Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 12

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
3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was no move, 28 May 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

   Addendum: This discussion has been reviewed and overturned by the closing admin. Result of the debate after revision was move to "Liancourt Rocks".--Húsönd 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11

And yes, there is plenty of space here & I notice that there have been efforts to shut everything out from the discussion & allocate them into the archive or outside pages - as an effort to shut out dissenting opinions. ("dissent" somebody brought that up) (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

No, I'm trying to delete the link to the meat puppetry, which means that the admin can return to his previous conclusion. (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

The problem is some people were mislabled sockpuppets. Only after that fact when that was disproven, was it too late to change it back, which is what several people who have accused me of sockpuppetry wanted. My comment should be changed back (or if it was counted the sockpuppet allegations should be removed), even if it doesn't change the outcome. Davidpdx 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Wikimachine leave it alone for at least six months. When if you still want to move it then suggest another WP:RM. But 400 KB is enought for now on the page name. BTW next time perhapse you will also consider expressing support for a compromise option like "Dokdo/Takeshima" instead of all or nothing on Dokdo and only Dokdo--Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In your Economy section, I would like to point this out because it doesn't make complete sense to me:

Over 900 Korean citizens list the islets as their residence, while over 2,000 Japanese do the same. However, only two people, a married Korean couple, are actual permanent residents.^[1]

...

There are approximately 37 South Korean police that guard the islets, also there are Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries personnel, a married Korean couple (whose occupation is fishing), and three lighthouse keepers living on the islets. In the past, several fishermen also lived there.^[2]

It says that only two people are living on the island, and then later it says that 3 additional lighthouse keepers are also living there. How is this not a contradiction? theanphibian 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The military and the lighthouse keepers are rotated in and out, so they aren't permanent residents. The couple is funded by the government so as to establish a pair of non-military residents (fresh water is shipped in, etc. since there is virtually none on the islets themselves). More direct to your question--the military and keepers are stationed there, the couple is there essentially by choice. Must be quite cozy with less than 0.2 square km, almost all of it rocks, cliffs, and the occasional cave. —LactoseTI^T 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite cozy indeed. Thanks for the clarification. Would you object to adding "in rotation" to the second thing I quoted up there? I think it's confusing without that. theanphibian 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —LactoseTI^T 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the only difference between the lighthouse people and the couple living there is that the couple are really "citizens" of the place, while others just work there most of their time. Hey, if someone wants to live in such a barren place, more power to them. N. Korea has also gone to great measures on the other side to establish "settlement" in the DMZ no man's land. theanphibian 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the citizens' living is EEZ. The island where the resident lives can insist on the economic zone of 200 nautical miles by Convention on the Law of the Sea. The civil servant is not admitted as "economic life of their own."

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article121

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.

3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

However Korean couple might also be receiving the assistance of the Korea government. There is a possibility that EEZ is not admitted, when the resident is made to do forcibly by various assistance like this Korean couple. In addition the conclusion of Takeshima's title is necessary if Korea insist on Takeshima's EEZ.--Opp2 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Koreans need to be legaly register their place of residence (I think its related to the family ancestry record roll, but could be wrong). So if the two people assertion is true, its likely that they are the only two legaly registered persons on the island. The rest are legaly resistered somethere else in Korea.

The meaning of your "legaly" is based on a domestic law of South Korea. If another country protests, the activity becomes invalid in International Law. That is, the description of present Economy section is KPOV, and one of the propagandas of South Korea.--Opp2 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article notes that 900 Koreans are registered as living there and about 2000 Japanese, I imagine that all these people are legally registered with dokdo as their place of residence as you've outlined above, but this obviously means nothing. I'm American and couldn't give a darn for KPOV or JPOV, but either one of them gaining "possession" of the island solely for military or fishing purposes (when it's not even a livable island) seems like a clear injustice to me. theanphibian 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that four users are working their hardest to harrass me and have labeled me a sockpuppet. I am filing complaints against these individuals and will not let up until the accusations are disproven and corrective measures are taken. At least one of them have posted on my talk page claiming total and complete innocence on their part and I don't buy it. Davidpdx 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Davidpdx, you have been confirmed to be a sockpuppeteer, according to evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639. If you believe yourself to be innocent, you need to contact the admins involved for your case.--Endroit 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with improving this article? You're accusing everyone, including the admin who ran the checkuser here of a malicious conspiracy against you. Try good faith as a cure for the paranoia. Or don't. Go ahead and file as many complaints as you like and have other editors/admins tell you the same thing. --Cheers, Komdori 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good faith, that's been thrown out the window. How does this have to do with improving the article? Well because I've been labled a pro-Korean editor you Parceboy and other's have worked to discredit me. Good job! Since i'm a sockpuppet now, I think I'll take up to vandalizing Wikipedia instead of editing it. Davidpdx 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am not an admin.--Endroit 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was confused, you are the one responsible for filing the usercheck. Your complicit with Parceboy and Komdori. Davidpdx 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What would be the goal of discreting you? To make your edits suspect? I don't think it's a great idea to just threaten to vandalize. From the checkuser, it seems clear you wrote the newspaper article that caused the big disruption here. I have no issue against you personally, and understand you might be upset about the issue if you had that level of investment in it, but as for this talk page it's suppsoed to be used for discussing how to improve the article, which this conversation really doesn't do. --Cheers, Komdori 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I might add, I'm not sure what charges of harassment you are talking about. What did "we" do? Accuse you of sockpuppetry and have it confirmed by a checkuser? That means that the checkuser operator agreed it was suspicious enough to follow through with applying it, did so, and confirmed you were a puppetteer. How is that having us harass you? --Cheers, Komdori 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep digging yourself a hole Komdori. Davidpdx 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, keep trying to supress the truth of the harassment that has taken place. I'm sure you'd like that now that you and your buddy Parceboy have the upper hand. Davidpdx 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quit dragging me into this; I had nothing to do with the checkuser case. Yes, I did accuse you of being a sockpuppeteer initially, but I backed off and apologized after it became apparent that you weren't related to Shkim4dl. I'm aware that checkuser isn't infallible, and do not believe that you are a sockpuppeteer. So quit acting like I'm part of some conspiracy against you. I made a mistake, and apologized for it. What else do you want? Parsecboy 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I want you to hang. You and Komdori are complicit in this and both of you along with others have tried to discredit people. Your a liar just as much as they are. I certainly thought after the initial sockpuppet allegation that it was over, but it looks like you guys won't stop until I'm banned. Davidpdx

Let me repeat this, because you apparently didn't hear me the first time. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING CHECKUSER CASE. I apologized for falsely accusing you, and very clearly voiced my opinion here that you are not a sockpuppeteer. If you want to blame anyone, blame whoever initiated the check user case. You need to lighen the hell up and stop holding grudges. You're forgetting that the reason I did accuse you of sockpuppetry. The evidence at the time was very suspicious. Tell me you wouldn't suspect sockpuppetry if a user created 2 days ago signed his name as an older user supporting the same position, saying only "support per above", only to change the name to an invalid account a second later? Parsecboy 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Parseboy, you can't have it both ways. Frankly I'm sick of you, Komdori, etc attitude. I'm sick of dealing with the likes of you four. YOU are the one that attacked me first and was uncivil. Deal with the consequences of your own behavior. Davidpdx 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, who's the fourth one? Are you still including the checkuser operator in the group that's "out to get you"? --Cheers, Komdori 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the edit summary suggesting I was trying to "suppress the truth," I'm sorry but I still fail to see any suggestion here to improve the Liancourt Rocks article. I don't see why this discussion is here. I also am somewhat hesitant to believe you are a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. This stint of extreme incivilty and bad faith doesn't do a whole lot to illustrate what a model editor you are, though. You talk as if we've been mortal enemies since kindergarten, and I talked with you like twice in my lifetime before this, both times in the last week. --Cheers, Komdori 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, discredit, that's exactly your MO. I've been a very good editor. The truth is you have no reason to acknowledge the that. As I told Parceboy, deal with the consequences. Davidpdx 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure few will agree with you that "very good editors" go around and tell other editors "Your a disgrace to Wikipedia," (sic), "you will pay," (to me) and "I want you to hang" (to Parsecboy). I have absolutely nothing to gain by you leaving. I am not sure why you are dragging this out here of all places, and I'm not sure why you have to be so abusive about it. --Cheers, Komdori 03:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the editors concerned, I'm quite certain myself(obviously) that I'm not a sockpuppet of Davidpx, or Lion369 for that matter. I've requested a re-check, so please don't make any haste judgements on whether this sockpuppetry accusation is "confirmed". Cydevil38 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-checked. I've updated the RFCU page. Voice-of-All 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the final conclusion? What is the reason? Who did this? I can't see anything. Kingj123 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 for details. --Cheers, Komdori 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Either what you said counted or it didn't depending on whether you were labled a sockpuppet by those who like to go around and accusing people of that. Davidpdx 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've renamed the Dokdo article to the name that is most internationally recognized, I suggest we rename the article on Gando, a piece of territory that is clearly under Chinese control, to Jiandao, the name that is internationally recognized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reconquista1412 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then discuss it on that page. It's irrelevant here.

Wikipedia is undeniably pro-Japan. Every article is tilted completely in favor of the Japanese POV. If "Senkaku Islands" is not moved to "Pinnacle Islands", this will be confirmed entirely.--165.244.20.221 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. You need to better understand the concept of NPOV. If a naming follows Wikipedia policy then it is defacto NPOV. The names in English Wikipedia follow the most common use in English, particularly Encyclopedias and news. (Not always a simple count because English use doesn't include 'The islands are called Tokto in Korea, Takeshima in Japan' etc.) NPOV for names isn't about making both countries satisfied or finding a compromise, but finding the name used in English. The move to Liancourt Rocks was based on its use in Encyclopedias and other trusted sources. So for the Senkaku Islands, you need to do the same. If Briticannica etc. call the islands Senkaku Islands then that is the correct name. 221.133.86.254 11:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You and other editors keep mentioning "because other encyclopedias". Actually, in KPOV, those famous encylopedias including Britannica are not NPOV. Britannica Encyclopedia have been strongly influenced by Japanese scholars since decades ago. Motivr 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is your POV that Britannica is influenced by Japanese scholars to the extent that they would give articles pro Japanese names. I checked in the Wikipedia Naming Conventions and looked for a section that said: "Don't use Britinnica Encylopedia for disputes involving Japan because it is pro-Japanese" but I couldn't fine one. You can try adding something like that yourself and see if there is consensus for it. Good Luck. 221.133.86.254 12:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's laughable (of course in my POV). Because that's your POV (pro-Japanese people around the globe). I have no clue when Britannica became a true NPOV Encyclopedia. Maybe the definition of NPOV keep changing as political powers move from a country to another. Well, it is not a big deal. We all call Espana as Spain in English. That does not make the country a part of English speaking country. Neither is Dokdo. You can call it Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, or anything. Stil it's not a territory of any country but Korea.

I am considering initiating a new discussion of a name change for the Senkaku article, but I want to wait till things settle down here first. It looks like some people are trying to get the article move here overturned. However, I do believe that the Liancourt name is the most NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-japan? I seem to recall being at war with them not that long ago. Anyway I still vote that we blow the rocks up.Geni 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:165.244.20.221.. Since Dokdo has been changed to it's so-called "English/NPOV" name, Senkaku must be changed to Pinnacle Islands- if this doesn't happen, it shows that Wikipedia is overtly, without doubt, pro-Japanese. --DandanxD 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the Senkaku article should be given a neutral name, just as all articles should have names that are as neutral as possible. However, this is not because the name of the Dokdo article has been changed; it is because neutrality is a core, non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia. -- Visviva 06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But just FYI, past polls at the Senkaku article have gotten "Senkaku" votes because the voters wanted that naming to be consistent with the naming here at Dokdo, which is that whoever controls the islands gets to name them. But again, the "control" clause is not anywhere in WP naming guidelines or policies. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, a member of the Korean wikipedia team saying that wikipedia is undoubtedly pro-Japanese and a member from the Chinese side saying that yes, Senkaku must be renamed. I'm not going to comment as to which is right, because as you'll see from my IP I'm in Japan, other than to say that me refraining is the right thing to do, and you guys should take note of that. I wonder if you guys agree on Kojoseon and Koguryo. 125.54.22.228 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name from Dokdo is a mistake – you cannot decide by vote what something is called. South Korea is in possession of the islands. Senkaku must NOT be renamed - Japan has it. This whole fiasco is absurd. Congrats to those responsible for this PC mess, you’ve just contributed to the weakness in the veracity of Wikipedia in general. Dprkstudies 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We're just abiding by Wikipedia rules and policies. If that doesn't suit your POV, too bad. Parsecboy 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attitudes like that are the problem and just serve to underscore my point. I'll note that the person who excluded most of the "keep Dokdo" opinions is a blatant supporter of Japan! Foolish rules, hypocrisy, rigid PC drivel; it's too bad more people don't understand what that does to the credibility of Wikipedia. Dprkstudies 12:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a good example showing that Wikipedia is greatly influenced by other encyclopedias (like Britannica, which not NPOV, since it contains lots of JPOV articles) Motivr 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a Korean, I think the name Liancourt Rocks have no influences to Korea and Korean people at all. Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks in En.) islets are obvious Korean territories, so the decision changes none of the facts except the English name for the islets in English Wikipedia. I am actually happy that the small Korean islets is getting a lot of attention from people around the world. Although I like the historical and original Korean name, Dokdo, better regardless of POV. Motivr 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing "Senakaku Islands" to "Pinnacle Islands" will show that Wikipedia is truly NPOV. No change = POV. It's as simple as that.--165.244.20.221 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the I don't understand the concept of Wikipedia NPOV section.

Here's how it works: If a naming follows Wikipedia policy then it is defacto NPOV. The names in English Wikipedia follow the most common use in English, particularly Encyclopedias, respected resources and news. (English use doesn't include 'The islands are called Dokto in Korea, Takeshima in Japan' etc.) Senkaku is used in respected sources, so is Liancourt Rocks. Therefore they are the correct NPOV names. 221.133.86.254 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Your condescending attitude is not appealing to anyone. Senkaku Islands is only used in "respected sources" because it's pushed by the governing authority, Japan, which has a lot of influence and good relations with the United States and Britain. It's a matter of PR. There's no reason why they should not be named Pinnacle Islands really.--165.244.20.220 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LOevenLer. And neither is your POV and ignorance of Wikipedia policy.

I guess Wikipedia's naming convetion could be simpler.: "Just use the same name as in Britannica Encyclopedia". That way you can slash a huge number of naming disputes. Motivr 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is highly orthodox, biased, and outdated.--165.244.20.220 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an example on Wikipedia's faults. This is perfect example of how nationalistic people still are. You do realise as soon as you come out with the line 'I'm part of WikiProject Korea/Japan' or 'I'm from Korea/Japan' you've pretty much thrown your NPOV out of the window. Korean and Japanese Wikipedia have their respective names for this article but the English name should not be decided by people who have their own (nationalist) agendas to push. I don't see any Germans wanting us to rename the Munich article as Munchen. Does it really matter what the title of the English Wikipedia page is? Do you think that maybe the title of English Wikipedia page should be the most common name seen in the English speaking world?

So, according to your logic Koreans are nationalistic and should only use "English" names while we continue to use "sushi", "ramen", "kimono", "manga", "anime" even frickin' "depato" (Japanese department store...), right? Wikipedia is OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Japan and spilling over with Japanese manga, anime, and video game (is there a "Video Games in Japan" article here?) fans.

The "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks" move just shows it ONCE AND FOR ALL. I just wish you all can at least show the decency to change "Senkaku Islands" to "Pinnacle Islands".

The poll was a popularity contest and in all likelihood planned in advance. Unlike the previous poll where only regular contributors participated and discussed in a logical manner, this was just a sheer numbers vote in which many people were not regular contributors. How many of those on the "Liancourt Rocks" side have you seen here as opposed to how many on the "Dokdo" side (the votes that weren't thrown out)? It looks like all the even slightly "legitimate" Liancourt Rocks votes were counted.

By the way, was there a closing time for this poll? Was it announced clearly in advance? If not, why isn't our so-called "neutral" Endroit not hopping up and down right about now?--165.244.20.220 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not really matter as Dokdo is officialy a Korean territory no matter what. Also many Koreans are very nationalistic as you pointed out. Yes, I do think the most common name should be the English title. Nevertheless, Koreans want to minimize the chance of confusion when people with no background knowledge read about the islets assuming Dokdo is a French or Japanaese territory without throughly reading the whole article. If majority of English speakers think Liancourt Rocks is NPOV, that's fine. but you are upsetting Koreans by making one solid example why Wikipedia is not NPOV and applying double standard. (Senkaku/Pinnacle) Motivr 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that the French Wikipedia still calls it Dokdo and not Liancourt Rocks!

This is why Sea of Japan is the way it is - most common name for the Sea in English, this is why China is not Middle Kingdom in English. This is why these islands are Liancourt Rocks. I'm sorry but there can be no argument. Once all the major English sources change from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo, then we can rename this page back to Dokdo. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reason why the name Sea of Japan is not just because it is "most common". The name Sea of Japan is JPOV, a result of Japanese militraism during the Pacific War. Does Japan own the sea? And is Korean Ulleung Island located in the middle of Japanese owned Sea? If not, why is it Sea of Japan, not East Sea when it sounds far more neutural, indicating a sea that is located in the east of Asia continent? Motivr 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion would then reign with Baltic Sea which is what many languages call the East Sea. Then there's East China Sea which I'm guessing is Chinese POV? And what about Indian Ocean? Indian POV? Sea of Okhotsk? Russian POV? And what about English Channel and Norwegian Sea? Norway doesn't own the sea, but its still named after it in English. Have you even noticed it's gotJapan in the name in Russian, German and French? I'm sorry but you only claim it's JPOV because you're upset that Japan has a sea named after it, when its the common English name. So what if it developed under Japanese militarism? How many other places still bear the mark of colonialism? Heck the Bismarck Sea survived two World Wars without a name change. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the places that were mentioned is not plagued by the exact same issue as the naming of this article. I don't think there's a naming dispute for East China Sea, meaning none of the neighboring governments have lodged official disputes on that name. And while there is a naming dispute for the Sea of Japan, there is not a neutral alternative for that territory like there is for Liancourt Rocks, so we are stuck to choose one POV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway this whole Pinnacle Islands thing is a whole different matter. Just because we moved Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks doesn't instantly mean we have to move Senkaku. Again, look at the pages in other European languages - its mostly known as Senkaku islands. Wikipedia is at the moment being perfectly regimented in naming the pages by the name that is most widely used. Once East Sea ends up being more widely used than Sea of Japan then the article will be called the Sea of Japan. I just want to point out that Wikipedia only seems pro-Japan because Japanese names tend to me prevalent in the English literature due to history etc. and Wikipedia cannot make that go away to appease Korea-Japanese relations. I had honestly hoped in this day and age people would be willing to forget about something like the name of some rocks in the ocean. That is all have to say. I do hope you guys can eventually find mutual grounds and stop bickering over this. Why don't you just forget what the article is called and improve the article itself. (Also in regards to finding a neutral name of Sea of Japan, has no one ever consider putting both Korea and Japan into the name?) Centy – reply• contribs – 15:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that the sources that are using "Senkaku" are actually neutral sources? For example, the UN actually recognises Senkaku as Japanese territory. That's a POV problem for us. And for another example, even though BBC News is a highly regarded news source, it still takes a side in naming issues - it continues to use "Burma" to refer to Myanmar, even though "Myanmar" is the officially recognised name by the Myanmar government. I think that the very use of either "Senkaku" or "Diaoyutai" would make a source POV. Firstly, I think "common usage" is difficult to prove, and secondly, I don't think it should override the NPOV policy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the best approach is to talk about the Senkaku problem on the Senkaku page rather than here, they are more knowledgeable about it. The main point that I might offer is that sovereignty has nothing to do with naming. It might be Japanese territory, it might be Chinese, but it doesn't matter for the name. Personally, another thing I might look at would be weight--in the case of Dokdo/Takeshima, almost every reference to them is about the conflict, and almost every reference (~95%+) refers to both of them. That strongly suggests that the dispute itself if much more well known than any other reference to the place. It might be the same for Senkaku, I really don't know. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with the name Pinnacle, but I don't think anyone should go through and unilaterally move any page without discussion (there were several cases mentioned, not just Senkaku) if for no other reason than I doubt any other place in the world is "just like Liancourt Rocks." Again, I have no problem with Pinnacle being the title, just someone has to get the information together (we discussed this here for what, like 400KB of text? I hope it might be a lot less difficult to discuss the others). 128.205.33.79 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm still considering whether or not to initiate a formal discussion on renaming the Senkaku article. These things are very time-consuming and there are more enjoyable editing I can do. I don't think we should rename the Senkaku article just because the Liancourt article was renamed, but on the other hand, previous polls had people voting for Senkaku just because Liancourt was named Dokdo, for consistency sake. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make good points, and you're obviously trying to find the correct answers here. My advice is to in no way let any discussion try to compare the two. Choose the name by Wikipedia policy. If this article goes by Wikipedia policy and Senkaku does too then by definition it is fair. Just let the discussion be by Wikipedia policy. If you introduce comparisons then you will simply confuse the issue because people will start introducing reasons for the name on this page that are incorrect (such as Liancourt Rocks is the neutral name in that it is not Japanese or Korean). This is wrong. Liancourt Rocks is the NPOV name because it adheres to Wikipedia Policy of being the most common in English (in respected sources etc). Do the same for Senkaku. Keep the discussion on Wikipedia Policy and you will have a far less painful experience. 221.133.86.163 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unscientific, but useful for a (very) rough estimation of frequency of use in English, via Google searches; a) about 485,000 for dokdo / about 78,800 for tokdo / about 74,900 for tokto = a total of 638,700; b) about 597,000 for takeshima (any other Romanizations?); c) about 48,700 for Liancourt Rocks. Dprkstudies 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to change that useful to 'useless'. Did you remove all the counts that are on non-English pages? Did you remove all the counts that simply refer to Dokdo 'as the Korean name'. Did you remove all counts that include the term 'Wikipedia'? The Google count was discussed at ridiculous major length in the last discussion. The only count that has a slight agreement with some users had Dokdo and Takeshima within 10%. The name Liancourt Rocks was chosen because very few sources actually use either Dokdo or Takeshima but instead refer to them as the Korean/Japanese name, thus excluding them from the count. For example, BBC never uses Dokdo or Takeshima AS the name. But often says the islands are also called Liancourt Rocks. So a simple count of the BBC gives Liancourt the smallest number, but a look at the actual usage gives Liancourt Rocks the highest usage. For this reason, simple counts are next to useless. 221.133.86.163 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't go through the over 1 million total pages to check that, sorry, but I'd love to see the results if someone does. You forgot to ask the same about Takeshima, or how many of those 48.7k times "Liancourt Rocks" was also mentioned in the same 'a.k.a.' context, thereby excluding those counts. I'm well aware of the 'reason' Liancourt Rocks was chosen, and ridicule the entire process and pretension of NPOV in this case as absurd. I’m not saying that in blind support of a KPOV, as I favor “Sea of Japan” over “East Sea” and "Senkaku" over whatever. Dprkstudies 12:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can use the Google advanced search to at least reduce it to English language pages. The extended discussion before already essentially showed that Takeshima and Dokdo almost always appeared together. The Liancourt Rocks aka is not really a problem because by definition that aka would be the English name. Bear in mind, according to Wikipedia Naming Policy for Geographic Entities, we aren't even supposed to be using Google anyway. The criteria is based on respected sources. The Google count is only really meant to be used when a single local authority has 2 or more names and there isn't an established English name. This is not such a case. Frankly, the Google count is a big time-waster unless there is a clear difference.

The most common English name for these islets is "Dokdo". It is the name used by the governing authority South Korea. It is not any less NPOV than "Senkaku Islands". Language does not a matter in NPOV. Please be consistent and fair. Some of you are really showing your colors.--165.244.20.220 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the most common name isn't Dokdo. That is what the discussion was about. You have to remove all uses where it says 'Dokdo is the Korean name etc.' This page is consistent and fair. It is consistent with Wikipedia policy. The discussion about which is the most common name has just finished. There is no point in discussing it all over again. Wait a few months and then bring it back up again if you wish.

If you dispute that Senkaku Islands is the most common name in English, then discuss that on the Senkaku page. It doesn't belong here. After all, what's the point of saying: "Senkaku Islands is not the most common English name" on the Liancourt Rocks page? 221.133.86.163 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Present description is follws.

In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do and asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets, was conquered and "re-integrated" into the Korean kingdom of Silla in 512.

Original text of Samguk Sagi is follows

十三年夏六月,于山國帰服,歳以士宜為貢于山國,在溟州正東海島,或名欝陵島,地方一百里,恃嶮不服,伊異斯夫,為何瑟羅州軍主,謂于山人愚悍難以威来,可以計服,乃多造木偶師子,分載戦船,抵其国海岸誑告白,汝若不服,則放此猛獣,踏殺之,國人恐懼則降

Which chinese character corresponds to "asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets"? This is a clear lie mistake. I think description of this article is further KPOV for several months. --Opp2 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are asserting this is a mistranslation and the phrase in bold should be deleted? It seems pretty uncontroversial to me. If someone wants to add it back, they just need to show the part of text that reflects this. --Cheers, Komdori 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted.--Opp2 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Present description is follows

However, Korean scholars such as Professor Shin Yong-ha of Hanyang University argue against this by saying that Jukdo, as with Dokdo, is not only also rather small in size, but is even less noteworthy than Dokdo on a map due to its proximity to Ulleungdo, thus making it meaningless to draw it unto a map in the immediate presence of a much larger island while Dokdo, due to its distance, commands a greater need to be displayed on a cartograph to leave no ambiguity concerning the administrative control of the Korean government. Korean scholars also argue that there is little way to infer information from the depiction of minor islands on older drawings due to the fact that their shape is generally more or less the same (that is, all are miniature circles).

These are presumptions based on KPOV without evidence. Is such a long sentence necessary so that it may make an excuse for Korea why? I can offer the verification map like this[1] if there is a detailed image of these maps. I think that the reader only has to judge it from the verified map.--Opp2 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

KPOV is still fine if it is appropriately referenced. However, first of all, Daehanjiji Map should be there. I also like your maps. Jjok 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

lions3639 wrote another article about the page move.위키피디아 독도명칭 결국 변경 Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.30 17:08

It would be nice if he had mentioned how his own idiotic attempt at canvassing an entire country had exactly the opposite of the intended effect. Oh, but he's a journalist, he's just observing the news. -- Visviva 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are those who were suspected sockpuppetry editing from their office? Jjok 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful; the CU's summary suggests that the users in question may even be in different parts of the country. -- Visviva 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad some schmuck pseudo-reporter was able to make a buck off our work and get his jollies by disrupting everything, causing ill will that potentially could bleed over into other articles. The CU did show they were unlikely puppets (now), which makes no one happier than I am. There were some pretty harsh words exchanged and I just hope we can put the unpleasantness behind us and continue to be productive. In my opinion if anyone is to blame it's the jackass who decided to disrupt this page, and it's likely he isn't even an editor here. Whether he is or not, we don't know at this time, and there's little sense pointing fingers right now. Anyway, moving on... --Cheers, Komdori 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/30/2007053000903.html I read this news.

Liancourt Rocks? It is not POV.

locational name use their country's pronounciation. it is pov.

Dokdo is Korean territory. japanese opinion is not important. korean polices and civilian live their.

Korean make Korean territory's english name.

Liancourt Rocks???

Japanse call US as "rice country".

Korean call US as "beutiful country".

United State of America -> Rice country?United State of America -> Beutiful country?

It is POV? It is nonsense. it is joke...hahaha

-- • logs • email) 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I read about this, the more I also come to this conclusion. Naming shouldn't be a problem on the English Wikipedia because we have the Liancourt Rocks name. Looking, it seems that it is used by the CIA factbook and all other Western sources that are clearly credible. The rest of the world can call them whatever they want, the US, England, and other English speaking nations can pretty well agree it to be Liancourt Rocks (if for no other reason than to not piss someone off). theanphibian 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Korean make Korean territory's english name." This is known as Argument by Ignorance (of Wikipedia Policy). 221.133.86.163 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This guy is the same one that posted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Sovereigns_and_Five_Emperors "They are all Koreans"Stupid Korean Nationalist

See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. This will be presented to the closing admin User:Husond. (Wikimachine 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I responded there. I suggest the discussion be kept to that page to avoid clutter here and/or a split discussion between these two pages. --Cheers, Komdori 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I know it isn't general acceptable to change archieved pages, I am asking that the changes I made noting that I was cleared of the allegation of sockpuppetry be left alone. The allegations were made before the poll closed and took some time to clear myself and one other person. Although it does nothing for the outcome, it would be nice to think my voice counted for something. Especially since I had to argue to get myself cleared of wrongdoing. Davidpdx 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These are geographic informations concerning Usando of a Chosun government. Official Record of Chosun concerning the geography of Usando is very few and valuable. However, these important information is not being written in a present article. I am very wondered.

Conference record(備辺司謄録) January 19, 1735
戊寅年間朝家送張漢相, 看審圖形以來, 而聞鬱陵島, 廣闊土沃, 曾有人居基址, 或有往來之痕, 其西又有于山島, 而亦且廣闊云矣
The Chosun government made 張漢相 investigate Ullengdo, and he saw the figure of Ullengdo. After that, Ullendgo has been heard a vast and fertile island. There are signs in the dwelling and traffic, too. In the west(of Ullengdo), there is Usando. It is said that this island is vast and fertile, too.

Investigation report of Ullengdo by 金履喬(May 12, 1807)[2]
北有于山島周回爲二三里
Usando is in the north (of Ullengdo). The circumference is 0.8km-1.2km.

Please teach if there is a reason not being described for such a valuable record. I will add to the article if there are no special question. By the way, Liancourt Rocks is neither the north nor the west of Ullengdo. Liancourt Rocks is small and not fertile.--Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange ... Most Korean oldmaps indicate that the 'Uleung' is north or northwest of the 'Usan' island. Jtm71 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These are Chosun maps of the same age.[3] Can you think that Usando of these Chosun maps is Liancourt Rocks? I cannot. A present article conceals a lot of inconvenient information for Korea like this. --Opp2 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that they went back to the Uleung to the south ? In 1800, the earth was in little ice age and (maybe) the cold current of the eastsea was dominent, so, they had to navigate northward not to drift southward. (It is my postulation) Jtm71 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you think is the proper island which fits these maps ? These maps represents that the Usan island belongs to Uleung. Surely the 'Usan' is east of 'Uleung' and it is just the size and the shape of the base(over -10m) of the island. Jtm71 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think anyone should respect to the guidance of the wikipedia. Jtm71 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of random, so I am just adding it here. So, I am very happy that the article is chosen to be called as Liancourt Rocks. But, is it both administered by Korea and Japan? It seems like so on the info box at the right. If not, then please change it. Amphitere 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks for Japan is similar to Taiwan Province for PRC. Both ROC and PRC claim the administration and ROC is effectively controlling (or occupying) there. Jjok 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Administered by Korea and claimed by Japan, similiar to Senkaku Islands if you ask me. Good friend100 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Any country is not doing now if your effective control means lawful administration. If your effective means the exercise of administration , It can be thought that both Japan and South Korea do. Because registration to the cadastre and taxation is considered exercise of administration on International Law, Japan also will be doing. --Opp2 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148
First, it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the 'prescribing' state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence.The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.

TEXTBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by Martin Dixon
The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.

The Critical Date by L. F. E. Goldie
In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.

By the way, Japan is prohibiting landing on Senkaku. A provocative act like South Korea government is not done. Japan is doing the declaration to admit the compulsion jurisdiction of ICJ(International Court of Justice). Therefor, it is easier for South Korea and China to bring a case Japan to ICJ. It is difficult for Japan to bring a case them oppositely because neither South Korea nor China admit the jurisdiction of ICJ. South Korea and China say that we are a peaceful state. I really wonder about their insistences. --Opp2 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is if the exercises are nessesary? If Korea did not exercise its power on these islets, they belong fully to Japan by default. In that sense, Senkaku islands are different than Dokdo. Kingj123 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-reviewed the move proposal and decided not to overturn my second closure. Putting aside the reciprocal sockpuppetry accusations, I still find a majority of users asking for this article to be moved. The main argument backing "Liancourt Rocks" (WP:NPOV) also seems to weigh more than the main argument backing "Dokdo" (rocks being in disputed possession of South Korea). This is my final decision and I shall not reopen this case, for the sake of my mental sanity. I'm not against further move proposals for this article in the near future though. --Húsönd 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a good fight, everyone. (Wikimachine 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I really appreciate Husond's bravery.--Michael Friedrich 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The way this poll was conducted must be noted. For one, I see a lot of participants who were not regular contributors here. Will you also validate another poll taking place six months from now where a bunch of "pro-Dokdo" members who have signed up at least a month in advance and posted at least 50 times out-vote the "pro-Liancourt Rocks" side? So, I don't think it was "a good fight". It was an unfair one and possibly planned.--165.244.20.220 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. When Liancourt Rocks was under the name "Dokdo", there is a risk that JPOV editors might have planted accounts in advance & then plotted for an invasion, but not for KPOV. And look at my report. I personally visited all of their user pages, and their edit history (from Kate's Wannabe counter), etc. and they sure don't look fake. (Wikimachine 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure I understand your comments. Could you clarify what ground rules you think would be helpful for a future poll, and whether / when one could be held? Thanks. --Reuben 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about "pro-Liancourt Rocks" voters being planted. Perhaps an investigation is warranted?--165.244.20.220 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The main argument backing "Liancourt Rocks" (WP:NPOV) also seems to weigh more than the main argument backing "Dokdo" . Husond's decision was also based on the arguments presented not just the count. In other words, if people want it changed back, they need to focus on their argument not just a vote count. 221.133.86.163 10:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, in websites like Wikipedia where anybody can enter freely, voting is not that effective. However, there is no way we can do better. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Liancourt Rocks editors are very unfair in that they do not pursue their NPOV ideals into Senkaku Islands. I truly believe there is POV pushing going around. And the poll was not accurate from the start, it can't be seriously regarded.

Too bad, you can't open another poll for maybe 6 months or you'll have all the Liancourt Rocks editors angry again =) Good friend100 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And before I step out of this, I would like to comment that many editors here are still confused about your decision and that there are other factors determining the vote and not just NPOV. Strictly speaking in NPOVness and NPOV only, Senkaku Islands should be moved too since it should stay analogous to this article. I have no idea why these two articles can have no relation. Good friend100 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am considering starting a new discussion over at the Senkaku article to talk about a move. But I wanted things to settle down here first. But if you are interested in the article move yourself, please do feel free to initate the discussion, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As everyone can see, the "NPOV" guys shut everybody up w/ the excuse that further discussion or explanation would escalate an already intense discussion into all-out war. See my talk page. Philip Baird Shearer archived my "data" here just to shut me up. Isn't this tyranny?

HongQiGong, what article are you talking about? (Wikimachine 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Senkaku Islands, where previous polls to move the article to a neutral name had voters voting to keep at the current name because this article was named Dokdo, for consistency sake. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The archiving of debates on page moves when they have been as acrimonious is quite common. It draws a line under the debate. You will notice that I did the same when it appeared that the debate had gone the other way.(move to archive 10move to archive 11). If after a break of six months someone wishes to reopen this acrimonious debate then so be it. But for at least the next six months can we stop this debate as it is not constructive and is introducing disharmony into the project? (See Talk:Dokdo/Archive 7#Rename vote (when the page name was Dokdo) where I first mentioned that moves should be advertised on WP:RM and that there is a tradition of waiting at least six months to propose a return move on WP:RM) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand there was a complaint about the previous poll that no closing date was announced. There was none for this one either. And it was a much closer vote. Why aren't people up and arms about that? This was a very controversial move. I don't think it should have been moved without a two-thirds majority. Dubious, dubious, dubious.--

To me, it seems like just a popularity contest and one where mobilization may have taken place. I don't see the real rationale behind the move. What was the reason for a vote? Was there compelling evidence for re-examination of the decision made earlier when cool minds prevailed? I'd really like someone to explain the reason for the proposal of a poll. I just don't see it from reviewing the discussion and I'm very curious to know.--165.244.20.220 02:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See the first section (above Survey) in Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue. The administerator moved the article without a good conclusion to the debate. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking his talk page, he had a discussion with LactoseTI, who produced several negative points for the Dokdo side, including revealing sockpuppets (which I think is not fair because there were socks on BOTH sides).

I do agree that he did not leave a good reason or discuss more openly with editors on both sides. I am waiting for his decision. Good friend100 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Chosun Ilbo article boasts the last was 14-0, many of last voters switched to supporting Liancourt Rocks this time. I feel many people want to behave NPOV if possible and were looking for some excuse to switch like this survey. Anyway, you were fair, Wikimachine. Jjok 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment, Jjok. So were you. : ) By the way, I asked Husond to explain his rational behind the move but he said that he didn't want to go through "it" again, so he recommended me to ask somebody else (forgot). (Wikimachine 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, the statement just above seems clear. -- Visviva 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of having this talk page if explanations aren't going to be explained by even the admins? There is no consensus here and admin should respect the edit process instead of participating in double blind editing!melonbarmonster 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to the article and to seek compromise solutions to problems, rather than trying to "win" arguments for either side. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Visviva 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty unreasonable for you to have such a dismissive attitude about even the possibility of good faith disagreements regarding what constitutes "improvements to the article". There is absolutely no reason why any admin would consider himself above warranting their edit decisions in spite of requests for explanation.melonbarmonster 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason for the move? I don't get it. Also, shouldn't a move within less than six months require more than a slight majority? This poll was a total sham, in my opinion. And how exactly is "DOKDO" not acceptable as an English name while "SENKAKU ISLANDS" is?--

Because it's by Wikipedia policy it seems. The argument was that Dokdo is not the acceptable English name because it is not commonly used in English by respected sources except when referring to what Koreans call it. Go to Encyclopedias and the U.N. and they call it Liancourt Rocks. Senkaku is a difference issue. The name on English Wikipedia is what entities are called in English - this is determined by respected sources. If respected sources call the islands Senkaku in English and Liancourt in English then those are the correct NPOV names. Reading through the archives the rationale seemed to be that Dokdo and Takeshima are basically never used by respected sources except to report the Korean and Japanese names - which doesn't count.221.133.86.163 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion again and I still don't see the logic behind putting up a poll asking for a move. Can somebody please tell me the justification? What was the compelling reason that was behind suggesting a move?--

If you search "Dokdo", "Takeshima", and "Liancourt Rocks" on Google, the results come out like this: Dokdo (480,000), Takeshima (570,000), Liancourt Rocks (only 54,000). Tellingly, four of the first ten hits for Takeshima are restaurant reviews. It even says that the owners are Koreans.

Takeshima is also a last name and refers to many things. Dokdo by contrast can refer only to Dokdo Island. And unlike Takeshima, there are many possible spellings: Tokdo, Tokto, Tok Do, Dok Do, and on and on and on. There are even spellings that use little apostrophes and dashes. Takeshima on the other hand does not have this spellings problem.

Plug in: Dokdo OR Tokdo OR Tokto OR "Dok Do" OR "Tok Do". Now there are 640,000. You could add in even more variations but I figured these were the most common. And yes, all of the results (on the first page, I haven't clicked through all three billion pages yet) are relavant unlike with Takeshima.Jin29 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems this was all done before. Read the archives. Did you search only English language pages? Did you remove all pages that are trying to promote usage rather than actually reflect it? Did you remove all pages that simply say, It's called Dokdo in Korea? Did you remove all pages that are not respected sources? It's for this reason Google is not really reliable. A Japanese person could for example write a page with Takeshima in English and Google would count it. But it's meaningless because such a page doesn't reflect English usage. You need to remember that these are tiny islands that 99.99% of English speakers haven't even heard of. So there is no common usage of any name. Therefore we go to respected sources and use those. Google counts are next to useless in these cases. 221.133.86.163 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So what? Those "Dokdo" "Tokdo" "Tokto" "Dok do" "Tokdo" pages could be by Koreans. That does not mean "Dokdo" is the most common in "English". Besides, CIA uses Liancourt Rocks. I think this fact can be a good reason to use "Liancourt Rocks" in ENGLISH wikipedia.--Michael Friedrich 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please make new comments at the bottom of the talk page. Second, the debate over whether to move or not is closed for the time being. Thirdly, you're wrong; the variations on Dokdo introduce far more irrelevant returns than relevant ones. See the archive section relating to Wikimachine's test based on Komdori's criteria. And lastly, google tests are unreliable by their very nature, and shouldn't be used to determine which usage is higher. Parsecboy 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For once and for all, Dokdo is English. D-O-K-D-O. Just like S-E-N-K-A-K-U. It's hard for me to understand how you can accept one and not the other? Please tell me, the people who keep saying Dokdo is "not English" how you can accept Senkaku and not Dokdo in English Wikipedia???--

Because you won't generally find respected sources using Dokdo or Takeshima. Google is not a respected source. Try the Columbia Encyclopedia. You can accept Senkaku if it's what respected sources call those islands.

"Takeshima" and "Tokto" (in any of its spellins) are controversial names: pro-Japanese people will favour "Takeshima", while pro-Korean people will favour "Tokto" (or any of its other spellings). However, "Liancourt Rocks" is neither Japanese nor Korean, so maybe that is a more neutral name?

I'm not sure that Google is very useful for determing the most common name in English. Searching for "Takeshima" or "Tokto" will not only find web pages in English, but also pages in French, German, Spanish etc. and you won't know how many of the results actually are in English. Even by limiting the language to English (using Google's search options) will yield lots of results in other languages, because many web pages have no or wrong language specifications. (Stefan2 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

LOL then what's up with the Senkaku Island. Isnt this "pro-Japanese"? --DandanxD 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

These sources are the most credible and authoritative references we have on the topic in my opinion rather than google searches, personal websites, encyclopedias, etc.. Perhaps those of you with access to academic research tools can do some searches for scholarly third party articles on this topic.

So far there are only 2 journal articles and both are pro-Korean. Some pro-Japanese and neutral articles would be helpful in our discussion:

• Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78-89 Third party analysis of dispute in an academic journal
• Tokdo Dispute History by Kalani O'Sullivan Third party analysis of dispute in an academic journal

melonbarmonster 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

second link is not working and I can't find a working link.melonbarmonster 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually, many academic journals are heavily affected by Japanese.Kingj123 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first link uses all 3 names, and refers to them as Liancourt throughout the article. Here are a few examples:

"Japan’s claims to Liancourt are based mainly on historical documentation...", "Conversely, South Korea claims that it originally discovered Liancourt and continues to administer..."

"South Korea establishes a stronger claim to the Liancourt Rocks because..."

And so forth. This is more justification to keep the name at Liancourt. If these articles are the "most credible and authoritative references" we have and they only use "Dokdo/Takeshima" in reference to the disputed names, and use Liancourt the rest of the time, then there shouldn't be a dispute about what to name this article. Parsecboy 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The author probably used "Liancourt" so he calls it a neutral name as to not anger anyone. Its clear that he supports "Dokdo". The poll was controversial, the admin who did the move did not fully consider what was going on until he moved it and got complaints. Using "Dokdo" is justified and I'm not going into anything else because theres no point and you wouldn't listen. Good friend100 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not try to guess why the author used the words he used. He might support the Korean claim to the islands, but the fact remains that he used Liancourt to refer to the islands. That it's a respected English language academic journal, using Liancourt Rocks as the primary term to name the islands should be enough. You yourself said he probably used it "to not anger anyone". Isn't that being NPOV? Parsecboy 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed the first article by Sean Fern a while ago. He tried to be neutral but he could not. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 8#Professor? Sean Fern I also want to ask his opinion on Rusk documents [4] and Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East[5]. Kalani O'Sullivan's new Dokto page seems here and well-updated. Jjok 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It has happened before and it will happen again. Somehow, some people feel that using a "native" name lends them authenticity and high moral ground. I have no idea why. This is English Wikipedia, not a soapbox. Some time ago, I tried to change Sinmiyangyo to a more common English name, a name that people could understand, and it led to an acrimonious exchange that prompted me to leave Wikipedia. As things stand now, Wikipedia is generating more text on talk pages than on the actual articles, and I think all of us should start to reconsider the value of these name-debates. Again, this is English Wikipedia. I will stay on the sidelines for the time being.--Amban 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My. God. Are you completely daft? I don't know what Sinmiyangyo is, but if it's commonly used then there's no reason why it shouldn't be named so. Dokdo is also English. And it is very commonly used. If you can read English and you can read D-O-K-D-O, then it's English. Just like S-U-S-H-I. I picked two words that have the same number of letters, so you can understand that a little easier. Did you understand the logic? If not, please let me know and I'll try to explain in a more simple way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.212.69.195 (talk)

Is 'Watashi wa baka desu' English then?

Thank you for enlightening me.--Amban 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited that article (or witnessed the exchange Amban is mentioning), but 211.212.69.195, that's the kind of civility that will draw editors like a magnet back to Wikipedia who left because of incivil bickering. Try to stay calm. As for your example, all this time I thought French and German were so different even though English speakers can read them aloud. Little did I know it was because they are also evidently composed exclusively of English words since they can be expressed with the same alphabet. --Cheers, Komdori 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is... we had this sort of discussion just a moment ago. What's the point of discussing about it after the move? I have to say, if these new accounts & anon users had came in during the poll, they would have messed up everything. (Wikimachine 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Do any of these maps contain Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima? As far as I can tell, they do not. If they don't, why are they here? Parsecboy 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo is there clearly, look again. Kingj123 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy... Liancourt may be there, but it probably isn't clear to those who don't know the script. Either a caption or a modified image would be helpful. --Cheers, Komdori 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm basing this by comparing with the main map picture, and I don't see any islands in the maps that could be Liancourt. I see an island that is most likely Ulleung Island, but Liancourt seems like it should be further south and west than what is shown on the maps (this is in reference to the 3rd and 4th map, the first two I cannot identify). Yes, a caption would be helpful, but the best option would probably be for someone to modify the image to make Liancourt obvious to westerners who can't read the script like myself. Parsecboy 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't read the script but given the fact that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo on a clear day makes it seem unlikely that people living on Ulleungdo didn't consider Dokdo as part of their territory.melonbarmonster 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not very important, now is it? From my hometown of Sandusky, Ohio, I can see several Canadian islands out in Lake Erie, but that doesn't mean they're a part of the US. Parsecboy 02:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's very important considering the 1905 terra nullius claim: claiming islands that Koreans have been staring at and fishing at for thousands of years as being unclaimed land in 1905. I do wish we could get a closeup of the text and translations on the maps.melonbarmonster 02:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A Chosun government interpreted as the record seen Ullengdo from a Korean peninsula before.[6] This photograph used 500mm lens.[7] And, it took 40 days to take this picture. The Chosun government official who climbed the mountain of Ullengdo on a fine day in 1882 reported to the Chosun king that I can't see anything.--Opp2 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A logbook of the warship of Japan recorded that Liancourt Rocks had been seen from Ullengdo with a telescope. However this cannot prove that Liancourt Rocks can see from Ullengdo by the naked eye. I think that there is a possibility. However, it might be extremely rare. Moreover in International Law, it doesn't become whether see it grounds at all.--Opp2 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

'When the weather conditions are good, the islands can be seen each other.' ... it is exactly what the 'Chosun Wangjo Shilok' had described about the 'Uleung' and the 'Usan' in the 15th century. At least, it proves that they are not so close. Jtm71 07:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Chosun Wangjo Shilok？ Plaese teach the chinese character of the the title of the book and original text.Being possible to rarely see even on a fine day by the naked eye is true.--Opp2 07:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you knew that sentence. It is '朝鮮王朝實錄' in chinese, and the sentence is like this ... '二島相去不遠, 風日淸明, 則可望見' Jtm71 10:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"相(each)" modifies "不遠(not far)". However, it doesn't modify "可望見(vissible)." If the text is "則可相望見", your translation is correct. "Two islands are not so much far away. It is possible to see on a fine day." is an accurate translation. Where did they see? What did they see? These are uncertain in this document. "Ullendo is seen from the peninsula on a fine day" was established as the description that showed the position of Ullengdo.

新増東国輿地勝覧: 三峯及業掌空 南峯梢卑 風日清明則峯頭樹木 及山根沙渚 歴々可見

東海中右于山一云武陵一云羽陵一云?陵周二百余里東西七十余里南北五十 余里三峯?〓聳空(倭〓漁探者時到)純是石山自本県天晴而登高望見則如[8]--Opp2 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is the common sence which needed to understand the meaning of that sentence. 'The two island is not far from each other, if the weather is clear, can be seen' ... Do you think the 'Dokdo' was seen from the east coast of Korea ? Jtm71 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, In 二島相去不遠, there is no conjunction. "The two island is not far from each other" and "if the weather is clear, can be seen" is separated. The interpretation like you is also possible. However, the interpretation of seeing it from the peninsula is also possible. Man at later years interpreted to see Ullengdo from the peninsula. --Opp2 13:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is part of a brief note. The name 'Uleung' and 'Usan' were treated equal. Can you find any island you insist as 'Dokdo' in the 'google earth' ? Jtm71 14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As Dokdo? There is no Dokdo in old maps. Can you see the character of '獨島' in the old map? Do not you know jukdo to be larger than Liancourt Rocks? Do you know Liancourt Rocks is in the southeast of Ullengdo? --Opp2 16:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the 'google earth' ? There is fog around the area. That is why I did not find that. Then, was it the island which Japan called 'Takeshima' ? The 'Jukdo' is large enough to confuse it with 'Dokdo'. (And, there is no 'bamboo(竹)' in the 'Dokdo' island.) Jtm71 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Current topic is usando in the Chosun map.--Opp2 01:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence '于山武陵二島在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見', when the position of observation are not mentioned, it is natural to find that in the closer sentence. They are 'two islands'. The name '武陵' and '于山' were treated equal. And 'The distance' and 'visable' are closely related. Jtm71 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you study the map, the position is clear.[9] Usando is the west of Uleungdo. Usando is big island. Usando is composed of one island.That is, it is an island that doesn't exist at that time. --Opp2 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two kinds of maps of Korea. One kind in which island of almost the same shape as Ullengdo is drawn. Usando is often drawn in the west of Ullengdo, and there are small number of maps drawn in the north and the south, too. I am calling the island in these maps flying Usando.[10] Another kind maps depicts small usando in the close vicinity of Ullendgo. The geographical features are corresponding to jyukdo.[11]I can make such an overlapping map to help the viewer's understanding if there is precise image data.--Opp2 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When you look closer, you can find that the 'uleung' island also is not so far away from the east coast. It is the old way of representing the island in the distance to save the paper and the space. Jtm71 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present evidence. Is it your hope or excuse? It is at 1608 that the telescope was invented. It cannot make a mistake in the direction if Liancourt Rocks can see from Ullengdo. The direction can be specified from the position of the sun and the island even if there is no compass. Liancourt Rocks in the east of Ullengdo cannot be drawn in the west. Which of your and my insistence is persuasive? The person who reads this article should judge. --Opp2 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any mention that he had a telescope ? As you asserted, if the weather is not good enough, the island cannot be seen each other. Jtm71 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In these maps, even if paper is not added, Usando can be drawn east more.[12][13] There are Chosun maps where Usando was assumed to be a name of Ullengdo, too.[ http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=451] --Opp2 08:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so staying on topic, do any of the maps stay? They might be old maps, but they aren't necessarily relevant if they don't add to the article. Putting up maps of other islands that can see Liancourt is less than helpful, and it should be obvious to someone who isn't well versed with the topic already. Japan and Korea claims it, so such maps of other places are about as relevant as putting picturse of downtown Tokyo and Seoul in the gallery. —LactoseTI^T 10:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there are so many maps about the Ulung and the Usan means that the people of Chosun Dynasty recognized the Usan as a island which had a different area, not as a small island neighboring the Ulung island. Jtm71 10:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "Not as a small island neighboring the Ulung island" your hope? Liancourt Rocks is difficult to see on a fine day without telescope. Was there a telescope in Korea in the 15th century? What is the reason why the direction is drawn in the opposite? Liancourt Rocks is composed of two islands. Are not two islands described why? It is being written in the old Japanese maps.[14][15] --Opp2 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can read Korean, refer this link, and this. They say, it is about 40 ~ 50 days on which the 'Dokdo' can be seen from the 'UleungDo'. Jtm71 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for this topic, right now it doesn't really matter who can see what from where and what that may or may not imply about ownership. The topic here is whether or not the maps belong in the gallery or not. Is there any relevant input as to that? --Cheers, Komdori 12:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a map where an actual island was overlapped with Donguk jido of the map gallery.[16] I do not understand logic that the Usando on this map is Liancourt Rocks at all. --Opp2 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think who draw the map was confused at that time. If the island is close enough to see ordinarily, why are the positions of the island so different in each map ? Jtm71 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

at that time? When did Korea accurately recognize Liancourt Rocks? Is a big island in the west of Ulueng-do Liancourt Rocks? Most maps after the 17th century are almost the same positions, and shape. The position and shape of Usando in the maps is corresponding to jukdo. Is this Usando Liancourt Rocks?

• Map of the whole country [17]
• Detailed map of Ulueng-do[18]--Opp2 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we move the maps from the gallery onto the talk page that don't have explicit indications of where the islets are. Maybe we can get some discussion going and perhaps some modified versions. As it is, they are basically useless to someone coming here for information. --Cheers, Komdori 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that I can obtain the modification and the publishing permission about the Japanese maps.[19] How about the Korean maps? I want the detailed map data of the public domain for the modification.--Opp2 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have initiated a new discussion for renaming Senkaku Islands. If anybody is interested, please comment at the talk page[20]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Welcome back and see you at United States Expedition to Korea in 1871, Amban. Jjok 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, User:Jjok appended Sinmiyangyo at the end of the title of this section of the Talk page. I've only initiated a discussion at Senkaku Islands, and as far as I can remember, I have never edited or commented at Sinmiyangyo. I assume this means he plans on initiating a discussion at Sinmiyangyo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole thing was controlled by South Korea. What is "alternatively administered"? Is there actual Japanese administrative presence on the islands? --PalaceGuard008 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Administration is not a placement of the area as part of administrative regions. Administration is a present sovereignty and controll of the islets which is protested by Japan.
• Only one country administers the disputed areas, never two.
• "Alternatively administered" is not a correct term used. Research and study needed.

Kingj123 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The cadaster registration are administerative actions which is admited by the judicial precedent and Japan do. On International Law, it is accurate that South Korea is occupying and the sovereignty(contain administration) is not fixed. UN also say sovereignty is unsettled.--Opp2 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Koreans are at least controlling the islets. Japanese cannot enter. How can a country administer when they can't even enter these rocks? Kingj123 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws, 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 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've seen this comment from you three times, kingj. I'm not sure where your argument is, that international laws should just be ignored and we go on moral imperative? Wikipedia for one explicitly disallows using "moral" arguments. The UN doesn't stop the Korean patrols or the Japanese patrols around the islands. They stay out of this issue. Korea explicitly refuses to go to any internation arbitration regarding this issue. The fact is both countries mirror one another in almost every way regarding the islands essentially without residents (no towns, cities, and so on). --Cheers, Komdori 15:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So what's your point, Komdori? Dokdo has at least one couple living on the it. It's too small to be a city or a town. You keep bringing up these unrealistic points that sound good when you mention it but flawed/terrible under closer inspection. (Wikimachine 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

So, Kingj, tell me. Are "they" reverting your removal of "alternatively administered"? Do you need some help? Because I'll offer some. (Wikimachine 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Philip Baird Shearer, your revert is invalid if you do not provide warrants behind your revert. (Wikimachine 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

... the discussion is getting sidetracked. the question is, what does everyone think about the term "alternatively administered"?

The article seems to indicate that Korea controls the islands, but Japan sometimes does surveys in the EEZ, is that right?

If that is the case, then incursions into the EEZ is not "administration", by the simple fact that the EEZ is not part of the territorial sea nor contiguous zone. Unless there is some evidence that Japan has some control over the land territory, the territorial sea (12 nm zone), or the contiguous zone (24 nm zone), then I don't think "alternatively administered" is justified. --PalaceGuard008 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to retouch it as follows.

Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently occupied by South Korea (where they are known as Dokdo (Solitary islands)), but also claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima (Bamboo islands)).

I think that it is an appropriate expression in International Law. --Opp2 02:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that concession, Opp2. It used to be a big deal for you in the dispute prior to the last. (Wikimachine 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

The Kyodo News reference(ref number 2 I think) is a Japanese news source that specficially states that the administration over islands is by Korea. Japanese administration or alternative administration is not even mentioned. Accordingly, I don't see a reason why this referenced fact should be left out. "Alternative administration" by Japan is just POV attempt at match tit for tat. It's unreferenced and doesn't belong. If anyone has references please provide it. Thanks.melonbarmonster 04:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the compromise version? Why do we need to force down a word that is essentially meaningless? We can't really consider the "propaganda couple" as inhabitants, as they are specifically placed there by the government. The consensus version seems to be agreed to by both people on the Japanese and Korean sides. The administrative work (on both sides) is by far accomplished solely by the paperwork of their respective towns/counties/etc. Who happens to be standing on it today or tomorrow is essentially insignificant as they are not doing any administrative work, they are doing the "controlling" work. --Cheers, Komdori 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term is meaningless. Administration does include paperwork done by Shimane and Ulleung but the term refers primarily to overseeing and managing of dock, lighthouse, visitors to islands, maintenance, etc.. If you want to visit the islands, conduct research on islands, etc., you need to submit to Korean administration. If even a Japanese source states this as fact, I don't see why it needs to be left out. I will wait for comment before making edit as I did last time.melonbarmonster 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All those actions are not only having more to do with the "control of the islands," but are also specifically and continually contested by the Japanese government as illegal. When we discuss administration we really should be considering the accompanying zones since they are of course what the dispute is all about (see the article for details). For studies, visits, etc., permits are made to the Japanese government for Japanese studies and to our government for Korean studies. Both complain to each other everytime one happens since they both say they have administration rights. You also shouldn't ignore the fact that literally thousands of records are being kept and administered by each government elsewhere regarding this. Surely you aren't suggesting that both sides don't have "administrative offices" in charge of the region. While their duties might vary somewhat, it's not our job to determine the validity of either. For NPOV and peace of mind, I also support the compromise version removing the somewhat redundant term from both. "Control" covers everything we need to cover for the Korean side. --Cheers, Komdori 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you're claiming about disputes. However, most of administration involves government processes that stem from "control of the islands" whereas dispute claims are a separate matter. It is a referenced fact that the islands are currently administered by Korea although I'm open to further references that state otherwise. Do you have a problem with this reference?melonbarmonster 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He is picking on the literal term of "administration" because I don't think the issue of "administered" and "alternatively administered" ever was a problem. The media or other articles don't even use "alternatively administered". I agree that this should be deleted. Good friend100 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See here, at Kuril Islands dispute. It is worded with "administered by Russia, but also claimed by Japan." Yet, Komdori is making no move to change this to "alternatively administered by Japan". I see this as POV pushing and simply Komdori's own POV against Korea. Good friend100 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the situation is probably simpler when there are towns and cities and perhaps Japan doesn't have administrative offices, I don't know. Maybe that one should change, too. In fact, now that you mention it, it probably should because my limited memory seems to recall they actually recognize each others' paperwork as valid. I can't recall for sure, though, and I admittedly am not an expert on Russo-Japanese policies. Editors who have more expertise should make the changes. I don't have all the millions of articles in my head. We're working on this one, not that one.

Please, try to assume good faith. Going around and setting out unfounded statements that editors are "against Korea" is pointless, against policy, and certain not going to help progress in articles. --Cheers, Komdori 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The formula "administered by X, claimed by Y" shows up quite often on maps, even if Y may also have offices and paperwork that in principle perform administrative functions related to the territory. One example: Image:Antarctica.jpg (Falklands Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands). Also common in lists like this one. In such usage, I think it's clear that effective control of the actual island is meant. It seems there's a spectrum of meanings from occupied through owned, with administered and controlled somewhere in the middle. My guess is that administered is chosen as a shorthand for maps and lists, where the desire is to use a relatively innocuous-sounding term without strong positive or negative connotations. I don't see a problem with using that formula in the article, either, but since we have more space available in the article, we can also describe the situation in a sentence or two and get the facts across. --Reuben 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If they had villages, etc. I would be more inclined to support administered; is there anything wrong with the compromise version of controlled? There was a discussion quite a ways back, if I recall, between those who wanted administered (which kind of implies a bit too much) and occupied (which kind of implies too little, perhaps). Is there anything that is inherently lost by simply using "controlled"? --Cheers, Komdori 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets just use "administered" and "claimed" instead of "controlled" or "owned". I don't want another large fight about this. Good friend100 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Administered kind of implies (in this case) that they're the only one who has the offices, primarily because there are not really any people there to be administered, so the usage falls back to the paperwork. Controlled gets the point across and as Reuben noted is what is "really meant" by it. --Cheers, Komdori 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that. To me, administered clearly refers to effective administration actually on the island. It's quite parallel to many other cases, such as the South Sandwich Islands or Senkaku. Not many people would read "administered by X, claimed by Y" and think of paperwork. --Reuben 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, but I (and others) seem to have interpretted it a different way. Do you lose anything by using the word "controlled" by itself since there is some objection? --Cheers, Komdori 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If Korea side uses the term such as "administered", Japan side should also oppose it. Because present occupation by Korea are invalid for the Japanese protest on International Law. --Opp2 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, didn't you just agree above to let this go? Komdori, sorry but yes there is a village on Dokdo - it's 2-people village (a couple) with a small coast guard force. And where's your proof about any of the administering policies on either side and the interpretations of the word "administer" under "international" law? Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. Since most of the media, maps, etc. use "administer" and "claim", so are we. Ok? We're not experts. Remember that. (Wikimachine 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

We can't count a propaganda couple subsidized by the government explicitly to sway cases such as this. Sorry. --Cheers, Komdori 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry too, that's your government as well. (Wikimachine 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

South Korea isn't communist and get your facts straight. The couple decided to live there, not because the government forced them to be there so South Korea can say "look theres civilians living on the islets its ours".

What do you mean by "village"? Certainly Japan must do some "paperwork" on Kuril islands if there are 30,000 people when it administers a piece of rock with 40 people on it. Its not "you might be right". Reuben is right in that most people dont go behind the scenes to check out whos doing what. South Korea administers the island but Japan also claims it. Thats about it. Good friend100 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Effective control(exercise of administration) should be peaceful on international law

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148

First, it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the 'prescribing' state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence.

The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.

Textbook on International Law by Martin Dixon

The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.

The expression to disregard International Law cannot be allowed. --Opp2 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opp, that seems to be quite off-topic. You're arguing about a set of rules for prescription of ownership, and the topic in this section is how / if to use the word "administration." --Reuben 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And, what is the reason to have to use administration with the problem on International Law? What is the problem in occupation? Do TIME and BBC have problems? --Opp2 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... what? I'm trying to understand your argument, but it's not very clear. Principles for prescription of ownership are neither here nor there, unless we're to start prescribing ownership - which we aren't. --Reuben 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Which impression of OCCUPATION and ADMINISTRATION is good? Which word feels that there is validity? "claimed by X and Y. occupied by X and Y express her protest" is the most appropriate and equal(NPOV) expression.--Opp2 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass media etc.

• CIA The world fact book “South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954”[21]
• BBC “Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953”[22]
• TIME “Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal.”[23]
• The Columbia Encyclopedia “the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.” [24]
• TVNZ “South Korea has built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets despite repeated protests by Japan.” [25]

South Korea and Japan are equal about the claim. It is an expression that is more advantageous for South Korea than these. Are you still dissatisfied?--Opp2 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opp your comments tend to mess up the margains. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page if you're not familiar with using talk page margains.

It may be more advantageous for SK than Japan from a POV perspective but the Kyodo News reference clearly shows that administration of these islands falls to SK rather than Japan. I think we should defer to referenced facts in cases like this rather than debating Korean and Japanese POV arguments.melonbarmonster 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's claiming that Dokdo isn't claimed by Japan, controlled by SK, etc..

And Korea had all the right to defend it's own territory post WWII against Japanese encroachment on Dokdo. Japan's claims only go back to 1905 terra nullius claim which everyone knows was absolutely invalid due Korea's earlier claim and the fact that the claim was made under military coercion. SK doesn't even recognize Japan's claims of dispute.

As for the issue "administration", we have a Japanese new source that specifically states that the islands are administered by Korea! Provide references that oppose this or state that Japanese "alternatively adminsters these islands".melonbarmonster 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The term occupied territories (see that article) in general refers to regions distinct from the recognized territory of a sovereign state but which it controls, especially with military forces. Dokdo is disputed, not occupied. Get your facts right, Opp2. --DandanxD 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And a lot of votes were tossed out on the Dokdo side while some dubious ones were left on the Liancourt Rocks side. This is a shameful episode in Wikipedia history. I can't believe the admins allowed this. I guess this place is totally full of pro-Japan people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.212.69.195 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) -- copied from Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11 by Nightshadow28 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was full of pro-Japan people, wouldn't we have moved it to Takashima? Your logic is a bit faulty here. Parsecboy 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, its only temporary and we can always move it back. And don't blame the admin who did this, he was simply uninformed of all the things that were going on in here. Good friend100 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's actually 55.22% majority - if you take out 3 invalid voters for Liancourt Rocks that the "NPOV admins & their buddies" "missed". 37/67. (Wikimachine 01:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Nice irony here. Reading through the archives I see your major argument was that in Google, Dokdo had a 10% count advantage. That's exactly 55%. I didn't read all the archives but it seems that was only one test. Since here you are saying 55% is not much then you seem to contradicting your sentiments in the archives where you seem to refer to this unreliable 10% as a massive amount. Besides it would seem that reading the admins comments it's because he was not convinced by your arguments rather than a straight count.

I thought that the majority does not matter anyways. Kingj123 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the Liancourt Rocks people could have been the minority and it could have still moved. --Cheers, Komdori 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, although the Dokdo people have been the minority, the article could have stayed. --Kingj123 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We can always change it back. Good friend100 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing's clear, there was no consensus. (Wikimachine 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Let's stop fiddling over this. Komdori and Endroit are obviously very smug about this and LactoseTI is praising the admin who moved this article. We can always move it back, stop talking about it and move on. Good friend100 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As for a consensus, a supermajority was essentially satisfied, well beyond what would ever really be needed. If you ignore the votes that are based solely on soverignty or the like, there was a tiny portion indeed. Good friend, you're right, just get 100 or so established editors together (35 more voting for Dokdo than voted for Dokdo in this poll, I mean) with you and you can reverse the percentages, though I still doubt it will move based on the issues discussed before. I agree it was perhaps a particularly bitter move, so it's probably best to get this all behind us. --Cheers, Komdori 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hah! A bitter move for us you mean. Good friend100 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's sure sign of pretty good face, Komdori. Are you implying that Good friend100 will plant 100 meat puppets with all edits above 100? I'd really love for a professor to come here & lecture us on what "solely on soverignty or the like" means. As far as I remember, Dokdo advocates provided much more warrants than that on why the article should remain as Dokdo. (Wikimachine 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Why are 100 more votes required for Dokdo? Why are the requirements higher? Liancourt Rocks only had a thin margin for majority. I don't understand how this move could have happened when there was no clear consensus...--165.244.20.220 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not higher; to get the same percentage the other way round, you'd need over 100 people voting, approximately an additional 35 votes for Dokdo without any additional votes for Liancourt Rocks (in other words you'd need more than twice what voted for Dokdo in this previous poll). This is even if you count the votes with no reasons that were just signatures (which don't really count per the rules) or the ones that aren't in line with policies (soverignty for example isn't valid). Even not following the rules the consensus was kind of clear with a supermajority. A 14 editor/20% margin isn't really "slim," and it gets wider when you actually follow the rules. --Cheers, Komdori 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no active claim on Japan right now. S Korea has always exercised firm soverignity on the rock, and I wonder why is there a big fuss to why Liancourt should be the main name----Since the Japanese claim has been dormant (I didn't say they drop it), Dokdo is increasingly used that Liancourt in the international arena....Mr Tan 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We've beaten all this to death in the archives before and during the recent RM. Let the move stuff drop. After a suitable time we can always come back to it if need be, if it seems likely the consensus would have so dramatically changed. --Cheers, Komdori 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact 1- There was no clear consensus. A 55.22% majority is just not good enough in my book.

Fact 2- The poll was unfairly conducted and probably warrants an investigation.

Fact 3- A definite reason for a proposal to move is absent. There was no true justification for even a discussion of a move.--165.244.20.220 02:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The source assumed that SCAPIN677 is still effective is requested. I found the article on Korea Times about this theme.[26] This article is very interesting.

Korea Times
However, after the Napoleonic Wars, international law underwent a transformation, and “annexation” was no longer permitted.

There are scholars who are classifying annexation into the cession. Does the author say that the cession is unlawful? I do not know the scholar of International Law who assumes that the cession and annexation are unlawful.

Korea Times

• In the modern era, conquest must be followed by military occupation. The Hague Regulations (1907) specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
• In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest

To begin with, the conquest indicates the military subjugation and occupation. Does the author think that there is a peaceful conquest? The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) is a law of war. It provides for the administrate of occupied territories of the war. Most(all) scholars of International Law say that the conquest became illegal after WW1.

ex.Sharon Korman[27]

Sharon Korman shows how the First World War - which led to the rise of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of way - prompted the reconstruction of international law and the consequent abolition of the title by conquest.

If the conquest is lawful, International Military Tribunal for the Far East clearly becomes unlawful.

Korea Times say
As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG).

What does USMG mean? U.S. army, occupation forces in Iraq or DoD? Were there two governments in the United States?　Was the United States a divided country such as China and Taiwan? Which country has approved the USMG? Common sense was disregarded, and a very interesting insistence. However, grounds are uncertain.
Should I adopt this article as a citation? A lot of annotations and rebuttals will be needed for normal International Law if it adopts--Opp2 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Nomelonbarmonster 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative to administration, occupation, and control (which are all commonly used to mean the same thing, but with different connotations), how about saying that South Korea maintains a physical presence on the island? I think that states the matter succinctly, without shades of approval or disapproval. --Reuben 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical presence is a vague term that doesn't bring clarity to matter at hand. Administered by SK is a referenced fact(Kyodo News article). Unless someone can offer new references regarding alternative administration, I don't understand why this term is problematic although I'm open to suggestions and explanations. melonbarmonster 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to find a compromise Reuben. You're right in that all three of those terms have slightly different shades of meaning to different people, and there's no reason to be ambiguous. The opening is our chance to paint in unambiguous, broad strokes, being as clear as possible and describing details later on in the article. I'd support this compromise as perhaps going one better than any of the three other choices. I might add that this is a chance to pick a term that will let the opening stay even more stable. Neither side can argue about what it means, or that it's current fact. If a reader read just the opening, they couldn't get "steered wrong" by it, unlike like they could with actually all three of the other terms. --Cheers, Komdori 22:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How can somebody get confused by reading "administered by Korea but also claimed by Japan"?. I'm sure most readers who search for this article are aware of the dispute. Good friend100 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that's clear. I'm just throwing out another possibility for discussion, which I think is also reasonable, and perhaps more informative. In other words, please take this section as an independent suggestion, apart from the merits of "administered." --Reuben 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that "administered by Korea but also claimed by Japan" is clear.

However, I also think the term "occupied" is a less clear term. The ambiguity of the term is why Japanese POV editors are in support of it. For example, "occupied" is used often to describe perceived forced occupations such as US occupation of Iraq, Israel occupation of Gaza strip, etc.. Why leave open the possibilities for such mischaracterizations and miscomparisons when we have clear terms available? I see no reason to abandon accurate terms for more ambiguous ones especially when we have Japanese news references that support this.melonbarmonster 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this case was fairly clear cut. Korea controls and administers the island, Japan claims it. All of those terms (including "occupy") have clearly defined meanings in international law. Of these terms, "control" probably has the lowest threshold and is most easily satisfied. Administration means some enforcing of a country's laws. That's a higher threshold, but given Korea's exclusive possession of the islands it is almost certainly satisfied too. (For the avoidance of doubt, EEZ is not territory.)-- (unsigned by User:PalaceGuard008)

We can't assume editors to necessarily know the difference. Administer might imply internationally recognized jurisdiction, which frankly we don't have. I'm not entirely happy with occupied, either, because I think it might suggest something illicit, which isn't necessarily the case, either. Controlled or something to do with physical presense most clearly let a reader know is going on succinctly. --Cheers, Komdori 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "administration" is a simple enough word that readers and editors won't confuse it with "internationally recognized jurisdiction". Come on Komdori.melonbarmonster 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps you didn't understand what the phrase meant? What it means is that some people with think the "administration" is "internationally recognized," when in fact it is not recognized outside of Korea. --Cheers, Komdori 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I comprehend your POV conern but it's unrealistic. It's a referenced fact from a Japanese news source and you're subjective fear that it might possibly misunderstood is hardly convincing enough. It sounds outright tenuous and far-reaching to me.melonbarmonster 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that a single Japanese source is clearly authoritative in English word usage rather than English language encyclopedias. —LactoseTI^T 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They use "administered" for disputed territories. "Occupied" is correct since South Korea does occupy it, but it is probably considered too strong. Good friend100 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All the terms on their own suffers from the same concerns I think. That's why I was going with "controlled and administered".melonbarmonster 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, I waited almost 12 hours for further comments and responses before going ahead with my edits. Please reciprocate the courtesy and give people a chance to further comment and respond to you before reverting back.melonbarmonster 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, I will not tolerate your arrogant and uncompromising stance of reverting back other people's edits that reflect their respective opinions and good faith & your pushing with "cheers". I am quite open to different alternatives such as "physical presence" but when so many editors support "administer... claim" form, I have strong suspicions on why you would still choose the alternative when both are nearly equally acceptable. (Wikimachine 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

"occupied by South Korea" seems a view shared by many (including Washington Post and examples provided by Opp2). On the other hand, this particular phrase "controlled and administered by South Korea" seems unique to Wikipedia. --Kusunose 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you make a simple Google search [28], you see a lot of administered by S. Korea & claimed by Japan. (Wikimachine 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Then why not just simply state "administered by South Korea"? We don't have to use many words when one is suffice. --Kusunose 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I might add that encyclopedias are likely to spend more time to get their wording "right" and unambiguous than news sources. Are any of them using administered? I don't understand why people are insisting to use a word that itself is ambiguous. I guess they like the added implications that some people might get incorrectly? I hope not... —LactoseTI^T 04:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was because "administration" alone doesn't imply control. Since both "administration" and "control" are supported by citations both were included to make it clear as possible. Occupied is also supported by citations. It's just a matter of agreeing upon which word(s) most clearly convey the status of these islands.melonbarmonster 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Administration" is not as clear as other terms. Both sides administer to a certain degree, and neither is recognized as the administrative authority. Why not use a single clear term and explain in the main article. Unfortunately, not everything can be squeezed into the intro. —LactoseTI^T 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While your personal opinion is understood and is worth consideration, the issue of administration has been verified and with Japanese news sources. It's reference number 2. And the two words in question reads fine with the flow of the introduction and are both supported by references as well as address your concerns of accuracy and clarity.

And you are degrading assumption of good faith overturning good faith edits that were the result of 12 hours of waiting. 12 hours may not be sufficient for you but it's 12 hours better than your immediate revert. Return the courtesy.melonbarmonster 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a ton of sourced material in this article. Not all of it can be in the intro. We can be clear and not misleading and explain it all when we get to the main body. —LactoseTI^T 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No one's trying to fit a "ton" of material here. These two words are documented from Japanese and neutral sources and the wording fits smoothly with the introduction. Thanks.melonbarmonster 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your viewpoint, it's clear that there are several editors who don't agree. It comes off cluttered and unusual. —LactoseTI^T 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Claiming lack of consensus while giving specious arguments is really poor. Regardless of who does or doesn't agree, you're dissent loses meaning if you can't offer reason and evidence for your position. melonbarmonster 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than copy/paste, I'll leave it to you to reread this section. The nuts and bolts of it is that by including it in the intro can imply something else. In the interests of being clear, I'm sure we can find and agree on a version without these problems. —LactoseTI^T 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just state your position Lactose and let people comment. Good grief.melonbarmonster 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear from my above comment. Leave me a message on my talkpage if it is unclear to you so as to avoid filling up this already crowded page. —LactoseTI^T 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never encountered an "invisible argument" for the sake of a non-consensus claim before. That's kind of amusing.melonbarmonster 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have to be so picky about this so that we have to discuss this extensively, Lactose. We already have a good word to use. Whats even more funny is that this wasn't a problem before yet you are bringing this out suddenly. What is your point? Since the article was moved to "Liancourt Rocks", the Korean position got weaker so we put in "alternatively administered by Japan"?

"alternatively administered" doesn't make sense to me at all and certainly not commonly used in the media. The Japanese source says that "administered by Korea". Isn't this enough?

All we need is something like "administered by Korea and claimed by Japan" or "controlled by Korea and claimed by Japan", etc. Again, I don't understand why you have to start disputing the word "administered". Good friend100 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have problems with it, too. It can imply things that aren't true and presumably this is the reason encyclopedias don't use it. Do you have a problem with Reuben's proposal? Since we have one word that some editors object to, why not use on that no one objects to? As for it not being a problem before, it actually was--there was a discussion and it was removed before. Someone unilaterally reintroduced the concept. I suggest the reason people like the word administered better is simply becuase it does have extra implications. The situation is complicated, and our the validity of our claim/administration is not recognized internationally, just like Japan's is not recognized outside of theirs. --Cheers, Komdori 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra implications as in the presence? Senkaku Islands is similiary written. Good friend100 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the situation is different there, or perhaps that should also be changed. I'm not an expert on that topic. If you are, go there to discuss it. I'm talking about this article, and want something unambiguous and clear. --Cheers, Komdori 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So what "extra implications" does it have? It just sounds like you and Lactose are being difficult and claiming positions that doesn't exist for the sake of claiming lack of consensus. I've provided a Japanese news source that uses the word "administrated" to describe Korean control of Dokdo. If you believe otherwise you and Lactose are going to have to do better than just CLAIM "extra implication" or things "maybe" being different, etc..

Lastly, I waited 12 hours for feedback and comment before going ahead with the edit. You and Lactose are reverting back immediately and didn't start participating again only to justify your reverts. A little reciprocation of courtesy seems appropriate instead of immediate reverting. Cut the specious arguments and just be honest if you don't really have a reason for being against this.melonbarmonster 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)melonbarmonster 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We actually had a long discussion with Opp2 on this, and the whole point at the end of the discussion was... Wikipedia is not written with the language of the "international law". Therefore, even if under the international law both countries "administer" the island, the word "administer" is not used in international law in the same sense as that used in daily English. (Wikimachine 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree we shouldn't base it on international legal language, instead we need to find something that general readers are least likely to misunderstand. I don't know if Reuben's compromise version is the best possible (I can't think of something better), and I agree it's better than "administer." —LactoseTI^T 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with melonbarmonster. This article should be written like Senkaku Islands using "administered". It doesn't make sense how you simply try to change the wording here and not at Senkaku simply because you "aren't an expert on that topic". What "topic"? You don't need a "expert knowledge" to make Senkaku NPOV. Senkaku uses "administered" yet you do not even try to change "administered" there. I see this as POV.

Stop telling me to assume good faith. I have tried to assume good faith enough times. When CPOV editors call Koreans "ethnocentrists" and call wikipedia a "place for circlejerking for the Koreans", you don't even care. Yet when Dokdo or Goguryeo advocates do a bit wrong, you start exploding (ex. Wikimachine's tests which are retarded but your tests a fine). Good friend100 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try assuming it one more time. While you were here complaining about the latest "injustice," other editors were actually discussing this very topic over at Senkaku Islands, and the article is now adjusted. If you care about that article, then go there to discuss, not here. Since your objections were based on the idea of consistency, they should now be solved. —LactoseTI^T 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll assume one more time. Isn't that what Wikipedia should be? Good friend100 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with "controls," but per the discussion on Senkaku, it would make more sense to use the physical presense idea here, and controls there (since they don't have a physical presense there). --Cheers, Komdori 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, the Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands in Japanese and Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese), which are effectively controlled by the Japanese but also claimed by the Chinese, are titled the "Senkaku Islands."

In the same encyclopedia, the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese), which are effectively controlled by the Koreans but also claimed by the Japanese, are titled the "Liancourt Rocks."

This makes me wonder if consistency is valued in English Wikipedia. I think this article should be titled "Dokdo" for the sake of fairness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.111.214.149 (talk • contribs)

Please see the Talk:Senkaku_Islands page where this very issue is being discussed and the similarities and differences are being explored. —LactoseTI^T 12:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, is Les Rochers de Liancourt administered by Korea or Japan? Isn't it administered by Korea, but is claimed by Japan? (And, if Dokdo/Takeshima is decided to be named as Liancourt Rocks in the English Wikipedia, don't you think you should also change it in Wikipedias of other languages?). Amphitere 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See above discussion(s) for the first points. As for other Wikipedia projects, it really depends on the language in question. For other Wikipedia projects, they should follow the naming policy in their own language. That is, in Korean Wikipedia, it should stay "Dokdo" and in Japanese Wikipedia, it should stay "Takeshima." --Cheers, Komdori 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in Japanese Wikipedia, it's "Takeshima (Shimane Prefecture)". "Takeshima" is a disambiguation page. --Kusunose 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the French, Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc. User pages? Amphitere 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese page has Dokdo(獨島) with the French (despite Liancourt being a French name), Lithuanian and Finnish pages. German, Spanish and Indonesian displays Dokdo as "Liancourt Rocks" and no foreign language Wikipedias have the article named in the Japanese-form (except Japan). As for your question, Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is administered by Korea but claimed by Japan since 1901. --DandanxD 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As Parsecboy noted, these pictures are a little less than clear as to what is going on in them. Perhaps we could discuss how they should be modified or at least what captions they should have. --Cheers, Komdori 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Paldo Chongdo
  Paldo Chongdo
• Donguk jido
  Donguk jido
• 
  Haejwa Jeondo
• 
  Dongguk Jeondo
• 
  An 18th century map of Korea drawn by the Chosun court. 2 islands in the approxamite locations of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks can be seen to the east of Korea.

• Sigh* What more are you going to dispute?

All we need is a caption that says "A Korean map (date) that includes Liancourt Rocks" or something like that. Good friend100 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And don't take off the template, discuss first. Good friend100 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a caption for each map. I'm sure its NPOV but the grammer could be changed. Good friend100 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Japanese map, Korean Busan is included as well. Why is that?Kingj123 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)'

I don't see Busan. Good friend100 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To parapharse your response, "*sigh*, how much more are you going to be incivil"? Parsecboy's ideas are understandable, and no one objected to moving them here before. If we want to use captions, then it has to be a bit more specific--what is it is actually labeled on the map, and where it is on that map. Don't do your own interpretation. --Cheers, Komdori 20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, what do you think we should put for the captions? Good friend100 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if the maps are relevant, "what is it is actually labeled on the map, and where it is on that map." --Cheers, Komdori 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to describe both insistences of Japan(Usando is Jukdo or fabled Ulleungdo) and Korea(Usando is Liancourt Rocks) for NPOV. Both insistences are so much the better if comparable on the map like this [29].--Opp2 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:18thcenturydokdo.jpg

An 18th century map of Korea drawn by the Chosun court. 2 islands in the approxamite locations of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks can be seen to the east of Korea.

This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map.[30] According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (竹島／独島関係 史・資料目録, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane)[31], it is one of 『朝鮮與地全図』 (Chōsen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by 関口備正? and published in 1875 (明治8年) by 山城屋佐兵衛, 大蔵孫兵衛, and 朝倉屋久兵衛 (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14′N, 131°52′E (Liancourt Rocks, リアンコヲルトロックス) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I overlapped this map with an actual position. [32]--Opp2 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys should check the 3RR incident board today and see all the reports both sides are throwing at each other.

Somebody threatened me to file a report that I am a sockpuppet. Melonbarmonster is repeatedly asking LactoseTI to stop stalking but LactoseTI doesn't seem to care.

Can we all get along and stop doing this to each other? I'm getting sick of this. Why can't we just edit articles like we used to? Good friend100 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

but LactoseTI doesn't seem to care. Grow up. Don't post a message asking people to get along and then use that message to criticize others.

I don't understand the logic... Why was a poll held? What was the compelling evidence or theory that prompted it? The last time it looks like the issue was discussed calmly and there was consensus among regular contributors. AND most importantly, there was a real reason for reexamining the title. Can someone explain to me why there was a move this time? Or why there was even a poll? It seems like a hasty and unjustified move. Nobody seems to be explaining the reason why a poll was held and why the page was re-titled...--222.233.205.82 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not heavily involved, but here's my take: This page was originally at Liancourt Rocks, was moved without discussion to Dokdo, and managed to stay there largely due to vote-rigging and bad-faith behavior in previous polls. Now it is back at Liancourt Rocks, which is not a perfect title but does at least accord with WP:NPOV. -- Visviva 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: this page was originally Dokdo. (Wikimachine 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

I have not seen evidence of such vote-rigging or bad-faith behavior in the previous poll. There was significant vandalism and single-purpose account creation after the poll was advertised on a Japanese discussion site, but that was primarily after the poll was closed, and only served to disrupt the talk page rather than the poll as such. The poll that moved the page to Dokdo showed a clear consensus among established users who registered an opinion at that time. --Reuben 08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, taking a second look at it, I guess you're right. I was thinking of this RfCU, but none of those socks seem to have participated in the poll here. The archive makes very strange reading, though. Something odd was definitely afoot; I don't know if it was just A's remarkable skill at buffaloing the community (a skill he does not seem to have passed on to whomever his current puppets are), or what. -- Visviva 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the recent outcome has the appearance of being influenced by a spurious finding of sock-puppetry, along with private lobbying of the closing admin. --Reuben 16:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The move was sudden and wasn't fair on both sides. There were socks on both sides of the poll. What really got the attention of the admin was when Komdori introduced a Korean article that discussed about wikipedia and Dokdo and the poll. I doubt that Koreans would come here and screw things up. In fact, I think that a sockpuppet was made to have the same name of the author who wrote the article so the Korean side just looks bad.

If true, thats dirty playing in my viewpoint.

We can always move it back so I'm not too worried. Good friend100 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let it go. You're just fanning flames of bad faith with nebulous comments about non-existing socks, etc. As for that article, perhaps you'd like to tell us all how the person with the author's name came here and voted before the article was published? If you think the move was sudden, you haven't seen the mammoth discussion in archive 10 and 11 spanning a significant period before it happened. Not only did it result in a consensus by nearly any definition, but all the admins, etc. who voted came down on the side of policy as well. Try to be straight with the facts. The admin who performed the moved had noticed the chosun ilbo article and dismissed it, it didn't even play a big part. He reviewed the move twice after that, including once after he had moved it, even after Wikimachine, et al had had their say. The conclusion time and time again was to both stick with the policy and consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, once the admin makes a decision he usually doesn't turn it back. Husond at first closed the poll but then when LactoseTI rushed to him, he changed it back. We had our say after Husond made his decision. After that, he said that a change was unlikely. Why do you think there are so many Dokdo side editors asking what the reason was for? If its so clear to you simply because you got what you wish, its very ambigious to the other editors as to why this got moved.

Bad faith? Take a look at this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639. So, Komdori, you and all your "jollies", as you once described the evil Lions3639 and his 100 Korean buddies, want good faith from other editors.

Endroit thinks that melonbarmonster and Cydevil are sockpuppets of this Lions3639 guy? Give me a break.

Parsecboy must have had fun accusing people of sockpuppetry, and when Davidpdx demanded a reason for that, Paresecboy simply says "I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING CHECKUSER CASE". You or Parsecboy can't even say sorry enough to satisfy him. Who wouldn't feel bad if they get accused of sockpuppetry when they're not?

Good faith? You want good faith after your POV is clear? Its obvious when you want an "english" name for this article but at Senkaku Islands, you think Senkaku is the best name. According to your strictly NPOV philosophy, "Pinnacle" should be used because its "english". But there, you simply say that you doubt that "Pinnacle" is widely used.

It doesn't make sense how this article moved when "Liancourt" isn't even commonly used, but Senkaku stays at Senkaku because "Pinnacle is not commonly used. Then again, your NPOV reasoning doesn't fit with the analogy between these two articles.

Liancourt rocks isn't even widely used in the media. You didn't clearly give any reason that "Liancourt" was commonly used except for encyclopedias. If "Liancourt" was the most commonly used name, then why doesn't the media use it? Now, I'm not going into this anymore, but the move was certainly not fair.

Consider your own POV and if you expect good faith all the time, think again. Considering how LactoseTI tried hard to get me blocked again, a day ago, instead of having good faith to me, you lose credibility. My reverts were NPOV (well the later ones) and I edited the way Assault11 would be happy. But no, you know how some of these editors are stubborn. Writing that "Gaogouli is ours, bitch" just blows off Assault11's cover that he is obviously POV.

LactoseTI even accused me of "gamesmanship" reverting so that I was off the 3RR violation by a few minutes. No, I'm not an idiot. I don't play at that kind of low level. I didn't wait until the 24 hours was over till I made my 4th revert. Good friend100 14:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, please assume good faith and be civil. The issues you mention have been discussed at great length in the archives, and all your questions/objections have thoroughly been answered (what you mentioned about encyclopedias only being used, for example, is patently false--snuggle up with a good cup of cocoa and the archives for a looong read and you'll get your questions answered). Whining that Wikipedia "isn't fair" is not going to help us make progress on this article, it just festers bad feelings (that are largely ill founded). I didn't try hard to get you blocked, I just added a bit more detail to the descriptions of your clear disregard for Wikipedia and its policies, and how you seem to feel the rules don't apply to you. I don't know how my comment on your rule-breaking has anything to do with credibility, of me or others. Saying "someone else started it" isn't the way it works here.

I don't care what you think or how you feel, or really even how many rules you trample as you continue railing on how the world isn't fair--insofar as its off topic for article progress. Just try not to hamper the progress that other editors are indeed making, and if you can contain yourself please keep the disruptions/soapboxing to a minimum. Thanks. —LactoseTI^T 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the archives but Good friend100, I couldn't find any uses in the media of Takeshima or Dokdo. The BBC links that are in the archives only report what the names are in Japan and Korea and as I'm sure you know these aren't counted by Wikipedia rules. In fact, I struggled to find even one use of Dokdo or Takeshima in any respected source. Could you point to some? Reading your comment about Senkaku and Pinnacle I think you are confused by the term "English" for names. A name doesn't become English because it's a word in an English dictionary. Seoul is not an English word after all. The issue is usage. I keep seeing this idea that because Pinnacle is a word it is a correct name. English names often come from other languages. It could be Senkaku from the Japanese and Liancourt from the French. Choose what's common in respected sources and is not simply reporting foreign usage. That's what counts.

You think I'm whining that Wikipedia isn't fair? I think Husond made a good decision, considering what he was exposed to when he first reviewed the poll.

I have had enough of assuming good faith from some of the editors here and CPOV editors at Goguryeo. I am not saying that Wikipedia isn't fair and I'm not whining that somebody else started it. I'm pointing out the fact that you are POV and your actions are clear enough to assume that. Good friend100 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what being called "POV" means (you are POV = you are point of view)? I guess you are trying to say that I have a point of view? Of course, that's true--everyone has a point of view, even you. Luckily we don't have to wonder if Husond was swayed by anything of the sort, since he looked at the issue again in depth, after both sides had described their take on it. Please see the archives. My last statement on this is that if you want to be an editor here you frankly have to assume good faith ad infinitum, and you need to stay on topic. I know it's tough sometimes, but keep at it. —LactoseTI^T 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What Good friend100 has to say is just more than couple of ill-faithed comments. Don't go around telling other people to be in good faith when you LactoseTI haven't kept at it either. (Wikimachine 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Probably what Good friend100 wants to say is "biased". See WP:POV#Usage note. --Kusunose 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't see disputing the map gallery section on this article as good faith. You have to dispute everything, now that this article is Liancourt Rocks.

Husond looked in depth AFTER he moved the article. He told me that a move back to Dokdo was unlikely after this.

And don't comment as if you have done nothing wrong. I don't think you have been accepting edits as good faith. Almost anything that is edited on this article or Senkaku you revert, unless its something you like. Even when some of my edits on Chinese tributaries were an attempt at a compromise, you simply file me to block me. I call that bad faith, including accusing me of gamesmanship. That is why melonbarmonster is demanding an apology from you. I don't think you are in any position to tell me to be in good faith when you can't have good faith either. Good friend100 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since so many people are confused, I'll explain my view of what happened. Komdori and Macgruder wanted the article to go back to Liancourt Rocks, but since the poll prior to the last already contained Liancourt Rocks as a candidate, and it failed, they needed to find another reason to make a move request. And in process of blindly groping for new arguments, they brought in the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo - this they used to open a hole to spill in all the other alternatives & begin another poll. Once I agreed that the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo was something new & therefore agreed for a new move proposal, Komdori, who didn't firmly advocate his choices but merely complained POV, went for Liancourt Rocks, while Macgruder went for "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo. Ok. Something that really gets me mad is that these "NPOV" rule-abiding Wikipedians played on with so much indirect bigotry, personal attacks, and manipulation of data, etc., that every time they tell others to maintain good faith or control themselves, etc., I see them as complete hypocrites & their acts as signs of complete arrogance. (So, anybody who tells others to remain in good faith or remain calm automatically go onto my red list. The sad thing is that this atmosphere became an inherent part of the Wikipedia culture.) For example, when my data clearly shows that Dokdo dominates over the other 2 main options completely in these xxx searches, they gave really ambiguous, stupid, and very arguable reasons why it might be inaccurate, and they give their own searches that are even more flawed than mine. And when I point these flaws, they give really stupid reasons on why they don't matter. And because they talk really ambiguously and pushes their way into a lot of stuff, I am forced to talk into even the smallest things. And then LactoseTI comes in & tells me to not talk about those trivial matters. During all these talks, the discussion fills with my defenses and their offenses. Because they call even the most accurate searches false & they write that all over the place, admins & outside readers think so too. In the end, like some Wiki critics say, those who talk the most get their wish true in Wikiepdia. (Wikimachine 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Let me add, Philip Baird Shearer's archiving of the first half of the discussion has done a lot good give Komdori & Macgruder a fresh start. (Wikimachine 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. I've just spend age reading through the archives. Did'nt your original test/vote give Dokdo a 5000% percent advantage - a test that you strongly said was accurate. Then Kondori did a new test and gave a 10% to Takeshima. I think you redid that test giving a 10% advantage to Dokdo. This seems similar result. You say Kondori and Mcgruder have such bad results but you did the same basic test and got a similar result. The only bad result here seems to be the test you did. The test you just copied from Kondori is the one you say is accurate. 221.133.86.163 11:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikimachine. You cannot maintain good faith, while telling others to have good faith. I'm simply disgusted with your most recent attempt to block me and I think I'm going to join melonbarmonster and Davidpdx's party. Good friend100 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, all throughout this discussion, nobody was willing or able to explain the rationale behind the move. (Wikimachine 20:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

There's not much to be gained arguing with someone who has degraded to the point of name calling others' (well founded objections I might add) "stupid." As for writing the most, I do believe Wikimachine contributed the most content to the talk page during the discussions, but that's a non-issue. Anyway, to make sure no one gets the wrong impression, if anyone is interested in a full and complete description and discussion of why the article was moved per consensus and policy, check out archives 10 and 11. You'll fine all the arguments and the reasoning behind the final moves there. —LactoseTI^T 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You've said that at least 3 times already. Good friend100 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All I've seen is "After new evidence of meat/sockpuppeting was submitted for my consideration, as well as valid arguments regarding POV concerns, I've decided to overturn my closure of this proposal and move the article to Liancourt Rocks." and that doesn't explain much. I know Archive 10 & 11 by heart, LactoseTI, and I don't find all the arguments. And yes, their arguments were stupid, not they. Remember dual usage? (Wikimachine 00:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I replied mostly because most of the discussion I was the only one replying. I had to cover Komdori, Macgruder, Parsecboy, Philip Baird Shearer, Opp2, etc. All of them & I didn't lose the debate - (however admins decided to call it a night). (Wikimachine 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps you missed this description of why, in the end, you "lost" the debate. —LactoseTI^T 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I lost it because I argued it as if I was in a debate round. Husond does not think as debaters do. My Handy Dandy Guide is a better analysis. (Wikimachine 01:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

And Husond was obviously not convinced by your Handy Dandy Guide. The logic of My Handy Dandy Guide was part of the losing debate but you should read my Handy Dandy Guide is pretty non-sensical to me. Given the obvious fallacy of this kind of reasoning, no wonder you lost the debate. Reading this page here, all I see you saying is 'my reasoning was better therefore I should have won'. This is a self-defining argument. You need to face it. Husond, an experienced admin, was not convinced by your argument, and given the so-called argument you are displaying here, which seems to consist of calling people names and saying how good your argument was, I'm totally unsurprised. I'm right therefore I'm right is not really a valid debating tactic. 221.133.86.163 13:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Log onto your real account & face it up like a man. In other words, The Handy Dandy Guide was better than admin's analysis, but it doesn't matter because what admin thinks is the thing that counts. And no, it's not a self-defining argument. (Wikimachine 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, I've just read through the archive, and no-one else agreed. So your argument is 'My Handy Dandy Guide' was better because I say it was better. I'm new to this discussion and the thing that I spot is that you go round calling people liars and bigots. When your show yourself to be worthy of being Wikipedian then I'll log in. I don't really have an interest in getting into name calling arguments with teenagers.

I'm happy with what Husond said. "Article to stay at Liancourt for now". =) Good friend100 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Present article is being written as a fact that Ahn Yong-bok went to Edo and received Kanpaku's(shogunate's) note. However, it cannot be confirmed that he met the shogunate and even he went to Edo(Tokyo) where shogunate was living in the record of Japan.[33] Therefore, there are few Japanese scholars who thinks Kanpaku's note was fact. Even Prof. Naito who is insisting Takeshima is South Korea territory is denying this note as Ahn's lie.

もちろん、安龍福が述べているように、鳥取から江戸に送られ、幕府が審問した上で、鳥取藩主が鬱陵島は朝鮮領であるとする書経を安龍福に与えたなどというのは、全て安龍福の作り話である(Of course, it is all fictions by Ahn that he was sent to Edo from Tottri and after shogunate's interrogation the load of Tottori clan gave the treaty which described that Ullengdo is Chosun territory.)[34] pp.9

Therefore, present article is KPOV. It is necessary to retouch. --Opp2 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, a present article has made a mistake in the event in 1693 and 1696. The story of oki and houki is the second stowing away in 1696. --Opp2 10:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that present article was a translation of Shin Young-Ha's theory. And, this Shin Young-Ha's insistence is has been refuted by Prof. Naito.(竹島（鬱陵島）をめぐる日朝関係史p61-119) To begin with, Shin Young-Ha is not presenting source of his insistence.--Opp2 12:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

issues of present article about 1693 visit
<present article>

In the spring of 1693 in the 19th year of King Sukjong about 40 Korean fisherman from Tongnae and Ulsan clashed with the Otani and Murakami fishermen at Ulleung-do. The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and taken to the lord of Okinoshima. The lord of Okinoshima soon found the case outside his official competency and sent Ahn to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu (modern-day Shimane Prefecture). Ahn was then taken to Edo, where the Kanpaku (Imperial regent) of the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleungdo as Korean territory. Ahn was in possession of the note until he was seized en route to Korea by the lord of Nagasaki, where it was confiscated and he was held on the grounds of trespassing onto Japanese territory.

<issues>

• Grounds of this insistence of Shin Young-Ha are uncertain. A lot of mistakes are found. (Prof. Naito p66)
• There was no lord in Okinoshima because Oki was the direct control territory of the shogunate.(Prof. Naito p67)
• Ahn was taken for giving a strict reprimand.(Prof. Naito p68)
• Ahn was looked for out by two men at Otani's house, and going out was not permitted.(Prof. Naito p71)
• The Shognate's note is Ahn's lie because Ahn didn't go to Edo.(Prof. Naito p70)
• The meaning of the magistrate of Hokishu is uncerten. Shin Young-Ha said the load of Houki.(Prof. Naito p70)
• Ahn didn't meet the load of Houki clan because the Houki state was a part of Tottori clan and the load of Tottori clan lived in Edo at that time.(Prof. Naito p70)
• The Kanpaku at that time is unrelated to the Shogunate. The Kanpaku is not the Shogunate but emperor's subordinate's official position.
• Houkisyu is not present Shimane Prefecture but Tottori Prefecture.

I drew the Ahn's movement route in Japan in the map.[35] This map is based on this thesis.[36]--Opp2 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Amendment bill about 1693 visit

Ahn was detained in Otani's house at Yonago for two months, and investigated from the Tottori clan. The shogunate ordered to send them to the Nagasaki magistrate place, and to send them to Tsushima clan in addition. Ahn was held hostage by the governor of Tsushima Island (So Yoshitsugu). When Ahn was repatriated to Korea, the Tokugawa Shogunate demanded the prohibition of Korean from going to Ulleung-do against Korea. This led to diplomatic friction between Korea and Japan.

After Ahn was repatriated to Korea, he testified that "the Kanpaku (Imperial regent) of the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleungdo as Korean territory and I was in possession of the note until I was seized en route to Korea by the lord of Nagasaki, where it was confiscated and I was held on the grounds of trespassing onto Japanese territory."

The Korean scholar is alleging as a fact this testimony. The Japanese scholar is insisting that this testimony is his lie, because he didn't go to EDO where the Shogunate lived and the Shogunate demanded Korea prohibited Korean from going to Ulleung-do.

reference:竹島（鬱陵島）をめぐる日朝関係史p61-119 by prof. Naito Seityu.

Please correct my poor English. --Opp2 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't change parts of the article (as you did) without a proper discussion. --DandanxD 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

?? I hear the opinion here. --Opp2 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)