Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3

The issue of Dokdo/Takeshima has been discussed on this article entitled "Liancourt Rocks" for more than a year at the least. Then earlier this month somebody sneakingly managed to delete the entire editorial history of this article and moved the whole contents to Dokdo. Liancourt Rocks are territories that are being disputed by Korea and Japan, and naturally the title of the article also has been disputed by people from the two parties ("Takeshima" for Japan and "Dokdo" for Koreans). Therefore, the English name "Liancourt Rocks" was the most neutral and the least controversial for the title of the article.

Jiang did not delete the history. The history moved to "Dokdo" with page text when the page was moved. If the page is moved back to "Liancourt Rocks" so will the history Philip Baird Shearer

Now there was a suggestion that the article be moved to Dokdo; however, being an extensively disputed topic it is, consensus was hardly established for the move as you could observe on the old discussion note. No consensus, no move. Nevertheless, someone went ahead with the move on his own, and the result is the current complete mess with many new articles on the rocks with different titles spawning like crazy (Dok Island, Liancourt Island, etc.).

Whoever responsible for this hideous attempt of vandalism must be banned forever from Wikipedia. Hermeneus 19:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang did. Commonsenses 08:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just want to mention that, Liancourt Rocks are not being disputed by Korea and Japan. Liancourt Rocks now is apparently Korean terrotiry and Japan claims the islands to be their territory. It's a different story. (different from 'Sea of Japan' naming dispute.) That is what we call "dispute". janviermichelle 16 May 2006

No. It is not true that Liancourt Rocks now is apparently Korean terrotiry and Japan claims the islands to be their territory since Japan claims that Korea is "occupying the islets illegally." No country officially supports Korean claims or Japanese claims. Liancourt Rocks are not being disputed by Korea and Japan.

Michael Friedrich 03:56 18/05/06

I am a little biased on thi article because I am Korean but I need to get the facts straight here.

The disputes of over whether the article should be called Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, or Takeshima is unnessecery.

Most of the people arguing for "Liancourt Rocks" think that "Liancourt Rocks" is a dispute between Japan and Korea. This is NOT true. "Liancourt Rocks" IS KOREAN TERRITORY. Wikipedians are getting the wrong idea. Liancourt Rocks is owned by Korea. It is just claimed by Japan. Japan is trying to make it look like a dispute so that it looks like Liancourt Rocks could be Korean or Japanese territory.

It is not a dispute!!! Peoples, Liancourt Rocks are rightfully Korean territory and Japan claims it. Thats all there is to it.

Let me clarify this: LIANCOURT ROCKS IS KOREAN TERRITORY

The article should be named DokdoGood friend100 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But if it's Korean territory, then doesn't Korea also claim its territory? I don't think it sounds wrong to say that a nation claims its territory. Rōnin 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Korea claims it their own territory. They have police, radar station, and landing pad on Laincourt Rocks.I just want to clarify that is it not a dispute. Korea occupies the island and Japan just wants it. Japan is trying to make it a dispute so it seems like Japan could own Dokdo too, but that is defintely not true.That is why I think this article should be called Dokdo.Good friend100 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Good friend100

I'm puzzled at what you have written (especially where you say that Japan has not claimed the rocks) and I'm wondering if you are understanding what it means to "claim a territory." In English "claiming a territory" is something that can be done by anyone. For example, if my five year old were to say "I claim Liancourt Rocks" then she would be making a claim -- a nonsensical claim. In English we call such things "invalid claims."

You say Korea has police etc. on the Rocks. That's exactly what the phrase "under Korean control" means. So can we agree that article DOES reflect your views: both Korea and Japan claim the rocks, but they are under Korean control? -- Cjensen 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If I said Japan has not claimed Liancourt Rocks then you are misunderstanding me. Japan DOES claim the rocks. The rocks are Korean territory and I am just trying to say that Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory. Korea does not control the islets, the islets are Korean territory. Therefore, this article should be named Dokdo, because Korea has the right to name it.

I am just trying to make the point to the Wikipedians here that it is NOT a dispute. Dokdo is KOREAN territory. I am trying to clarify that it is not a dispute, Japan is trying to make it a dispute so that they can get a foothold in trying to control Dokdo.Good friend100 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This move request is closed

Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks – To restore the original condition. Thist article was originally put at Liancourt Rocks but there were messy move wars over it. There is no consensus. Jiang, who messed things up, also admitted it (User_talk:Feigenbaum). So we need to reestablish and keep the original state unless consensus is reached. — Feigenbaum 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add #Support or #Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Place page name under Liancourt Rocks

1. Support Seems it is the more common English name and is derived from French so has no bias to either country. Philip Baird Shearer 23:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. This is the only way to keep NPOVness. Feigenbaum 00:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Hermeneus 01:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. I do not care what is written in the article but procedure, such as move of an article, should be based on consensus.Corruptresearcher 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Same reason as Feigenbaum wrote.Ypacaraí 05:14, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
6. Support. Dokto is POV.Commonsenses 06:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Same reason as Commonsenses. Angelix 07:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Dokdo and Takeshima. Tachitsuteto 09:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Support for all the reasons listed above. I would also add a note in strong bold letters at the top of the article stating that this is the ENGLISH version of wikiland, and we are therefore using the ENGLISH internationally recognised name, not the Japanese nor the Korean (although both redirect to here). Davejenk1ns 23:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. "Dokdo" is the English name, so is "Takeshima", but they are both more POV than "Liancourt Rocks". --Puzzlet Chung 15:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support The name "Liancourt Rocks" is from French, and is therefore unrelated to the claims of Korea and Japan.
12. Support. "Liancourt Rocks" is the only way to avoid taking sides, even if it is a less commonly used name. --Reuben 17:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. more NPOV. --kahusi - (Talk) 04:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Dokdo is POV pagename. RadioActive 09:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. Jpatokal 16:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Clearly, this is the most neutral name for the article. --Carl 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. I can't believe there's even as much as a poll on this?! The other variants invariably take sides, and that we don't want to do, do we? Kokiri 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. It is impolite in the machine translation. I am one vote in Liancourt Rocks. The Takeshima problem is the best and because the conclusion in International Criminal Tribunal has not adhered, it is best.Suzuka hiiragi 05:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
19. Support,Dokdo is POV pagename.NewWorldNanashi 02:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
20. Support The discussion is continuing, so I feel I should add my support to the status quo. John Smith's 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. See below. --Xiaopo ℑ 22:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)2. Oppose. Too many pro-Japanese points of view want to change it to "Liancourt rocks"; thus, negating the NPOV-ness of this article. This is blantantly obvious with people with names of "Kahusi," "Tachitsuteto," and "Jpatokal" all claim to be Japanese. We should not let "special interests" ruin the NPOV-ness --which I believe is already been establish-- of this article.Bezant

Please, no sock puppet accounts. [1], [2] coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Dokdo is NPOV pagename, since most western sites refer to the "Liancourt rocks" as Dokdo. If we change this page to the "Liancourt rocks," the Sensaku island page should change to whatever its Western name is as well. It is best to keep constitency. Zippie

Please, no sock puppet accounts. [3], [4] coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose Liancourt rock represents Japanese people's intention of making Dokdo as a dispute. It is biased. Also, it has not been used much until Japan started to make an issue on Dokdo islands.--203.253.132.82 09:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Only contribution to this article (1 edit) and this vote. Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. I totally agree with Bezant. There are too many people who try to call Dokdo "Liancourt Rocks" that are pro japanese. This is not being fair because "Liancourt Rocks" make it seem that the islets might be owned by Korea or Japan. Japan wants the islands and is just pressuring foreigners to think that it isnt "Dokdo" and just "Liancourt Rocks". Japan is acting very badly and just wants the islets. Yes it is named this way from neutral observers but Dokdo was the official name, is the official name, and will be the official name.Good friend100 8:29, 11 May, 2006

6. Oppose The name "Liancourt Rocks" cannot be given to a South Korean island, despite the fact that it does provide a solution to the Korean-Japanese "dispute" over the Dokdo Islets. Only the owner has the right to name a territory, in this case, the South Korean administration. The name of "Liancourt Rocks" is a western reference to Dokdo and no more.Oyo321 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Place page name under Dokdo

1. Support. If Dokdo should be Liancourt rocks, then, we should also call any disputed territories with neutral English names. --203.253.132.82 09:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

only 2 edits from this IP (see above) Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. Support. Dokdo is the English name. --Xiaopo ℑ 08:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)3. Support. (Is the vote on?) The Chinese wikipedia uses 獨島 rather than 利扬库尔岩. Tan 00:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) I also agree with Zippie. If Senkaku, a disputed island, not named Pinnacle instead, then why this article not be named Dokdo, rather than Liancourt Rocks? It is a matter of adminstrative control. 22:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Support. Following the example of Sensaku, this page should be named after the name given by the administrator of the island; that is, Dokdo, which is adminstrated by Korea, not Japan. Zippie

Please, no sock puppet accounts. [5], [6] coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5. Support. Like what Zippie said, the island should be named after the name given by its administration, which in this case is the Republic of Korea. I also would like to point out that more hits are given on google for "dokdo" than it gives for "Liancourt rocks." It also seems that Japanese natives, under their own interests, not caring for NPOV, support moving the page to "Liancourt Rocks"; I recommend that we, the rational, do not fall to their selfish demands. Bezant

Please, no sock puppet accounts. [7], [8] coincidence? Kokiri 20:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6. Support. Dokdo is the most common name. --Everton 07:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

7. Support. Dokdo is currently under Korean control (and it always have been except during the Japanese Colonisation of Korea). Dokdo is therefore the rightful name of the article. "Liancourt Rocks" is an absurd name for the Korean land. -Jyk777

8. Support. Like Jyk777 said, Dokdo is Korean control even if maps say "Administered by Korea" because that statement is wrong. How can we be administering it when we own it? That is wrong. This is not being fair because "Liancourt Rocks" make it seem that the islets might be owned by Korea or Japan. Dokdo is the right name because Dokdo was the name for the islets from Korean sources dating back to the 6th century. Japan just pasted "Liancourt Rocks" as "Tsumshima" so they can try to gain a foothold in trying to claim Dokdo. Liancourt rocks is definetely not a good name for the islets. Also, whoever is saying that writing "Dokdo" for the title will fuel more conflicts, that is not true. The rightful name is Dokdo because Korea owns it and therefore has the right to name it whatever it wants. Don't listen to any of that bogus saying it is "administered by Korea".Good friend100

9. Support. Although the name of Dokdo may not have existed in the 17th century, Japanese maps state two small islands off the coast as Korean territory. Ironically to the Japanese, it provides evidence of even their acknowledgement of Dokdo as Korean controlled islets centuries ago. Some Portugese maps also depict small islands in the East Sea as Korean territory. Dokdo has a long history depicted as Korean territory, therfore, denies Japan's ridiculous territorial claims. Oyo321 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

10. Support. I definitely support to put the name under Dokdo. First of all, people should study history between Korea and Japan. Late 17th century, Japan double checked that Dokdo is the territory of Korea therefore, we should use "Dokdo" as a pagename not Liancourt Rocks. 22:12, 14 Nov 2010

1. Oppose. Using Dokdo or Takeshima as a name for this article is only asking for the flame war to continue. I would further argue that Google populi ergo veritas non est - google link counts does not equal truth. Moreover, the 'administration' factor from the ROK is questionable, likely for propaganda reasons just as is the Spanish presense off the coast of Morocco, and a dozen other cases involving little rocks in the sea. Finally, it is difficult to accuse the 'Japanese natives' (whichever collective group of individuals that is supposed to reference) of NPOV violations when the same sentence uses words like 'selfish demands' and self-declatory 'we, the rational'. Davejenk1ns 22:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You just proved my point. --Bezant

Place page name under Takeshima

1. Oppose. Aside from the Japanese imperialists, no one uses this name. --Everton 07:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Only right-wing Japanese imperialists, who also seem to support the new biased, deceitful history textbooks, use this name. - Jyk777
3. Oppose. Whoever is supporting this is totally unaware of what is happening. Only Japanese imperialists use this name. Takeshima is just a name Japan pasted on Dokdo because they want it for themselves.

Good friend100

Were these written by KCNA staffers?

Seriously, if the Japanese used the Korean name, they'd still call it "Higashijima". Transliteration doesn't denote illegitemacy. Should the Japanese also all learn an entirely new set of vowel and consonant clusters so as to saw "Hanguk" instead of "Kankoku"?

There is still real imperialism in the world, and to bastardize that shame of humanity by using the term so loosely is racist and trivializes the seriousness of the term.

Just vote opposition and be civil with descriptions as to why. --Smoove K 01:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I know this vote is closed but I don't like the lies above to go unqestioned. EVERYBODY (ie. not only "Japanese imperialists") in Japan uses the name Takeshima, although newspapers will often print the Korean name too.Mackan 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A True Apology from Japanese

I am sorry if you cannot understand my english well, but I would like to openly apologize to the people of Chosen for Japans unforgivable acts. Being japanese, I understand my country's obsession with Dokdo. It is truly disgraceful. To any korean user her I ask for forgiveness. thank you Yurushimasu00 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks – To restore the original condition. Thist article was originally put at Liancourt Rocks but there were messy move wars over it. There is no consensus. Jiang, who messed things up, also admitted it (User_talk:Feigenbaum). So we need to reestablish and keep the original state unless consensus is reached. â€â€? Feigenbaum 08:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I did not mess things up. I oppose the move of this page one way or the other until consenus is achieved. If discussion cannot come to a consensus, conduct a poll to decide where this article will go on the basis of simple majority. There is no point in moving this to the "original state" as long as discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus. --Jiang 09:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Your position is not so different from mine. We both agree that there is no consensus so far. The problem is that you moved this article from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo even though there was no consensus (as you said). I just propose to undo your mistake. There is no reason to treat your unjustifiable version as the default condition. Feigenbaum 13:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This move seems to have been done already so there is no need to post a request to WP:RM I presume that you have done so to get a wider Wikipedia community to vote for either "Dokdo" or "Liancourt Rocks" to stop a move war. Philip Baird Shearer 23:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The previous move was done manually using copy and paste. We need to fix it. Feigenbaum 00:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My request to undo Jiang's error is a temporary decision until a consensus is reached. It itself doesn't need consensus. Feigenbaum 00:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also List of dependent territories#No sovereignty, or disputed sovereignty --Philip Baird Shearer 00:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Dokdo&action=history&limit=500&offset=0
• http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Dokdo&limit=500&offset=500&action=history

OK Now I understand! The page which was at Liancourt Rocks has been moved to Dokdo. The history of the article is attached to Dokdo page. The current version at Liancourt Rocks is a cut and past job to bodge a fix on a move which did not have community support. So if the vote goes to Liancourt Rocks then to preserve the history of the article. The version at Liancourt Rocks should be deleted and the version from Dokdo should be moved back to Liancourt Rocks. (There is no need to merge the histories as the history since the cut and past fix at Liancourt Rocks is not worth keeping) --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. But it is not Dodo but Dokdo. The most serious problem is that the movement of the article titled "Liancourt Rocks" was done without any consensus although the title was kept for more than one years. I am afraid that such behavior will disorder the Wikipedia community. --Corruptresearcher 09:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Woops! sorry I an having "GATEWAY TIME OUT" Problems so I typed up the last posting offline and did not notice the typo or follow my own link:-( Should be fixed now :-) Philip Baird Shearer

Liancourt Rocks is certainly not the common English name -- a Google search excluding results from Wikipedia and mirrors turns up far fewer results than a search for either "Dokdo" or "Takeshima". Dokdo is the English name -- that its etymology is Korean is irrelevant (is Zimbabwe not the English name of the country?). --Xiaopo ℑ 08:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Which is common" cannot be decided easily. By Google, Takeshima seems more "common" than Dokdo. Of course, the result must include family names of persons and names of other islands so it is not suitable way to decide what is common. What I want to say is that the Google cannot decide what is common. A vote seems better because it reflects a common view of the Wikipedia community, at least. In addition, I must point out more serious problem, that is, the page move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" was done without consensus. I am afraid that such conduct disturbs the order of the Wikipedia community. --Corruptresearcher 09:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This may be so, of course -- I was just pointing out that Davejenk1ns' argument above doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As I see it, the issue in question is more general than the name of this article. Are we going to name articles on disputed territories after:

1. An etymologically English name, regardless of how frequently, or infrequently it's used? (e.g., Paracel Islands or Snake Island)
2. The name used by the authority which currently controls the territory (e.g. Tsushima Islands, Senkaku Islands, Falkland Islands, Ceuta, Olivenza, etc.)?
3. The most common name used in English? (Usually one of the above two)

One problem I see with the first option is that sometimes the etymologically English name is POV in itself -- are we going to use "Pinnacle Islands" or "Fishing Islands" for Senkaku? How about the Falkland Islands? We also run the risk of using a name next to nobody is using, like in this case.

I also think the second and third options are probably more in line with the guidelines to use English and use common names. Note that options 2 and 3 are being used in most territorial naming disputes (Snake Island isn't a very good counterexample, as that is its commonly used English name (option 3), as well as being an etymologically English name (option 1)). The obvious objection to options 2 and 3 is that they're POV -- but POV titles are acceptable with sufficient reasons. The PRC would object to Republic of China even existing.

But really, this isn't a discussion we should be having here -- we should be working on a new naming convention. --Xiaopo ℑ 16:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Philip Baird Shearer talk page:

Hello! I just wanted to point out that "Liancourt Rocks" probably isn't the common English name -- it's hardly used outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Check out the discussion on Talk:Liancourt Rocks. --Xiaopo ℑ 16:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very few English speaking people have ever heard of "Liancourt Rocks" just as very few in Japan or Korea have ever heard of Rockall (In the words of a satirical song lamenting the loss of the British Empire "Malta, Gibraltar and Sweet Rockall". The majority of sites which use Korean or Japanese names seem to have an axe to grind. Here are some which are not part of Wikipedia use Englishand use Liancourt Rocks and are put out by authoritative English speaking organisations.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4361343.stm
• http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/publications/briefings.html
• http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1999/winter/art3-w99.htm
• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ja.html

BTW Xiaopo you need to change you vote from 'Oppose' to 'Support' of your preferred choice you are free to oppose the other choices if you wish. Philip Baird Shearer 18:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for catching the "oppose"/"support" thing.

You'll notice that the BBC article merely mentions (in a sidebar) that the islands are "[a]lso known as [the] Liancourt rocks". Elsewhere, they state: "The dispute over Dokdo, or Takeshima as the islands are known in Japan...", implying that "Dokdo" is the default name. Here, for instance, the BBC calls them "South Korea's Dokdo isles", without mentioning either "Takeshima" or "Liancourt Rocks". The LA Times also refers to the islands as Dokdo. Virtually all news organizations don't mention "Liancourt Rocks" except in passing, and generally use both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima". As for having an axe to grind, I'd guess most webpages about the dispute have an axe to grind, full stop.

I don't really see the relevance of the Rockall example. --Xiaopo ℑ 22:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duration and Criteria of Vote

Can someone tell me how long duration is expected for this kind of vote in en.wikipedia? I also do not know about criteria of vote here. Which proposal is chosen among the candidates? Compare (supports)-(opposes)? In this case, 15-3>4 so Liancourt Rocks is selected if it finishes now? Some rule which should be applied here already exists somewhere, I guess, so please let me know. --Corruptresearcher 22:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Five days from the date of nomination is the usual time frame. If there is no clear consensus after 5 days, the vote can be extended. In this case I think it would be best to have a 3-way vote (between the three title choices), then if one has a majority vote over the other two, the page goes there. If no one choice has a majority, the two choices with a greater number of support votes go through another round of voting, just between those two. If you want/need someone to oversee the process, I will be happy to, just let me know. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and clear answer. I really apreciate if you or some administrator who is neutral on this issue oversee it. It seems one week has passed from the date of Call for Vote, 25 April. --Corruptresearcher 23:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

After five days of voting, the consensus is to have the page at Liancourt Rocks. I am going to move the contents of Dokdo back to this namespace. If someone could look over the list of pages that redirect here (the ones created during the 'move war'), and point out the completely inaccurate ones, I will delete those too. Lachatdelarue (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand the process of this dispute was as follows. Please correct if wrong. Corruptresearcher 04:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Jan. 10, 2004: First version of the article "Liancourt Rocks" was posted. The name of this article had been "Liancourt Rocks" for more than one year until this March.
• Feb. 24, 2005: Edit war began (still continuing).
• Mar. 20, 2005: First copy and paste move to "Dokdo" by Jong without consensus
• Apr. 15, 2005: "Dokdo" deleted by Jiang without any consensus.
• Apr. 15, 2005: Move page of "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" by Jiang without consensus.
• Apr. 15, 2005: Move and redirect war began.
• Apr. 18, 2005: Dokdo was deleted by Jiang again.
• Apr. 25, 2005: Dokdo was deleted by Jiang once again.
• Apr. 26, 2005: A vote started to select a name of the article.

A person who cause this disorder is in vote to be bureaucrat. We need to observe this carefully. Commonsenses 10:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many paragraphs in the History section is concerning about whether Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleung-do. It is the fact that Ulleung-do residents can see Liancourt Rocks in a good weather, so I think this should be mentioned in the Geography section to help readers get it straight. --Puzzlet Chung 03:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-disputed Japanese islets can also be seen from he southeastern Korean mainland on a clear day. I will attempt to find the source (including a picture) that I remember making this claim. It should also be pointed out that international statutes forbid island-hopping as a way to stake a claim. See the Rockall article. --Smoove K 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there's been a lot of controversy over this issue (and not just at this article), I decided to start a strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names). Since many people here are likely to have an opinion on this, I'm advertising it here. Please notify people whom you think might be interested. --Xiaopo ℑ 02:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Official name of article's political entity

Let me repeat here as I think we didn't reach an reasonable conclusion from my comment in the previous archive.

According to Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_names, the page title should be 'Liancourt Rocks'. But also Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_names mentions that the official name of article's political entity should be the bolded name in the introductory paragraph. The most of the cases, the offical name is used in the article's context even there exists an english name.

What is the official english name of Liancourt Rocks's political entity?

1. According to wikipedia, the Liancourt Rocks are administrated by the government of Republic of Korea. 2. The political entity of Liancourt Rocks is the government of Republic of Korea. 3. The ROK's offical english name of Liancourt Rocks is 'Dokdo'. 4. Therefore, the offical english name of the political entiry of Liancourt Rocks is 'Dokdo'

I think it is the 'NPOV' to follow the guideline of wikipedia. Please note that my oppinion is not "to change the page name as Dokdo". But the official english name of Liancourt Rocks's political entity is 'Dokdo' and we should mention it in the article conforming to Wikipedia:Proper_names#Place_names.

So "The Liancourt Rocks are islets ..." in the article should be changed as "The Dokdo is a group of islets ..." or similar.

Gene203 00:01, Aug 06, 2005 (UTC)

What is the actual source of the French name (the history section doesn't say)?

A french whaler (Le Liancourt) discovered the rocks. Pixeltoo 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there are guys who try to make it sound as if it was historically Japanese.

Rather than "claimed by both Japan and Korea, and administered by Korea" -which is unnecessary-, let's please say "claimed by Japan and administered by Korea".

That still does not change the meaning & does not sound repetitive.

And then, it says something like this: "Korea has a small police force, but still it is claimed by Japan".

People!!! We do not need to be repetitive. I just can't believe how many Japan fans there are! If there are historical documents proving that it's Korean, it's Korean!!! Remember, when Japan surrendered, one of its documents clearly stated that the islets of Dokdo is Korean.

I agree 100% that the island belong to Korea BUT as far as i understand it, there is no official agreement between Korea and Japan about the ownership. Until there is officially an agreement then it must say that both countries claim the islands (which is true). Masterhatch 15 August 2005

It's a lie. Before US and Japan conclude the peace treaty, Korean government required US to include Tsushima and the rocks as korean territory and US rejected because They didn't see no historical fact to justify such a request. If you insists, show us link to the source. --Ypacaraí 00:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html

Here's a historical fact to justify such a request."The first historical references to the island were cited in Korean documents, which make reference to them as a part of an independent island state known as "Usankuk" (Ullung Island) which was incorporated into the Korean Shilla Dynasty in 512 AD."

"The Japanese assert that they had incorporated Dokdo, an island that they considered to be a terra nullius, into the Japanese Empire on February 22, 1905 when the Govenor of Shimane prefecture proclaimed the islets to be under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office of the Shimane prefectural government under the name "Takeshima", cited in Shimane prefectural proclamation number 40 of that year."

http://www.clickkorea.org/Dokdo/03_1.htm

"To this effect, on January 29, 1946, the SCAP (the U.S. military government in Korea at the time) had Dokdo permanently excluded from Japanese territory and returned to Korea under international law (SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677)."

You guys see how the Dokdo became known as Takeshima when Japan annexed Korea? And that was since 1905. Before then, it was Korean.

The webpage linked above can not be source for persuading people. And you must read archived discussions. Don't us repeat same explanation. --Ypacaraí 05:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean that the webpage linked above cannot be source to persuading people? You mean, just because it's supporting Korea's claim, it's fake? Where is your sources? Fake and Japanese protests...

Because it's only a propaganda. Bring here link to NARA page that support your claim. --Ypacaraí 22:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I searched both Dokdo & Takeshima, but they didn't come up on the search. There's nothing about it on the NARA page. And those two links are not propagandas. Hey, I searched this "SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677" on google, and something like 10 sites mentioned it. And on Wikipedia, "SCAP Instruction SCAPIN No. 677" came up on this Japanese site.

No reply? I'll take that as yes?

Please, the fact the Japanese government annexed Korea along with Dokdo does not give Dokdo to Japan. Please forgive my country's disgraceful actions towards KankokuYurushimasu00 21:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)---

I'm fairly disturbed by the arguing, especially by grouping an entire nation into an argment. Just because a Japanese person makes an argument doesn't make it a "Japanese argument". If I ever talk about this issue with my neighbors, they really don't even know or care about the issue, and if I explain, they largely just say, "Well, let Korea have it, then." I believe many Japanese, perhaps even most Japanese not near the area of contention, feel similarly.

I don't want to bash on the Korean arguments on the page, as I consider myself neutral and a new outside observer, but reading the history it's apparent that emotions lead that particular side more than reason, and this has led to name-calling, sabotage of articles, and individuals using multiple accounts to try and sway opinion. This does nothing to improve the image of your argument, and you must understand that no matter what you say and do the results will be fruitless, as it takes a cooperation of all parties to settle disputes.

As far as the naming goes, the UN ruled on this in a declaration that no nation can claim land incapable of naturally supporting human life. It doesn't matter if the land is visible from other land, or if it's close enough to jump to. The UN asked Japan and Korea to work it out themselves because it ALREADY ruled... The Liancourt rocks belong to NOBODY. As such, in the ENGLISH Wikipedia, attaching a name originating from either of the two arguing party shows bias. Lack of recognition of one term does not denote parallel unrecognition or legitimacy of that term over the unused one. Just because the English Wikipedia has an article on "The United States of America" does not mean there is a valid argment for renaming that article either "Beikoku" or "Miguk" because of localized nomenclature.

And to those who don't understand, unbiased sources must come from unbiased and respected parties. This means international organizations, foreign organizations without a stake in the argument, and definitely NOT free-hosted websites run by an individual.

Let's keep things civil and logical. --Smoove K 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Smoove K does not know anything behind this Dokdo issue. First of all, the reason why Koreans are fiercely defending Dokdo is because it is emotional to them. No foreginers would know this but I am Korean and I know what it feels like. When Japan claims Korean islands, it reminds Koreans of Japan's occupation of Korea from 1910-1945, which was an extremely dark time in Korean history. Also, Dokdo is Korean land because if you read internet sites of why Dokdo is Korean, there are at least 10 sources I have found why Dokdo is Korean. Try Japan. They have 3 sources. Japan just wants Korea for economic reasons and they are looking for gas reserves that might be near Dokdo.Please don't write that "Liancourt rocks belongs to nobody" because that statement will be never true.

Smoove K, if you are defending your statements, write your explanations at my talk pageGood friend100

---

I went to "What links here" for Liancourt Rocks to see what names were being used at all the links (excluding talk pages and the like). I noticed something very interesting. All the Japanese related articles used "Liancourt Rocks" first, only sometimes mentioning Takeshima (and in some cases Dokdo) after. I only saw one article (Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform) that used Takeshima first. But it is a totally different story for the Korean articles. It appears that most Korean articles use Dokdo first with Liancourt Rocks second and in many cases, not at all. The way I see it is all the Japanese articles (except one) are all NPOV while most of the Korean articles are POV. I am suggesting that Liancourt Rocks comes first on Korean articles (like it is on Japanese articles). Any thoughts? Masterhatch 24 August 2005

If we were to follow the logic of the Senkaku Islands article (that whoever is in possession has the right to name it), then this article should be named "Dokdo", not "Liancourt Rocks". In fact, all of the Wikipedia articles on islands in dispute near Japan are already heavily biased in favor of Japan.

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is titled Senkaku Islands.Dokdo/Takeshima is titled Liancourt Rocks.Sea of Japan/East Sea is titled Sea of Japan.Kuril Islands has a lot of Japanese content and naming convention.Sakhalin has a lot of Japanese content and naming convention.

So wherever the Japanese case has the advantage, the Japanese version wins. Wherever the Japanese case is at a disadvantage, the neutral terminology is used, but lots of Japanese content and naming convention is added. I think this is wrong. Change the title of the Senkaku Islands article to the "Pinnacle Islands" first and then we can talk.--Sir Edgar 05:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon your suggestion, I had a look at the Senkaku article. It is a mess. A total mess. It needs to be split up like "Sea of Japan" and "Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan" are currently. The Senkaku article just needs to be about the islands themselves (no politics) and then they need a dispute page to deal with the politics. As for calling them the "Pinnacle Islands", I am 100% in favour of that because, like Liancourt, the name favours neither country in the dispute. Besides, isn't this the English language section of Wikipedia and isn't the English name "Pinnacle Islands"? I am not an expert on the dispute (actually, until you mentioned it, I really didn't know about it) and I feel using a neutral name would solve the problem. I will go to the Senkaku page and put my two bits in. Masterhatch 24 August 2005

All I have to say is that Masterhatch is so much a good debater than I have no chance against him in any of the articles -Wikimachine.

as masterhatch said, the dispute should have an article of its own. any objections? i'd move it myself, but i'm not sure i know how Appleby 09:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not nesessary. Liancourt Rocks are merely a tiny group of insignificant rocks on their own. Without the political dispute they dont merit an independent space on Wikipedia like thousands of other small islets in the area. Hermeneus (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

you're right, nevermind. i shouldn't make suggestions at 2:30 a.m.Appleby 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

i tried to do some relevant, accurate google searches for this topic, but it's harder than it appears at first.

a major problem is that the korean word has be romanized so many ways: dokdo, dokto, tokdo, tokto, plus each of these words can also be written as two words or hyphenated. & i can't string all of them together because of google's limitations. i haven't tried all possible combinations, if you try different variations, the sums are not what you'd expect logically, seems a little "fuzzy" but this is the best i could come up with. also not clear on the effect of hyphens inside quotes, doesn't seem to affect total number, but does (sometimes) change the first page results.

searches for takeshima brings up some unrelated results because it is also a not-too-rare japanese family name. & "tok to" or "dok to" by itself also brings up some unrelated results. so i added "islands OR island OR islets" to try to filter these out, at the small risk of being too exclusionary. i didn't include "islet" or "rocks" again, because of google limit of, i think, 9 words total. in the end, however, the proportions remain similar, with or without the "islands": transliteration from korean is a little over twice as common as from japanese.

excluding "wikipedia" results in 6000 to 10,000 fewer hits, a reminder of how influential wikipedia itself is in relatively obscure topics. & obviously, it's the english pages that matter, but i'm not sure how accurate the google language filter is, & the filter doesn't really make much of a difference, proportionally. any suggestions to make the google searches more accurate?

• dokdo OR dokto OR tokdo OR tokto OR "tok to" island OR islands OR islets -wikipedia

84,000 English pages (96,400 for all languages)

• takeshima island OR islands OR islets -wikipedia

44,800 English pages (50,300 for all languages)

• "liancourt rocks" -wikipedia

10,500 English pages (13,800 for all languages)

clearly, "liancourt rocks" is not the most recognizable english name. it is called dokdo or takeshima over 10 times more often than it is called liancourt rocks. the question is the significance of the difference between dokdo and takeshima. Appleby 17:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That only means that the Koreans are the most vocal party in this territorial issue. Takeshima/Dokdo has never been as big an issue in Japan. The rest of the world couldnt care less about the tiny island. Thus fewer webpages exist for the latter two. You dont become a majority just because you are loud. Hermeneus (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

well i did what i could about that, which is not much, by searching for english only, & your criticism, which is absolutely valid, would apply to any reference to google results in wikipedia discussions, & like it or not, happens so often it would be silly to not even consider it just in this instance. just trying to add some info for consideration, & i'm all ears for better evidence. it just seems to me liancourt rocks has a weak basis as an english name, considering the absolute & the relative frequency of use. Appleby 23:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

i'm surprised nobody's got any input on the pretty drastic changes i've been working on. this controversial topic must be carefully watched by a few people.

i've tried to clean up the language & organization, i think i pretty much kept the content from the previous version, although i did do a lot of googling while editing & added some tidbits & deleted many minor details.

the article still seems too long, but i'm not sure where to cut the fat anymore. the placements of the north korea & french liancourt paragraphs are still a bit awkward. can someone find a map showing jukdo? Appleby 20:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching (sort of) but been busy. I was just going to wait until you were finished and then have a deeper look into the changes. But on the surface, most of your changes seem pretty good. I was going to suggest that you re-write the article in a temp file, but you started the re-write before i could suggest that. In a couple of days, when I have time, I will thoroughly look over the article. But I doubt I will find too much to complain about. Masterhatch 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you should edit this, as I agree, very long article. Many people have put much time into this issue, and I don't see a reason why to cut information, all of which I find useful and important to this war.Oyo321 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can think of to cut material would be to replace most of the pre-1900 history with a summary. If it's important, it could be put into a separate article. That's not a request, though; I think the current article is relatively good, and a lot cleaner now. Thanks. --Reuben 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

i think the parties consider the pre-1900 history pretty important. it's interesting how westerners typically focus on the latest institutional decision, actual possession, who has legal control, preserving the current status quo. asians tend to argue from who was first, somewhat moral appeals, deriving legitimacy from history. maybe a lack of historical roots in the u.s., or undeveloped legal institutions in the east? difference between colonial haves/have nots? of course this is broad-brush, but generally asian nationalists will say they were there first, & westerners will ask what's the current u.n. position.Appleby 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of my point; the pre-1900 history is for the most part not very notable in its own right, but only as it relates to the debate over control. We don't have to give a list of the maps, records, and incidents that Korea and Japan refer to in debating their claims; a summary would be enough. As I said, though, I'm happy with the current article. Your work has already made it more like an article and less like an enumeration of competing claims. -- Reuben 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure of the date of the ship-sinking incident, one site says 1953 & a similar incident in 1954, another sites say 1954, another mentions an incident where a japanese coast guard was shot on the island, etc etc. no two sites seem to agree. i don't think korea sunk 2 or 3 ships without military retaliation. maybe peter knows the date? also, what does the incomplete Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do actually show? historical interpretation, we leave to experts, but whether it shows one island or two islands, i can't find an image from googling.Appleby 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I had changed multilingual name infobox to be sorted by language, which was reverted by Appleby. In my opinion, sorting by language is better than sorting by romanized name because if I don't know the Korean name, I can't know Dokdo comes before Takeshima (which comes before Tokto, the Korean name romanized by McCune-Reischauer). Wikipedia:Infobox does not talk about multilingual name infobox but it seems sorting by language is common practice (see Baitou Mountain or Sea of Japan naming dispute). As there are only two languages, sorting order is not so much important but making it consistent with other articles is a good thing, IMO. --Kusunose 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i do see your point, but this is the kind of thing that makes some frustrated koreans resort to the silly corea/korea argument. this kind of logic, that anything japan claims automatically becomes on the same level as korea's position, & "alphabetically" japan's position comes first. i know you, kusunose, didn't have any ulterior motives, & most people simply following the "alphabetic" rule don't, & i personally think the corea/korea argument is silly, but you can see how it can get annoying to the people always listed second.

it seems to me the actual principal that we should be consistent apply is to list the state that has actual control. baitou mountain is smack on the border, each country controlling half, & i don't think there's an active, official dispute between china & north korea, although south korean scholars are making an issue of the interpretation of markers, i don't think north korea is in the political position to demand anything from china right now. sea of japan, is actually officially standardized as sea of japan, so that makes sense too. it's hard or impossible to find other examples of infoboxes of multiple local language names in infoboxes, but the general rule in articles is to list the actual possessor first, it seems to me. or, if you apply the most popular english name first rule, i believe i showed that dokdo is actually more common in google results, though an admittedly crude tool. Appleby 15:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

correct me if i'm wrong, but i cannot find any examples of infobox of disuted territory being sorted alphabetically by country. all mentions in wikipedia seems to be common english name first, or actual possessor first, & dokdo should be first under either criterion, why should this infobox be different? Appleby 16:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you give me an example of infobox of disuted territory being sorted other than language name other than this article? As you say, the article text follows your rule and I'm not opposing to it. These infoboxen are list of local names, not commonly used names in English. To be usable, consistent sorting order is important. --Kusunose 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

it's not my rule, & i, too, am trying to find other relevant examples. i looked at, at random, most articles in the disputed territories list, & none had an infobox of multiple local names. given that, the default wikipedia rule is common english name first, which apparently is dokto (or variant spellings), & for obscure places that don't have a widely used english name, the articles seem to use only the possessor's local name. i can't find any reason to diverge from the normal wikipedia rule, but do correct me if i'm wrong. Appleby 04:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the added information (again). The sources I have checked do not support the material, but I'll be very happy to have it in — just provide your sources (and ideally reference them, too).

I have also reverted the removal of a link to restore balance (2 each). Kokiri 10:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from this page for some time, but following the matter anyway...from my (western, non-korean, not-japanese) view, I find the article to be a bit one-sided.I'm a bit surprised to see only korean references in the "reference" section... to me that's not a good start for a "balanced" article. I know I should probably not only comment but act on it, however, considering the controversy of the matter, and the amount of time people might already have put in cleaning this article, I simply don't want to "mess up" things, and would rather participate through the talk page... Bastien 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because many Korean websites that were in reference to Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks actually contained facts pertaining to the island in question, i.e number of guards stationed, the residents, the biogeography of the island, etc. Most Japanese sites (a handful of them) only contained few basic geographical facts about the island and were mostly gibberish pointing out various loopholes in the San Francisco treaty which dubiously supports Japan's claim to the island. (a number of these were geocities.co.jp accounts) Also, Republic of Korea maintains de Facto control of the island as of now, so Korean websites tend to have more information on Dokdo/ Liancourt Rocks. 7:46, 17 January 2006

I don’t have any intention of entering the fray, but am surprised that there is no photograph of the rocks in question. There is already a photograph within the Wiki system

(http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B7%B8%EB%A6%BC:Dokdo2.png)

which could be used here. Looking at the photograph makes it obvious what the source is… would this be too emotionally charged? Has a photo already been the issue of confrontation on this page?

There was, but it was removed (probably because no one provided detailed information on the source of the file, see Wikipedia:Uploading images). I don't think anyone would object adding a picture to the article. --Kusunose 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, would it not be useful to have external links to the wiki pages in Japanese:

(http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%B3%B6_%28%E5%B3%B6%E6%A0%B9%E7%9C%8C%29)

and in Korean:

(http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8F%85%EB%8F%84)

The views expressed on each page are predictable but worthwhile for anyone seeking a more thorough background of the topic.

Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They are linked from 'In other languages'. Adding them to external links seems redundant. --Kusunose 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the photo on the Korean Wikipedia, and am none the wiser as to the source. Mark¹ 11:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The photograph in question shows a passenger ship visiting the rocks. Only South Korea maintains passenger ship schedules to the rocks. Additionally, the photograph is in the Wiki system with a name that would inevitably be offensive to many. Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. 02:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The name of the picture could easily be changed, but source information isn't a matter of guessing the nationality of the photographer. We need to know from where the uploader obtained the picture, and critically under what licence. Mark¹ 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo is clearly accompanied by,"상세설명: (현재) = 현재의 그림입니다, (지움) = 옛 버젼을 지웁니다, (돌림) = 옛 버젼으로 되돌려 놓습니다. 특정 날짜에 올라온 그림을 보려면, 날짜를 찍어 주세요." Therefore "we" are cleared as per standard Wiki practice. Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Which means? Mark¹ 15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation:

Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version.

Click on date to see the file uploaded on that date.

(This is a standard Wikimedia Commons message, that tells you nothing about the image itself!)

--Endroit 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

there's another photo in the chinese wikipedia [9], but i guess it has no copyright info either? Appleby 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liancourt_Rocks.jpg only says 'Dokdo (en wiki)' and has no copyright info. It seems it's a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liancourt_Rocks.jpg which is linked from the English article at the time of upload ([10]). It no longer exists in the English Wikipedia eigher. --Kusunose 01:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've recently heard claims that South Korean military is situated on Liancourt rocks - however, such claim is not true - please refer to http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=5729 - 37 "police guards" are situated on the island. It's kinda like, you know, Japanese plans to relocate the Japanese coast guard members in the Senkaku Islands, another disputed territory. (refer to the article). I've also heard Liancourt rocks is "insignificant" without its "political significance" (the Irony!). Well, the island is surrounded by rich fishery grounds, home to some rare species of flora and fauna, and there are some evidence that a natural gas reserve "might" be situated near it. So, I wouldn't really call the island and its surrounding areas "insignificant". Also, the island is currently under Korean administration AND jurisdiction. See the dictionary.com defnition for administration -

The act or process of administering, especially the management of a government or large institution. The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.

Korean government maintains a police force, tourism, lighthouse, and entry to the islets. Contrary to what some Japanese editors have been suggesting, no "Military Invasion" have took place - Although there has been a history of Japanese aggression on the Island, and voluntary coast guard members defended the island in the 1950s - The Korean coastguards have been deployed only after several incidents where Japanese coast guard landed on the island and erected Japanese territorial marks on Liancourt Rocks during the turmoil of Korean War (nice timing!).

(Source: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050429-112618-7279r.htm - Armed with rifles and machine guns, the "civilian defense forces" kicked off Japanese vessels that "illegally" occupied Dokdo by capitalizing on South Korea's defense vacuum during the 1950-53 Korean War.)

"On June 27, 1953, two Japanese coast guard vessels briefly landed and erected a territorial post on the islets. Several armed skirmishes followed, leading to the sinking of a Japanese ship by Korean mortar fire on July 12, 1953. Similar incidents occurred on April 21 and August 24, 1954."

Also, For a Japanese person (or people of other nationality) to enter Dokdo and its surrounding areas, they need permission from the South Korean authorities, and they acknowledge it. Please refer to the article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/liancourt.htm , where an Asahi Shimbun airplane atempted to take pictures of the island without RoK permission and later apologized for not requesting permission beforehand.

Therefore, it is right and NPOV to state that the islands are under Korean Administration.

I do not know correctly what the IP user, 61.117.6.67, want to express, but the word "Administration" sounds biased also for me. A dictionary says the meaning of "Administration" as "lawful control". I do not want to say here the Korean control is illegal, but prefer more neutral word. This is why I changed "administration" to "control". --Corruptresearcher 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, please refer to the dictionary.com definition I posted earlier - Administration does not neccesarily mean that a government maintains DE JURE control. It means a govenrment or a state is exercising control. Also, the info up there was posted by ME, not an anonymous South Korean Sockpuppet user. I apologize for not leaving my name, but if you really wanted to find out who posted the info, you could've just taken a look at the history of this page (helps a lot). Deiaemeth 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Was reading a wrong post - sorry! I thought you called me a "sockpuppet" user. I apologize. But if you think "administration" is a biased word, please take a look at my post above ;). I think its perfectly factual and NPOV, as per definition provided by dictionary.com Deiaemeth 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I referred Merriam-Webster's Online and its thesaurus shows the meaning of "administration" as "lawful control over the affairs of a political unit (as a nation)". The word "lawful" defines the biased meaning of "administration", I feel. On the other hand, "control" is neutral: it is not positive nor negative. This is why I prefer "control" than "administraion". I want to know why do you hesitate the word "control". It does not mean "illegal control". --Corruptresearcher 10:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, another revert made by a Japanese editor from "administration" to "control" without any explanation at all. At least I offered my sources and facts before making a change. I think it's common courtesy to explain when you make a revert. I will abide by the 3 Revert Rule Change and not make the edit right now, but I'll certainly be back! Deiaemeth 04:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because both states claim the rockes their territory, neutral words are prefered. The usage of "Administration"; government or a state is exercising control, sounds like Japan claiming as its territory which is apparently Korean, but however these rocks are under controversial claims, therefore "control" is prefered.Nobu Sho 06:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Exercising control" does not necessarily mean the territory belongs to a certain country. Currently, the American Joint Chief of States exercises a significant amount of control in Iraq and excercises administrative controls on certain aspects Iraq, under wartime provisions. Does that mean Iraq is American territory? The answer is no. So that's why it's NPOV and factual to say some Iraqi matters are under American (and UN) administration (training of the new Iraqi Army, for example), not American control. Republic of Korea does exercise administrative controls on Liancourt rocks, as they are the ones who manage the police force, Lighthouse, helicopter landing pad, tourism, natural life protection, telecommunications, and entry of the islands. When a state is "excercising control" means a state has influential power in a territory. IT does not necessarily mean a state "owns" a territory. I know there are editors who view Liancourt Rocks for either Korean and Japanese territory. I also have my personal views and strong faith in those views, but since Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV and agreable to most users, I try to remain NPOV as I can, and that's why I try to always cite various different verifiable and reputable sources when editing certain articles on Wikipedia. "administration" is a perfectly Neutral, NPOV, and above all, a factual term. I will revert the words back in couple of hours. Deiaemeth 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Korean control of the rocks is officially contested by the Japanese government and so cannot be a legitimate "administration." The word "control" is also used in the article of Senkaku Islands. Saintjust 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I explain the meaning of the word "administration" enough that it does not depict a government formally OWNS a territory? Read my posts again. If you want to use the word "administration" instead of "control" on the article of Senkaku Islands, you can work that out yourself, seeing as how Japan exercises control to some extent on the islands (not to the extents of RoK influence on Liancourt Rocks, seeing as how many Chinese and Taiwanese Protestors and patrol boats freely approach the islands). Also, I'm very amazed at the number of Japanese editors I've drawn in! They all claim "administration" is NOT a neutral word, but no one actually gives a reason why it Isn't a neutral word - I've provided my dictionary.com definition. Deiaemeth 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And Saint Just, also, nothing in the article declares that RoK administration of the islands is "legal" or "illegal". Again, read the definition and the post above. It is certainly enlightening. Deiaemeth 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I already did in my second comment, refering the Webster. Please see above. Please explain why you hesitate the word "control" this time. --Corruptresearcher 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, since according to dictionary.com -

1) The act or process of administering, especially the management of a government or large institution. The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This is from American Heritage Dictionary

1 : the act or process of administering <the administration of justice>

and

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

This is the definition from two dictionaries, and they mention nothing about "legal" control - there is one definition that appoints the word "official", but that is only used for management of will or estates.

Since South Korea does maintain de facto control and exercises most (if not all) influence on the island, Administration is the correct word. Also, the word Administration is usually associated with a "government" or "state", making the meaning even more clear. Deiaemeth 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth, you seems violating 3 revert rule but I do not want to report this time. As you already mentioned, "control" is a good word, because it does not have both of positive or negative meaning. On the contrary, "administration" cannot be accepted from Japanese viewpoint. I know it is better word from Korean viewpoint but please be neutral. From Japanese viewpoint, the better word is "occupation" but I do not want to use this because this is Wikipedia. --Corruptresearcher 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only made 2 edits in the past 24 hours. One was a self-edit on spelling (Administration instead of administration). THe 3 Revert Rule maintains that I can make 3 edits on 24 hours. Also, I've already explained that the word administration holds no POV views and is perfectly neutral and NPOV word, as per definition provided by American Heritage dictionary and Miriam Dictionary (Good enough source for you? Some Japanese users cite numerous www.geocities.co.jp accounts as their "verifiable" source). I've cited my sources and claims. If you can't accept "administration", a perfectly neutral and NPOV word, because of Japanese viewpoints, that is POV. The Japanese editors claim that "administration" is a "lawful" word, but as far as definitions go, there is no mention of any "lawfulnes" on the word. Al the reverts that have been made so far has been made by a horde of Japanese editors. Good day! Deiaemeth 03:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have to give Kusonose credit for restoring the reference section, User:Ypacarai should know that deleting reference sections where information are referenced y claiming it's "propaganda" is tantamount to vandalism. Deiaemeth 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you did not access the link I have shown. Anyway, I will show you my source, the Webster:

Entry Word: administration

Function: noun

Text: 1 lawful control over the affairs of a political unit (as a nation) <the fair and just administration of the U.S. territories> -- see RULE 2

2 the act or activity of looking after and making decisions about something <administration of the funds was left in the hands of a committee> -- see CONDUCT 1

Anyway, at least one dictionary regards "administration" as "lawful control". This is why I cannot accept this word. You told that "control" is Japanese POV but it isn't. As I mentioned, "occupation" is Japanese POV.

• "administration" is Korean POV because it has positive meaning.
• "control" is neutral word because it is not positive nor negative.
• "occupation" is Japanese POV because it has negative meaning.

So I suggest "control" as compromised solution. It never be Japanese POV. --Corruptresearcher 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I read this book and description about Takeshima but it is also written that this island is one nortical mile from Ulleung island. Therefore, the island never indicates the Liancourt Rocks. --Corruptresearcher 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

is it 1923 or 1933? there are conflicting cites on the web. is "nortical mile"(?) defined? is it described in text, not a map? Appleby 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

other people also saw the publication, so i don't know if we take a wikipedia editor's word over cited sources. granted, they're not exactly the bbc, but it's not my personal opinion either. "The Japanese Navy had also cited Dokdo as an appended island to Ullungdo, and Korean territory, in its 1923 publication, "Chosen Engan Suiroshi" (Korean Coastal Straits)." [11] (mark s. lovmo, a published researcher, although i can't find more details on this website), & [12] (korean ministry of defense). Appleby 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here I show the page written in Korean. It was published in January 1933. It describes in the text that "竹島（竹嶼）ハ島ノ東岸ヲ距ル１浬餘ノ處ニ在リ", it means "Takeshima is about 1 nautical mile from the eastern coast of the (Ulleung) island..." As you described, it is not your personal opinion so I cannot stop you to include it. However, I recommend you not to do this because of its inaccuracy so I will revert once more. If you still want to include description about this, I must add the above description also in the next edit. --Corruptresearcher 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure i understand. first, are you sure １浬餘 means 1 nautical mile (the english language unit)? & are you saying 竹島 in japanese is not the liancourt rocks? there is another island that japan calls 竹島 in 1933? isn't japan's whole claim to the liancourt rocks based on the 1905 annexation of 竹島? Appleby 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

１浬 means 1 nautical mile. １浬餘 means '1 nautical mile and more' or 'more than 1 nautical mile'. see wiktionary:浬 and wiktionary:餘. See also ja:海里 and zh:海里; both mentions 浬 as an alternative Chinese character and linked to nautical mile. --Kusunose 05:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

so it says 竹島 is at least one nautical mile east of ulleung island, both being korean territory? is that right? & corruptresearcher is saying 竹島 is not takeshima? i'm really confused. Appleby 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kusunose for explanation instead of me. Appleby, １浬餘 means "1 nautical mile and a bit more" and not "more than 1 nautical mile". So, if it is 5 nautical miles far, for example, we never call this １浬餘. Actually, there is an island called 竹島 or 竹嶼 very near to the Ulleung island. It is called as 竹島, or Chuk-do, also in Korean. Please see ko:죽도 (울릉군). This is the island which "Chosen Engan Suiroshi" indicated. --Corruptresearcher 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL of the references (in the References section, that is) are Korean. As this is a dispute between Japan and Korea, there should be references from both Japan and Korea, as well as references to articles and information found outside of either country. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because the references are from Korea does not mean the article itself is NPOV - many editors have agreed that the article itself is NPOV. The references are mostly about Climate/Geography/Tourism/Residents, which were mostly only available from Korean pages anyway. I don't think this constitutes a violation of "NPOV" policy, as long as the article itself stays neutral. I think your argument was perceived valid on the External Links section - there used to be a predominance of Korean materials. So there is now 2 Korean, 2 Japanese, and 2 Neutral (western) external links. Deiaemeth 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but it would do a great deal toward reducing any perceived bias by including several non-Korean articles as references. If someone (like me, for instance) came upon this article which is obviously about some islands whose ownership is disputed heatedly by two countries, and they saw (as I did) that all of the references cited in the article were Korean, what conclusion do you think they would draw from that? Likely the same as mine: that that article is very likely biased toward the Korean POV. I strongly suggest finding 3-5 Japanese or other non-Korean articles that can be referenced for this article. Some of the External links may prove useful in that respect. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that could be arranged, but since most of the article is referenced, I don't know what to reference further. But the referenced materials itself aren't POV'd, as it is mostly about climage/geography/tourism/residents. The island itself is de facto administered by Korea, so most of the information is from Korean pages. Likewise, even though the ownership of Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands) is disputed, since Japan maintains de facto control, many materials are cited from the Japanese page (even though it has an NPOV tag, the dispute is with the history of the island/current situation, not with the references itself). Deiaemeth 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the overwhelming evidence points to Korean ownership of the islands. Have you ever thought about that? Feel free to add (relevant) evidence to the contrary.--Sir Edgar 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence!? I have to say most of evidence on Korean side isn't truthful. But I am not going to discuss whether it is reliable or not. We should discuss whether this article is POV or NPOV. I believe this article is too much on Korean side. For example, this article regards 石島(Seok-do) as Liancourt Rocks. But Japanese government does not think so. This description should be like this.

"On October 25, 1900, the Korean Empire issued incorporating the islands of Ulleung-do, Juk-do (竹島), and Seok-do (石島) into Ulleung county. Korean government regards Seok-do as the island now they call Dok-do because 石島(Seok-do) is pronounced "Dok-do" in the Gyeongsang dialect and the Jeolla dialect. Japan, however, claims it to be the different island now called Kwaneum-do(관음도) because of lack of evidence that makes Seok-do the same island as Liancourt Rocks."

This article also says "Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate confirm in writing that Ulleung-do and the Liancourt Rocks were Korean possessions." But this is Korean insistence. It is true that Tokugawa Shogunate admited Ulleung-do as Korean posession but the ban on voyage to Ulleung-do did not referred to Liancourt Rocks. So this description should be like this.

"Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate confirm in writing that Ulleung-do were Korean possessions. But as for Liancourt Rocks, it is in question that Tokugawa Shogunate regarded the islets as Korean possessions because Liancourt Rocks were not refered to in this treaty. Korean government insists that Ulleung-do included Liancourt Rocks too. Japan insists that the Shogunate did not prohibited going to the islets because Japanese fishers continued to fish using Liancourt Rocks even after the prohibition on voyage to Ulleung-do. Japan and Korea have very different understanding of this incident because the remaining documents are so ambiguous that it is not easy to interpret what islands it is referring to."

This "Liancourt Rocks" article is too much on Korean side as demonstrated above. Especially the "Reference". They are all on Korean side and says the rocks are Korean territory. "Truth of Dokdo" says "Ahn Yongbok went to Japan and confirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory and prohibited Japanese fishermen from fishing near Dokdo." But this is just a Korean understanding and Japan does not regarding so as I described above.

"Tour 2 Korea" says "Dokdo Island is in the eastern reaches of Korea's territory" and that "After The Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, Japanese fishermen often came near Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Sukjong Sillok, the Annals of King Sukjong(1674-1720), records that An Yongbok went twice to Japan in order to protest against Japanese nationals trespassing into Korean territory. He asked the Japanese authorities to recognize Korea's sovereignty over these islands and to forbid Japanese nationals to sail to these islands." This website affirms that Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory. Do you say this is no POV? This description also sound that there is some relation ship between the Korean invasion and the islets but there's no evidence which proves that and "there is no record of the exact date of Takeshima's discovery" ([13]). As for An Youngbok, Japan have a different understanding as I said.

All the other website linked to from "Reference" says the islets are Korean territory. How can you say they are not POV websites?

There are also a lot of websites saying the islests are Japanese teritorry (unfortunately, most of them are in Japanese). If we keep adding links those websites, this article would get into a panic. In order to maintain neutral point of view, the reference should not be here. -Michael Friedrich 17:02 14/05/2006

What I was trying to say is that there are only vague references to the islets in Japanese records. Most Japanese records are from 1905, when Japan assumed control of Korea. Nobody is stopping you from editing the context of any sentences. Please do so, if it you feel it is justified.--Sir Edgar 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you know nothing about Japanese insistence. It is not true that most Japanese records are from 1905. Japan had kept using the rocks for 300 years. I've got a lot of evidence that can indicates the Rocks are Japanese territory and that can break most of the Korean claims. But we're not talking about it. I tried to edit a few times but there are some trying to stopping me from editing. I was even blocked from editting it unfairly.---Michael Friedrich 10:15 17/05/2006

Can someone please clear up those "citation needed" tags by clarifying references, or whatever? It's really an eyesore to read like this, honestly. Mr Tan 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V, any statement which is not verified upon request can be removed. If those tags have been there for a while, the statements should probably be pulled from the article. -- Visviva 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be inequality in the titling of these two articles.

If South Korea controls the Liancourt Rocks, it should be able to name the islets whatever it wants (i.e. "Dokdo"). The conservative Japanese government and a minority of right-wing Japanese citizens only challenge South Korean authority with a weak claim that primarily focuses on 1905 documents (the same year that Japan assumed sovereignty over Korea).

The Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands are under Japanese control. The article is entitled "Senkaku Islands". This is despite the fact that the Chinese have an older history with the islets (since the Ming Dynasty). According to the Wikipedia article, Japan "waited until 14 January 1895, during the middle of the First Sino-Japanese War" to make a claim on the islands.

So, it seems to me that Japanese claims to both the Liancourt Rocks and the Senkaku Islands are post-1895 (the beginning of Japan's expansion abroad phase).

Is it just me who sees the disparity in treatment of titles? I suggest the articles be entitled, respectively:

1. "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands"; or

2. "Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands"

Any thoughts?--Sir Edgar 00:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an unfair and simplified characterization of the Lliancourt rocks problem. In Japan, it is referred to Takeshima by EVERYONE (and the naming dispute "the Takeshima dispute"). Many newspapers will put out the Korean name as well though, both pronounciation and the actual kanji (独島 as opposed to the Japanese 竹島). I follow the debate in Japanese media and I think the media coverage is fairly balanced. I have little knowledge of what is going on in Korea but considering the Sea of Japan naming dispute and how Korea insisted on "Korea Japan FIFA World Cup" (instead of the by FIFA proposed Japan Korea (alphabetic order)) because in French Korea (Corea) comes in front of Japan, I am more doubtful of the Korean motives. Mackan 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, if you read the FIFA 2006 Korea/Japan World Cup, it was the Japanese Gov't which was warned for issuing the tickets as FIFA 2006 Japan/Korea World Cup (later warned not to do so by FIFA). Also, this draws interests to the Senkaku Islands situation as well. In China, the Senkaku Islands are refered as Diaoyutai Islands by everyone, even though Japan maintains de facto control of the islands. Regardless whether you think Korean or Japanese media is more balanced, I'm not sure how the NPOV policy works in Wikipedia if one article refers to the name used by the controlling party, and the other article uses the name that is supposedly more neutral. If we were not to maintain such double standards, the Senkaku Islands should be changed to Pinnacle Islands, or Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. Whichever one is more fair is I guess upto the editors here. Deiaemeth 03:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read the article, you will find that FIFA originally suggested Japan-Korea but Korea insisted on the French spelling order, i.e. Corea-Japon, which FIFA for whatever reason agreed to. But yes, Japan also tried and sell the tickets as "Japan Korea" for domestic games. Both acted rather childishly but I think Korea has a tendency to go too far too often.Mackan 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

About Korea/Japan World Cup. That was a compromise among two countries and FIFA. Hold the final game in Japan and title Korea/Japan instead of Japan/Korea. If I'm wrong, please correct me. janviermichelle 16 May 2006

i agree that this is a consistency problem. above, i tried to do a google search that shows that dokdo (or variant spellings) are more common than takeshima, in english pages. i bet the numbers have changed, especially given the growing influence of wikipedia, but the point i was making was that "dokdo" is both more common & the actual-control name. "liancourt" seems to be a case of wikipedia promoting an obscure name, something that should be avoided if possible.Appleby 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to start reading what excuses certain people are going to make to distinguish Dokdo from the Senkaku Islands. Right now it's a win-win for the pro-Japanese nationalistic point of view because we are using Japanese name for Senkaku presumably because Japan administers/controls the island but we don't allow that same principle for the islands administered/controlled by Korea. This is hardly neutral. So, to throw my two cents in, I would also prefer consistency; either Dokdo and Senkaku or Liancourt and Pinnacle. And if someone is going to say something about islet versus island as a reason than don't make me point out the Japanese government's position on Okinotorishima. (I hope no one even tries to divine a consistent position out all those contradicting arguments because they will seriously sprain their brain (and credibility)). [14]. Tortfeasor 06:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe RfC would be good solution to gauge some outside opinion on this matter. Maintaining a double standard in naming matters that are controversial to many editors can certainly leave lots of problems. Deiaemeth 07:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am equally divided if given the choice between "Dokdo and Senkaku" and "Liancourt and Pinnacle". I think the former would be better because of wider use and the status of authority, but the latter is more neutral for both sides. The poor Chinese end up the losers either way.--Sir Edgar 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the more neutral approach would be better. John Smith's 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the image use in this article is WAY out of hand. I can see using 3-4 of the maps, but there are at least 10-12 maps right now. A bit on the overkill side, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i'd have to agree. don't remember whether it's in talk here and/or sea of japan dispute, but map wars inevitably end badly, because there's no end to the number of maps that could be added by either side. if significant, the information is better integrated into the text content, imho. perhaps, if someone really wants, a separate gallery page could be linked from here. Appleby 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI on a related matter, but Janviermichelle (talk · contribs) just created a cut-and-paste copy of Sea of Japan naming dispute at East Sea (Sea of Japan) naming dispute. I changed it to a redirect to Sea of Japan naming dispute, but someone more knowledgable about POV forking and proper naming of redirects may want to look into it. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the thing called "POV forking", Calton mentioned above. I just started to look at this page and already the vote is over. What I don't understand is that this kind of dispute can be decided by a Vote!?! Wikipedia is encyclopedia and facts cannot be chosen by a vote. In this case, the fact is that this island is called Dokdo by Korean government which administrates the island. Everyone calls Israel as Israel, because it's under Israeli administration. Just so you know, this area is claimed by Palestinians. Then what do you want to call? Make up another English name for Israel? --janviermichelle 16 May 2006

Try the following:

• Parachuting in and unilaterally declaring how things are and attempting to override a years's worth of discussion by fiat or by sneaking in a name change won't get you far.
• Read -- actually read -- the arguments made above instead of banging on irrelevancies about voting processes. [F]acts cannot be chosen by a vote. True, but irrelevent -- which facts to include were chosen by discussion. That it happened without you gives you no right to pretend it didn't happen.
• Read -- actually read -- the archives of a year's worth of discussion. If you have something new to bring up, by all means, do so. If not, accept that you missed the boat.
• Read the page on POV forking. No, really, actually read it. Also note that the way you did it -- by cutting and pasting -- effectively nullified the article's entire edit history for the material in the fork. Also a no-no. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Calton, thanks for the "kind" commment for a new user. I know what I did was wrong. I'm sorry about that. Really. I mean it. for all of you. And I really respect the archives of a year's worth of discussion. Really. I do. But your comment, "If not, accept that you missed the boat.", Do you really think that's the proper way? There will be lots and lots of users trying to edit this article with different points of view. Do you really think that a vote of some early users can choose the title of this article? This is not a matter of including something. I'm talking about the title. Thanks. --janviermichelle

janviermichelle, welcome to wikipedia. a good overview of wikipedia can be found at WP:5P. you are right, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. in fact, votes are a disfavored method to resolve content disputes. WP:V, WP:NPOV, & WP:NOR are "non-negotiable" principles that cannot be overridden by wikipedia consensus or by any of the countless "guidelines" floating around.

so take your time to peruse the policies and above discussions. as you can see, several editors have made some new comments recently on the naming issue, perhaps it is time to revisit. let's get some outside views, such as at WP:RFC, & see if we can make a better encyclopedia.Appleby 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, thank you very much. I appreciate that. janviermichelle 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I beliece the websites linked to from "Reference" are too much on Korean side and against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They all say the rocks are Korean territory.
"Truth of Dokdo" says "Ahn Yongbok went to Japan and confirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory and prohibited Japanese fishermen from fishing near Dokdo." But this is just a Korean understanding and Japan does not regarding so as I described above.
"Tour 2 Korea" says "Dokdo Island is in the eastern reaches of Korea's territory" and that "After The Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, Japanese fishermen often came near Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Sukjong Sillok, the Annals of King Sukjong(1674-1720), records that An Yongbok went twice to Japan in order to protest against Japanese nationals trespassing into Korean territory. He asked the Japanese authorities to recognize Korea's sovereignty over these islands and to forbid Japanese nationals to sail to these islands."
This website affirms that Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory although there has been a long long dispute since 1950s. This description also sound that there is some relation between the Korean invasion and the islets but there's no evidence which proves that opinion since "there is no record of the exact date of Takeshima's discovery" ([13]). As for An Youngbok, Japan have a different understanding as I just said.
All the other websites linked to from "Reference" also say the islets are Korean territory. That seems as if Wikipedia supports the Korean insistence. Linking the article to these POV links seems not suitable for wikipedia, which is to provide us with neutral information.
I believe this article does not need these links from "Reference". It's just enough only with "External Links". I propose removing links from "References" in order to maintain this encyclopedia neutral.Michael Friedrich 13:40 17/05/06

Do not remove references from the article. You are completely misunderstanding their purpose: they are not included because we endorse the views in them, but because we don't endorse the views in them. Wikipedia does not support either side in the dispute. We include references to support neutral statements of each party's position within the text. If you think that Japanese views are not reported adequately within the text, then add them. If you think that Japanese views are not adequately sourced within the text, then add references for them. But do not remove existing references. Henry^Flower 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"because we don't endorse the views in them"!? I cannot believe it. On what do you ground your saying? It seems very clear to me that they are included in order to support Korean claims. Someone even added a websites such as OhmyNews.
"Wikipedia does not support either side in the dispute." That is why I said those websites are not suitable. The official websites are enough to let the readers to know what the two countries are saying. Even if they were included not because wikipedia endorse the view in them, readers would think it does.
"We include references to support neutral statements of each party's position within the text." Within the text!? Are you saying the "References" are withing the text? They are UNDER the text. They don't support "neutral statements of each party's position" since there are only websites on Korean side. We are not talking the links "within the text". They provides us the source of information (though sometimes they are out of context). But we're discussing the links in "References".
When I added [15] someone removed it saying it is not "reputable". There are a lot of websites that provides us with evidence that supports Japanese claims but unfortunately most of them are in Japanese. If it is OK they are in Japanese, I can add lots of reputable websites. But if you keep adding those websites on both sides this page will be in a panic. And even if I add any website on Japanese side, I am sure some will remove it saying "they are not reputable!" just as happened before.
For example, on Kumdo article, some websites such as [[16]], [17] and [18] were included (it is not me who added those sites.). But they were removed because they were "POV websites". I don't think those websites are not very reputable, but I think they are POV websites and not suitable for wikipedia. The websites linked to from "References" are just like them. POV website are not suitable for wikipedia whether they are reputable or not.
There are too many websites about this dispute on both sides. Who can judge whether they are reputable or not? Nobody can. If it were possible, there should not have been any disputes on this issue. Since it is not possible to judge whether they are reputable or not, those unofficial websites on either sides should not be here (Remember we are not discussing the links within the text but the "References" and "External Links"). The official websites are enough for readers to proved information. If they get interested in this issue they will study it themselves. We don't need those POV links here. Michael Friedrich 16:14 17/05/06

The references are there for interested people to see what is written. I think there are a ton of articles supporting Korean claims on Liancourt Rocks because Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory!If you look into the articles they have facts that Laincourt Rocks were Korean territory from the start and that is defintely true! Korean records date back to 500 A.C while Japanese records only go back the the 1600s.Also, there are many sites supporting Korea because most people think Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory.Japan may claim liancourt Rocks openly but they don't have strong claims and that is why they don't want to put their records on the internet.

Good friend100 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How nonsence. We're not talking about it. I don't get why you can say "Most people think that the rocks are Korean territory." On what do you ground your saying? Korean people say that their records date back to 500 A.D. but I must say they are short of evidence that proves the island referred to in those records is the Liancourt Rocks. [19] [20] [21] But we are not discussing what is the truth. Don't you understand? At least, your talk sound like you admit that those websites are included to support Korean Point of View and that it is not true that "they are not included because we endorse the views in them, but because we don't endorse the views in them". Is it OK to think so?

There're a lot of websites supporting Korean claims. That is true. You think that is because most people think Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory. But most of them are written by Koreans. And it is also possible to think that Korean have to make up a lot of websites to justify their "illegal occupation" (Japan claims so) on the rocks. Since September 1954, Japan has kept proposing to submit this problem to the International Court of Justice but South Korea has been rejecting the proposal. If the Korean government has strong evidence that proves the rocks are their territory, why doesn't it submit the problem to the International Court and settle it? If Japan did not have good evidence that proves their claims, would she try to submit it to the Court? The number of the websites supporting Korean claims does not mean anything.

In addition, there are a lot of site supporting Japanese claims too but unfortunately, most of them are in Japanese. Japanese people were not interested in this dispute until recently, or did not even know it. They teach about this dispute in school in Korea, but the name Takeshima did not even appear in textbooks in Japan until recently. The rocks are the symbol of the Japanese occupation and Korean liberation for Korean people and are important to unite the people, but the rocks were not regarded important in Japan, except by fishers and those engaged in diplomacy. Those who are interested in the dispute think that it is more important to let the Japanese know this dispute than letting the foreigners know it.

Korean claims MAY be right. But Wikipedia is not where you discuss which is right. I am not proposing to have the "References" removed saying they are not true. It doesn't matter whether what is said in those websites is true or not. But those links give the readers of Wikipedia an impression that Wikipedia supports their view and that they are right. I cannot say this is NPOV. Michael Friedrich 03:42 18/05/06

If Tokyo demands Washington to go to the International Court of Justice (where a Japanese judge sits) to determine whether Hawaii belongs to Japan or the United States, do you think Congress would agree?--Sir Edgar 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsence talk again. It is only sophism. Japan never used Hawaii as its own territory. Everybody would think that is very ridiculous if Japan demanded Hawaii. Japan has no evidence that makes Hawaii its territory. But the Liancourt Rocks have a different story. There has been a dispute for more than half a century. If Korea is sure to win, it should fight in a Court, not by arm. But that is irrelavent.

You don't understand what I am trying to discuss. It does not matter whether Japan is right or Korea is right. The problem is this article would give readers an impression that Wikipedia is supporting Korean view. The official sites would be enough. If readers of the article get interested in the issue they will study it themselves. We don't need those POV links here.

Michael Friedrich 15:58 18/05/06

"it does not matter whether Japan is right or Korea is right." is also POV. Think about Israel-Palestine territory, and how "it does not matter whether Israel is right or Palestine is right." sounds to Israelis and Palestinians. I don't think the past evidences matter when we talk about which country owns what. The current administrator does matter. Then we should say the US illegally occupies this land, that's why we call this land "the united states". The current goverment or the current administrator matters. Think about Taiwan and China. Taiwan should be called Taiwan. I think the current reference is okay. But the title of this article is too pro-japanese. it should be dokdo. Janviermichelle 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To the response of Michael Friedrich, you said that "Korea keeps rejecting the proposal."

First, let me tell you because I am Korean I know a lot of other things going on between Korea and Japan. The reason why Korea rejects the proposal is because Koreans do not want to give a chance for Japan to put a foothold on Liancourt Rocks. Korea does have stronger claims and I have read them in books and internet articles in Korean. Korea has occupied the islets since 500 A.D.And Japan is just suddenly aggresive toward Korea about the Liancourt Rocks issue because Japan is looking for natural gas that might be near Dokdo. Japan wants the rocks for more of economic reasons rather than historical fact. This is also the same reason why Japan is aggresive toward Russia's Kuril Islands and China's islands.

Also I would like to ask why you refer Korea as "it" and Japan as "she". There are too many pro-japanese people here. The islets are KOREAN territory. It might sound like I am biased because I am Korean, but I know the situation between Koreans and the Japanese. The islets are Korean territory and Korea has the right to name the islets. That is why this article should be called Dokdo.

Good friend100 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I had no intention referring Korea as "it" and Japan as "she". I didn't even realised since I am not a native English speaker even though I'm living in Australia. I am sorry if I hurt you.
I don't think it the islets are Korean territory. The evidence Korea is offering seems that they are too short of evidence that proves that the islands or territories mentioned in it are Dokdo. I also know the situation between Koreans and Japanese.
I want to argue against you, but I am not talking about it! You say this article should be called Dokdo, but I won't propose calling this article "Takeshima". It is because Wikipedia should maintain its neutral point of view.
Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Calling this article Dokdo is against this policy.
As for the "References", they make this article seem to support Korean view and to try to call the islets Dokdo, even though the name of the article is neutral, the Liancourt Rocks.
The name should be neutral. The contents should be neutral. Of course, links should be neutral and should not give readers an impression that the rocks are Korean territory or Japanese territory. I say once again "The official sites would be enough. If readers of the article get interested in the issue they will study it themselves. We don't need those POV links here.
In addition, it seems you know nothing about Kuril Islands. The situation on the islands is completely different from the Liancourt Rocks. Japan and Russia decided their border between Iturup and Urup by Treaty of Shimoda in 1885 perfectly peacefully. The islands does not have anything to do with Japanese deed in World War II. There's no doubt the islands are illegally invaded by Russia. "Michael Friedrich 13:45 19/05/06

So calling this article "Dokdo" is POV and Pinnacle islands "Senkaku islands" is perfectly NPOV? see discussion at the Senkaku Island talk pages please. Some editors try to maintain double standards in naming these articles, and to maintain POV, Liancourt Rocks will be moved to Dokdo or Senkaku islands to Pinnacle islands. Deiaemeth 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said so. Please feel free to propose having it to moved to Pinnacle Islands if you like. I did not mention the Senkaku Islands. That's all. However, the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo" either. Michael Friedrich 12:54 20/05/06

i think we should move this to Dokdo to be consistent with countless other disputed territories articles, rather than change all other articles. it's the de facto wikipedia practice to name disputed territories as they are called by the administering state, especially since liancourt is clearly not an established english name. Appleby 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The current name was chosen as a result of a vote. Be careful that you do not rename it without overturning that vote first. -- Cjensen 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

although wikipedia is not a democracy & votes are disfavored, it is true that we should try to build consensus based on wikipedia policies, consistency, and proper references. we should contact everyone who voted above & WP:RFC, but before we do that, it would probably be best if someone (sir edgar?) can refactor this page so that the recent relevant discussions are easy for newcomers to read at a glance. Appleby 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with Deiaemeth and Appleby. In addition to my agreements of what they said, I feel that the political climate now suggests that Japan is losing grip of Takeshima/Dokdo, and if this matter is being brought to court, I believe that Liancourt would have a higher chance to acclaim political adminstration on Liancourt than Japan if the matter is brought to the international court, especially on the level of loyalty exhibited by Koreans--anti-Japanese riots are vigourously staged out whenever Japan voiced out its claims. There are plentiful of websites to support what I said.

If Liancourt goes to Japan in international court, it is feasible to predict that at least half of South Korea would create an uproar and that would cause political uproar.

To move to Dokdo: One, when Korea's soverignity is no longer contested and recognised internationally in (possible) future, and that will be a must if the occasion arises, and the same if Liancourt goes to Japan (Takeshima). Two, you might move now, but the Europeans and Americans would certainly look in one kind. In all English media in Asia (except Korea and Japan), in particular Singapore and Malaysia, mention of Liancourt Rocks would be "....Dokdo (Takeshima)...." format. Liancourt rocks is not used in Asian newspapers, and I can step up Singapore's and Malaysia's position to their reference mode to Liancourt Rocks. I hope my comments can bring some help. Mr Tan 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. i think dokdo (takeshima) would be fine in the article text, although i don't know about others' thoughts, & here too, we should be consistent with other disputed territory articles. but the question now i think is the article title, which wouldn't include parenthesis.

also, i would like to see this discussion focus on wikipedia policy, consistency w/ other analogous wikipedia articles, & proper citations. if we start to discuss the contents of the parties' arguments & take sides on who's right or what would happen if ..., it'll be hard to have a rational discourse on this encyclopedic style question. Appleby 05:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised. [22] According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory. And I am not taling about Senkaku island. Please discuss that dispute on the Talk of Senkaku island. And I am talking about the "References". They are included in Wikipedia to support Korean view although Wikipedia does not support either side and maitain its neutral point of view. That is what I am taling about.Michael Friedrich 06:32 20/05/06

I don't understand why other people think about this islets are important. (Also, I don't understand why "those four" countries are important for our discussion.) Be careful about statistics. And, apparently Senkaku article is related to this article. (if you care a bit about consistency) And I am talking about the "Title". It is included in Wikipedia to support Japanese view although Wikipedia does not support either side and maitain its neutral point of view. That is what I am taling about.Janviermichelle 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, about the content you added, those kinds of adding can make this article infinitely long. There are endless of evidences out there in the media, supporting both POV. Furthermore, as I said above, those statistics are meaningless. They could've called people and asked questions and picked up whatever countries they want. This is NOT statistically meaningful data. and there are no explanation why those four countries were selected. Janviermichelle 11:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the references, I think those are not worth being mentioned as references. Those are merely internet links. Janviermichelle 11:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Janvier's link shows only a poll on a segment of a few people from each country, not the entire country. This is unaccurate.

For me, no harm having Liancourt, or Dokdo. The best is to wait for the answer from the International Court before we explicitly choose Dokdo or Takeshima or Liancourt again, although the amount of efforts and loyalty to Liancourt from Korea and Japan from both countries suggests that Korea stand a higher chance to win (US interference might increase/decrease chances, I don't know). As I have said, Koreans would get much more hurt than the Japanese, rather than the reverese if the International court rules out that Liancourt is either's territory, from the national climax of persepective countries and their vigor of anti feelings towards their counterparts. This is something that the whole world should know. Mr Tan 11:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Liancourt Rocks" is POV because either Korean or Japan calls it so. In 19th century, both countries called it the Liancourt Rocks. That is a very neutral name.
I did not say the dispute on Senkaku Islands is different from that of the Liancourt Rocks. Please feel free to propose having it to moved to Pinnacle Islands if you like. What I wanted to say is the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo".
As for the "References", those are not worth being mentioned as "References" as Janviermichelle says. I believe they are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Linking to those websites is like linking "Dragonball" to mere fansites like [[23]]. We don't need those links as long as the official websites are included.
It seems this discussion has become a discussion on the title. If you want to talk about the title please make a new section. Let's talk whether we need those "References" or not. Michael Friedrich 12:45 20/05/06

Hi, you said the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo". Would you say why? I just want to know... And I propose to move the references to a new section "Notes" (and maybe add some other references supporting japanese POV).Janviermichelle 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the reason why I said "the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo"" is that the adoption of Senkaku might be suitable for wikipedia but might not be suitable for wikipedia. The name Senkaku is currently adopted. That's all. That does not mean the adoption of "Senkaku" is right. If you think "the Pinnacle Islands" is better for wikipedia, please feel free to propose having the article to moved to "Pinnacle Islands". I am not against adoption of Pinnacle Islands (I am not for it either, though.)
I think there're two ways we can take, removing whole of the "References" section or adding as many websites supporting Japanese view as the ones supporting Korean view. Your idea sounds interesting. But unfortunately, most websites supporting Japanese view are written in Japanese as I said above, and even if you add English websites of Japanese POV, they would be soon removed being said that "they are not reputable", "they are obscure ones" or "they are with little authority" as happened number of times.
I wonder moving the "References" to a new section makes any difference.
Michael Friedrich 15:00 21/05/06

Hmm... first I don't think those websites in the "references" section are suitable for it. Those are merely footnotes. So I proposed to moved those to a new section "Notes" (see Einstein). I don't think the notes are important, but since you raised this issue, we can talk. The websites you're going to add would not be soon removed if you add reputable ones. (I thought that the website you added before was obscure, not reputable and with little authority. I can make a website like that in an hour and say whatever I want.)

And you think Liancourt and Senkaku are different, independent articles.. okay. you can say that. But if there was some logic in naming Senkaku and if it can be applied to this article, we should think about it. And I don't think Senkaku is "adopted". Janviermichelle 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Those websites in the "References" are not suitable. Thank you.
As I said, most reputable websites are written in Japanese because it is more important to let the Japanese know about this dispute than letting the foreigners know about it. That makes the problem harder. And I am not sure moving the "References" to a new section can make any difference.
I did not say situation on Senkaku and that on Liancourt are different. I did not mention Senkaku although I believe Kuril is very different. The reason why I said Senkakuis adopted is that the article is currently called "Senkaku Islands". That's all. Then I withdraw what I said. Senkaku is "used".Michael Friedrich 16:15 21/05/06

I don't understand why we are talking about Senkaku Islands while this discussion is about Liancourt Rocks.Anyways Liancourt Rocks should be named Dokdo because Korea controls it! It is Korean territory. Therefore the Koreans have the right to name it. And also, we should be reminded that Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute over the rocks. Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory and Japan is merely claiming it. Japan is making it look like a dispute so it seems like the Liancourt Rocks could be Japanese territory.

You also said that Korea does not have enough evidence to say that the rocks are Korean territory since 500 A.D. That is not true. Korean records show that the rocks were Korean territory since that time.

Also, even if you are right, Liancourt Rocks would still be Korean territory because a map created in 1432 during the Chosun Dynasty shows that the rocks are part of Korea and that Liancourt Rocks could be seen from Ulleung-do. This is an earlier record than the records of Japan, which date from the 1600s. [[24]]

You keep saying that the article should be neutral. But your statements below and your tone of your arguments seem to me as if you are pro-japanese.

"The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised."

"According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory."

Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory! Even the Wikimachine in this discussion agrees that the islets are Korean territory. Good friend100 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your are talking very emotionally. Please understand what we're talking about.

I can object against your insistence that the islands those Korean documents are referring to are not the Liancourt Rocks[25]. But that is not we are talking about.

You keep saying Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute. I have to say this is very emotional and this is Korean POV. Britanica world map describes the islets as "Claimed by Korea and Japan." There are a lot of Territorial disputes on the planet and there is no doubt the Liancourt Rocks are one of them.

"The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised."

"According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory."

I quoted those data because your talk is too pro-Korean. (Note that I quoted this date from a Korean website.) Your argument sounds to me as if other countries also recognise the islets as Korean territory. I did not showed you this data as evidence that makes the islets Japanese territory. I only wanted to show you there is a dispute because you keep saying there's no dispute on the islets. The name of the article should be Liancourt Rocks. If the United Nations adopts "Dokdo" as standard name used in a conference, it is very safe to say the name is internationally standardized because the UN is the only organization that most countries on the planet participate in, even if Japan is against it.

What I want to talk about is not which country is right because there is a dispute between two countries and we are not in a position to decide which is right. I want to discuss whether we need the "References" section and whether it is against wikipedia policy or not. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories."Michael Friedrich 06:22 22/05/06

"Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute ... Liancourt rocks are Korean terriroty and Japan is merely claiming it." Erm... Not to nitpick or anything, but in general, whenever two countries maintain claims to one territory, that generally constitutes a dispute, no matter which side currently occupies and administers that territory. So, I would say that no matter how you try to whitewash it, if Japan claims some part of Korean territory, then that constitutes a territorial dispute. Now, whether or not those claims are non-frivolous or justifiable is another matter entirely, but it isn't really up to Wikipedians to make value judgments on competing claims, so please stow those horrible dueling maps for the time being.

Although Korea is in control of these islets, that does not necessarily forclose the issue of the name of this article. After all, in many cases, the commonly-known English name for some place is different from the name that the controlling country recognizes. In many cases, the name is relatively similar (Milano --> Milan). However, in many other cases, the name is pretty radically different (Suomi --> Finland). Unfortunately, in this case, we have two names which appear to be pretty close in what portion of the English-speaking world would recognize each, and an English name which isn't really as widely-known, but is at least neutral as to the dispute between Korea and Japan. Personally, I think it makes more sense to use the name used by the country that actually occupies the territory or the more commonly-used English name (if there is one), in which case the proper name of this article should be 'Dokdo'. But there just isn't much consensus for using that name, and more people seem to think that it comports better with the Wikipedia NPOV policy to use 'Liancourt Rocks' for the title of the article. It also seems a bit silly that people are actually writing bloody dissertation-length arguments over a couple of insignificant rocks in the sea, but there you are... --Zonath 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Those rocks are, as you said, insignificant, but Koreans think the Japanese claim on dokdo is a part of, or an extention of the "imperial Japan". This makes Koreans be so obsessed with dokdo. And this article should be entitlred to dokdo. Liancourt rocks is even less commonly used.Janviermichelle 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo – per talk:Liancourt Rocks and talk:Senkaku Islands--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage.--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Dokdo and Senkaku are the most commonly used English names, and also the names of administering countries. Janviermichelle 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• support for consistency with other disputed territory articles in wikipedia; dokdo (& variant spellings) is also more common in english, far more common than liancourt. Appleby 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• support consistency is the norm. We wouldn't want to support double standards in matters some editors deem controversial, would we? Deiaemeth 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very logical in appeal to Sir Edgar's explanation. This eliminates irony. (I don't harbour anti-Japanese feelings, please!) Mr Tan 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)