Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 15

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

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?

I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.

• All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it.

• Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).

• Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.

• Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.

• Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, although I believe the root of the issue is problems in the consensus building process on this talk page, and this is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Phonemonkey 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably got a point there. And I must commend you for setting a good example in your section (#Second paragraph) above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I see very little need to "cooperate" on edits that have slipped in by their pushing instead of consensus. These were never agreed in consensus. (Wikimachine 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

P.S. Oh, never mind. yes, please have those rouge rules in place, but please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Faking.2Fasserting_non-existent_consensus. The current version does not go with consensus. Also, I disagree nearly completely with your focus on me & Clownface @ Liancourt Rocks (it's a completely neutral version). Then clarify whether I should revert to the version prior to the dispute (b/c any new dispute must take place with the article in previous status) or if not what the rationale would be. (Wikimachine 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Hello administrator. At least, there is a naming convention about "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" by precursors, for avoiding edit war. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea). So if Wikipedians remember it, a little seed of unnecessary reverting will be removed... --Nightshadow28 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, I understand that in this recent edit of yours you switched the entire opening section with an alternative version which you have been building in your user section. You could have easily guessed that such a major change would be controversial. Perhaps your suggested changes should be submitted for discussion in smaller fragments, on this talk page first, rather than the whole opening section in one go. Phonemonkey 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My version is a neutral version so I was willing to risk that it'd be accepted, but there is another version when the article used to be. & they reverted that, I don't see much legitimacy in the status quo. (Wikimachine 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps you have some suggestion for how the current article could be improved? If you actually make some suggestions, we can discuss whatever concerns you, and hopefully get a better version overall. —LactoseTI^T 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sick of these cooperative & nice faces you guys are putting on, didn't I already state my terms on how the current version can be improved? Don't make it POV by putting "claimed by South Korea and Japan and controlled by South Korea". That's probably the only thing that's concerning you (you probably find the rest of my "neutral version' acceptable). How can it be improved? Copy-paste my "neutral version". We already had discussion abuot this already. (Wikimachine 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

So, you are telling us:

• You are sick of cooperative behaviour?
• Precisely the only thing that you think the other side cares about is what must absolutely be avoided?
• You are setting "terms" on how the article can be improved?
• Your version is the neutral version?
• The only conceivable improvement to the article is to adopt your version wholesale?

That's the most brazen-faced refusal to cooperate that I've ever come across. Blocked for 48 hours. People really shouldn't be obliged to put up with this kind of behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What source? All I see is a link to the image, and has nothing about "Argonaut" or whatever. I deleted it because its poorly sourced. Just shooting back what you shot at me. Good friend100 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we need a fact tag for the assertion that Japan makes a claim based on this map, but we don't need the sentence removed. It's pretty clear that the explanation means that some Japanese people think that this map shows Dokdo on their side of the line, and the comment explains why Ulleungdo appears twice. Also, let's keep shooting out of this. Alexwoods 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thesis has already been presented at this talk page.[1] I will add this thesis as a source at the article. --Opp2 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we need to make it less POV by adding some Korean references, hmm? Opp2 has geared all his nonsense proposals based on "NPOV, the Japanese side must be stronger here". Its too bad for him and any other JPOV here that Liancourt is regarded as Korean territories by almost all other countries and the fact that they only needed was the move from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt" to show that is disputed. Its clear that there are more evidence that Korea asserts their right over the islets. Are you going to deny that and try to tone down everything as much as you can? Sorry, but thats only going to get you in more arguments. Poor english doesn't help either and I'm totally disgusted with miscommunication on both sides (lol especially here). Good friend100 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please at least make an effort at being constructive. The established editors have all been around long enough to know this is not the place for debate of the political issues, or exposition of your personal feelings. Saying who you believe is "in the right" is just an invitation for someone else to come along and argue with you over the merits, creates an unnecessarily charged atmosphere, and ignores developing the article. Don't. --Cheers, Komdori 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for political debate, just stating the facts. So am I wrong about more claims from Korea? Adding a couple maps that support Korea's position isn't the end of the world, but for some JPOV editors it is, and they must rush to change it using WP:NPOV to make their edits justified. Good friend100 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I only described the interpretation of Japan as "Japanese argue". I have not been written that this Japan claim is true. If "Interpretation" should be deleted, it is necessary to delete the map. Because it is an interpretation of Korea that makes the island in this map Liancourt Rocks. It becomes KPOV. After all, you are insisting that interpretation of Korea is NPOV and true, and the interpretation of Japan is JPOV and nonsense. --Opp2 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just from my perspective of a neutral outside observer: I have no opinion on whether that Japanese argument should be there, but if you are going to include it, please put it in the text and do more explaining and summarising rather than extensive quoting of the argument. As it stands now, in the picture caption, it is completely incomprehensible to the casual outside reader. And please everybody mind the rules against reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the explanation has been excluded as an "Original Research" here. Therefore, the quotation of the thesis was most worthy.

In 1787, the French discovered Ulleungdo and named the island “Dagelet.” The British discovered Ulleungdo two years later, in 1789, and named it“Algonaut.” However, there was a big error in the measurement by British.

• Algonaut island (ENG in 1787):north latitude 129degrees 50minutes, east longitude 37degrees 52minutes
• Dagelet island (FRN in 1789):north latitude 130degrees 56minutes, east longitude 37degrees 25minutes
• Actual Ulleungdo:north latitude 130degrees 53minutes, east longitude 37degrees 29minutes

Till then, Ulleungdo was called Take-shima(island) and Liancourt Rocks was called Matsu-shima(island) in Japan. However, the westerner who had come to Japan misunderstood from British measurement error. He made a map and he made Algonaut island Take-shima and Dagelet island Matsu-shima.[2] Japan was also influenced by this naming confusion.

This latitude and longitude of Algonaut is completely corespond to the Takashima of maps in the Map Gallery. This latitude and longitude of Dagelet is completely corespond to the Matsushima of maps in the Map Gallery. Moreover, Liancourt Rocks is not such big. Therefore, Japan is assuming that the islands in these maps is not Liancourt Rocks. I cannot summarize these for my poor English. --Opp2 15:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What's your new policy on reverting? Ppl can make new changes but they can't revert inappropriate ones? According to Wikipedia's policies, revert is appropriate on changes that are not met with consensus & compromises are discussed while the article remains in previous form. Also, please reply to my question above - what the rationale would be for me to not revert to the version of the article prior (the one you described as extreme KPOV, which I disagree w/ completely) to LactoseTI, Komdori, & Opp2's unilateral changes w/o consensus. (Wikimachine 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

In general (this applies to arguments throughout the article) there are quite a few instances of "Japan argues this" and "Korea argues this," but what it really comes down to is that "some editor thinks it makes sense to argue this." My suggestion for the maps is that we dump any map that doesn't have cited sources up to Wikipedia standards discussing it. Perhaps a better idea might be to nix the gallery and make a new section or subsection discussing arguments based on maps. A gallery really doesn't give enough space to describe the rationales. Any map that people use in respectable sources for presenting arguments certainly has a heft bit of text associated with it. Any other thoughts? —LactoseTI^T 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not comply with your ROGUE rules unless you participate in this discussion w/ equal consideration on both sides & you are willing to respond to ppl's questions. You're responsible for what you've said & meddled with. (Wikimachine 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

The rule is simple: Discuss before reverting, and leave the article in whatever form it currently is, while discussing. The rationale is: don't edit-war. Simple. You can choose to stick to this rule or not; I will block you if you don't; you can then ask Arbcom what they think about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so promptly. You forgot about the other question I asked above (I guess I haven't explained enough). LactoseTI, Komdori & Opp2 made changes to the article "by agreeing amongst themselves", established "consensus through weeks amd months of discussions, which really is like 3~5 posts) & slipped in changes when nobody were looking at the article. Then, those edits are illegit, right? Then don't I have the obligation to revert them to the version prior to their edits b/c they are based on no consensus? (Wikimachine 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Those edits, whatever they were, were made before I watched this article. I don't care right now how they were made. (Arbcom might be interested in them though.) No, you do not have a right, let alone an "obligation", to revert an edit just because that other edit may have been bad. That's the whole point about not revert-warring. Let's see if I can hammer this into your brain: The basic rule about not revert-warring is: don't revert-war. Difficult to understand?

Of course, I could simply protect this article instead. That too would be on whatever happens to be the status quo right now. Most certainly the Wrong Version. But I won't, because I want the article to be open to those people who are prepared to do constructive cleanup work, and I want to give you guys a chance of demonstrating that you are actually capable of collaborating constructively. Which will be the only chance you have against getting banned by Arbcom, in my humble opinion. Better use it, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize some people might get excited about this, but I don't believe the term East Sea should be used in this article at all. The proper place to make the point that Koreans call it that is on the Sea of Japan naming dispute page. You'll note that the link East Sea itself redirects to Sea of Japan. This article shouldn't take sides on the name of the sea at all. Alexwoods 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the article shouldn't take sides, but mentioning that there's another name doesn't imply taking sides. There's a policy on this that's been agreed on for some time, under WP:Naming conventions (Korean). The consensus was to mention the name "East Sea" in articles that are primarily connected with S. Korea, or Korea as a whole, or Korea and Japan. In articles that are primarily connected with N. Korea there's a slight variant. In articles that are primarily connected with Japan, with the body of water itself, or have a broader scope, it's just the "Sea of Japan." The Sea of Japan article itself, of course, discusses the naming issues, and Sea of Japan naming dispute covers the arguments at enough depth to fully exhaust anyone's curiosity on the topic. But just mentioning an alternative name does not entail going into the dispute. It's a useful piece of information that the Sea of Japan is sometimes called the East Sea. --Reuben 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, didn't realize that was the policy. Thanks for clearing that up. Alexwoods 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but of course, policy can change too. Please feel free to suggest & discuss alternatives. --Reuben 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good friend, please follow the rouge rules; surely you realized those would be controversial changes.

• You added three "Korea argues" statements about the ICJ. The geocities site is not an acceptable source, as has been discussed at length in the past
• At the same time as adding these statements, you reverted some links to pictures Opp had recently put. We should talk about that before reverting it.
• You added to "Korea asserts" statements about the maps without sources (perhaps it's really "Good friend100 asserts"?)
• At the same time you reverted two of Opp2's (apparently sourced) statements.

I suggest we add the sourced material back as well as remove your unsourced statements (unless in the meantime perhaps you can find some sources). —LactoseTI^T 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed one of his sources, and it was the one that led to the picture itself, which doesn't support anything. And by the way, those two images were put up by me. And it is only logical that "Korea asserts", or do you think readers are too dumb to think that for themselves.

Look, theres a Japanese map made in the 1800s. Its got Liancourt as Korean territory. Pretty obvious to me that Koreans would naturally use that to strengthen their claim. Or do you think that even that needs a source? Good friend100 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There were multiple reverts regarding these things over the past few days. I don't know how somehow you thought it would be uncontroversial when you continued them today. And for your question, yes, I would like a source that says Koreans use that map as a source rather than the violation of WP:OR you just inserted. You are saying that you did research, found a map, interpreted it yourself, and then somehow drew the conclusion that Koreans en masse make the same argument you do. —LactoseTI^T 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the new source you added about the ICJ, it just says Korea doesn't want to go to the ICJ. It doesn't make the arguments you are saying that Korea is making. You are making quite a large blob of text here; might we be able to discuss it, or at least have you undo your reverts? Could you please also stick to the edit summary rule? —LactoseTI^T 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't take sides. Opp's sources are just as well biased, coming from a Japanese site (which we cannot verify), not to mention some Japanese professor who wrote his claims. See WP:V. I doubt that Opp's sources are going to stay there longer. Good friend100 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The supposed bias of any given source aside, Lactose is right to point out that the new section is a mess. It is filled with unsupported assertions, badly worded, and written like a press release from the Korean foreign ministry. It doesn't even reach the point where we would be worried about the verifiability of the sources. Alexwoods 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And the map is from the commons (in fact, there is a whole list of old Korean maps, if you care to look). Good friend100 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of the rouge rules would be to bring them here and discuss before reverting, instead of just reverting sources you have a problem with (and then adding your own sources that have the very same problems) as you have done. As for verifiable source, just because it is Japanese is not itself a reason for it to be unusable (the same goes for a source being in Korean, that would be fine, too, if it was reliable). The map being from the commons is irrelevant; we're talking about making arguments using the map as a basis. —LactoseTI^T 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear that up for me. What is "making arguments using the map as a basis"? The map is already being fairly used.

The only english site I can find is [3]. IMO I think its fair enough to use it cite the text for the Korean claim. Good friend100 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that even if we can use the map, we need to source the arguments. Isn't that a self-published source (and thus unacceptable)? —LactoseTI^T 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave you this site [4], only thats its obviously written from the Korean view. Good friend100 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The more relevant issue is it is self published, and thus unacceptable (see WP:RS). —LactoseTI^T 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of these sources are meaningless and therefore the additions are too. Get the sources, discuss then add. Until then remove these recent additions, because they are in essence POV. Relating something to the French claim over some other islands is original research too. Macgruder 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Macgruder and Lactose. I tried to clarify that is a South Korean opinion. However, I do not think that I am still enough. --Watermint 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to maintain balance, I propose you adding the following description , how is it?

United States opinion about this issue

• The US special mission ambassador James A. Van Fleet was reported to the US President Dwight Eisenhower that the Liancourt Rocks dispute should be solved through the ICJ.(See Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East)

--Watermint 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a sourced example. We can also have the Korea Herald article saying Korea doesn't want to go forward with the ICJ. I don't think the arguments Good friend100 makes can stay, though, as they are simply original research and unsourced. —LactoseTI^T 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I also think that it is the more nearly better. I am sorry to make it get confused.--Watermint 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

These are sources concerning ICJ.

• 07/22/53 Possible Methods of Resolving Liancourt Rock Dispute between Japan and the Republic of Korea by Department of State) [5]
• 11/30/53 Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) Controversy by American Embassy, Tokyo [6]

The United States agreed to the reference to ICJ. However, USA was feared that Japan escalated to the UNSC resolutions when South Korea refused. At that time, it is an age of the cold war. USA wanted to avoid the fight between her allies. I think that we should delete the part of ICJ. Because it is extremely a political matter.--Opp2 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Following is a sources from the point of International Law.

• Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.p21-22--Opp2 12:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ICJ holds no jurisdiction over the territorial disputes. It is an option if disputing parties volunteer to enter its dispute to the ICJ. Korea's official position is that no international dispute exists since the territory is under Korea control and its de facto rule is not in dispute.

In spite of all the Japanese POV pushing on Wikipedia, anyone with any access to academic journal search engines will find that almost all legal literature on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute sides with the Korean side.melonbarmonster 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making up for all the supposed "Japanese POV pushing" with some heavy Korean POV pushing of your own. "Anyone with any access to academic journal search engines will find that almost all legal literature on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute sides with the Korean side." Sure - I'm totally convinced by your agressive, unsupported assertion. Find that literature. Let's see it. Alexwoods 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. LOL. Buddy it's fine that you disagree. Let's talk about it. Might be good to cut the sarcasm for both our sakes.melonbarmonster 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And also let me know if you have any opinions or disagreement with my comments regarding the ICJ. As for academic journal articles. I've seen plenty of papers that come out on the Korean side but I've never come across a paper that comes out on the Japanese side. I've already looked it up so if you want to disagree go look it up yourself.melonbarmonster 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the section of ICJ done? It is necessary to point out the violation of Charter of the United Nations based on the above thesis if Japan claim add to the part. Though I am good even so, Korean will not be able to endure emotionally rather than logical. Therefore, I think that we should delete the section of ICJ. --Opp2 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, the contentious changes that Good friend added a few days back still have no sources, and are somewhat dubious. Perhaps it will be a good idea to format the ICJ section to just what is sourced at this point, and as we find additional sources we can expand it. For the ICJ section, if it stays, as well as the other "argument" sections, we should be particularly careful to solely use sourced statements. —LactoseTI^T 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to tidy up the section, but then realized there already is an icj section right above that was repeated much of the sourced details. I then re-integrated them together. I don't think anyone will have any problem with it. If anyone does, please let me know. —LactoseTI^T 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from being inflammatory and petty, your change removed a sourced statement without explanation, and rearranged the content so that the statement can't be reintroduced. It doesn't make logical sense to say who occupies the islands until we know who claims them. I am going to revert the change. This article is on the verge of being locked and any change should be amply backed up on the talk page. Alexwoods 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What's inflammatory and petty, aside from your sarcasm and tone, is that Japanese POV pushers have reordered every mention of "Japan" to come before the mention of "Korea". I tried to compromise by having Korea come first once and Japan first once.

And revising the paragraph so that the order is not an issue is a good thing. And de facto control isn't disputed. It should be stated and then dispute claims should follow.melonbarmonster 21:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit took out material that should be in there, and "inflammatory and petty" describes it perfectly. Who cares what order the countries come in? You do, because you're taking sides, so you shouldn't be editing this article. Part of WP:NPV is staying out of stuff that you're emotionally overinvolved in. To be clear: I am neutral in this. I'm not Japanese or Korean by nationality, ethnicity, or affiliation, and I don't care who occupies the islands. If you're going to be a baby about something as irrelevant as the country that you like better being listed first in an article, then you have absolutely no business editing this encylcopedia, and you certainly should stay far away from articles as contentious as this one. Alexwoods 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Melonmonster, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but by looking at your recent edit history, it seems you are going around and leaving a trail of bewildered editors wondering why you are so insistent at making controversial changes from everything from food, to sea lions, to ships, and edit warring to keep them. You should be aware of the rouge rules here, where we are not allowed to revert in this fashion, and that such controversial and uncooperative changes will result in banning. You have edited here before and are aware this is a contentious article. Please try to keep your behaviour cooperative. These are clearly highly controversial changes and should be discussed. --Cheers, Komdori 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It does look as if the alphabetical order idea is being stretched beyond reason as an excuse to put Japan before Korea throughout the article. That doesn't square up at all with other articles about disputed islands, where the state in actual possession is usually listed first regardless of alphabetical order. (Senkaku Islands, Khabomai, Shikotan, Itu Aba Island, Navassa Island, etc.). I believe Melonbarmonster is correct that there was a wave of re-ordering, insisting that Japan must be listed first every time, on the basis of an apparently novel policy interpretation that's not reflected in other comparable articles. --Reuben 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When discussing the order of the foreign language names, it seems we should definitely stick by it per the naming conventions (which means some of the other articles are quite likely wrong). Other places throughout the text, I'm not so sure, and I strongly suggest we figure out what the final policy will be before picking around at it. I liked the idea of trying to sidestep the issue by presenting things chronologically when possible. I agree that articles should be consistent overall, though, and this is a large issue, not just for controversial articles. Perhaps we should try to get some opinions for setting a general policy, and when we get one we can unify all the articles. --Cheers, Komdori 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Now I've had to block three editors in a row, all apparently from the same side of the dispute (which one was that again? I keep mixing them up. Oh yes, the Korean one, I suppose). Wikimachine, Good friend, and now Melonbarmonster. People will no doubt conclude I'm biased. I swear by everything that's good and holy that I'm not. It's really not my fault if one side sticks by the rules and the other doesn't. :-( Anyway, please continue the constructive discussion here, the rest of you. My personal recommendation would be to leave those naming and ordering details for later though, and concentrate on the core issue of how best to present the competing arguments. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been doing a bit of thinking... while it might be nice to alternate back and forth between the names, it's really not very feasible (because of a single insertion in the middle messing everything up). My proposal would be to use alphabetical order when there isn't a way to order it otherwise, but we add a banner at the top of the article saying that the names are alphabetized throughout and that it has no bearing or endorsement on the legitimacy of any party. Otherwise it seems it will be hard to set a uniform rule that is sufficiently neutral. --Cheers, Komdori 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to be constructive, but I think the order of the nations is absolutely, totally irrelevant. I propose that we leave them exactly the way they are right now and never, ever worry about them again. If someone writes a new section he or she can choose the order, but otherwise let's just not touch them and worry about something else.

Also, I am going to rv to my version, which as you'll note keeps Melonbarmonster's order, but includes the deleted (and cited) phrase. Alexwoods 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a policy, lest we get a bunch of people adding trivial bits to try to get their naming order in (considering that around half of the reverts over the past few days have been about naming order, it would be nice to be able to settle it once and for all)... although I kind of agree with you anyway for the rest of the article, the WP:NCGN policy says that foreign language alternate names must be listed in the order of the languages. --Cheers, Komdori 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the recommendation in WP:NCGN is being stretched way beyond its limits. It's referring to an intro sentence something like "The Liancourt Rocks (Japanese Takeshima, Korean Dokdo) are a disputed group of islets...". It's sensible to follow this for the infobox too. But it doesn't mean that every part of the article must follow the order Japan X Korea Y. If the order were totally irrelevant, nobody would have taken the time to come up with a novel interpretation of WP:NCGN to insist that Japan be mentioned first throughout. I think a reasonable reader will be surprised if the country in actual possession to be mentioned first in the text of the intro (i.e. not counting infoboxes, simple lists of names in various languages, etc.), and the fact that it's done that way in a number of other articles shows that there are others who share this expectation. --Reuben 22:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely you are right that it's stretched way too far to use it as justification for the entire article. I disagree that it should be alphabetical anywhere but the opening and the infobox based on that policy, or perhaps in the places where the alternate names for different features are. I do think we should come up with a general policy (or Wikipedia should, perhaps). One nice thing about alphabetical order is that it preserves the concept of minimum disruption--if the circumstances of a geographic area change, the article need not be. Another perhaps more tangible reason is that there are several lists of geographic features that should obey the geographic names convention, and it would be odd to have those different than the rest of the article. I do see why some have issues with the order, though, and for that reason I recommend a naming banner explaining it (as is in place in many articles in one form or another) and a uniform policy throughout. By drawing attention to the concsious decision, we can hopefully head off any POV accusations. --Cheers, Komdori 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Choosing a policy that puts Japan first is pointless in resolving this dispute just like a policy that puts Korea first is pointless. There is no clear, easy way of resolving this. One will have to be in front of the other in order. The best we can do is to word the text so that order is a moot issue. Also, order becomes a relevant issue when Japanese editors systematically change the order in the text which is what happened and what I tried to repair. The same would apply if Korean editors also did this.

On whether to state the occupation first or the dispute first, the status of occupation should be stated first because that's just undisputed fact. The reasonable thing here is to just state objective status of island and then go into the dispute. Starting out by wording the dispute is POV.melonbarmonster 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reuben: as for your other examples, I think they need some work themselves. The Senkaku one obeys alphabetical order of country names, but a couple of the others clearly violate the geographic naming list rule (they are simple lists of the kind we discussed and still aren't in order. The one even has "owned by" with "United States" in the infobox, which is clearly going over the line of neutrality. I suppose that they are this way because of the general lack of development in those articles, which tend to be a paragraph or two. --Cheers, Komdori 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison demonstrates that the argument from naming conventions is being used here as an excuse to get a desired result, at least by some editors. A few examples: [7], [8], [9]. If the order were truly of no significance, these edits would not have been made. BTW, I thought it was order of languages rather than country names; that's what the naming convention page discusses, so if we've moved on to country names instead, all contact with the actual policy has been lost, and it's frankly just a matter of lawyering to put Japan first. --Reuben 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are dead on that it is supposed to be language name. I agree that the motivations for Japan to "come first" here are likely not the best in some cases at least. However, it doesn't mean the result is necessarily bad. This article is more developed than almost any of the other disputed island ones, and I think it makes sense for it to take the lead. If we adopt the disputed island naming disclaimer banner that I suggest, I strongly suggest we do it on the other pages as well (many of us edit on those pages, too, I for one think it makes sense and is the most close to a derivative of policy, at least), and I suggest we follow the NCGN order (that is, language, not country name) so that it will be consistent throughout the article (ie not flipping around when we get to geographic features). --Cheers, Komdori 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make sense if the ordering were truly of no consequence, but edits here and usage on other articles show that it does in fact mean something. I don't really mean to comb over people's motivations for past edits - my point is that order is in fact being used as a way of giving prominence to one country over the other. I think a reasonable reader's expectation is that a country in physical possession will be listed first, and the other articles show that others have the same perception. --Reuben 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your idea moves backward to the advancement of International Law. International Law doesn't justify a one-sided occupation. Because it causes the war. I think that it is an anachronism and decivilization to acquire a dominant position if it creates a fait accompli.--Opp2 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a tribunal. They have different purposes and work by different principles. International law doesn't decide outcomes based on alphabetical order either, but that may make sense for some purposes in an encyclopedia. --Reuben 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

International Law is a common rule of the world. There is no obligation that this article follows it. However, it is necessary to esteem it. Because to make a new rule without "dispute" is more difficult. International Law has developed to evade such a "dispute".--Opp2 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hard to assume good faith here when Japanese POV editors like Komdori have clearly gone through and placed "Japan" before "Korea" and now pretend to claim a fair principle is at work here.melonbarmonster 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the editors who placed Japan before Korea throughout the article believed they were acting in accord with a stated policy when they did so. Isn't that good faith? Let's discuss what the current policy actually covers, and what a reasonable guideline is for cases that it doesn't cover. --Reuben 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, Reuben--it does seem like the order "means something," in that the reader may assume or infer some meaning from it. They shouldn't--because our intent shouldn't be to suggest meaning by order. Regardless of the order we choose, I suggest we put the banner there to explain that it really in fact doesn't mean anything. If we pick the occupier or controller first, though, we'll have to put the caveat that when geographic names pop up, it will be in reverse order per ncgn. --Cheers, Komdori 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I don't really object to your proposal either, as part of a more general policy. As a one-off for this article alone, though, any such convention will naturally be too closely tied to the immediate effect on this article to be really meaningful. --Reuben 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is not goodface to press logic in contradiction to International Law.--Opp2 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If the order doesn't mean anything, Komdori and his fellow Japanese POV editors would not have gone through and changed the order only to claim a principle in retrospect. The true NPOV way of handling this was to leave the order alone from how it was originally. Once the Japanese POV editors changed the order, it became a POV issue.melonbarmonster 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you learned a lot from your block. Alexwoods 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As for establishing a rule, something to think about: What would we do if the disputed territory were under partial control of two countries? Or if the countries can't agree on who is actually controlling it? Alphabetical solves this issue, which is presumably why the naming convention was made. Country name might make more sense on the surface, but as Komdori points out the article may be internally inconsistent if we were to do that... —LactoseTI^T 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Though it is uncertain whether we should follow the rule of Senkaku, I checked Senkaku. Because Reuben said that "actual possession is usually listed first regardless of alphabetical order (Senkaku Islands...)"

• section of claim: "china claim" is written first.
• phrase of "china and japan":1time(opening)
• phrase of "Japan and china":0
• island name(Naming):The old record order
• island name(Geography):Japanese name is first
• location order (Opening): taiwan is written first.
• location order (Geography): ryukyu is written first（The order of the distance).

I cannot find the rule that Reuben said. [10]--Opp2 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the intro and the infobox, but particularly the first mention in the intro. The first mention of each country is in this sentence from the intro: "currently controlled by Japan, but also claimed as part of China by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)." It's hard to miss that and the infobox. --Reuben 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, what is the point of your comment at 22:54? Did you put out an improper examples?　I could not be thought that your 23:13 comment is about only the introduction too.--Opp2 04:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I think my posts above are clear, and other editors seem to have understood them well enough. --Reuben 04:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Senkaku is probably the second most well developed disputed island article. The opening sentence there was kind of parallel to the one here for awhile. When this article developed more, it got left behind. I don't like linking articles together (if this one changes this way, that one much change that way), but there needs to be some general principles for disputed islands. Is anyone else interested in creating a wikiproject for disputed territory if such a place for general discussion doesn't exist? I'm not sure if it is appropriate, but it might give us a general place to discuss things like a good, neutral opening that might likely apply to all or most of them. I understand Reuben's concern that you can phrase it nice and neutrally here, but if it applies only here, then it kind of smacks of gaming. —LactoseTI^T 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have understood me exactly. I don't propose to link articles together, but comparisons can be instructive. If such a project does get started, keeping it to disputed islands is a good idea! I'm hesitant to tackle disputed territories altogether! --Reuben 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely not neutral. We should tag this article "neutrality disputed" before we do anything else. Kingj123 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a tag generally is a reflection of some specific goals/reason for the claim, otherwise it could conceivably stay there forever. —LactoseTI^T 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But, you cannot just ignore neutrality just because you can't accomplish it forever. Kingj123 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your concerns so that they can be discussed. Thanks, Phonemonkey 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me start. "The South Korean government knows that taking the case to the ICJ will put a huge disadvantage against Korea in terms of political and economic power." Is this sourced? It smacks of WP:OWN. Phonemonkey 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that someone's already removed it. Phonemonkey 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another change to the intro - moving the Korean and Japanese names into the first sentence as per WP:NCGN, and adding hangul and kanji to the respective names.
• Re-writing of the opening summary for the "historical origins" section. In particular, if Unified Silla really did not exist in the 6th Century there is an obvious factual error in there. I know nothing about the history of either countries claims so I'm afraid I'll have to leave it to someone else to dig out a source and make a correction. Phonemonkey 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kusunose mentioned in a comment that the kana/hangul names were removed because of the infobox policy. Personally, I don't think the historical origins section opening summary really needs to go into that level of detail. For each sentence there that says, "Side A says X," it may soon balloon to a "but side B says Y," "to which side A says Z." Might we be able to just use a summary saying both sides make their arguments based on historical records rather than making a hack/slash job at summarizing these complicated arguments to a sentence or two? —LactoseTI^T 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant adding hangul and kanji to "dokdo" and "takeshima" where it's mentioned in the intro, not the infobox. And I agree that it would be ideal if we could strip down that section to a bare minimum, but I want to check if anyone who may feel strongly against this to have a chance to make alternative suggestions first so that we can evaluate them. Phonemonkey 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to when Kusunose removed the hanja and hangul since they were in the infobox [11], and removed the Japanese characters to be consistent. —LactoseTI^T 06:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Silla existed in the 6th Century. However, Unified Silla is a name named by future generations to distinguish from the age that has been divided to two or more countries.

<Actual record>

• Korean record which was made in the 12th century described that "Usan-state submitted to Silla Kingdom in sixth century and Usan-state is composed of Ulleungdo."
• Korean record which was made in the 15th century described that "A lot of people(86 or 60) live in the Usando(Yusan-state-do)."
• Korean record which was made in the latter half of 15th century described that "There are Usando and Ulleungdo in the Sea of Japan" and "it is said that these two islands are same island". (There are two or more records, and the geography recognition differs at each record.)

<The Korean's inference>

• Korean think that the Usando of the record of the latter half of the 15th century would be Liancourt Rocks.
• Korean think that Usando would have been under of the rule of Usan-state because it was a name of Usando.
• Korean think that Usando would be included in Usan-state submitted in the eighth century that was described in the record of the 12th century.

Korea has gone back the age by two or more inferences. Therefore, your first proposal sentences might produce misunderstandings.

• Some sixth century records from Unified Silla mention islands in the Sea of Japan

Then, such records don't exist. --Opp2 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey - the slight reorg suggested in #1 is fine, although I don't see any need for hangul, hanja, kanji, etc. since they are already in the infobox. As for #2, the "Silla" vs. "Unified Silla" issue is minor (speaking as the user who pointed it out earlier): the incident itself was Silla before it became Unified Silla, but the documents we have are later, from Goryeo - but of course compiled from earlier sources. I agree the intro to the "history of the territorial dispute" section could use a rewriting. I suggest you give it a go! --Reuben 09:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the background behind each countries claims (and therefore I have no opinion as to which countries claims are stronger) but I have summarised the section intro based on the source given. Hope it's accurate. Phonemonkey 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Terra nullius" is Korean interpretation. I am adamant opposition in this. A South Korean and a Japanese thesis have been presented. --Opp2 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall I think the edits are well done, but I don't see anything wrong with removing the terra nullius line from the summary, especially if there may be more to it. —LactoseTI^T 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, you say "Terra nullius is a Korean interpretation". However, the Japanese government, on its web page regarding the 1905 incorporation, states that "there is no evidence that Korea had ever had effective control over Takeshima around the time of the promulgation of the Imperial Ordinance. Therefore, it is considered that Korea had never established sovereignty over Takeshima". [12]. Isn't this the very definition of a terra nullius claim? Phonemonkey 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The civil law has the acquisition prescription. The prescription acquisition is approved by the occupation of 20 years in Japan.

Phonemonkey bought the country house 20 years ago. However, he never went to the country house because he was busy. Phonemonkey furloughed in the country house this year for the first time. Opp2 started to say that it was my country house. Phonemonkey say that "I bought this house 20 years ago, you never occupaied this house and I used this house this year first." Opp2 said that "You used it this year after having confirmed it was being occupied by nobody. This shows that you did not have the rights of ownership."

International Law is also the same. Peaceful and continuous occupation becomes strong title(Legal basis). Title might move by a peaceful and continuous occupation.--Opp2 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite get how that fits in with the terra nullius discussion. My understanding is that you are in opposition to the statement "Japan incorporated the islets in 1905 based on a terra nullius claim", is that correct? Phonemonkey 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I opposit to "based on a terra nullius claim". Only ICJ can be judged whether it was actually terra nullius. Even the scholar of International Law has various opinions. In a present article, this terra nullius is used to emphasize as the contradiction of Japan. It is possible to allow it if it describes as an interpretation of Korea. However, I cannot allow to describe like the fixed fact in the summary.--Opp2 16:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, it may kind of sound like that kind of a claim, but I'd kind of like to hesitate before classifying claims using legal terms (i.e., unless I see the Japanese government using that term, I'd hesitate to say that it is what they did from their perspective). Perhaps they considered it always an unincorporated part of Japan, and are just noting that it was never taken from them by Korea back in the days when you could get ownership by force. I'm not saying that's what they argued, my point is just I'm not 100% what technical legal terms they used then, or are using now in relation to the phrase "terra nullius." —LactoseTI^T 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one has the ownership(title), it is terra nullius. It cannot be called terra nullius because it doesn't occupy. The ownership(title) and the occupation are different concepts. Therefore, the quotation of the Japanese site that you presented is unrelated to terra nullius. It is not being written that Japan did not acquire the ownership(title) till 1905 in the sight. --Opp2 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you, Opp2, but you seem to know more about it than I do. Lactose, you're probably right that we should use legal terms carefully. I've rephrased the section intro and deleted the term. Hope it's more accurate this time. Phonemonkey 16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that this rule is effective now. There are uncooperative editors who edits continuousry without discussing. And, the accomplished fact of the edit is justified. The opinion of man who tries to keep the rules is not reflected when there is no penalty for such uncooperative editors. Even if we want to discusses about rivert, it is difficult to take the consensus because uncooperative editors don't participate in the discussion. --Opp2 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've finally corrected the historical inaccuracy from your 1667 Saito Hosen's Report on Oki.

Before it read as follows:

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

The last line is wrong. It was misinterpreted to mean Matsushima (Ulleungdo) was the boundary of Japan. First in 1667 Ulleungdo was called Takeshima, second the last line actually states this "州" (prefecture) is the boundary of Japan. NOT Matsushima

However now it reads:

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

Here are my citations.

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

See pages 37 and 38 of this document.

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

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

Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two island are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus the island (s} marks the northwestern boundary of Japan."...Here 此州 (thus or the island or these islands as sinitic characters can be used either as singular or plural) is erroneously interpreted as the "two islands." This can be rightly interpreted as denoting Oki making the northwestern boundary of Japan..."

Han Key Lee's article can be found here.

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

The other published citation was written by a Japanese man named Hideki Kajimura. The reference to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki is on page 16. I quote." The above mentioned expression in the Records on Observations in Oki Province should be interpreted as expressing Oki Island as the boundary of Japanese territory , as the Korean side points out...."Hideki Kajimura's publication called "The Question of Takeshima Dokdo can be viewed here.

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

All of these citations are from published articles.Clownface 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you guys take out the whole paragraph, until it is clarified who argues what and which of these arguments are ascribed to reliable sources. Remember, it's not your job to work out which is the correct translation, only which argument is used by whom. And I'd recommend to restrict it to claims made by official government publications, and discussions/refutations of such claims made in print published academic literature. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prof.Shimojo is objecting for Prof. Ikeuchi's interpretation(prefecture) again. [13]

Though I think that Ikeuchi's interpretation is correct for this matter, I said that we had to describe two interpretations(island and prefecture) for NPOV. Because both are hypotheses, and a problem of the possibility.--Opp2 09:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read wikipedia's own current citation in use for this reference it also concurs with the links I've given. I'm just saying use the information already cited.

Read wiki's citation number 36 below.

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

Opp, what good is it to post links to information in Japanese text?Clownface 12:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you judged which translation is correct, though you cannot read Japanese? It is possible to use it as a source if it translates. Thus, the both theories(island and prefecture) is described in parallel based on this source. --Opp2 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_WikimachineMore later. (Wikimachine 13:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

We just archived this talk page to eliminate wasted space. Could you post this to somewhere else (noticeboard?) and give us a link here instead? It has nothing to do with the issues at hand on constructively improving the article. —LactoseTI^T 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, it's just a bit large b/c I have been absent for a while. And space is limitless in Wikipedia's discussion space. Or I'll see it as an attempt to silence the other party. In which case the other party does not need to engage with the other party in a discussion under the assumption of fair representation. Also, the discussion b/w the admin & me was deleted, it was not moved to the archive. (Wikimachine 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Machine, if you have a problem with my handling of this case, I'd be only too glad to share the responsibility here with some other admins. Question is just whether we will find anybody willing to wade into it (will ask over at AN right now.) As for the rest, the complaints department is thataways. (And yes, if you wish to do an RfC, I'll certify it myself.) Anything that keeps these kinds of rants off this talkpage, because they really disrupt what has otherwise been a fairly good process for the last few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, give me time to move this to somewhere else. (Wikimachine 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

adding source Wikimachine mentioned in talk page, separating out into ICJ section based on Good friend's earlier suggestion Thanks for being more open, LactoseTI. (Wikimachine 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Dammit, I believe I meant to type Watermint, but while reading your comments here had your name on the brain, I guess. Sorry for any confusion. —LactoseTI^T 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding this source (kimura.gif) to the article? This only leads to an image of the map itself, and is not a good source. I removed it. Good friend100 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it might not be a good source, but why do you insist on reverting it without discussion in flagrant violation of the rules we have set up here? We need to discuss before acting. —LactoseTI^T 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I opened a thread on this before, and it was pretty ignored, and nothing was cleared up to me. So here we are discussing. Its not a good source, thats why I deleted it. You seem to say that it isn't a good source either, so what is your suggestion? Good friend100 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to bring up the topic of the administration box in the article. Japan does not administer the islets. We've fought over this before and the initial argument of the JPOV editors was that Japan "did paperwork" on the islets, which justified them putting it up. Also, they made a ridiculous claim that if the article presents that only Korea administers the islets, then it is biased. This isn't true. No media or internet articles say that Japan administers the islands too. This is simply a distortion of the definition of "administer" by several editors. Good friend100 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is just a conceptual confusion between the meanings of "administration" in the sense of "practical exercise of authority" and in the sense of "internal territorial classification", I'd like to remind people that there is no law of nature demanding you need to use any infobox at all. Infoboxes in Wikipedia are an over-used feature, imho. They really should be used only for things that are absolutely simple, factual and noncontentious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there's a reason classical encyclopedias consist primarily of prose, not data tables. Prose allows you to clarify, contextualise and hedge things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a way of clarifying in the infobox that Japan's "administration" over the islands is purely theoretical at the moment, then this should be done. I tried a while ago to tamper with the infobox to do this, but I am not familiar with how they work, so it didn't work. It's obvious that the infobox template was not drawn up with the possibility of a territorial dispute in mind. If we can't modify it to suit this article, then I am all for ditching it as Fut Perf suggests. But perhaps if someone with a better understanding of the infobox could make relevant changes to it then personally I'd prefer that. Phonemonkey 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My own way would be to axe out the Japanese inclusion of administration because Japan does not administer the islets. Again, I'm going to mention that the article will present itself as being controlled by Korea, there isn't some magic way to make it word for word neutral.

There are several sites and maps that don't mention Japan as administering the islets. The infobox is simply a fabrication by pro-Japan editors.

I doubt that we will agree to a new infobox. I think we should just remove the entire section, if pro-Japanese editors can't live with my edit request. Good friend100 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this again and again. Japan does administer the islands; see the template itself for some comments on what usage they are referring to. We're talking about what administrative category the respective governments categorize it. It's actually quite explicit in the template definition. We could, I suppose, change the label to something such as "Administrative Categorization," but removing it is simply censorship. —LactoseTI^T 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the intentions were when the infobox template was being defined, they obviously didn't have a territorial dispute in mind. They assumed "internal territorial classification" EQUALS "practical exercise of authority". This article is an exception because this assumption is incorrect. I would be happy for "Administration" to be changed to "Administrative Categorization", but if the infobox is to be kept, there needs to be an indication that Japan's Administrative Categorization is purely theoretical. Phonemonkey 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal. I'll add a parameter like "additional_info=" to the infobox template, then you can put the Japan-related stuff into that parameter and word it whatever way you like. Would that be okay? It would entail though to put the Korean (regular "country" parameter) first, and the Japanese (with some special wording) second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly what I would have done myself if I knew how to change the infobox template. Phonemonkey 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

See test at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Sandbox. Wording can still be tinkered with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, Future Perfect. I suggest adding "current administration" next to South Korea for clarity's sake. And maybe a nice dotted line between the two countries (oh the irony!). Phonemonkey 22:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that means we need to take both entries out from their normal coding and cram them together into the "additional info" field. Possible, but I'll charge you one beer extra for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, I'll probably not find much time working on that the next hours/days - but feel free to use my sandbox page for further experimenting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to throw a kink in the mix, but I think this infobox looks like it could be interpreted as siding with one group over another to an outside observer. For the record, Japan actually does actively believe it physically administers it and treats the Koreans as "guests." They regularly exercise their "right" to enter the territorial waters and perform studies, surveys, do physical work, and so on. It is not simply paperwork. My suggestion is to either a) leave the infobox set up in basically the same way, but change the word "Administration," or b) remove the content in a conclusion that we cannot present this complicated situation in a few words. It might be different if these weren't just some rocks with a few dozen people on them, but as it is the administration is in many ways somewhat evenly split. —LactoseTI^T 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the judicial precedent(Minquiers and Ecrehos Case), the ship's certificate of registry, the property tax and the tial are admited as evidence of the effective control. In the judicial precedent of Clipperton, it was admitted that the newspaper article by a French government was a display of sovereignty. There is a trial concerning Liancourt Rocks in Japan and is registered in the cadastre. However, these present administration acts by the two countries(Japan and Korea) might be invalid on the International Law. Then I think that we should change the term "Administration". --Opp2 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could it be as simple as just replacing "Administration" with "Claimants"? It doesn't capture the whole idea that it is administrative classifications, but its simple and hopefully neutral. —LactoseTI^T 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "demarcation" or "administrative classifications(Phonemonkey's first proposal)"?--Opp2 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with whichever of those terms you use, but I still believe that it has to be clear that Japanese administration is currently only in its claim to administrative rights. If we don't do this, the most natural conclusion which one would draw from looking at the infobox is that the two countries jointly administer the islets. (I don't think the administration is, in reality, evenly split at all - Japan normally refrains from exercising what it regards as its territorial right, for stability's sake, while Korea is busy building lighthouses and taking tourists there). Putting "current administration" would accurately reflect the reality on the ground without implying that the situation is necessarily permanent (hence the word "current"). I don't think this would be taking sides, because most people would realise that any territory disputed by two countries is likely to be occupied by one of the disputants. What do you think? Phonemonkey 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Phonemonkey, and I would be more likely to agree with you if there was a real settlement or some "natural" administration going on here. The fact of the matter is, though, that the actions (of both sides) are carefully constructed to give the illusion of administration of a place that really isn't big enough to be administered by either side, in a sense. No fresh water, barely enough room to turn about, and both sides are having big press meetings saying that either they are ferrying out a bunch of flag wavers, or that they are unilaterally surveying the ocean floor around their territory in a show of administration, etc. Of such a tiny place, the bulk of the true administrative work--the actual amount of government work involved, is not so different. I would prefer to get a term in there that shows more clearly that these are just classifications, but I hesitate to suggest that one side is "administering" more than another since it basically comes down to original research at that point. Both sides are claiming they are the only ones that are administering it. Korea says Japan is just "claiming" rights, and that ferrying people out proves "true" administration, Japan says that Korea is just "claiming rights" and it's being nice by not bumping the visitors off the rocks while it does its own "true" administrative work both physically (scientific expeditions around the islands, for example) and at home. Keep in mind that regularly entering the waters is itself a sign of both administration and soverignty. Both sides do it, so it's not really just a "paperwork claim." —LactoseTI^T 15:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Phonemonkey about the use of the word "administration," but I don't think that's terribly critical in the case of the infobox. It's much more important that the first few sentences of the main text be solid. If the infobox is really a problem, we could always go back to a version that only gives the names in several languages. --Reuben 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit unclear in my previous paragraph. I also concur that the word "administration" may not be the best and I would not be opposed to changing to to something else, for example "Claimants," or "Administrative Classifications," or the like. I agree with Reuben that it's not terribly important, only a minor issue--a bit more so than others, perhaps because of the little flags (I know it sounds stupid, but I'm sure that either having or not having the little flags bothers some enough to perhaps introduce a bit of instability). To that end, if we can't make it solid, we could dump it. I also agree that the opening text is far more important. —LactoseTI^T 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's useful to keep in mind something like the "principle of least astonishment." Based on what's written in the first few sentences, an ISO standard encyclopedia reader should not be surprised by what they read a few sentences later. This is, of course, a subjective judgement. That's part of why I think it's quite reasonable to list the party in physical control of a disputed island first. In the case of the infobox, if some readers will see the word "administration" and think that effective control is administered jointly, then that could lead to some astonishment upon reading the article. Reading it again, it could be made more clear. If somebody wants to tackle modifying the template, that would be fine. Y'know, though, what this page really needs most is pictures.  :-) --Reuben 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm no, Lactose, simply because Japan enters waters near Liancourt doesn't mean they administer it. They think they do by entering the waters and when they did, that was a while back. South Korea doesn't let them come near the islets and if they do, they send out military boats. Japan only thinks they administer it, they don't. Its true that they can't do anything but paperwork on it. If they administer it, can they land on Liancourt and make a bunch of measurements on it? No. Thats your own OR. Good friend100 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? I still think we should remove the entire box. And Reuben made a good point. Outside readers will interpret the information as if its jointly controlled, which is not. That, therefore is biased because it presents information in the wrong way. To us, it may seem ok, but to others its not as clear. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. Good friend100 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like we're all happy with dumping the infobox if necessary. Can I make a last suggestion? It's to label the box "claimants", and to put S Korea first with a label "current control". What do people think? If anyone still isn't happy, then I guess we'll have to ditch it. Phonemonkey 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that "current occupation" is better. --Opp2 04:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well nobody's talking. I just don't want it to say Japan "administers" because it isn't true. Good friend100 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Dokdo Center, which is used as a source forthis edit is a pressure group. While I find their analysis of the Korean governments motives interesting, I am concerned that this source falls under the definition of a self-published source. Perhaps you could find similar analysis in a reliable third party source? Phonemonkey 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How does it appear as a pressure group? Every single source I have proposed is simply hammered down. Instead, I have a better idea. Why don't you tell me what can be used and what cannot. I've read WP:V and this site is certainly not operated by one person. Good friend100 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:V, especially about self-published sources, which can be produced by one or more people. —LactoseTI^T 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• The site makes a fierce criticism of the Korean government for paving the way to a Japanese takeover of the islets, as well as stating that allowing Japan to take the islets will be a prelude for Japan to swallow up South Korea. I don't think this source is very non-partisan and it certainly isn't official. Its very name indicates that it is not a general media source. If this is not a pressure group, what is it?
• In answer to your question: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I am not "hammering down" your source, only questioning it; if you think this source falls under the above definition of an acceptable source then please elaborate.
• Sources don't have to be operated by one person to be self-published . Phonemonkey 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok, do whatever you want with it I'm not going to sweat over it. Maybe I'll look for another source, christ. Good friend100 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100, I have about a billion ton of sources saved @ my hard drive. You might want them. If you want, I could send them over e-mail. (Wikimachine 01:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Alternatively, you're welcome to simply present them yourself. Phonemonkey 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Good friend100 want to prove South Korea is running away from ICJ? In that case, I also agree. However, the source that he presented is unrelated to the content of the description(official claim). [14]This article points out that the activity in the waters doesn't become the title(ownership) of territory at Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953). And, the setting of EEZ doesn't become the title(ownership) of Liancourt Rocks. It is not an article about official claim.--Opp2 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we stop all editing on this article & wait for the arbitration committee to specify the basis for NPOV in this article.

That is, whether Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island disputed by Japan, or Japanese island disputed by Korea, or an island of truly ambiguous ownership and of Korea's illegal/illegitimate control.

This will answer all questions to the arrangement of the info box, the wording of the intro, and several more issues. The JPOV has used NPOV as leverage to push their JPOV views on an issue that really favors South Korea. (Wikimachine 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Nope. They won't. The Arbcom never decides content issues. They will most likely put some people under revert paroles, possibly topic-ban a few. And it will take a lot of time, certainly weeks from now. The content dispute will still need to be worked out here. No hopes for a deus ex machina to relieve you of that task, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we must first engage in that discussion. Also, we never know. I asked the arbcom to do so even if they usually don't. (Wikimachine 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Having seen dozens of Arbitration cases, some about much more intractable POV issues than this one, I can guarantee you with 150% certainty that they won't. It's futile to even think about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you look at the acceptance of the arbcom case, they explicitly said they will not address such issues. Any request for content direction has already been denied by them. —LactoseTI^T 01:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, out of the three statements:

1. The islets are Korean, legitimately occupied by S Korea, but disputed by Japan
2. The islets are Japanese, illegitimately occupied by S Korea
3. Whether the islets are Korean or Japanese is unresolved, and thus the legitimacy of S Korean occupation is in dispute

• I believe that 1) and 2) are POV, and that 3) is NPOV.
• You seem to believe that 1) is NPOV, and 2) and 3) are POV.

Is that correct? Because if that's the case, we're simply never going to agree. As I suggested on your talk page a few days ago, how do you feel about an RfC? (If you are, then before you post an RfC, we should agree on a neutral wording - I suggest one based on my construction above.) What do the others think? Or is it too hasty for an RfC? Phonemonkey 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the English Wiki is prejudiced (the degree is debatable, but significant enough) in that it's pro-Japan & many ppl actually don't know about this dispute well enough so Rfc could be a biased sample. I think that we should risk that the arbitration committee would voice its opinion on the the basis of NPOV b/c that's just not simply about content neutrality but also the framework in which the entire discussion would be based. Furthermore, the arbcom is final. Rfc still leaves space for future disputing & time wasting. (Wikimachine 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

If you feel the English Wikipedia community at large will have consensus against your changes and that is inherently unfair, I have some serious doubts you will ever be happy editing here. We proceed based on community consensus and when an editor disagrees with community consensus on the whole, they should at least ask themselves if perhaps it is their thought pattern that is a bit biased rather than the entire community's. In either case, you still have the ability to discuss with the community and present your line of reasoning.

Again, the arbitration committee has already said they will not comment on content. One of the conditions of accepting the case was that it was only to look at user behavior. Know now that we will not get guidance from them, and that we'll have to solve these issues ourselves. —LactoseTI^T 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's such a thing as systemic bias, but I have a right to assume a world in which I'm the only truly NPOV individual on a subject & I have the moral obligation to correct the system (or in this case to maximize the pros of the system to overcome to potential cons). To evaluate the risk that my failure will be inevitable is to create a self-defeating prophesy. Also, the basis for NPOV is in a way related to the approach the editors should make in the discussion. It's not completely about the content dispute. (Wikimachine 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

If we should decide the basis for NPOV here, 1st we should see if we, as ppl who are knowledgeable about this dispute, can discuss about it first. The problem is that I think that we already have the basis framed & can't completely agree, in which case we need to devise a method of presenting warrants - a variety of ev. including certain google searches indicative of some stuffs, scholarly articles from reliable sources, etc. (Wikimachine 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

Trying to come up with a framework is fine. It's just important to understand that such guidance will not be forthcoming from the arbitration committee, so there is no point in waiting. If you have some such suggestion, make it now. —LactoseTI^T 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you believe the general Wikipedia community to have a pro-Japanese bias; virtually nobody in the world has ever heard of Liancourt/Dokdo/Takeshima and is extremely unlikely to even remotely care which country those oceanic pebbles belong to. And surely the definition of consensus on Wikipedia is a community view which should be respected as such, whether or not you disagree. In any case, I think if there is to be an RfC, there is a simple way around this issue - we can replace the names of the countries Korea and Japan with "country X" and "country Y". So we can phrase it like this, and ask the community to decide which of these three statements are the most NPOV:

1. The islets belong to country X and legitimately occupied by them, but this is disputed by country Y
2. The islets belong to country Y, illegitimately occupied by country X
3. Whether the islets belong to country X or Y is unresolved, and thus the legitimacy of occupation by country X is in dispute

This leaves no space for a (frankly ludicrous and totally unfounded) accusation of inherent bias in the wider community. Phonemonkey 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We could, let's leave that as an option 2nd to our own effort here to devise a framework of NPOV basis evaluation. The fact that average ppl don't know about this dispute (thus the basis of NPOV rests mainly on the academia & the media) makes ppl most likely to be pro-Japanese b/c ppl know much more about Japan (& in positive way) than they do about Korea (all they know is N. Korea). Some ppl even don't know where Korea is (i.e. somewhere near Taiwan), some ppl think that Korea is not an East Asian country (i.e. with the Chinese/Japanese architecture), some ppl still think that Korea is a 3rd world country, and some think Korea's still kind of like Iraq, where ppl are constantly living in fear of N. Korea's threat, etc. (Wikimachine 03:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

proposals for framework of evaluation

Since there is no previously standing framework to determine the degree of prescription & description (i.e. basis of NPOV), let's make the framework be made in process of proactive and reactive submission of ev. For example, if one was to introduce a list of reliable newspapers for a certain POV, then it would be implied that a list of non-reliable newspapers would be needed. If the ev. in the whole do not indicate favor for one over the other clearly, then we'd need Rfc to decide on the basis of NPOV. This shouldn't be user-centered ev. but a collective jumble of ev. (Wikimachine 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose — What the hell is a "proactive and reactive submission of ev"? Either you have Reliable Sources already or you don't. And you already have a framework called the NPOV ("Neutral point of view") policy to begin with. If you wish to introduce new sources, you do that first. Otherwise you have no need to gather any new "collective jumble of ev", because that would just lead to some Original Research.--Endroit 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The POV issue is not really about sourcing, Wikimachine. The criteria for sourcing is more about reliablity than NPOV. The NPOV issue comes into question when we're talking about the *presentation*. Phonemonkey 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you complaining about, Endroit. I made it clear enough by giving examples. This should satisfy you: New York Times (reliable) & Asia Times (unreliable in the sense that it's not a major newspaper, note that it's still reliable per WP:RS). Yes, Phonemonkey, NPOV is all in all about sourcing b/c Wikipia should describe not prescribe. That's where all of our policies derive from - naming (i.e. google search), etc. (Wikimachine 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

When the risk that the article will be POV is 100% in a world without any changes to calibrate out prescription toward description, you must take any alternative offered if it's the only one. In other word, you have both the burden to disprove the applicability and relevance of my proposed method & at the same time provide a better alternative. A single reason why something's bad is not a reason why you should reject it. (Wikimachine 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, I still maintain that your "collective jumble of ev" is just Original Research. There's nothing concrete there. Besides, I think you're just trying to give some excuses for sidestepping WP:NPOV. What a waste of time...--Endroit 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Wikimachine, we're not going to try to hastily patch together some new ramshackle "framework" for deciding NPOV just for this article, when there's a perfectly good one at WP:NPOV. Phonemonkey 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't sorry me, Phonemonkey, then we will simply take it up to the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

You can write anything you wish to the arbitration committee, but it's very clear they will not comment on anything but user behavior. If you want to create or adjust a framework for editing, the place would be in the talk pages of the relevant policies. My point is not to shoot you down, but failing to cooperate now in the assumption that all will be solved by arbitration is not a good idea since it won't happen. Instead, we need to cooperate now, ourselves. —LactoseTI^T 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good, Lactose, and where do we arrive again after circling around? The basis for NPOV! We can't cooperate unless we determine the basis for NPOV & I love how Phonemonkey turns his back whenever the situation poses risks for the lifeline of his POV edits on the talk page.

Also I'm confident that the arbitration will determine the basis for NPOV b/c it has very much to do with user behavior - whether or not the JPOV has used NPOV to overly emphasize JPOV. (Wikimachine 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, if the "lifeline" to my arguments (as you put it) refer to WP:NPOV, then I'd quite happily stick to that instead of some makeshift alternative you seem to want to patch together yourself, thank you very much. I'm glad to see that you too seem to be sick of going round in circles. Perhaps it's time for an RfC? Phonemonkey 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated some 17th Century historical information to this page

In 1695 the Shogunate inquired to Dottori (Shimane Prefecture) if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Inbashu or Hoki districts where the Oyas and Murakawas of Yonago resided. The Shogunage inquired:Since when has Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Inaba District (因幡)and Hoki District (伯耆), become under these two's jurisdiction? Is it before or after the year 1632, when the ancestors was given land? Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction?

Dottori (Shimane) replied:Takeshima does not belong to Inaba District (因幡) nor Hoki District (伯耆). There are no other islands belonging to the two districts including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)

Here are the citations.

http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdfSee page 38.

The next citation is from Hoon Lee's article found here.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htmSee pages 13 and 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, just like most arguments about historical records in this debate, there are two sides and interpretations to this data. We should really discuss the changes here first. As an aside, it is also a good idea to use the edit summaries. —LactoseTI^T 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you cut the following sentences?

• 伯耆国米子町人大屋九右衛門村川市兵衛と申者渡海漁仕候儀松平新太郎領国の節以　御奉書被仰出候旨承候

Do you understand the feudalism of Japan at that time?　It is not possible to extract it like this if you know. Oki island is not land of the Tottori clan. Takeshima and Matsuhima is not land of the Tottori clan too. It is land where only the take a passage was permitted by the shognate. It is natural that these islands are not Tottori clan's land because shogunate's land. --Opp2 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, I just had the document translated and posted it. It is free of POV. If you have another translation please post it and cite it. Just because a piece of historical evidence damages your lobby campaign is no excuse for you to blubber and try to inject unrelated data.

The 17 Century voyages of the Murakawas and Oyas departed from Yonago in Hoki District this is historical fact. The Japanese argue the Shogunate bestowed Takeshima and Matsushima to these families but we can see this is false. Oki Island is a non-issue here.

BTW your maps below have to be corrected Opp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Clownface 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a problem of the translation. You cut the document that showed that islands ware shogunate's land. First of all, you had not discussed like this before edit. Therefore, I will rivert your edit based on Rules of Conduct.--Opp2 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp,if you have another version of this document, translate it and cite it. I've given two published citations for this document above. It is a critical piece of data. You have no right to remove it.Clownface 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OKI is related. Is the name of Saito's book "Records on Observations in inba and houki state"? No. And, why did Murakawa report to the magistrate of the temple in Oki? --Opp2 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I will ribart it. After the discussion, this record might be added.--Opp2 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no another version. You only cut the part to which the take a passage permission had been licensed by the shogunate. [15]--Opp2 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, there was nothing "altered" in my translation. Although there is other data related to Takeshima on this document I only posted the passages related to territorial ownership of the islands. Do you want to post the whole document? If so, I agree. That's fair right?

Opp, again if you have a cited translation of your own please post a link and translation and we can compare. Be reasonable.

This document is a vital part of Korea's stance on Japan's historical relationship with Takeshima and Matsushima. As I've linked above North Gyoengsan Province official stated this position, it's just as credible as any publication from Shimane Prefecture you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not discuss it like this. And,Your edit is POV(an important part is cut). First of all, I will rivert.--Opp2 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, get another version of this critical information, cite it or leave it alone. It stays.Clownface 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[16]--Opp2 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, English please.Clownface 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Be a little more flexible. If you are offended by information that strengthens Korean claims, then you are in the wrong place. If it is that important to you that everything needs a counter-claim, then add relevent text. Good friend100 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I agree with Goodfriend. Opp, it's not your job to censor relevant historical data on this forum. If you have something to add, get an credible source to cite in English (as I have) so we can verify it's accuracy. Then edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for the source to be in English. Please check out WP:V. —LactoseTI^T 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this [17] Good friend100 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those Fixersfixers socks have been indef-blocked. We'll see if any more pops up.--Endroit 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan's Report on Chosun as been added with JPOV. It reads.In 1869 a the new Meiji government sent a Japanese diplomatic mission to Korea to gather information and establish relations. Their report included information about Takeshima and Matsushima. It reads as follows:

竹島松島朝鮮附屬 "How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima became Korean Possessions: Matsushima (松島) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (竹島) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this island. 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s but it now has become uninhabited..

Some Japanese scholars contend the Matsushima (松島) in this document refers to a different island due to possible mapping errors of this era.

This information was found in a publication called "The Japanese Percpetion of Tokdo During the Opening of Ports"

Found here. See pages 7~8

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htmClownface 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some relevant images to add to this page. Any tips on how to do this?Clownface 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tip number one would be to share them here on the talk page first, so we can figure out how to integrate them and if they are appropriate. —LactoseTI^T 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan's military involvement in the annexation process of Liancourt Rocks.

These images of Liancourt Rocks are from Japan's Historical Archives and detail the military activities of the Japanese Imperial Navy before and after Japan's incorportation of Takeshima. Korea asserts Japan seized Liancourt Rocks during the Russo~Japanese war of 1904~1905 and these maps detail this process. Over the next while I hope to improve the content of the data from this era.

Image one.Vice Commander Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks for the purpose of constructing watchtowers on November 20, 1904 this was about three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map2.jpg

This map shows the Japanese Navy's underwater telegraph systems installed all around Korean coastal areas and islands and China's Liandong Peninsula during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. You can see Dokdo was integrated within Japan's

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-telegraph2.jpg

This version of the same map is labelled in English.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg

I feel these maps are a great addition and have never been made widely available before. Let's put them up.Clownface 10:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting them to the talk page first. Could you find some acceptable source discussing/verifying what those maps are? —LactoseTI^T 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the texts described on the map to the map page and updated the caption of the map section based on it. The telegraph map was published in June, 1905, after the Japanese incorporation of the rocks on February 22, 1905 (38th of Meiji). You can also see the text between the rocks and Ulleungdo as 豫定 (more clear on the third map) that means "planed". They also look still in confusion of naming of Ulleungdo as Matsushima, former name for the rocks. What a slow navy... It was a pure luck they won the war... Jjok 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the facts surrounding each map are mentioned in the published article called "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into its Territory in 1905" by Japanese Professor Kazuo Hori.

Kazuo Hori's article can be found here. The related information is found on page 17. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm

Here is the relevant quote:

"On November 13, 1904, the Japanese Naval General Staff ordered the warship Tsushima to inspect the Liancourt Island/Tokdo and see whether it was suitable for the installation of a telegraphic station (not radio station) there.It was a survey to examine whether it was possible to build a watchtower there to be linked by submarine cable with Ullungdo. The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government. The Tsushima' s captain reported that although there was some topographical difficulty, it was possible to build a structure on the East Islet..."

If you look at the first map you can see the name of the Vice Commander Yamaka "山中少佐"written on the map of Liancourt itself. The legend shows the locations of water sources and also shows the range of visibility from each peak. I've drawn a legend on a copy of the same map.

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

The documents that accompany these maps are translated on my website page. Of course it is my original research but you may find it interesting.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

The related data for the second map is found on the same page of Kazuo Hori's article it reads:

"The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the sea battle, and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima/Tokdo on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by submarin cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island. These were illegal military facilities without regard to national boundaries..."

This map has the date written on it as the 38th year of Meiji (1905) June 1st on the left side of the map. Lactose it should be noted, Japan did not follow through on this plan but rather opted to bypass Oki Island and lay underwater telegraph cables directly from Dokdo to Matsue. An original map of that plan labelled in English is here.

It is possible to post these maps myself or is that right reserved for wiki?

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wonson-telegraph-line4.jpgClownface 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is original thesis by Hori[18] P10. Is it written as "illegal military facilities"? I cannot find the words. Where is the word written? By the way, Hori is not a scholar of International Law. In addition, the verification of International Law is not done in this thesis. --Opp2 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the issue here is whether the maps I've posted are accurately described which they are. This Korean document gives an accurate detail and timeline of Japan's activities on Dokdo and the Korean peninsula.

http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.htmlClownface 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, word "Invasion" or "annexation process of Liancourt Rocks" cannot be used. If it is "Japanese navy constructed the watchtower", it is safe.--Opp2 13:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, please feel free to include these materials in the text. They are well referenced and very informative.

Opp2, you keep harping on international law even though it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. I'd love to discuss International law however if you feel it's relevant to the discussion.melonbarmonster 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Opp2. It is Original Research.--Gettystein 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster and Opp2. I didn't post the text above to amend the text of the Liancourt Rocks page. I posted this information for historical background to the maps above. It is the maps that are very critical and I feel should be presented here.

I agree with with Opp's opinion regarding the usage of "annexation" or "illegal" because it is Kazuo Hori's opinion. I will add the historical information of Japan's military activities as free of POV as possible in the near future with the consent of those on this forum.

Again, does wikipedia only post maps or can I edit the map gallery and add them myslef? I tried already......and failed.

Gettystein the articles above are published articles of with credible historical dates and even original Japanese transcripts to verify them. If you have information to the contrary please feel free to post other materials to contradict them.Clownface 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all published stuff and in no way is this OR. Check WP:REF if you're not familiar with this. And Clownface, Hori's opinions should be added since it's published material. In fact excluding it would be an inaccurate depiction of his work. Opinions are fine as long as you put it in the article as referenced fact. Editor's personal opinions however are a different story.melonbarmonster 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your addition. All the citation which you presented are written in Korean language. Many people cannot verify whether your translation is right. Actually, Opp2 mentioned your misunderstanding already. As other example, your quote said that "The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government", but it is a clearly fault. Because, the first survey of Japanese government (Meiji period) was conducted by Japanese Naval ship Amagi by order of a diplomat Terashima Munenori in July 1880. Therefore, I think your immediately major edits should be remove from contents cause the reliability of presented citation is doubtful.

By the way, why do you add to the contents although you have not reached a consensus? --Gettystein 07:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Amagi didn't survey Liancourt Rocks Gerrystein, the Amagi surveyed Matsushima (Ullengdo) The Tsushima did a detailed topogroaphic survey of Liancourt Rocks for building watchtowers and concluded the East Islet was suitable for watchtowers.Clownface 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be in english. Good friend100 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, you are wrong. AMAGI had investigated the whole ocean area among Korea and Japan in order to fix the name for several islands. On those days, Many maps were imported from West. Also, the name of those islands was various by map. (ex. Liancourt rock was called "Liancourt rock, Hornet rock, Matsushima, Takeshima.etc.", Ulleung-do was called "Dagelet, Argonaut, Matsushima, Takeshima, Usan-do.etc.".) Therefore, the Japanese government got confused and dispatched the AMAGI to investigation. After that investigation, the name of each island was fixed as Ulleung-do is "matsushima", Liancourt rock is "Takeshima" actually. Simply, since Japanese government has officially abandoned the sovereignty of Ulleung-do in 1877, it doesn't have the meaning which investigates only Ulleung-do in 1880, don't you? I think that your interpretation is always one-sided. Gettystein 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S; In 1881, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has published "the Takeshima historical investigation (竹島考證)" based on this investigation of AMAGI. These book is stored in the National Diet Library (2A-34-3-1647).--Gettystein 10:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. None of the edits are explained. Unilateral changes to the infobox which are still being discussed, addition of uncited comments about the S Korea's refusal to take the case to the IJC - if these are not explained here then these edits will be reverted. Unilateral removal of Japanese maps with no explanation is vandalism and should be reverted. Phonemonkey 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the edits are self-explanatory and reasonable. Any removed maps should be restored although if they were just moved, it should be discussed. I'll leave a comment on wronglove's talk page to request explanation.melonbarmonster 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to old version cause we have never heard explain from Wronglong.--Watermint 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added and cited Korea's documented complaints by local, central governments and media.

Upon learning the Japanese had incorporated Liancourt Rocks, Ulleungdo Governor Shim Heung Taek sent the following memorandum to the central government on Lunar March 5th 1906:"Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp'o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory..."

Afterwards the Daehan Governor Responded:

"Order No.3 by the Daehan Empires Governor I have read this report. Their word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people...."

The Korean newspaper Daehan Maeil Shinbo also sharply criticized the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima on May 1st 1906 stating:

"The Domestic Affairs office stated "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleungdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking...."

This is again cited from Kazuo Hori's publication. The relevent text is found on pages 21 and 22.Clownface 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I've added this text and a header to give historical background and a brief timeline of the Japanese Navy's Involvement on Liancourt Rocks.

On February 8th 1904 the Japanese Navy opened a surprise attack on Russian boats Varyag and Korietz anchored in Chemulpo (Incheon). Their troops continued to advance into Seoul and after weeks of continued intimidations and coercion the Koreans signed the February 24th, Japan-Korea Protocol. The protocol allowed the Japanese to occupy strategic areas of Korea.

Immediately the Japanese Army and Navy began constructing military observation and communications posts on all strategic coastal and island locations of Korea. These areas included: Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Palpo, Wonsan, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, and Pusan.

On September 25th 1904 the Japanese Warship Niitaka was involved in telegraph construction on Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and reported "...Korean's call Liancourt Rocks Dokdo and Japanese fishermen call them Riangko.." It was also reported that "..the East Islet was low and flat, thus suitable for constructing military buildings..."

The Japanese Warship Tsushima was issued special directive #276 on November 13th 1904. It included three instructions: a)Inform of the test of the wireless telegraph communications of Takasaki Mountain along with the test technician. b)Survey Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo Island) for its suitability for telegraph installation (not wireless telegraph)c)Dispatch workers and materials for Matsushima, (Ulleungdo) Jukpyeon, and Cape Ulsan watchtowers.

On the morning of November 20th 1904 Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Tsushima surveyed Liancourt Rocks and concluded with some difficulty a watchtower could be constructed on Liancourt's East Islet. His survey of Liancourt Rocks was forwarded to the Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department on January 5th of 1905.

The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the infamous Battle of Tsushima and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by underwater cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island.

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

http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html

Related material from Peter Duus' "The Abacus and the Sword" was also added. 124.80.111.109 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.80.111.109 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this, but the JPOV has attempted to make Liancourt Rocks "more theirs" by pushing for "J before K, alphabetic order" which doesn't apply at all to any of the article body. The admin himself is POV. When ppl complain about this, these ridiculous ppl go "so what, not a big deal". Well if it's not a big deal for us, it's not big for you either. Whether or not you assert that this is the Wikipedia policy (which absolutely is not), if there are ppl who perceive this as POV, you have to step back & fix it. Again, I'll put all of these to the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

i agree with Wikimachine Holdshelp 22:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reread your contribution once again.You have said that it was very contradictory. Do you admit that your own biaed POV? Or do you want to say that "nobody should be worrying about this except Wikimachine"?--Watermint 09:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me, there are too many sock puppets here & I'm building a sock puppetry case right now. I hope it will pop up some of the bubbles. (Wikimachine) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that, I should worry about the fact that ppl are worried about it. If you look at the history, you know it's not a clean business. See the Wiki essay Don't be a dick. JPOV sock puppet anon accounts pushed those changes & then LactoseTI & Komdori settled it w/ revert wars. & then the admin came about & w/ the ROGUE rules framed the discussion to be on the current version of the article settled w/ revert wars so at best the changes can be compromises on stuffs that are completely illegitimate to begin with (NPOV basis). Then when I ask for ppl to participate in discussion to decide which nPOV basis prevents prescription over description ppl shut the discussion out, Simply just like as described in the "Don't be a dick" article, they're taking advantage of the rules to push their POVs. (Wikimachine 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Common sense should apply here. The J, K order should apply in the sidebars and in the first sentence, but a common sense approach within the body of the text. For example, Korea is nearer to LR than Japan, so it would make sense to say: 'Korea is X kms away, whereas Japan is Y kms away'. The number of residents is pretty arbitrary so it doesn't seem correct to me to qualify the Korean numbers with 'Thousands of Japanese, ... whereas hundreds of Koreans'. Just say, "Thousands of Japanese, and hundreds of Koreans". If there is a common sense order (such as the distance above use it). If the topic or grammar requires a particular order use it. If the order really doesn't matter leave it as the editor wrote it because it really does not matter at all - except the sidebars, and other standardized statements. Macgruder 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not written that way. I think that it's mainly Opp2's doing but none of you guys catch those faults made on "your side" - which again affirm the existence of "us vs. they" ideology in this dispute. (Wikimachine 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I know it's not written that way. I'm simply suggesting it should be. Perhaps if you spend less time complaining about other people and pointing your finger, people might actually listen to you. We have to wade through 90% of complaining about other people to find the 10% of what you have to say. When you spend your time doing that, you're hardly in a position to complain about "us vs. they". Most of us really are not interested in teenage ranting. Anyway, I think the article is looking reasonably good nowadays. Macgruder 15:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to listen to you. (Wikimachine 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Macgruder has a good point about common sense in the text. We certainly should not stick to a rigorous "J before K" rule, but instead use such ideas as ordering chronologically, by distance, etc. Wikimachine: please try your best to at least not blatantly edit in an uncooperative manner. —LactoseTI^T 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that your intention is mal by your last comment. I've never edited on the mainspace article for weeks now. I will not tolerate any attempts to assert & push in false accusations. (Wikimachine 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Be intolerant of whatever you like, but surely replying to an editor exclusively with the phrase, "I don't want to listen to you," is strikingly uncooperative. Simply try to stay on track. —LactoseTI^T 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Macgruder was simply saying garbage that I don't need to hear, totally unrelated to the dispute we're trying to solve. Does that explain it? Also, Lactose, let's get this clear. I can say anything I want as long as it's not PA, & as long as I don't make edits to the article in opposition to consensus. (Wikimachine 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps you'd best re-read it as you've obviously misunderstood something; it's not at all unrelated, it was straight on point, discussing a valid idea for organizing the article. As for saying "anything you like," this isn't your personal chat forum, so please don't clutter it up with personal feelings, wants, and dislikes. In any case, surely you'd agree that being cooperative helps us all. —LactoseTI^T 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the point, Wikimachine. You wade into discussions with comments like (and this is just 5 minutes of looking)

• admin himself is POV ... LactoseTI & Komdori settled it w/ revert wars.
• then the admin came about & w/ the ROGUE rules
• Simply just like as described in the "Don't be a dick" article, they're taking advantage of the rules to push their POV
• I'm really sick of these cooperative & nice faces you guys are putting on
• person X is a liar
• but I think that our good old JPOVs... [ seems that JPOV means anyone who disagrees with you]

But as soon as someone calls you on that, you start saying "I don't wont to listen to you". "What you say is garbage" etc. etc. If a significant focus of your discussion is to immediately complain about other users rather than the discussion at hand (as you did immediately to my comment when I was essentially supporting your position), don't start getting antsy when people call you on it and tell you stop. And as I've said, if you stick to the discussion at hand rather than personal attacks then you might find that people will take your ideas more seriously. Macgruder 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I proposed that this part of the template be deleted as a whole, but now the thread is dead so I'm making a new one. I'm still thinking that it should be all deleted. Good friend100 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording aside, I don't think it is good to have an infobox about a territory without including any info about the country, or countries, that claim that territory as their own. What good is the infobox for a summary if it is to deny such a basic tenet of knowledge from the article? Neier 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Senkaku Islands Article doesn't have an administration section.General Tiger —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it if it did, but the relevant talk page is at talk:Senkaku Islands, not here. Phonemonkey 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep it but reworded - it's to label the box "claimants" (as opposed to "administration"), and to put S Korea first with a label "current control". This way we can avoid the use of the word "administration" since it is this word seems to be the root of the issue (although personally I don't see the problem with Future Perfect's trial version). Phonemonkey 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to head off any criticisms... how about renaming to "Claimants," dumping the administrative region information (provinces, etc., since we don't need it if we aren't using the title administration), and putting the countries/flags side by side. We could avoid the issue of who's on top in the box that way (and avoid OR and debate of which country better illustrates "their" sovereignty)... —LactoseTI^T 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to note that this might look all neat & nice but I think that our good old JPOVs here want to prescribe that the island's ownership status is truly ambiguous. I do not see S. Korea as simply a claimant. Again, if we were to discuss about the degree of prescription/basis for NPOV, we would not have any trouble on this, but I'll wait until the arbitration is finished. (Wikimachine 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Describing those who disagree with you as 'good old JPOV' is defacto KPOV. i.e. you are essentially describing yourself as a 'good old KPOV'. Macgruder 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone from Japan might say the same about their side, saying they don't see it as ambiguous at all, but purely Japanese, and that they don't see Korea as even a claimant as they evidently see their own case as so poor as obviously not standing up to scrutiny in court. To avoid this, we can strive for a neutral version--not prescribing who has a stronger claim, but describing that they both are claiming it.

Again, don't wait for the arbitration case to close. It won't help us here--instead, be cooperative and perhaps we can come up with a solution with which we can all live. —LactoseTI^T 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate is slipping away from the infobox, so my response to the above is posed in a new section below. Back to the infobox - Wikimachine, speaking strictly about the infobox in question, what would be your suggestion? Phonemonkey 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't prescribing. If South Korea has a stronger claim than Japan, its going to show up in the article. If you're not happy, then wikipedia isn't the place for you.

@Phonemonkey if you really feel that we shouldn't delete it, then your proposal is what I like best. Good friend100 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So if Japan has a stronger claim, it should show up as well? Who decides? Please take a glance at WP:NPOV. —LactoseTI^T 03:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You are both right. If one country indeed has a stronger claim than another, it will naturally show up in the article, without having to engineer it. The key thing is to let the facts speak for themselves, and not let our personal opinions and convictions get in the way. Phonemonkey 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lactose - I don't think the administrative region information should be dumped, because (as you pointed out before) that's essentially the whole reason why the infobox exists - remember, we're only "artificially" avoiding the word "administration" in this particular instance because agreeing to an exact definition of the word is proving troublesome, but the nature of the infobox is still the same. As for the issue of which country should come first, if you apply the "common sense order" as proposed by Mcgruder in the section above, I feel it's only natural to put the current controlling power first. What do you think? Phonemonkey 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that when I say common sense, I'm referring to the body text in cases such as distance and grammar. The sidebar and other standardized areas like the first sentence should stick with alphabetical per Wikipedia rules. My main point is that J does come before K but it doesn't make sense to go through every sentence in the article to put Japan first when there are other over-riding considerations. Frankly, people who are going deep into the article and changing the order of J and K for no particular reason need something better to do with their time. It's pointless, creates unnecessary tension, and doesn't improve the article. I suggest taking up fishing or learning the guitar. Macgruder 11:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, LactoseTI, if Japan had a stronger claim it would be like that and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately for a hater like you, South Korea has a stronger claim, and its going to show up in the article. You're trying so hard to keep the "south koreans get the upper hand at this". Nope. I'm trying to state the facts. Again, if stuff like this makes your stomach hurt, then don't come to wikipedia. Theres enough of "stronger Japan, weaker Korea" in Wikipedia and some of them I don't give a crap about. So stop it.

I'm still in favor of removing the word "administer", other than that I guess its ok to keep it. Good friend100 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend, which part of Lactose's post warrented a response as uncivil as yours? It seems you simply didn't like his opinion so you resort to an ad hominem attack. This must stop. Someone should present all breaches of WP:civil like the one above to arbcom.

Back to the infobox, what are people's opinions on the following - which makes more sense, S Korea first (as the controlling power) or Japan first (alphabetical order), and why? And do we agree to indicate somehow that S Korea is in control of the rocks? Phonemonkey 00:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You do a really nice job of correcting ppl's mistakes. Next time, scan the following folders: LactoseTI & Komdori & Macgruder. (Wikimachine 00:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Phonemonkey, realise that Lactose has his share of personal attacks. A couple weeks ago, he suggested that I was paranoid and told me to look it up in Wikipedia. Can't seem to find the comment though. His insults are very camoflauged, but you can pick them out. Good friend100 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Resp to Phonemonkey)--Since this page gets cluttered fast, see my comments in the section below this to avoid duplication. Since violation of alphabetical order really jumps out at a reader, we should be cautious, especially when such order might be seen as siding with one claim or the other. I suggest alphabetical order, but perhaps even in the infobox itself we can title it, "Claimants (alphabetical)" to make it explicitly clear that the rationale for the order is that. This would have the added benefit of applying if we wanted to use the same idea on other disputed pages where there were more than two powers involved. —LactoseTI^T 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess alphabetical is more neutral. I'm happy with "Claimants (alphabetical)", that's a good idea, although its a bit clumsy. Still, it needs to be clear that S Korea currently controls it. Rationale in the section below Phonemonkey 19:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it not a neutral description to say that the rocks are claimed by S Korea and Japan, that S Korea is currently in control of it, and that the rightful ownership of the islets are in dispute? Phonemonkey 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, I think this is fairly neutral. However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate, and to try to head off criticism in the future, here's the nit-picky version: The main point of Liancourt Rocks from a governmental position is the territorial waters and EEZ, not the actual rocks which are far too insignificant to be noteworthy (since they are far less than a percent of the space). In July, 1977, for example, because of the high distance competitive fishing from other nations, Japan instituted a 12nm territorial waters law and a 200nm fishing zone law, specifically applying it to Liancourt Rocks, and subsequently fishing and survey ships have penetrated this zone routinely. To that end, while South Korea protests their actions (as Japan protests South Korea's), S. Korea does not in fact control the full Liancourt Rocks territory (perhaps the actual ground, but that is insignificant--having a garrison guarding the only oasis in a desert doesn't mean you "control" the desert, especially when you have people you don't want wandering around in it). Since this is the case, it is a bit misleading to oversimplify too much. Put another way, the language of who has sovereignty over a region is somewhat synonymous with who controls a region, and this issue is particularly prickly since it is a good portion of the actual matter proposed for the court action. I'm not saying we can't simply to this degree, what I'm suggesting is that there may be more bulletproof language than this which could more easily stand permanently. —LactoseTI^T 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the term "Liancourt Rocks" do in fact refer to the actual rocks, and not to the sea surrounding it, I kind of see your concerns. I guess what you are saying is you are willing to accept "controlled by S Korea" but there may yet be room for improvement? I agree that the more bulletproof the language, the better, but at the moment all I can think of is that if there is a sourced mention on the article that Japanese ships routinely enter the disputed waters, we can let that fact speak for itself. (And on a lighter note, the phrase "high distance competitive fishing" conjured up an image of contestants with fishing rods lined up in a row along a tall cliff :) If only the rocks were that peaceful! )Phonemonkey 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, I like that. As for the language, something about physical presence on the rocks proper might be best. Some (not I) even contend that Japan actually "controls" them, in that Japan mentions it refrains from "removing Korean trespassers and guests" out of interest for peace, and continues to exercise sovereignty peacefully through official protest, surveys, studies, etc. I personally think that viewpoint is perhaps a bit extreme, but the absolute undisputed fact is that Korea has a physical presence on the islands themselves. Thankfully, there hasn't actually been shooting over something like this for some time and so the issue of true "control" is less focussed on today, with most of the territorial dispute occurring without bloodshed behind podiums. —LactoseTI^T 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but even if there really is a tiny minority in Japan which claims that Japan is in fact in control of the rocks, don't you think that would fall under "tiny minority views" in WP:NPOV - "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all"? I think it is safe to say S Korea currently controls the rocks, given the fact that they are the ones who have a military presence and that neutral sources such as the BBC currently use the term. I don't think there is any net gain in using "current physical presence" instead of "current control" in the infobox, it just makes it into really awkward English for the sake of an infinitely tiny minority view. Phonemonkey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I wonder if it's necessary to mention this in the infobox. Other disputed islands pages (never seem to) mention this in the infobox itself, and by leaving it for the article proper we avoid the issue altogether. If we agree it needs to be in the infobox, I agree with you, however. —LactoseTI^T 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything neutral on any of this. Again, this is a perfect current example of "agreeing amongst themselves" (Wikimachine 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

You do understand that since we are all editors here that you are one of "them," right? As always, rather than leave a destructive comment such as the one above, try leaving a constructive one. How would you improve on the discussed options? —LactoseTI^T 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to imply that I'm not neutral & paranoic b/c I make the accusation of "them", you're seriously being "destructive". You can't say anything about it unless the question of whether my assertion is right or wrong is validated by the arbitration. (Wikimachine 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm not trying to imply anything; I was being very straightforward in my comments. To quote myself, "As always, rather than leave a destructive comment such as the one above, try leaving a constructive one. How would you improve on the discussed options?" —LactoseTI^T 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your emphasis in your replies have been that I'm not being constructive. Consider how I might have limited amount of time to edit Wikipedia, and I've been burdened down to deal as efficiently as possible - where I don't have time to do "constructive" edits as much as to deconstruct destructive edits. What you call "destructive" is really a deconstruction. (Wikimachine 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

There appears to be a double map image in the map gallery. In addition there are empty spaces with no images. Can the fine folks at wiki clean house or can posters here simply delete these areas?124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry, just yesterday I had to semiprotect the article against edits from anonymous users, because of repeated attacks from sockpuppets, otherwise you could now just go and clean up the maps yourself. If you're interested in contributing to this article, could I suggest you register an account? It's quite easy and fast and will make communication easier. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. The gaps were because of some references to images whose image files had recently been deleted from the server for copyright reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering setting up a gallery with Dokdo related images such as photos of the island and related historical documents. If anyone has any ideas or anything to contribute please do.124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean an image gallery as a separate Wikipedia page, no, I'm afraid that wouldn't be such a good idea, we don't normally do that. Images should all be integrated in the main page. But if you could get some photos of the island, that would be great. I looked at flickr the other day, but they were all copyrighted, we need freely licensed ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a photo? That could be a useful inclusion in this article. JPBarrass 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said in the section just above, there are some nice ones on flickr, but they are all non-free (search for "Dokdo", not "Takeshima"; "Takeshima" takes you to photos from some other little island). Might be worth a try contacting the photographers and asking for a release of one or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again everyone. I've contacted Professional photographer Kim Cheol Hwan here in Korea because he has taken some images I'm interested in.

The first is a picture of Dokdo from Korea's Ulleungdo Island.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo.jpg

The next is a picture of Ulleungdo Island from Dokdo.

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

I'll put them up as soon as I've been given permission. BTW how do I verify this?Clownface 05:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get a permission e-mail from him, you can forward it to "permissions [at] wikimedia.org" and make a note that you have done so on the image description page. Make sure he explicitly releases the image under a license that allows free re-use, not just use on Wikipedia alone (GFDL or Creative Commons). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question.

• Zen
• Liancourt Rocks

Why is the information bar in the ariticle Zen not in alphabetical order, but the information bar of this article is in alphabetical order? (If the argument is going to be about: Zen is innately Japanese, then pleas do not even start it. Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea. Registration, and majority agreements are not the same). If we are really talking about NPOV, then let's make it fair for all articles. I apologize for the interruption in the middle of The Argument. Thank you. Amphitere —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to apologise. In answer to your question - the two articles are not comparable. There is no POV issue regarding Zen, because it is not a subject of an international dispute. Phonemonkey 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just goes to show how biased Wikipedia is... The changing of the name to "Liancourt Rocks" is the first step in it eventually being called "Takeshima". These islets are obviously Korean and currently administered by South Korea. So why don't the South Koreans have a right to name them as they wish? I wish rules were applied fairly here. But clearly they are not. This really tarnishes the image of the site.--116.37.83.152 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. On the surface it may seem like it is moving away from one extreme, but that doesn't mean it will drift into the other. In fact, the moves, such as per the name, were done with widespread support of non-involved users, including several administrators. I seriously doubt a name change to a non-neutral version (either way) will receive similar support. --Cheers, Komdori 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The rules are not applied fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.244.40.243 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article Senkaku Islands. --Kingj123 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The naming conventions in the first sentence with the language names, at least, is very explicit. Please see WP:NC. —LactoseTI^T 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Kingj123's opinion. Please don't take such the tactic for JPOV and please stand on the same ground. Just like the order of Senkaku Islands, the name order should be considered for the legal status.

By the way, why isn't still any change regarding the name, (East Sea of Korea/Sea of Japan)? It is not at all a neutral term unlike this Liancourt Rocks. Japan doesn't solely govern the sea territory but the name still remains and inclines toward JPOV. That is another evidence that Wiki is biased. --Appletrees 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on the discussion pages of the relevant topics (Sea of Japan, etc.). That particular issue was actually discussed at great length, resulting in a NPOV compromise which has stood the test of time quite well. If you disagree, feel free to go to the appropriate page and initiate discussion there. —LactoseTI^T 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll go there AGAIN but already looked through the talk page and don't agree that the name is the fixed settlement and NPOV at all. I think that article is relevant to this. --Appletrees 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think as it has been in alphabetical order for a long time, if someone wants to change it, then there should be some form of consensus and agreement, so that we don't descend into another silly edit war. It is now back at the standard alphabetical order and should remain so, until such time as consensus has been achieved.Sennen goroshi 16:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, listing in alphabetical is a very good way to organize the article. However when you are dealing with only two countries, why do we have to bother puting Japan before Korea for every single time? Isn't it ridiculus?

This article was not in alphabetical order originally but recently changed by Japanese users. So assuming that this change is rational and correct, it is fine for me to change the listings in alphabetical order so that "c" goes before "j" in Senkaku Island article as well.

Kingj123 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't fine for you to change that, as it would be obvious that you were editing it, just to prove a point, especially as you have already cited that particular article as an example of what you feel alphabetical order should be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system

also you have to consider how long that particular order has been in place.Sennen goroshi 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not obvious bias, and consensus is required (especially in this article, due to its past history) unless it is obvious vandalism. And please assume good faith and steer clear from personal insults in the talk pages. I don't try to 'keep a hold on' any articles, in this case it seems obvious, A-Z, J is before K - therefore a simple alphabetical order is best...it is not as if there is an order of importance implied by the order, is there? Sometimes I wonder why people consider it to mean anything, if one country is listed before another...seems a little petty to me.Sennen goroshi 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned that a simple alphabetical order works the best. If it doesn't mean anything but a simple alphabetical order, why is it a problem for you if we use alphabetical order for Senkaku Islands? You are contradicting yourself... aren't you? Kingj123 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am most certainly not contradicting myself - perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying,

if there was a long history of alphabetical order on that article, and you were merely reverting to that order, then of course it would be OK. But that is not the case, you would change the order on that article, merely to prove a point, which is not constructive editing. Edits should be done to improve wikipedia, that should be your only motive in editing, you would change that article, mainly because you wish to prove a point, because you dont like the order in this article. If an article has a long standing history of using a certain order, perhaps you should respect the previous editors a little more, and obtain some form of consensus before making changes. Please dont use wikipedia to prove a point, there are more suitable places for proving points, and pushing POV, such as chatrooms or myspace.Sennen goroshi 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Long history based on JPOV? We can clearly see it here. Every edits in wiki should be balanced but the above mentioned articles are obviously not. Dokdo is governed by Korea just like Senkaku Islands of Japna (?) but foreign countries dare to claim the reign on the islets. In addition, why is Japanese name always placed first? That is very absurd and unreasonable out of the wiki standard. At this point, I don't wonder why Koreans proclaim that if the unification occurs in future, the name of the combined nations shou exchange with "Corea" just as old documents wrote and Roman language speaking world does now. My suggestion to Kingj123, please be careful and not to be trapped in tactics. Cheers!--Appletrees 07:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know if the edits you are talking about are JPOV or not, but I certainly don't have a JPOV, because I'm not Japanese, I'm neutral, so I have a NPOV. As you were so concerned about the order in the Senkaku Islands, I have changed it so that it is now in alphabetical order, I hope that makes things a little more consistent. And of course, the day North and South Korean unify and their internationally recognized name starts with a C and not a K, N or S, you are more than welcome to rearrange the order of the names in the Liancourt article (assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force)Sennen goroshi 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't add up at all. Who says that you take a neutral point of view? Your self-claim does not match to your obvious inclination toward JPOV in the light of "your history". Even if you're a Korean or foreigner residing in Japan, which doesn't mean that you have a KPOV or NPOV. In general, when a third person takes one side on a dispute, he/she inclines to something related to him/her or attractive. I tell you a similar example to your behavior. South Korean generally support American English because of the longer relationship with US than with UK, so that English teachers with British accent do not receive a welcome in South Korea. American English can be regarded a dialect of English English but Koreans don't care and prefer listening to the smooth American accent. Likewise, you said you're a foreigner in Japan, so I understand you in the same vein of the example. --Appletrees 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the way only this article is on alphabetical order and Senkaku Islands' is not. I like one or the other, make both articles on alphabetical order or forget it. Kingj123 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force shows that you are biased. If you think Japan is going to start a war with Korea, have fun thinking about it in your head. Its not likely to happen. You keep contradicting yourself. The post just before you said that you weren't biased.

And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J. It doesn't matter if this article is attempted to be non-biased. It will show up one way or another that these islets are under Korean property.

Keeping J above C at Senkaku even when you are saying that alphabetical order should be used here shows you and your JPOV friends' bald attempt to keep these articles pro-Japanese. If J comes before K here, why then, shouldn't C come before J at Senkaku Islands? Because its under Japanese control? If that is your logic, it makes no sense at all. Good friend100 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the way only this article is on alphabetical order and Senkaku Islands' is not. I like one or the other, make both articles on alphabetical order or forget it. Kingj123 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Senkaku Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by Japanbut also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).

J P R

hmmm that seems to be in alphabetical order

And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J huh? A B C D E F H I J K

this is nothing to do with bias, I apologise if you don't like the order of the alphabet, I realise that it annoys you, but this order was not made by me, neither was it made by Japan or JPOV editors, it's just the way things are - and to be honest, it's not a big deal, at no time does alphabetical order imply order of importance, Japan has never claimed "because J is before K, these islands are ours"

me saying "assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force" does not show a JPOV, if I said "assuming that martians have not taken over the earth" would that show my blatant Martian point of view? I think not.Sennen goroshi 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the language box?

Certainly, I hate the alphabetical order... ? You're missing my point. This article used to start originally as "Liancourt Rocks...are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by S.Korea but also claimed by Japan. " JPOV users then changed it suddenly without any disucussion or notice so that Japan goes before Korea, and back up this edit by saying it should be in an "Alphabetical order."

So for constientcy, Senkaku article should begin like this: "Senkaku Is...is a disputed, uninhabited island currently claimed by China (PRC/RO) and Japan. Japan has been controlling the island although there has been a long protest from China regarding that the islands are Chinese.

I think if I were a Japanese user and read the beginning sentences above, I would say that it is definitely CPOV.

I am not just trying to prove a point. I am concerned with the lack of consitentcy between two similar articles, which is very linked with the idea of NPOV. Kingj123 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I dont agree with you, mainly due to the fact that China is 2 separate entities in some peoples eyes, and when it comes to political issues, the nation should be refered to in at least a semi-formal manner - at the moment (or at least the last time I looked) the 2 articles are pretty consistent with eachother regarding names of countries and alphabetical order. Your proposal for the Sekaku article seems to be an unnatural wording, and to be honest, the only plausable reason for such an awkward worded article, is to somehow force a change in the order of the nations. Im neither Japanese, Korean, nor Chinese, I dont really give too much of a fuck about the order - however it seems natural to use the most natural form of English, and to place things in alphabetical order, unless there is a damn good reason not to, right now I cant see any reason why the order should change.Sennen goroshi 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the original beginning sentence seems to be much more neutral, although it is too bad it is not in alphabetical order.Kingj123 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Sennen, your english is poor. You don't get the point. We are complaining that this article is biased because

Korea controls Liancourt but Japan is listed first

Japan controls Senkaku but Japan is listed first

This is the problem because the two articles are not consistent with each other. According to what the Japanese do at Senkaku, Korea should be listed first because Korea controls the islets, just like what they do at Senkaku. Japan controls the islets, so thats why its listed first. Good friend100 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We have heard more than enough those Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order, again and again. Look, alphabet order!, alphabet order!, JPOV!, JPOV!, Senkaku!, Senkaku!....... Till when does it continue?? Enough is enough.

As above mentioned, Wikimachine said that "I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this...". I completely agree with his words.

I have corrected the sidebar of Senkaku Islands according to the alphabetical order. See Template:Infobox Senkaku. It has solved altogether. Is it satisfactory? Please don't continue to complain no more. It's so ridiculous. --Gettystein 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edit. well I think so. It is fair, and NPOV.Sennen goroshi 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.Kingj123 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's about being fair. Stop being a racist. It gets very tiring to see some (very racist) Japanese people say Koreans are like this or that. Go anywhere on the Internet and there are some (very racist) Japanese saying absurd things and making up lies about Koreans. It's truly pathetic.

I only agree with your opinion: Enough is Enough! Well, putting aside from your blatant offensive attack for a little while, well done on such the hard job. I truly give you a praise. You are acting like bestowing a big favor on Koreans. But that attitude is obviously wrong because you don't and couldn't own or govern this article at all. You or me are just one of the editors into here. We are in the process of discussing the matter from the different sides. If a conflict occurs, we at least try to discuss it here in a civil way, but your emotional bias toward Koreans only can make things worse. Of course the same standard is applied to Koreans.

From Koreans' viewpoint, Japanese consistently excuse themselves to justify their absurd behavior. Japanese haven't applies the same rule over the disputed territories. It is unfair and unequal, so that Koreans suggest to change the alphabetical order on the islands article. Maybe, the next move for it might be changing the name of the article in view of the talk page, which is really not my concern.

As for 'Koreans' absurd complaint', according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, absurd means "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous" and having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" or "lacking order or value", and "dealing with the absurd or with absurdism. Well, I can't hardly assume a good faith in your comment. It is not at all likely to say that your assertion is NPOV. By the way, judging by the edit history, this article remains like this forever unless the real world solves the dispute. Until then, do best for both of the party. --Appletrees 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, that editor was trying to solve a problem, by putting China before Japan, due to alphabetical order. Please try to be a little more friendly and stop taking things so seriously - I think his choice of word ie. "absurd" was pretty much perfect. Spending hours complaining about alphabetical order is pretty absurd. He solved a problem, he showed that he didn't care if China was before Japan in a list.Sennen goroshi 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think Macgruder suggested a common sense order a few sections above entitled "J before K", which I wholeheartedly agree with. Going through every mention of the two countries in the whole article and putting them in strict alphabetical order is clumsy, petty and unnatural compared to the common sense order suggested by Macgruder. My understanding is that the alphabetical order rule is in the geography naming convention, and refers to the order the name of the place should be listed according to the alphabetical order of the language (i.e. Japanese language before Korean langage) - it doesn't say that every time the two countries are mentioned it has to follow alphabetical order.
• Any problems with the Senkaku article should be addressed on the Senkaku talk page, not here.
• Appletrees is right in saying that there's still too much inflammatory language here. Simply complaining about "absurd KPOV editors! nationalist JPOV editors!" is meaningless as a logical argument, they do not contain anything of actual substance. Phonemonkey 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the gallery looks untidy, so suggest to change the form of it like the below. The first example makes people enable to give and perceive detailed infos, but we all acknowledge that we're very sensitive to the order of each nation name. The reason I place the Korean table first is to follow the earlier period and to equalize opportunities from always placing something related to Japan first. The advantage of using the table is to enable both Koreans and Japanese to update their things separately. If each party insist on their things first on this table, the table would just produce much problems.

The second example is to prevent from further disputes regarding orders and easily to compare the maps between Koreans' and Japanese. But the problem is that editors can't easily update info due to its complexity of the table tags. And with may lack of making tables, I can't divide the infos in detail compared to the first example and have to care info of the other side whether the table looks normal without missing anything. But I prefer this version.

Or, just we don't use this tables.

Aside from the matter of the gallery, we need maps from a third party like maps made by Chinese, American, French, German, English, and Italian in past times. They have old historical maps related Korean and Japan, which enable to explain each party's opinions.

• Example 1

Current maps

Image	Note
	Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks.
	Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks.

Korean maps

Image	Name	Period	Note
File:Hachidou2.jpg	Paldo Chongdo	1530	Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo)
File:Tongkuk chido.jpg	Donguk Jido	Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-gi	Map of Kangwon province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島)
File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg	Cheonggudo (part)	1834	To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo.
	Daehan Jeondo (part)	1899	Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [19])

Japanese maps

Image	Name	Period	Note
	Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part)	1775, Japan	Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E.
	An map of Shimane Prefecture	1878	shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map.
	Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive.	1881	Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane.
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg	A map of Japanese Naval during Russo-Japanese War	June 1905 (38 th of Meiji period)	the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue.
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg	*	June 1905	Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point.
	*	Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima	Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges.

• Example 2

Japanese and Korean maps

Japan	Map	Korea	Map
	Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks.		Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks.
	Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part) 1775, JapanMatsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E.	File:Hachidou2.jpg	Paldo Chongdo 1530Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo)
	An map of Shimane Prefecture 1878shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map.	File:Tongkuk chido.jpg	Donguk Jido Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-giMap of Gangwon Province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島)
	Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive. 1881Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane.	File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg	Cheonggudo (part) 1834To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo.
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg	A map of Japanese Naval during Russo-Japanese War June 1905 (38 th of Meiji period)the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue.		Daehan Jeondo (part) 1899Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [20])
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg	June 1905 Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point.
	Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges.

--Appletrees 12:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I like the second format. Jjok 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the gallery

I appreciate the amount of work you put into this, but I somewhat doubtful of the relevance of a gallery in even this form. The majority of these maps are using unsourced comments, etc., and it's dubious whether or not several even are relevant to the article at all. I think the maps, when appropriate, should simply be worked into the article where sourced arguments have actually been used. —LactoseTI^T 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the maps are unsourced and came from unreliable sites except the two, of which the one was uploaded by you, Lac.(I don't like my abbreviated name) They are all from official sites and I think each maps are relevant. If they are questionable enough, why wouldn't you leave them until now? By far, you seem to always request to Koreans to bring in with verifiable citations. I just made a simple suggestion for updating this article.--Appletrees 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Appletrees; I or others have mentioned several times the lack of citations for the text... —LactoseTI^T 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Inserting images directly into the relevant texts on the article is way much desirable than this collection of images now in order to be an authentic encyclopedia. But I'm curious as to why editors haven't done that. Checking sources is prerequisite to prove or protest any claims from both parties. Just an image itself can't prove anything as you said. I'm recently interested in this article, so might be slow to follow up all of history within here. However, I'm only suggesting the maps to look tidy. The gallery on the article is not a best way for other people who don't know anything about the history and relation between Korea and Japan.We are all here to inform or describe the related contents based on the facts and sources. You and I are not the only editors here, so I'll wait further responses from others. --Appletrees 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you in thinking that inserting images into the relevant sections of the article is probably better than having a map gallery, although I'm not sure how tidy it will look. Perhaps you could give it a go, Appletrees? Phonemonkey 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think placing image into relevant section of the article becomes a later concern. After short discussion with LacosteT1, he added the tag {{somewherewebsite}} or "no source" on most of the images in the gallery without any notice to original uploaders and me. I found out it later, so changed info on images with providing just website from 'no source' to 'somewebsite', but he reverted my edit with the claim that just posing picture itself is not providing 'any source'. I think it is somewhat reasonable, whether the images are favoring for which side are. To be honest, I didn't fully read the each caption, so every Japanese maps are for Japanese's claim. Therefore, I added missing infos to Image:Hachidou2.jpg like that. [21].

* Image:Tongkuk chido.jpg ---------> kyujanggak library source: [22]

* Image:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg ---------> (JACARS)

* Image:Dokdoless-Shimane.jpg --->Somewebsite

* Image:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg ---------> (JACARS)

* Image:1881-Shimane.jpg --->Somewebsite

* Image:Yamanaka-surveymap.jpg (source added from JACARS)

* Image:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg ---------> kyujanggak library has this map [23]

I think rule is rule. so someone who wants to use these images for the article, finding a source is firstly required. After every problem regarding citation are resolved, and then discuss the matter again. Thanks--Appletrees 13:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Appletrees--thank you for actually taking the time necessary to track down some sources necessary for helping differentiate between the maps that need to stay and those that don't. Those that you found references for can probably quite easily be integrated into the text. —LactoseTI^T 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I've seen these three military maps above on JACARS public database. Images there are stated as for public use..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yamanaka-surveymap.jpg (source added from JACARS public database)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg

http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html

If you would like, I can repost the images above with the original "jacar" lable on them. The image source lables were cropped because they were very large documents. It would be a big loss to delete these maps as they are all relevent to the "Dokdo and the 1904~1905 Japan~Russo War portion of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thanks.

Again, the above three maps copyright status is public.Clownface 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. Crownface, you're the original uploader among the above images, so LactosteT1 should've let you know how things go on the images, but he clearly didn't. You're much better to know the original source than any other, so lease add the reference source to each relevant image. I added the relevant info to two images. In addition, some of Korean maps are in Kyujanggak library but I can't access to Kyujanggak website in South Korea because of my MAC. The site only allows PC user to view and download old documents and maps properly. And I changes the source info status from 'no source' to 'somewebsite' on Image:1881-Shimane.jpg and Image:Dokdoless-Shimane.jpg but they are not safe until providing confirmed website info.

And technically following the assertion of LactoseT1, Image:DaehanJeondo.jpg, Image:Part of Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu.jpg are out of the impending delete list are not safe yet, even though they are from Commons wiki, there are neither relevant texts nor their published year. --Appletrees 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see the right above discussion with LactoseT!, images without 'relevant website' are impending to be deleted. So I found two sources from confirmed websites and add the infos. I don't know how to judge which site is favoring which side and what site is irrelevant to provide proper infos. So please see and comment regarding the status of the website.

Images enabling to provide relevant info from confirmed sites.

• Image:Tongkuk chido.jpg ---------> (kyujanggak library as Appletrees' claim) source: [24]
• Image:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg ---------> (kyujanggak library as Appletrees' claim) [25]
• Image:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg ---------> (JACARS: as Crown'f claim)
• Image:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg ---------> (JACARS: as Crown'f claim)

But the problem arises on these images.

• Image:Dokdoless-Shimane.jpg (According to the tag added by LactosteT1, it would be deleted on Nov. 6th)--> I added the reference site, but still "somewebsite", which is 'not' permanently safe for the deletion.
• Image:1881-Shimane.jpg (According to the tag added by LactosteT1, it would be deleted on Nov. 6th)--> I tracked down the reference site http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html, but still "somewebsite".
• Image:DaehanJeondo.jpg (No source if I follow LactosteT1's strict rule, but is out of the deletion list)
• Image:Part of Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu.jpg (No source if I follow LactosteT1's strict rule, but is out of the deletion list)

This map has been sourced and verifiable. It came from the Sumita Library of Kobe University and is commonly mentioned as early recognition of the rocks by Japanese.[26] I will also add the information of the author to the page.[27] Do we need more information? Jjok 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And Do you think this site is dubious? I think this website is 'somewebsite' providing infos, but others would agree or disagree. However, as LactoseT1's claim, it is "No Source". We need a consensus on this 'status'. Thanks

• http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html

--Appletrees 13:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Shimane prefecture maps before 1905

• Image:Dokdoless-Shimane.jpg
• Image:1881-Shimane.jpg

It is clear that the rocks were incorporated as part of Shimane prefecture in 1905 and there is no argument in the text that they were part of Shimane prefecture before 1905. I do not see the points of these maps.

In addition, the original title of the latter one is "map of Shimane and Okayama prefectures." It also does not have the author/publisher information. Lack of such important information is making the maps less verifiable. Jjok 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that posters on this forum would like certain images to be excluded from wiki's base, most notably historical maps of Shimane that exclude Liancourt Rocks.

Maps of Shimane are critical to the Liancourt Rocks article. The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century. This is based on the idea that Oya's and Murakawas of Yonago City (in Shimane) were "bestowed fuedal tenure" of Takeshima and Ulleungdo in 1656. The Japanese also state (as disputed above) that in 1667 Saito Hosen defined Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as the northwest boundary of Japan.

Thus, if Takeshima and Ulleungdo were not part of niether Oki nor Shimane Prefectures it is highly unlikely the islands were historically part of Japan up until 1905.

I will post maps of Shimane Prefecture in the near future from Japan's national diet library found here.

http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/

Appletrees, Europeans didn't even discover Liancourt Rocks until around 1849. Prior to that they had incorrectly mapped the position of Ulleungdo and named the island Argonaut. These maps are very confusing for those less knowledgeable on the subject.

Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"

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

The map can be found here. We can see the Japanese Navy published this map in many different editions without change in title or content.

http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/exh/exh1_1_04.html

The Liancourt Rocks page on wikipedia needs more contributors and less editors. Too many chiefs not enough braves......sigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century."

Really? I think Japan insists that the rocks were recognized and controlled by Japanese. I do not think they claimed the barren and uninhabitable rocks. There were no such custom in modern sense. Even Korea insists the rocks were finally and officially incorporated in 1900. In addition, Oya was granted by the Shogunate, but neither Torrori nor Shimane, thus the rocks were not necessary to be part of those prefectures (you can also see that they answered Takeshima and Matsushima were not under their jurisdiction). I still do not understand why those pre-1905 maps are critical. It is interesting to add pre-1905 maps like this one though.

"Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"

The map also contains Vladivostok, thus Vladivostok was recognized as Korean territory? Do you want to say Japan recognized Tsushima as Korean territory because of this map?[28] It looks like Russians (and Japanese) were just trying to make the maps accurate and complete. After all. it is the map of "The East Coast of Korea" and a map of coast line and sea but it is not purpose to depict territory, and thus "The Russian Navy's map is the first Western map that clearly shows both Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Korean territory" is of which they are believing in what they have to (Dokdo even has Russian names, because Russians thought the rocks as their territory?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjok (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Two maps were removed without the consent of those on this forum. The images' source was cited as JACAR and yet somebody deleted them. Who is responsible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't break alphabetical order for the benefit of wiki community doing away with unnecessary confusions. Northwest1202 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Ehyunwoo's immediately edits [29] to last version by Northwest1202 with this user warning [30].--Watermint 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I try to change the order of countries according to the Macgruder suggested common-sense order on Geography paragraph. Please see [31]. What do you think, everybody? Personally, I think that it's a good idea in order to the solution of the country names order controversy.--Watermint 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Watermint. I'm totally behind Macgruder's suggestion. Phonemonkey 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw? A search of law journal articles might be helpful. From what I remember all of them were pro-korean. I see some already in the external link but there's more.melonbarmonster 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy and tourism section starts from

"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"

I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June).[32] I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005[33] which describes:

"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo andSeoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."

Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?

Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005[34] and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).

　本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。

In addition, WP:LAME describes:

"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."

Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))--Jjok (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)