to propagate. I'm not saying that is bad. Simply this is not the right place to do so. That's enough for your whatever edition to be reverted when it's done without consensus. Ginnre 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reason. It is because of all object abstract, and dependence on the source not verified like this. --Opp2 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If this place is not a place to discuss about the introduction, then where is? You are the one advocating for a change in the introduction. If you don't want to discuss, I'm sure you don't want to make changes either. Again, you avoided my criteria as per Wikipedia's WP:OR guidelines. Until you meet any one of the three requirements I've outlined, I will respond no more. (Wikimachine 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

The second source has been presented. --Opp2 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys, if you keep responding to him, it just stimulates him more to repeat everything. Good friend100 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, Good friend100. Another possibility might be that he's appealing to his inability to understand English in argument's he's stuck on. Anyways, Opp2, the second source doesn't meet any of my criteria, though. You need another 2nd or third source. (Wikimachine 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

You are only excluding the verified source doesn't like. --Opp2 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the verified source & the source does not meet the criteria mentioned above to avoid WP:OR. (Wikimachine 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

What is your "criteria"? It is your OR. I demand the presentation of your source with a clear criteria about CRITICAL DATE of takeshima case. You are only avoiding an inconvenient source. You do not have the authority to select the source. It is not well-grounded at all. --Opp2 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me restate the criteria. These are not my OR & they're interpretations of WP:NOR guidelines mapped out specifically for this case so that you would not deny or avoid them with your excuse of not having mastery in English. If you don't think these are true, ask someone else to check on them.

• The historian who wrote the thesis himself must advocate that encyclopedic entries write to include that type of phrase in the introductory paragraphs in order to leave "big impression".
• Give an example of an encyclopedic entry that writes the introduction in that format.
• If the historian himself does not advocate, give another scholarly article that specifically states that not giving a direct link between the control and protest is an international POV (never heard of & doesn't exist in Wikipedia).

"You do not have the authority to select the source." As for that, uh... I do. (Wikimachine 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

I demand to apply commensurate to the source that you select. Especially, about Shin-yongha and Sean Fern. Shin-yongha's major is neither a history nor International Law. You said follows.

"Verifiability" is already construed to the word "Stanford". A university research paper is published & read by other scholars. A university that publishes poorly written, POV works will not be seen as a good university. The fact that Stanford is one of the world's 10 best universities makes it legitimate. (Wikimachine 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[45]

Is the student(?) of Stanford safe and is the professor of University of Hawaii useless? I think VAN is from the Harvard University. The double criterion is unsightly. I am whether it is OR will be confirmed to not you but Mediator. --Opp2 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, Stanford thingie was a nice reply to your play of ignorance/misunderstanding of English. In Wikipedia, we love all 2nd and 3rd sources. But, we better apply them properly & not direct them toward original research. If you want to go into every detail of my edits,... I say just get out of Wikipedia. Okay? You can't justify your own bad doings with double "criterion" - which is terrible English, by the way. (Wikimachine 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Therefore, I will confirm it to not you but the Mediator.---Opp2 00:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)-

Originally, here was not a part for the discussion about an initial part. However, it interrupts temporarily because it relates to Mediation of an initial part. --Opp2 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be inactive for an indefinite duration of time. Therefore, somebody who sees the situation from my point of view must take my place & continue the discussion. Thanks a lot everyone! P.S. Maybe I'll be able to edit on the weekends. (Wikimachine 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

It is necessary to present the amendment bill, and to pass the discussion here if you want to edit. --Opp2 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I went to the mediation page but there is no information about the contents. Is there anybody who can tell me how it works? Ginnre 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A mediator will open a separate mediation page for discussion. At least, that's what mediation cabal did. (Wikimachine 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Opp are you still selling your Japanese propaganda snake oil in a desparate attempt to legitimize the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo in 1905. I hope the administrator of this website can see through your nonsense?.

Everyone who knows the history of Northeast Asia is aware that Japan annexed Dokdo for military purposes during the height of the Russo~Japanese war from 1904~1905. You are trying to base a legal argument on a land acquisition that is flawed in the most basis sense. That is, in order for you to apply all of these legal precedents you must first prove that Japan's motives for taking over the island in 1905 were legitimate.

Do you think that the world community buys into the Japanese Foreign Ministry's assertions that at during a major war between Japan and Korea, Japan felt a sudden need to incorporate Dokdo for the purpose of wacking seals? Stop treating the administrators here like fools Opp2!!.

These pages detail why Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima-2.html

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important whether the Korea empire acquire territorial title based on International Law before 1905, and Russo-Japanese War is legally unrelated. I think that you should delete the fabrication thesis of the notification obligation. --Opp2 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Dokdo article, Korean Empire unilaterally annexed the islets in 1900. It may be null since it has done without notifying to Japan, China, and Russia according to the article. However, to my knowledge, it is the strongest evidence that completely nullifies Japan's terra nullius theorem. I am wondering why Korean government does not go to ICJ with it to beat Japan like Hanbando. My two cents is they know the claim is invalid for Dokdo. Jjok 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

-I am somewhat confused by the use of dokdo-takeshima.com as a credible citation. As far as I can see, there are no citations on that site and no author's name is listed. --James4000 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't use that site. (Wikimachine 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

• The Mediation is not dealing with the naming dispute, the consensus has already been reached & a dispute is not going on currently.

• My edition of the article includes all sources in complete reference templates that took extensive research, time, and edits. It also takes into account some of Opp2's requests that I saw as reasonable. Therefore, Any changes you'd like to make should be in addition to the current state of the article, instead of removing the sources.

(Wikimachine 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

You are only extracting the convenient source not verified. I do not admit your edit. You edited it without presenting the amended bill in talk page. Therefor your edit doesn't gain a consensus here. --Opp2 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the title dispute tag once again that has been added by pro-Japanese factions on Wikipedia. The title was decided upon based on a consensus decision as Wikimachine has mentioned. Please do not readd this. Davidpdx 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The references must stay in order to verify the statements that I see as very neutral. Opp2 randomly contests anything that might directly or indirectly make JPOV arguments sound bad. And some of the stuffs that both sides (Opp2 and other editors including me) claim turned out to be false from my extensive research; therefore, I see necessity to keep my edition of the article in place.

This version also includes some proposals that Opp2 made that I agreed with, such as the exclusion of the parentheticals relating to the first usage/establishment of the names in 3 languages. It also has much better grammar.

As for the international POV thingie, if that's what Opp2 is concerning about, too bad too sad. Opp2's reference does not meet any one of the criteria that I have specified above. (Wikimachine 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

My insistence continues by mediation. Your edit without consensus is not admitted at all. --Opp2 05:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Remember another Wikipedia's policy. A dispute or mediation continues with the article in state prior to the emergence of the dispute. That means that since you raised concerns about the international POV thing, we will have to restore the article's introduction prior to your edits about the "despite Japanese protest". (Wikimachine 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Never mind, because I am really confused. I see no difference between the version that I want to keep & Opp2's except that my version supplies references for all the claims. So...... What's the point exactly? (Wikimachine 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

It is mediating now. Your edit that doesn't gain a consensus and discussion here is not admitted. --Opp2 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation does not exclude independent actions toward consensus. If consensus reaches outside the mediation framework, then there is no more need for mediation. Remember, mediation is different from arbitration. We're going to be arguing in the same way, buddy - no higher authority is going to come down and settle things for us. And I'm not trying to gain consensus in anything right now.

I have not trusted you for your arbitrary edit and selection source. Therefore, the consensus is impossible without Mediator's opinion. --Opp2 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask again. What's the difference between Opp2's and my edits? I only see references. (Wikimachine 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

How does Shin yongha verify the letter of the important vassal of the shogunate in 1960? It is a official document. I never recalled to agree of all your edits. You decided everything only by yourself, and did not base the discussion here. I confirms it to not you but the Mediator too.--Opp2 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Giniee and I agreed to fix with 12/23/06 edition about initial part during mediation. I think that Wikiment is the same purport. It is only you that it are attached to your edition now. --Opp2 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. We'll wait for the mediator then & have a chance to relax. But as far as I remember, you were te one who decided everything yourself so = "double criterion"? lol. When did we have an agreement?

"How does Shin yongha verify the letter of the important vassal of the shogunate in 1960?" My edits don't include that... (Wikimachine 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

You received my point and changed the source. Primary problem is that you have decided the selection of all sources by the arbitrary decision. I will confirm to Mediator whether you have used the guideline of Wikipedia arbitrary. --Opp2 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

|title= First Japanese Record on Tokdo and the 1905 incorporation. Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.

WTH? I can choose any source I want without asking you, Mr. JPOV. Ha, since you have nothing to argue about you go into matters as trivial as that? (Wikimachine 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I will confirm to Mediator whether you have used the guideline of Wikipedia arbitrary.--Opp2 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I suspect sockpupetting going b/w Jjok and Opp2.

Their user edit profile are here and here.

Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.

This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...

Remember, this is only stating the statistics and matters as they are of now. No personal attacks, since our user accounts themselves are anonymous. (Wikimachine 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

My advice is contact an administrator and have them find out for sure before saying anything further. I've worked on some articles where there were mass sockpuppet and meatpuppets. If this is the case, then it should be addressed and stopped. In the event it doesn't, then I'm sure your aware that arbitration would be available. I've been involved in an arbitration case and am willing to help if it comes to that. Davidpdx 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to be mistaken for Opp2 of such a knowledgeable person. I hope I am not living close place to Opp2 since I expect both of us won't sacrifice another similarly to user:Mythologia and user:Shougiku Wine to save own account in the case to be "confirmed". (I just find that Shougiku Wine has been indef-blocked for some reasons that can automatically revive Mythologia) Jjok 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it only has to leave this funny delusion. My provider is IIJ and NIFTY. You?--Opp2 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think Jjok and Opp2 write in similar ways - tone, terrible English, etc. Opp2 always writes "thank you thank you" and Jjok is like "it is my pleasure". (Wikimachine 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Note the times the two editors made their comments. Jjok on 5:09 and Opp2 5:40. Not much of a difference. Good friend100 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

An entry from Dokdo appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.

To whom it may concern. A couple pieces of information need to be addressed and corrected with regard to the Japanese Edo Era and what the Japanese define as "effective management" of both Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Matsushima (Dokdo)

In the year 1667 Saito Hosen wrote his report on the Okinoshimas (Oki Islands) and described the islands and their vicinity. Wikipedias abbreviated portion of Saito Hosen you have is as follows....

The quote you have.

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 translation is incorrect and is obviously from the Japanese side. The Koreans and some Japanese scholars dispute this translation.

Here is the real translation.

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 these(this) island(s) mark(s) the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report on Oki does he say "Ulleungdo" is the Northwest boundary of Japan's territory he simply says "this island" or "these islands." It is not plausible that Saito Hosen used "these two islands" as Japan's boundary because Takeshima (then Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are 90kms away from each other in line and on a Westerly direction away from Oki. A 90km wide boundary?

Saito Hosen defined Japan's boundary based on what territory was visible from which area. You can see he says "thus......these islands......" Because Korea was visible from the Ulleungdo area and Oki was visible from Onshu (Japanese mainland) a more plausible translation is that Oki was the boundary of Japan at the time. It should be noted that Japanese maps of the day DO NOT show either Ulleungdo or Dokdo.

The quote by "Viewing Korea from this area is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu" by Saito Hosen in Kanji looks as follows 見高麗如雲州望-州 and it can be seen on many Japanese maps long after Ulleungdo was deemed Korean territory. Thus it doubtful it was used to determine Ulleungdo as Japanese territory. Here is a summary of Saito Hosen's report on my website. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

In the year 1785 Hayashi Shihei used a color-coded map that also showed the same Kanji text next to Ulleungdo Island. This map was colored to indicate which territories belonged to whom and we can see Oki Island are definitely the limit of Japan. Here is a page with Hayashi Shihei's map and an images showing Saito Hosens quote below. Note the characters 朝鮮 for Chosun are used rather than 高麗 for Koryo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Hayashi-shihei.html

Korean professor ShinYongHa also supports the other translation stating Oki is the boundary in Saito Hosen's report.

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

Japanese writer Hideki Kajimura also agrees with the alternate translation in his article about Dokdo.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/Books/observer/2-4.hwp

I would also like to inquire about editing the portion regarding Japan's claimed "effective management" during the 17th Century. I look forward to you response.

The insistence is different according to the interpretation of "州(state or island)". However, it is clear that he thought that Ullengdo is not Koryo. Saito and map makers recorded Koryo is Ullengdo ahead. I think you should sign.--Opp2 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

People like JBoyler wouldn't even have an idea how important this issue is to Koreans. Good friend100 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Only the ignornat ones would say something so stupid like this. No offence. --DandanxD 08:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

wow, I didn't know that there was still a dispute with this. I've been so busy arguing the Chinese, I was paying little attention to the situation with Dokdo "takeshima". alright, no matter how you little kids wag on and whine about it, Dokdo belongs to the R.O.K. It has been for quite a while, as there was no direct Japanese administration that close to Korea, except for Tsushima, until 1910, after the Korea-Japan annexation treaty. The treaty officially (and illegally) gave all Joseon land to Japan, along with our beloved Dokdo. This treaty would be deemed invalid after the 1965 treaty on basic relations, and also the SCAP instruction #677 furthermore ended Japan's administrative authority over Dokdo.So whether or not the Japanese claimed Dokdo before the Koreans did, (which is of course the Koreans that claimed it first), Dokdo, or "Takeshima", as our little brothers like to call it, belongs to us, the Koreans. Let's all just suck up that inferiority complex and learn to accept the truth, like I have, on many occasions... Odst 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Odstwas said. "you little kids wag on and whine about it" "Let's all just suck up that inferiority complex and learn to accept the truth, like I have, on many occasions". I regret that such a user supports Dokto. --218.218.128.215 19:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should study international law.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie

ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY

It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

SCAPIN 677

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.

Japan did not agree to transfer of sovereignty but cease her administration. And you should study about "critical date" of international law. I think that ignorance is a crime.--Opp2 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ignorance? who, me? my evaluation should be flawless. I have perfectly well- drawn my point. what is your sentiment? As you well know SCAPIN677 is still in effect. ceasing administrative authority spells out, in a different perspective, the end of sovereignity. Odst 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you here to discuss actual changes to the article or just here to voice your opinion? oncamera^(t) 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, i'm just trying to prove to opposers that the Dokdo is Korean, so the lame editwars can be resolved... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odst (talk • contribs) 2007-02-15 01:00:02

Why was GHQ able to be ordered to Japan about her administration? Have you read the the instrument of surrender, S.F. treaty and Dulles's speech at S.F. conference? I think that you should not only study International Law but also read materials. I think that ignorance is a crime.--Opp2 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have commited no act of ignorance, therefore commited no crime. No, I have not read such "S.F" documents, because I have no idea what you are talking about... Why don't you tell me the EXACT name of this said document? International law? lol. So maybe I'll declare my apartment an independent nation and sue my neighbors upstairs for violating my airspace.Nevertheless, Japan throughout many occasions in history has violated international law in terms of rules of engagements. And despite what the " S.F." document might offer, The SCAPIN 677 is only a supplementary shred of proof, and more importantly, the said terms in the 1965 treaty of basic relations officially ended and deemed void the 1910 Korea- japan annexation treaty and other treaties before 1910. For your information, The Korea- Japan Annexation treaty was the only official document that gave Japan administrative authority over Dokdo, or"Takeshima" Odst 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proclamation Defining Terms For Japanese Surrender(July 26, 1945)

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

Instrument of Surrender(September 2, 1945)

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

Occupation of Japan is addition time limit.(until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed) Till then, it is put under GHQ instruction. The instruction based on the agreement of this Japan is SCAPIN.

SCAPIN 677

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.

Treaty of Peace with Japan(September 8, 1951)

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.

John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference(September 5, 1951)

True peace is possible because of what has been accomplished by 6 years of Allied occupation. That occupation was calm and purposeful. Japan's war-making power was destroyed. The authority and influence of those who committed Japan to armed conquest was eliminated. Stern justice was meted out to the war criminals, while mercy was shown the innocent. There has come freedom of speech, of religion, of thought; and respect for fundamental human rights. There has been established, by the will of the people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government, which we are happy to welcome here.

The release of the occupation (end of warfare) and Japan are the recoveries of all sovereignties. Administration of Takeshima which had been ceased recovers, too. Japan doesn't agree according to GHQ instruction after releasing the occupation. --Opp2 14:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Number 1: The Korean island, Wool-Leung-Do (울릉도), is only 88km away from Dokdo (Wool-Leung-Do is the nearest island to Dokdo in Korea).

The japanese island, Okii, is 157km away from Dokdo (Okii is the nearest island to Dokdo in Japan).

• Number 2: The Korean Peninsula is only 217km away from Dokdo.

Japan (the main island) is 220km away from Dokdo.

Therefore, the two facts above proves about the clear border line of Dokdo and which country it belongs to.

Also, Dokdo was used as a navy port during the Silla Dynasty. Dokdo was served as other military bases and more throughout the history of Korea, including the Goguryeo and the Choosen Dynasty.etc. —The preceding comment was added by Younila (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The distance doesn't matter too much, and please do not post things up without refering to the specific part of the article. I, as a Korean understand your feeling, but since your argument (which I agree) is very weakly stated, many Japanese users will put down your argument, and take the advantage. --Kingj123 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically. The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.

It is legally valueless. --Opp2 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, if you're that passionate about international laws, why don't you try to rephrase all of the introductions of the articles regarding disputed territories? Here's a double bind: Either you're right about the international laws & all articles, even the Japanese territories disputed by Korea, should be rephrased that way, or you're just JPOV & there should be nothing done about the international POV (???). You can always rethink about this issue, buddy. I won't do anything more on this article (because somebody doesn't even like the sourced version of the same introduction), but your arguments won't make it through either. (Wikimachine 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

You should consider the means well that United Nations say the sovereignty is unsettled. And, if it follows your logic of double bind, the present occupation by South Korea need not be described. Korean present occupation is only one of the insistences on the sovereignty by South Korea , and the sovereignty is unsetteled. The meaning has already been included in "sovereignty is unsetteled". --Opp2 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Prove to me that UN said about the sovereignty of Dokdo being unsettled... it is very absurd statement, and I totally disagree.

Even if "S Korea broke UN charter" is true, so what? Fine, let say that I agree with you, what do you want from this? Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws and that is why Opp2 is so passionate about it, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical? Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo? Koreans do not generally think that the international laws are the only aspect that rationallize the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets.

Plus, stick to Wikipedia, South Korea controlls these islets and Japanese also claims it, that is the fact, then stick with it. --Kingj123 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, that we all know about Japanese protest against Korean Sovereignity. Nobody here want to hear your extra-opinion about Korean sovereignity, as far as Wikipedia is concerened. That is not the purpose of the talk page. --Kingj123 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Japanese protest against Korean Sovereignity" is wrong because the sovereignty is unsettled[46]. "Japan and South Korea are claming Takeshima's sovereignty, and Takeshima's sovereignty is unsettled" is an accurate description. I am very disappointed at your subjective, dogma and KPOV comment without enough investigation. --Opp2 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the site that you gave to prove that the sovereinty is unsettled (???) & it has nothing to do w/ Dokdo. I'm kind of confused. Are you trying to test us to see whether or not we really check your sources? (Wikimachine 06:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Do you think that "Dokdo" that is the South Korea name is used by UN? You shoul look at "Liancourt Rock" in P-3 No139. And, this UN document shows that "Liancourt Rock" is NPOV name. Thank you.--Opp2 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the name "Dokdo" is not used in UN, so what? Nevertheless, You see, I gave at least a good paragraph, and Opp2 still doesn't get this. I wonder who is the one to be disappointed? As I said earlier, Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws and that is why because you (Opp2) are/is so passionate about it, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical?

• Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo?
• Is UN's way the only right way, to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets.
• Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article?
• And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit?
• Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols?

--Kingj123 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)So what if UN was using Liancourt Rock? Ah! NATO uses Dokdo! Ah! EU uses Dokdo! Ah! ESDF uses Dokdo! Ah! It doesn't matter!

Ah! UN uses Dokdo! Ah! Ara ara! Bokuwa shocked des! Eureshi! [47] Eeyah! Gomen nasai gozaimasu! Demo suki desu. (Wikimachine 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Opp2, problem with you is that you don't know (maybe you do, but you might pretend not to) how research works. You keep talking about credible citation... but you don't even have the rudiments of what sources to use. Full of WP:OR.

Providing us just one document from UN providing a certain type of geographical data is not enough. So what if UN didn't use the term "Dokdo" (I don't even think that the document is relevant at all to begin with) in just that one document? That doesn't prove that UN doesn't use the term "Dokdo". If UN didn't use "Dokdo", then there would be an web page detailing the official stance that UN wants to take regarding the dispute on the island. If you do provide us a document like that, we'll believe you. (Wikimachine 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws and that is why because you (Opp2) are/is so passionate about it, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical?

• Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo?
• Is UN's way the only right way, to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets.
• Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article?
• And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit?
• Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols?

--Kingj123 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look at the original article being referenced and see whether the movie was referenced? Otherwise I think that User:Jjok is having a bit of a joke? Shenme 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to reference any movies here. (Wikimachine 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Dokdo, Dok-do ou Tok-do (Hangul: 독도, Hanja: 獨島 — "île lointaine" ou "île rocher" en coréen) est un petit groupe d'îlots situé en mer du Japon et rattaché au comté de Ulleung dans la région du Gyeongsang du Nord en Corée du Sud à 87 kilomètres de l'île d'Ulleung-do. Le Japon pour sa part considère que ce groupe d'îles s'appelle Takeshima, fait toujours partie de son territoire et est rattaché au village de Goka, ville de Okinoshima, district d'Oki, préfecture de Shimane. Dokdo n'est pas de japon, seulement de Corée. Les îlots portent aussi parfois le nom de Rochers de Liancourt (nom sous lequel les occidentaux les connaissaient) en hommage au baleinier français Le Liancourt qui, parti du Havre, le « découvrit » le 27 janvier 1849.Younila 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What would this be? (Wikimachine 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I'll summarise: "Dokdo is part of Korea." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we speak in English when discussing? Good friend100 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you understand? It's the passage from the Dokdo article of the French Wikipedia.Younilha 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Okinawa is also ancient Korean territory now. The source is from one of the sites linked from the external links at the bottom of the Dokdo page, but it seems to link to actual news articles. I really don't know enough about the history of the Ryukyu Islands to make an edit about this, but I thought I'd toss this out here for the Japanese and Korean editors on this page to have fun with. Maybe Okinawa can also be included into Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan now also? Enjoy! --Yuje 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We have no time for things like this.Younilha 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is far too pro-korean..SO

Why do you say that? It because it's not pro-Japanese enough? If it isn't life that's just wonderful. To be honest, even the most prominent scholars of Japan denounce Japan's claim to Dokdo, or Takeshima. I believe that Dokdo rightfully belongs to Korea, because it has been in the Joseon and Silla ordinances. To discuss this beyond the beliefs of nationalism, The Japanese government would most likely withdraw all claims to dokdo, If possibly Korea would give them unharbored fishing rights in the vicinity.. The government's claim to dokdo is most likely because of an economic importance of the island. It is fairly obvious, further risen due to the fact that Japan was instigating Russia about giving Korea exclusive fishing rights on its waters, whilst Japan was unfairly barred from fishing there. Odst 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Y is Opp2 quite for a while? -Younilha

I have requested admin support to warn Yuje's extremely provocative and insulting battle spurring comments. I have also warned him on his talk page, so everything will be settled soon. Good friend100 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll all remember this for many years to come. Even 10 years later, when Yuje runs for adminship, we're going to vote him down. (Wikimachine 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I notice that despite having posted the actual source, which seems to link to actual news articles, your very first response is to direct a personal attack against me, instead of addressing it. Is that your standard method of wiki-editting? --Yuje 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no reply, eh? Well, I'm looking through the history of this page, and see a long history of quite racist anti-Japanese diatribes in history of this page's discussion. For that matter, I also see a plenty of "provovactive and insulting battle spurring comments" and racist diatribes against Japanese and Chinese going on right now at Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), where you're a frequent editor as well. How many of these have you reported and requested admin support for? Whereas on the other hand, I posted a source about a new territorial dispute, and instead of commenting on it, you insult me. Awaiting reply...........--Yuje 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be placed with the "The neutrality of this article is whatevers" tag. If Japan had an army, Korea wouldn't be claiming rights and openly insulting Japan so much...however, they know that Japan is not going to attack them first, so they do what they want to do. The Dokdo issue is like disputes between Atheists and Christians. Christians have insisted on the existence of God and Jesus etc for many centuries and that it is true, but atheists would argue that the validity of these ancient scrolls are questionable in the first place. Korea has insisted that Dokdo is rightfully their property for so long and so publicly that people begin to think it is true, but there are many arguements out there that disprove the documents Korea bases their illogical ultra-nationalism, i mean, their territorial claims on....or so they say.Anyways, to prevent those who have little knowledge in this issue (Usually those who aren't as involved in the issue, such as non-Japanese or non-Koreans) to receive a one-sided arguement on this issue, this article should have the notification that it may or may not be neutral. Shroud00

Although Japan's military power is limited because of WWII, their military technology and ability to create a powerful army is a fact. Where are the arguments that disprove all the Korean documents? I don't see any. Good friend100 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you just believe all the crap Koreans threw at you and never did research yourself. Start with Occidentalism.Shroud00

I don't I did anything wrong but point out Japan's military capabilities today. What is occidentalism? Good friend100 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're commenting on this issue without doing any research, then...because Occidentalism is one of the pro-Japanese view websites (by an English speaker, because all the pro-Koreans think that deleting pro-Japanese links and saying how some of the pro-Korean views come from English speakers are going to convince other people that Dokdo is Korean).shroud00

Occidentalism is linked at the bottom of the article along with pro-Korean english pages. Read the article itself first before you say things like those above. And why don't you read those linked pro-Korean websites to compare? Korean arguments are not so much crap as Japanese ones aren't as you believe. POV tag has been on top of the article for a long time and there has been long discussion. The article is settled down to the current form and the tag was removed. I recommend you to do some research on the archive. And please don't change the article without discussion. Ginnre 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(replying to above) I took a look at his website, and read through the Dokdo-related articles. He writes a lot about the subject of Dokdo, but the argument is basically whether or not Usan island on the old maps is Dokdo. The Occidentalism guy's arguments can basically be summed up in a few pictures, by comparing the two modern maps and the ancient ones.

Modern maps:

• [48]
• [49]

And ancient maps (of Ulleung Island and Usan Island):

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]

I'm not a big fan of Japanese imperialism or historical revisionism, but that does seem to be an overused piece of rhetoric thrown about too often to dismiss claims. The Japanese do seem to have what they consider legitimate and non-imperialistic reasons for thinking they're right, and the Japanese side of the argument should be fairly represented, regardless of whether or not you think they're imperialist, evil, etc. By NPOV policy, the article shouldn't seek to advocate one side, but to present both. I should note that Hans Island is disputed by both Denmark and Canada, but the dispute and rhetoric for that island has gotten nowhere as heated as the pro-Japanese or pro-Korean factions are. Nationalism at work?--Yuje 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article, and that is why I commented about it in the first place. However, there is only 1. One link to a pro-Japanese website, and that is in no way "Neutral". But you might notice that pro-Japanese people don't open whole websites dedicated to Dokdo, because in our case, the government spared our rights to see different points of view. As for my editing of the article, I thought making the article titled the Liancourt Rocks would make it neutral, but I undid the changes on that. The only permanent change I did was change this sentence (Original: "Dokdo is a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently administered by South Korea, but also claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima). ") into "Dokdo is the Korean name for a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently administered by South Korea, but also claimed by Japan where the islands are known as Takeshima. " I therefore maintained neutrality, and I see no reason to undo that change...I was only making it clear that you aren't forced to call it Dokdo. Koreans call it Dokdo, but the Japanese call it Takeshima and Westerners might call it Liancourt Rocks. I see nothing wrong with presenting an option. shroud00 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, read the archive first. Your suggestion to begin the article " (Title) is one of many names of the islet..." was also discussed. Again the current form is established after long discussion debating almost every possible variations or options. If you want to add more pro-Japan english websites go ahead and add them. Nobody deleted such links in the article. It just happened to be only one there. Ginnre 06:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the strength of the Japanese military, its budget 3 times that of the South Korean military. It received AEGIS combat system-integrated cruisers long before S. Korea (currently building 1). The Japanese "self defense" air force ran F-15's way before South Korea did (recently introducing F-15K, as opposed to Japanese Strike Eagles from 1990s). Japan has more submarines running, South Korea has 1 running, from World War II. A German submarine. An author cited Japanese navy as one very comparable to the blue water navies of Great Britain, France, and US. The conclusion: the entire world pisses me off in how it let Japan get away with everything. (Wikimachine 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

It is true that Japan puts more money into the Self-Defense Forces than South Korea puts into the Army. However, you also have to consider that Japan is a richer country than South Korea. South Korea puts $21.06 billion into the Army, 2.5% of the GDP. Meanwhile Japan puts $44.3 billion into the SDF, but it is only 1% of the GDP. Also, the JSDF has only 239,430 members active, and 57,899 reserves. That is 2.43 troops/1000 citizens. In contrast, the South Korean Army has 687,000 active members and 4,500,000 reserves. That is 106.28 troops/1000 citizens.

As for the navy, South Korea has 9 Destroyers, 9 Frigates, 28 Corvettes, 70 Patrol craft, and at least 9 submarines of the U209 Changbogo class running. I don't know where your "1 submarine" thing came from...maybe propaganda at work? And there is nothing wrong with a German submarine. That's like complaining that you don't have a good gun because you are using a Heckler and Koch G36 instead of your Korean Daewoo K2.

I'd say a country who teaches their children to hate Japan and draw anti-Japanese pictures from an early age, who requires mandatory 2 year military service to all male citizens, and goes around showing images of Anti-Japanese flag burning has no right to complain about other countries... User:Shroud00

This kind of sarcastic comments doesn't help anything. Why would you provoke others? Does that help you to contribute to this article? Have you ever thought about those images being biased or twisted to deride Korean in general? Does that make you feel good? Ginnre 06:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 1 type of submarine & then 2 new types with contract licensing to indigenous commpanies. So not propaganda. Does % GDP junk justify anything? Not sure when economy plays role in having a self-defense force... Anyways, Yuje, yes you deserve "personal attacks". Don't try to create this aggressor-victim dynamics here. We know who the real aggressor is... you. And you know what? I'm really sick of all these new JPOV accounts that have been popping up. They all lack user pages, so you can barely find out a thing about them. It occurred to me that it's easiest to have sock puppet accounts with no user pages. (Wikimachine 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

TO yuje

Started a new heading because its messy up there. So you are saying you did nothing? As an ethnic Chinese, you write "for Japanese and Korean editors on this page to have fun" with something that you "tossed out to us". Then you exclaim "enjoy!"

The news article is obviously extremely POV against Koreans and if there is a Korean claim on Okinawa, it sure isn't supported by the main body of Koreans in Korea. I'm pretty sure there are some Koreans that might claim Japan is theirs and maybe the Oki islands, but that doesn't mean that it is a popular claim.

Your style of talking is obviously helping to heat up the non-stopping fight going on here and yet you say all you did was give a news source and some information that should really be on the talk page for the template.

Also, in our numerous fights, it is not only the Korean side that does all the vandalism or insult others. The Japanese side has problems too, and it is agreeable that both sides have some stuff at fault.

I'm guessing you are probably aware that there is a edit war and fighting going on at Goguryeo. See a line of nasty remarks and vandalism. If you think the Korean side and Japanese side are always bickering, turn around and look at your fellow editors and see what they are doing. Good friend100 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen plenty of racism on that page as well. And of those racist, and (and as you say) "provocactive and insulting battle spurring comments" on that page, how many have you reported to the admins for wikietiquette? None, and in fact, I noticed you contributing your own fair share of them. Honestly, don't try to play that victim mentality. Now, as for the Okinawa claims, why exactly were they "provocactive and insulting battle spurring comments"? Is it because you don't support such claims? Because you do? Because of neither but that the website was biased? As I said, I didn't know much about the issue. When I first heard about the Tsushima/Daemado claims, I thought it was a joke, but then it turned out to be serious. My comments weren't an incitement to fight, but a reflection my opinion on how WP:LAME the longstanding ethnic feud on this page is. I've replied to your posting on the Wikietiquette page, btw.--Yuje 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This one is for Wikimachine. "Japan has more submarines running, South Korea has 1 running, from World War II." What you said would mean that South Korea has only 1 submarine in standard English. As for a userpage, I am not a frequent editor and therefore feel no need to create one. The only articles I've edited in the past is for an MP3 player called the Gigabeat, and another about an MMORPG called Anarchy Online. This is the third article so far that I have taken an interest in, so why should I have one? User:Shroud00

So don't create one, a username is enough. And Yuje, how long are you going to use "provocactive and insulting battle spurring comments"? And I'm not trying to anything with "victim mentality" (whatever that is). Anyways, your comment sounds provoking. Are you saying "enjoy" is ok. Saying "enjoy" sounds like you are enjoying the fight between the Koreans and Japanese on this talk page.

Your intention as an opinion doesn't seem like an opinion with your word usage on the comment. Good friend100 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an NPOV tag, because this is clearly still biased. I personally don't care who owns these rocks, and think both the Korean and Japanese editors of this article are being childish, but we cannot allow ethnicities to "own" Wikipedia articles, nor obviously partisan people like User:Wikimachine to disingenuously try to shut down debate by claiming that it was "already resolved" by his partisans in a partisan favor (especially with clearly false statements, like claiming that it's Wikipedia policy to choose article titles based on Google hit counts). This article is clearly non-NPOV, as we use a title that major English-language encyclopedias and academic sources claim is non-neutral, and eschew the title that they claim is neutral. --Delirium 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are my replies:

• Add an NPOV tag if you want, but I only messed around with the title disputed tag.
• Googling is one of Wikipedia's methods of substantiating the frequency of title's usage in English, and certainly better than some of the JPOV users' who specify certain instances of a title's usage (which ends up being a build-up of references & debate over who can present the most amount of articles that use that certain amount of title). Look here, and here.

• Note: The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.

• If you want to characterize me as a POV editor, that is one complete mistake you could ever make during your stay here. Why not check my edit history & see how I corrected KPOV, etc. I'm also member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, and if you read all of the past archives, it was often me who advocated certain acceptable arguments from the Japanese positions. Just because I argue the most & that I often argue most coherently or most responsibly in a constructive manner are not reasons why you should make me the bad guy here.
• And yes, consensus on the title of the article was already built. It is simply ridiculous to run a poll everytime a JPOV editor & sock puppets pop up & attempt to change the title of the article. (Wikimachine 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

And yes, consensus on the title of the article was already built.(We actually agreed on Liancourt Rocks back in May 2005.) It is simply ridiculous to run a poll everytime a JKPOV editor & sock puppets pop up & attempt to change the title of the article. (This is exactly what I thought when another poll was called in May 2006.)

And yes, the article's title was changed on valid reasons. If you have good reasons why the article's title should be changed & those reasons have not been used to justify changes in the previous polls, we might have another one. (Wikimachine 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine still sounds arbitrary and convenient to me, as I can see no “valid reasons” calling for the last poll that had “not been used … in the previous polls." All of the pro-Dokdo arguments in the May 2006 poll were actually the repetition of those in the previous polls, only exception being the assertion “why should this be called Liancourt Rocks while that’s called Senkaku Island,” which, as I see it, most people regarded as inappropriate justification for changing the title.

Well, Wikimachine may have different opinion on this, and I accept that. I just wanted to point out there are people who would think differently than he does.--Dwy 10:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine sounds rather arbitrary and convenient to me. Besides, it is certainly not polite of him to treat bona fide pro-Japanese editors and sock puppets in the same way.--Dwy 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, that Koreans are lobbying this article is simply not true. If you check the archives, there have been many Japanese editors who have either lost interest or were found to be unproductive sock puppets (and therefore abandoned). That KPOV editors are lobbying this article is not a reason why KPOV editors' arguments should be invalidated or annulled. Rather, bring outside opinions into this discussion. (Wikimachine 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Delirium, what would be your neutral english name for this article? Liancourt Rocks? For historical reasons, it is not neutral, or pro-Japanese at best. Really neutral 'english' name would be Hornet islands. Why would you have authority to put that tag, without discussion, on your own? I don't understand why you call editors here childish while you're acting so yourself. Please remove the tag. And before putting the tag again, discuss first and try to bring a consensus to do so. Otherwise I'll remove it as there is not a solid reason to put the tag, over and over again. FYI, why is Senkaku islands has its title 'Senkaku islands', not pinnacle islands? Check that out. Ginnre 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AINW Orthodoxy 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ginnre, Liancourt Rocks is more neutral in the world. Even pro-Korean scholar says so[57] and I never find that support your claim from third parties. I also think it is worth to copy Aiden's comment above[58]

What is the neutral, mainstream standard?

1. The BBC refers only to the islets as disputed islands and does not use either Dokdo or Takeshima.
2. Encarta encyclopedia refers to the islets as the Liancourt Rocks (disputed).
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online states, "South Korean–Japanese relations deteriorated on two fronts. The first was an argument over the ownership of an island group that South Korea called Tokdo and that Japan referred to as Takeshima (some maps used a neutral term—the Liancourt Rocks)." (emphasis added)
4. The CIA World Factbook states, "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954." (emphasis added)

and I have no wonder that French like Liancourt Rocks. Which country preferably uses Dokdo other than South Korea? North Korea?

I think Senkaku Islands was chosen because of the popularity and the unambiguity compared to the Pinnacle Islands. About the popularity, Dokdo center says that Takeshima is universally used in the world than Dokdo.[59] Jjok 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the dispute tag for this article. It's clear this needs to be discussed rather then users jumping on the bandwagon disputing the entire article. Let's be rational about this. Davidpdx 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)